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
transcluding |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. --> |
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg}} |
Revision as of 19:19, 20 April 2008
↓↓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 | % | ||||
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 05:51:46, 21 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.
Wisdom89
(67/38/5); Ended 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn. Acalamari 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I feel there is virtually no chance of this RfA succeeding and thus I am going to withdraw my nomination. I want to thank everybody who decided to participate and offer up helpful criticism. If one of my co-nominators would do the honors, or a crat, please close this RfA. An enormous thank you to my Co-nominators, and especially to User:Pedro for his wonderful mentorship.
Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I am delighted to offer up for adminship Wisdom89 hereafter known simply as Wisdom. A long term user, Wisdom really became active in June of 2007. With over 14,000 edits plus about 1,800 deleted contributions both tenure and contribution level are not a concern. I opposed Wisdom's last RFA on the basis of concerns that Wisdom would be more hindernce than help. Those concerns are now gone. A review of Wisdom's contributions should show the following;
Article Work
- Well just look at Rush (band), Conservapedia and Neil Peart.
- A simple glance at the associated article talk pages as above, and their histories, shows evidence of Wisdom's desire to collaborate.
Project Work
- Active at our key areas (in terms of adminship) of WP:AIV, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA etc. etc.
- Not only active but accurate and able to respond to occasional errors. A quick review of User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA shows how well Wisdom both responded and learnt from a minor error.
Development since last RFA
- I would urge commentators to review User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching.
Housekeeping Items
- Clean block log
- WP:HELPDESK contributions demonstrating a thorough policy / guideline knowledge.
- A civil manner
- Edit summary usage is spot on.
- Un-offensive user page
- Sensible Signature
- E-mail enabled
Summary
- Hard though it is to gauge via a text medium, I have personally found Wisdom to be friendly, thoughtful, and ready to adapt and learn. I believe he has come on enormously since his last RFA. He has accepted both my counsel and that of others in many areas; He has not requested admin tools until others felt he was ready - a stance that does him credit. In addition I see Wisdom's comments often across WP, and I feel he balances being WP:BOLD with being tactful and doing what is needed.
All, as ever I would never nominate unless I believed a candidate was both ready and will be a Net Positive to Wikipedia. I find that Wisdom will be that, and more, by granting admin rights. I hope the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Tiptoety talk:
I have had the pleasure of working with Wisdom over my 11 months or so here, and have the pleasure of con-nominating him. Wisdom is an RfA regular who always ensures that candidates are well rounded in areas that require the mop, and I know that he by far excels his own admin requirements. I have seen Wisdom on almost every noticeboard ranging from ANI to AIV and always has proven to be helpful, and often wonder if there is ever a need to check the contributions of a user reported to AIV as I know I know the result. On noticeboards I always look for his comments as they always prove to be undoubtedly helpful. As well as great work in admin related areas Wisdom has also produced wonderful article contributions such as Rush (band) and Neil Peart (so users who like to oppose due to lack of article contributions, be prepared to support). Overall I feel this user is well rounded, responsible, thoughtful, helpful, and always willing to listen to complaints and learn from mistakes. I do not commonly nominate users for adminship, but there was no way I was going to pass this one up. Wisdom89 is ready for the mop, now lets give it to him. Tiptoety talk 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Rudget. Okay, maybe you've already got a good enough idea of how Wisdom operates from the two exquisite (co)nominations above. So, I'll try to be a little original here. I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my gratitude for Wisdom's work here on Wikipedia, which over this two-year period he has been contributing in, has been fantastic. I have been impressed by Wisdom's extended desire and willingness to be a part of this project, with a large proportion of his editing tenure being placed in the mainspace and various projectspaces. With a keen eye, a coherent adherance to policy (his recent contributions can be the supporting evidence for this) & general 'wiki-rules' and a delightful medium between quiet and outlandish, he has a calm and sincere enthusiasm for furthering the cause of the encyclopedia. Always explaining and expressing his ideas over the various project boards, he aids others (1, 2, 3), maximises his position without the use of administrative tools and makes comments which are relative to their target (4, 5). Most of all, however, Wisdom is consistent in his approach to the opinions of others and is willing to make sure that others voices are heard–in addition to this, his manner is persistently harmonious, with this being confirmed by his involvement in both the Kindness Campaign and Adopt-a-user program. He also takes time to reconsider his rationales and often re-writes his opinions (random example). With this in mind (and in light of the co-nominations above), I am pleased to offer Wisdom for the community's consideration which, I am hoping, will see there is a potential administrator in the user (and person) that is, Wisdom89. Rudget 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I graciously accept the nomination from Mr. Pedro. My appreciation goes out to the co-nominators as well. Let the process begin.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: If granted the tools, I plan on concentrating my administrator efforts initially in areas that I am comfortable with, and have sufficient experience in. Now, for those areas which I have ‘’not’’ yet versed myself in, I have absolutely no qualms or reservations about starting off patiently and slowly, deferring to more experienced administrators before any action is taken, checking up or leaving a notice at WP:ANI or a talk page for instance. When one becomes an administrator, they don't stop learning. The following is a brief enumeration of those areas where I feel I can be an immediate asset:
- WP:AIV: I think this admin-related area is excellent practice and preparation for properly understanding WP:BLOCK when it comes to IPs and registered users, and it has served me well didactically.
- WP:UAA: I tend to notice a backlog here. My apprehension of WP:UP is sound. You'll notice I've made hundreds of reports to UAA. There were a few slip ups I'm sure (I can be honest), but, I am constantly refining my understanding of the policy, as it seems to be kind of capricious. In other words, this area requires a judgment call a majority of the time, and not everyone agrees what constitutes a blatant offense. For those names which are ambiguous, I have taken the time to use the usernameconcern template.
- WP:RFPP: In addition to making numerous requests for both full and semi-protection, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, making notations/comments when and where I feel they are relevant/appropriate. This was done to aid administrators. Sometimes having two opinions (either conflicting or in concordance) can shed new light on a situation involving full scale edit warring or anon vandalism.
- WP:ANI: Like WP:RFPP, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, offering my advice, dropping comments and seeing if I can help diffuse situations neutrally.
- WP:CSD: It is a rarity not to see this page backlogged/overflowing with nominations that require careful analysis and a conscientious mind. I am confident in my ability to perform clearance/deletions tasks accurately and thoughtfully.
- WP:AFD: I tend to gravitate to AFD because my mainspace participation has focused on article building/maintenance, and, after-all, this is an encyclopedia. I feel that my activity in this area demonstrates a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines. I strive to approach these discussions thoughtfully and eschew the infamous "per nom". Although, sometimes "per noms" are entirely correct.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Ok, well, I mentioned these in my previous two WP:RFAs. I was quite instrumental in helping the Rush article reach featured article status. I suppose this is what I am most known for, as it was my first major task on Wikipedia. I am still the primary contributor to the article, and to this day, along with a few other wonderful editors, still keep a watchful and vigilant eye on it, removing vandalism, fostering discussion involving minor content disputes, and maintaining its overall integrity without WP:OWN. I was also primarily responsible for getting Neil Peart promoted to Good Article standing not too long ago. An attempt was made to nominate it for FA status as well. Despite it failing, it likely represents my next editorial project and I'm looking forward to it. Another article I am particularly fond of is Phospholipase C (even though it reminds me of graduate school). While currently lacking sources, my scientific background encouraged me to work diligently to expand it to a fairly decent level. Apart from article building, I feel that I am a solid and meticulous vandal fighter as evidenced by my contributions. Yes, I primarily use WP:TWINKLE to perform my actions, but, I feel that I use it quite efficaciously. Lastly, I enjoy aiding users in basic Wikipedia operation, so my contributions to the help desk, the new contributor's help page and the Science reference desk have been fulfilling.
- 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: There were a few spats on the Rush article in the past that I was involved in, along with other main editors of the page. We had to deal with some (I hate to use the term) "POV pushing" by obvious fans who wanted to positively contribute (WP:AGF at all costs), but, in their enthusiasm, ended up decorating the article with unencyclopedic content. It was a little frustrating, but, the situations were diffused quickly and without major incident with discussion on the talk page, a place I tend to immediately direct users to when a potential conflict arises. Hey, editing inevitably gets hot. Other than this, I cannot think of any other conflicts.
- Question from Irpen
- 4. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?
- A: As a general editor myself, and having encountered instances of content dispute, breaching of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TROLL and WP:HARASS, I trust I can make an equitable judgment call on users who undermine the spirit of Wikipedia by , say, consistently gaming the system and abusing the above policies/guidelines. Do I plan to enforce WP:3RR? Yes, I do. I regularly patrol recent changes and see numerous instances of recalcitrant (or completely silent) reversions. Will I make the call without a report to 3RR? The short answer..yes. With respect to WP:AE, if I was involved in the Arbcom case, made a statement, or provided evidence, I would be willing to take action if probation was compromised.
- 5. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on the editors?
- A: I feel that I could, with equity, decide upon and enforce restrictions on users who abuse Wikipedia or have a long history of persistent disruption. It is vital to preserving a smooth and non-abrasive editing process. I'm not sure precisely which policy restrictions I would invent, but, 1RR and 2RR are absolutely reasonable stipulations.
- 6. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.
- A: IRC is a user-friendly means for communication that I have used in the past for various reasons, but, not specifically for discussions pertaining to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that means that I am unfamiliar with the channel you refer to. I have clients installed on my computer where I can easily access IRC, and if it would facilitate getting in contact with other administrators or editors who wish to correspond, then I will happily participate. Currently, I am best reached via Email and my talk page. With that said, and to answer the latter part of your questions, if the channel is "for administrators of Wikipedia only" then proper use would involve discussions about various Wikipedia essays, policy proposals and communication to preclude wheel warring. If the channel is open to all Wikipedians, then it's a terrific way for editors to contact administrators that were involved in a prior incident, perhaps an absent response to an unblock request. The improper utilization of said channel would be discussion of open Arbcom cases and WP:RFC on users when they, or other parties, are not present.
Optional Question from Balloonman
- 7. I am definitely leaning towards a support (possibly even a strong one), but I do have a question/comment that I'd like you to address before I cast my !vote. You, like me, are one of the more critical reviewers in the RfA process. Generally, when I see you supporting a candidate, it is a good sign for the candidate. My concern, however, is when you oppose some candidates. Sometimes I feel as if you are focusing more on your perception of what an Admin should be rather than upon the general/individual merits of the candidate themselves. This is particularly a concern when dealing with niche candidates who don't fit the traditional roles of admin. Can you address this concern of mine?
- A Excellent comment. I'll do my best to address this. I'll start off by intimating about how I casted my !votes at RfA when I first began participating in the discussions. The balance criteria, for those of you who don't know. I felt, and to a degree still feel (albeit minorly), that editors who demonstrate/d a sheer disparity in their edits, one side extreme project, the other, extreme mainspace, might be somewhat unfit for adminship because it robs them of the opportunity to glean experience. I have since refined my judgment and have made an effort to !vote based on a user's skills in communication/deliberation, article building, trust, and sometimes just a gut feeling. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sabine's_Sunbird as examples. I have taken User:Pedro's advice of "net positive". I ask myself, "will the candidate abuse the tools?", is it likely that they will (at the present) hamper productivity. Please do not think that I simply click the edit count button and then cast my !vote. I make it a point to peruse the special contributions. I now see that niche candidates can make exceptional administrators. The process is about community trust, not numbers. I do, however, take special notice when I candidate flat out says "I wish to work at WP:AIV". If they have not done so, that's a warning flag. I hope that answers your question.
General comments
- See Wisdom89's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Wisdom89: Wisdom89 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.
Discussion
- Erm this isn't transcluded yet, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:03 20th April 2008
- Six supports before the candidate accepted? I'm not too comfortable with that George The Dragon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was last night and i believe it was four :-) TheProf - T / C 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And don't you think if the community endorses him that much that just maybe he is just that well-known and trusted? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to submit this RfA as Exhibit A of Wikipedians vs. WP:NBD. Apparently, Wisdom89 does not meet the standards of "no big deal". This RfA is prima facie evidence that adminship is, in fact, A Very Big Deal. Tan | 39 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Per my nomination and everyone's desire to make Wikipedia a better place for our readership. Pedro : Chat 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom support - per my nom and like pedro said: Net positive. Tiptoety talk 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You should be a good admin :) -- Wisconsus TALK|things 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and delightfully so. Rudget 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fantastic editor, knows what he's doing! I have no doubts he will make one of the best admins on wikipedia today. TheProf - T / C 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral[reply]
- I think Wisdom89 will be a great administrator. I've seen plenty of solid contributions since the January RfA. Darkspots (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rush fan eh? Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damnit, I was going to vote pre-tranclusion but for the rather catching notice in the discussion section. A+++++++++++++ eBayer. EJF (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WODUP 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support More than ready to be an admin. In fact, I thought he was an admin. --SharkfaceT/C 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - No complaints about this user. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Herculean Support - I'm a little bit of a nitpicker myself, so it is not that often that an admin candidate comes along that I can't dig up a single thing that I find troubling about them... but here it is. Give'em the mop. Trusilver 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I thought I recalled a good experience with this user so I checked by archives but to no avail. It must just have been a good impression (unless you helped me some other place than my talk page). Anyway I see this user around loads...very hardworking...and per 602 Usernames for administrator attention 247 Administrator intervention against vandalism 224 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 197 Help desk. This user will go far! Best of luck!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartan (one step up from Herculean) support - Per disagreeing with the ridiculous oppose + only having good encounters with this user. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I have known Wisdom for a while, and I have seen his tireless contributions. I actually thought Wisdom was already an admin for some reason, probably because of how well he has done here. I think that Wisdom will be a great user to give the tools to. Support!--RyRy5 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A competent user, often seen around the admin-related sites, and very competent therein. Will do well with the tools. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support you weren't an admin already?--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to support. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as Omar would say, oh, indeed. Definite net positive. VanTucky 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per KojiDude. Wisdom acts with calm sureness, I trust that he won't misuse the tools. FusionMix 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I had a really long rationale for this, but I beleated it. Oh well. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Wisdom is a terrific example of an editor who I don't agree with 100% (granted, it's like 95%), but for whom I still have great respect. An excellent editor, thoughtful contributions, policy driven. These are the kind of hands in which we need to place the tools. Tan | 39 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yep, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Has overcame the issues raised in earlier and also taken Admin coaching from Pedro which shows both his commitment and desire and willingness to react positively to the points raised in earlier RFA.Great track and commitment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I have known Wisdom89 for a very long time on Wikipedia. Of any editor I have crossed paths with he is certainly one who understands what Wikipedia is all about. A dedicated editor and a candidate long overdue for the mop. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have seen his work about the 'pedia, and it's impressive. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Theban (they defeated Sparta) Support I have always had the utmost respect for Wisdom89 and I was very surprised to find he was not an admin already when I first encountered him. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting him. the only reason it took me so long to !vote was because I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be a COI because of this. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A dedicated, thoughtful editor who gets involved and, in my view, always provides insightful comments. κaτaʟavenoTC 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander-an Support (at risk of being called out for being called out for frivolity) I can't believe Wisdom wasn't already an admin. Excellent candidate. IMHO, this is merely turning a de facto into a de jure and giving him the technical ability to delete pages, block users, and the like. J.delanoygabsadds 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support why not Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. bibliomaniac15 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I can think of perhaps only one non-admin (at least of those who I think will seek it) who is more qualified for the position than Wisdom89. I am sure once he has the tools, he will have a very strong positive effect on the project. Best of luck, and thank you for finally throwing your nomination in here. :P SorryGuy Talk 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good improvement since last RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm more than positive Wisdom is ready for the tools. He understand all the policies well, and has done a good amount of both article and vandalism work since his time here. He has a massive 602 reports to WP:UAA so I know he will definitely be an active member there. He also has 247 reports to WP:AIV which both show experience in two key admin areas. In the articlespace, Wisdom has helped make Rush (band) a featured article, and Neil Peart a good article. He has been contributing since 2006, which is enough experience, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since November 2007. I'm sure he will make a great administrator. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Finally!!! MBisanz talk 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very helpful user. SpencerT♦C 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WTF are you doing not being an admin? Stop that right now! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per duh! although I very strongly suggest he take JayHenry's advice on board (as in, some of his RfA comments have been sucky, IMO). But otherwise, he's awesome. (Neil Peart made FA? Why didn't you tell me!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maaan, stuff of that stuff down there is really concerning. Might come back to this. Might not. I'm still supporting, for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Third time lucky, you deserve this i have seen you all over the place and you will make a great admin. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your not an admin already? I thought you were. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A no-brainer to me. Wisdom89 should be an admin. He knows his stuff, is experienced, communicates, works hard, what more could I ask for? This will reach WP:100 for sure. Useight (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There are a couple of habits that I wish Wisdom89 would reconsider--an apparent over-reliance on edit counts at RfA and a tendency to report borderline usernames to WP:UAA before the users have even edited are the two most obvious items--but for every time I've been less-than-happy with his edits there are ten times when I've thanked my lucky stars that he's around. He's smart, capable, and the very definition of a net positive to the project. He'll do great. --jonny-mt 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per previous. Agree with JayHenry's points but feel will ultimately be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support first supporters signature reassures me--Pewwer42 Talk 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per all the reasons in oppose section. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WEAK Support Seen significant improvements in his awareness of other aspects of the project since prior RfA.
Fully Support now.A recent revert by Wisdom89, during this process, was not followed up with an explanation to a new user. As such, I can't fully support anymore, because he should know about such things by now. (Edit was AGF style, not vandalism, and explanation would've been appropriate. I provided one.) ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] - I don't see much reason to oppose. This contributor is reasonable and civil, which is what we need in administrators. Valtoras (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — Athaenara ✉ 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sure. Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The admin coaching shows skills and the editor seems trustworthy. Also I wasn't convinced by any oppose argument thus given. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- About damned time support. The public face of GBT/C 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlohcierekim 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. User has demonstrated commitment to the project and, equally important, a willingness to learn from mistakes and ask assistance when required (as coaching page shows). I hope user continues his excellent contributions. Also, I would note that I tend to disagree with user in RfAs, but I am sure he will make a great admin regardless. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support SexySeaShark 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - What more can I say? D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see continuous improvement from a good editor. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Good editor, obvious dedication to the project. Excellent nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I cannot recall any significant negative interactions with the candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - nice guy, but his answer to Q1 is the sort of vague nonsense that candidates spiel if they spend too much time in admin coaching. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Solid vandal fighter. Support without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - appears trustworthy. The concern below over the supports before the transclusion is utterly ridiculous and has no bearing upon his actions as an administrator. I also don't believe that his RfA votes, although I may disagree with some of them, have any bearing on his ability to conduct administrator tasks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per appropriate use of speedy deletion tags. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm almost ashamed of some of my fellow Wikipedians after reading through the opposes. Honestly, having pre-existing strong support from Wikipedians at the time of nomination is not a reason to oppose. If seven Wikipedians believe that he should be an SysOp and mobilize to that effect, more power to them; that's what this process was created for, so that every Wikipedian can have a say and the community consensus can be determined. Why should it matter if a bunch of Wikipedians post at once or over the course of a few days? The end result is the same. Sure the user wants it. What's wrong with that? He wants the tools to make Wikipedia a better place, and you know what, I think he will. I'm sick and tired of seeing these sort of complaints on RFAs. How about we stop worrying about whether the user wants Adminship or not, and start worrying about whether Wikipedia will be benefited if the receive it.--Liempt (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose anyone who present the community with such a fait accompli. Seven supports before the community has chance to comment? That's not fair George The Dragon (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? TheProf - T / C 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And per biting newbies George The Dragon (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Username concerns/templates are specifically designed to not bite the newbies. And considering the username, I feel that my concern was justified. It was likely a profane spoonerism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unable to reach a computer last night to accept the nomination - Wasn't even aware it was there until just a few minutes ago. However, I fail to see why hasty or enthusiastic support from other editor's should weigh against myself...Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFA was transcluded at 20.19, at which point there were already seven support !votes. The community then see the RFA for the first time and it has seven !votes, all for support and I'm not comfortable with that. There have been concerns raised about similar behaviour in the past George The Dragon (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of the supports were here prior to transclusion. TheProf07's was added 22 seconds after it was transcluded. The other two (of the 7 that were there at George The Dragon's posting) were also added after transclusion. Metros (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I, too, think that this has more to deal with those who commented early and less to do with Wisdom. How should he have responded when he found that this request already had comments? WODUP 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a total of four votes on transclusion. 3 were nominator votes, which is perfectly acceptable. There was just one which might not be acceptable. This oppose is, however, completely unfair, nothing to do with the candidate or admin duties, and should thus be disqualified. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and that link wasn't biting a newbie. Majorly (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to agree with Majorly here. The votes (minus one) were acceptable, and the example of "biting newbies" is anything but. In fact, that example is the complete opposite of biting newbies. --SharkfaceT/C 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to also agree with Majorly. If that was a case of biting a newbie, that was about the most toothless bite I've ever seen. That and the idea of opposing someone because they were supported before the RfA was transcluded is downright nonsensical. Trusilver 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I say we cease this convo, I have trust in our bureaucrats that they will disregard this vote. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst not wishing to bang on about this, I'd respectfully ask George to view this diff. [1]. I asked that people hold off prior to transclusion. If they did or didn't, I hardly see how it effects Wisdom's capability to be an administrator. However as nominator I have gone to the best lengths I can to not present the community with a done deal, something I feel strongly about.Pedro : Chat 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair, but as we are being asked, to an extent, whether we trust the user's judgement, I can't help but feel the right judgement would have been to remove the pre-transcluded !vote. George The Dragon (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wisdom89 has no right to remove users comments. And even if he did, do you really think this has any relevance on whether Wisdom89 is going to be a good admin or not? Even if you think it was his mistake, don't you think people deserve at least the benefit of the doubt? I mean this "mistake" has nothing to do with adminship, whatsoever. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing to point out would be that, in the event of this RfA's success, Wisdom will never be placed in that situation again. It's irrelevant.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it can hurt people's sensibility, the way a request for adminship is presented and the behavior of the co nominators matter. Ironically, it could have been worse, at a time, it were going to be six co-nominations (with Rudget's) and five supports, the nominators made their best to solve the issue I think. CenariumTalk 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing to point out would be that, in the event of this RfA's success, Wisdom will never be placed in that situation again. It's irrelevant.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wisdom89 has no right to remove users comments. And even if he did, do you really think this has any relevance on whether Wisdom89 is going to be a good admin or not? Even if you think it was his mistake, don't you think people deserve at least the benefit of the doubt? I mean this "mistake" has nothing to do with adminship, whatsoever. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair, but as we are being asked, to an extent, whether we trust the user's judgement, I can't help but feel the right judgement would have been to remove the pre-transcluded !vote. George The Dragon (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst not wishing to bang on about this, I'd respectfully ask George to view this diff. [1]. I asked that people hold off prior to transclusion. If they did or didn't, I hardly see how it effects Wisdom's capability to be an administrator. However as nominator I have gone to the best lengths I can to not present the community with a done deal, something I feel strongly about.Pedro : Chat 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent} Well, I can't resist, and I trust Wisdom will understand that even in the midst of this stressful time for him we can have a bit of levity.... Six nominations - outrageous! :) Pedro : Chat 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Oppose User may now be "cabal approved", but does not come across as an article builder (a few decent contributions though), rather clear career mandarin more interested in obtaining a mop than building free knowledge. We need no more of these. Sorry to those who don't like my reasoning, but this is an encyclopedia and its admin group needs better balance in the opposite direction from where this promotion will take us. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Deacon, I appreciate you taking the time to offer your view on things. Just in my defense, if I were simply interested in the status of obtaining the mop, do you really think I'd be at the help and reference desks? Also, I would like to just gently point you in the direction of, well the obvious Rush and Neil Peart articles. But, also see Conservapedia, Burn, Phospholipase C, Knock-in, Dream Theater, Snakes & Arrows, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson to name a few. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry man, you've clearly been gunning for this. Adminship is no big deal, the only problem with adminship are people who think it is a big deal. I appreciate you've got a few decent contributions (as I acknowledged), but a handful of link-stacked band articles don't make up for the stats on this talk page [in my narrow wee mind]. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Deacon, I appreciate you taking the time to offer your view on things. Just in my defense, if I were simply interested in the status of obtaining the mop, do you really think I'd be at the help and reference desks? Also, I would like to just gently point you in the direction of, well the obvious Rush and Neil Peart articles. But, also see Conservapedia, Burn, Phospholipase C, Knock-in, Dream Theater, Snakes & Arrows, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson to name a few. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is a candidacy constructed entirely out of "admin coaching". He's had people teaching him how to do and say the right things to get promoted since his last RfA, and several of those mentors piled on to support this RfA before it was even transcluded. Despite all this coaching -- and ironically, given his username -- he still doesn't actually show the wisdom necessary to be an admin. He doesn't think through his actions very carefully. I've seen him in particular at UAA, where he is far too quick to recommend blocks based on incomplete understanding. All it takes is another incautious admin, and then we've got an inappropriate block being placed. If this RfA passes, he will be that incautious admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples/difs substantiating his rash behavior at UAA?Balloonman (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's this exchange we had on his talk page. He and Tiptoety (who happens to be one of his nominators!) got the newbie User:Hacker.gul indefinitely hardblocked. I explained to both of them that "hacker" does not always mean "I AM GOING TO DISRUPT THIS SITE", and that it has a positive connotation referring to programming or engineering skill among geeks. Neither of them really grasped the fact that this was about as far from a situation that required hardblocking as you could get. Wisdom didn't stop to read the dictionary link I provided, or even (apparently) the entirety of my message; he thought I was talking about Greeks.
- I don't know, you could possibly put that one down to lack of sleep or something, but it wasn't the first time I had encountered him misusing UAA. The first time I removed two of his reports and notified him about it, he replied, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions.". A stunning defense of unnecessary blocking, that was. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples/difs substantiating his rash behavior at UAA?Balloonman (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deacon and rspeer sum it up pretty nicely. I've seen this RfA coming for a long time (which is a bad thing). John Reaves 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per rspeer. east.718 at 03:14, April 21, 2008
- Per the above, especially the comments by Rspeer. Admins are picked for their judgment and their ability to make good decisions on their own. I see you've worked well with Pedro, and that's great, but I need to see that you can make the right choices without being told what to do and how to do it. You seem to be a great editor, and I see much improvement from your last RfA, but I would have liked to see a bit more time between the coaching and this RfA to see how you really do. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA, I think this shows a willingness to learn and improve from mistakes which we all have made, especially when it comes to the username policy. Tiptoety talk 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's learning so much from mistakes, why does he keep making the same ones? Clearly on a page about "admin coaching" you have to say you're learning from mistakes, but I'd need to see something to back it up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rspeer, I was going to remain silent on this topic, but I kindly request that you take a look at my recent reports, bar the hacker user, and point out where I'm making these repeated errors. I view the RfA as a learning process as well. Any kind of feedback is helpful. Cheers.Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're still reporting names for "unnecessary use of profanity" when they wouldn't actually offend anyone who's mature enough to use Wikipedia. User:Maxbitch is pretty recent, and actually got blocked due to your very borderline report. (The admin who blocked her, of course, shares the blame.) Shouldn't you have learned from Superduperjackass that not everyone who self-identifies with mild profanity needs to be thrown out the door before they edit? That's the one that Tiptoety referred to on admin coaching, so if that's not what you learned, what did you learn instead? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rspeer, I was going to remain silent on this topic, but I kindly request that you take a look at my recent reports, bar the hacker user, and point out where I'm making these repeated errors. I view the RfA as a learning process as well. Any kind of feedback is helpful. Cheers.Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's learning so much from mistakes, why does he keep making the same ones? Clearly on a page about "admin coaching" you have to say you're learning from mistakes, but I'd need to see something to back it up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA, I think this shows a willingness to learn and improve from mistakes which we all have made, especially when it comes to the username policy. Tiptoety talk 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Poor understanding of adminship, Rspeer's evidence of lack of common sense regarding username blocks and the subsequent defence (which I hope no one ever uses), my personal dislike for "coached" factory-made admins. - TwoOars 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose based on answers to questions, concerns about the editor's excessive desire for a mop (per nom, per so many RfA's in row as well as responses to oppose and neutral votes) and lack of significant interest in creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack the latter reason. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions suggest that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a strong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. A candidate indicated an interest to involve himself into such decisions and his consulting IRC when doing this would only make the matters worse as shown from experience. He already shows signs of being coached (perhaps at IRC as well.) I feel the user is a "nice guy" and I wish him luck in content writing but I cannot support his candidacy. --Irpen 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I see too many incorrect speedy deletion tags. For example: this was tagged as A1. I cannot understand how "Calling code +1-868 is the calling code of Trinidad and tobago" fails to identify the subject of the article. Isn't it a calling code for Trinidad and Tobago? Tagging this page was also questionable. The web page has reliable sources and is mentioned in multiple books. Surely that's an assertion of notability? This is also bad judgement. The article is definitely not complete nonsense (mashing the keyboard repeatedly for example.) and cannot qualify as completely nonsensical. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The tagging here is also troubling. Does a professional football player playing for three of Hungary's top football clubs show no assertion of notability whatsoever? Also the speedy deletion tagging here as A1 (no context) is questionable. On the article, it clearly states "Coastal Forces base ... This base existed 194* to 1945 as a repair and base for Coastal Forces boats." Doesn't bother checking the history before asking for deletion of a clearly notable group,Anonymous (Project Chanology). The sources for this page, as with EqWorld, also demonstrates an assertion of notability; and the tagging was wrong. This tagging was plain ridiculous. An actress appearing in four extremely popular (as well as notable) films/tv series is clearly an assertion. May I remind everyone that the diffs listed above only extend to March 17 2008, a month ago. —Dark talk 05:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know, Wisdom fixed his mistake in a matter of seconds on Anonymous (group). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it if he had the tools. Unfortunately deletion of the topic can cause much more harm and can strain the servers; given the amount of revisions it has. —Dark talk 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it more important that he knew the pages met the speedy delete criteria than it is that he knew which template to use? And, if he becomes an admin, he won't need to use those templates anymore.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it if he had the tools. Unfortunately deletion of the topic can cause much more harm and can strain the servers; given the amount of revisions it has. —Dark talk 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know, Wisdom fixed his mistake in a matter of seconds on Anonymous (group). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Everytime I saw Wisdom89 opposing someone at RfA, it's always about "lack of experience in X-area". He's a big fan of edit count and his actions speaks for itself even though he claims that he's not a fan of edit count[9], how ironic. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety talk 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if we base everything on edit count, wouldn't it create some elitism? Unwillingness to block someone with 100,000 edits while blocking someone with 10,000 is not exactly ideal... —Dark talk 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiptoety, it means that Wisdom89 has double standards. And that makes me not trusting this user to gain extra tools. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if we base everything on edit count, wouldn't it create some elitism? Unwillingness to block someone with 100,000 edits while blocking someone with 10,000 is not exactly ideal... —Dark talk 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety talk 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Gotta say no here, per DarkFalls and definitely per JayHenry. I've seen Wisdom oppose some pretty damn good RfA candidates. DF's diffs were worrying as well, and the points he made were valid. GlassCobra 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only partly directed at you GC, it just happents to be the next place to type! I appreciate there are other concerns, but to structure opposes based on the candidates RFA opposes seems a little odd. This isn't an RFB. I'm not sure I understand the extension of poor RFA oppose = poor judgement with tools. Poor AFD commentary I would agree, but RFA is much more subjective. Just my thoughts, really. Pedro : Chat 07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think not. Giano (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Giano. ...and per rspeer (edit count elitism?) and DarkFalls. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Irpen and TwoOars. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per rspeer's diffs on UAA. The fact Wisdom89 has been coached extensively yet still exhibits poor judgement is disconcerting; I don't think he'd make a good admin at this time. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per rspeer and DarkFalls, amongst others. Usually these things wouldn't be such an issue for me, but after three RfAs and extensive coaching it's harder to ignore. The UAA reports in particular are concerning - that place is a hive of newbie biting on a good day, I'd rather not add another excessively bureaucratic admin to its ranks. -- Naerii 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per DarkFalls. I don't think I can trust him to delete stuff wisely. Majorly (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to avoid scaring off new contributors with inappropriate speedy deletions. The criteria were created to avoid it as much as possible, so the natural assumption is that deleting outside the criteria without a very good reason will lead to the loss of potential contributors. Per DarkFalls' evidence. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm not certain if its just rush to judgment, but I see too many recent mistakes when tagging for deletion. I'm not sure if you're tagging for the sake of tagging, but I would advise slowing down. Everyone makes mistakes in this area (I certainly have) when rushing. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Seven supports before the community has been given a chance to comment? I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized to push this guy through, and I don't like it. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I find that unacceptable. If you wish to oppose by all means do so, but do not make slights on other editors and get your facts right. There were four supports prior to transclusion, of which three where nominators. As nominator I specfically asked people not to comment before transclusion (check the RFA history). And finally I have never discussed this RFA on IRC (indeed I have never discussed any RFA on IRC - I barely even use the medium). As I say, if you want to oppose do so, but oppose based on facts and evidence not a wild accusation that is both untrue and derogatory to other editors. Pedro : Chat 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, what an unfair oppose. For one thing, it's completely false there were 7 users (there were 4, 3 who were supposed to be there, so that brings us down to one) and another thing is assuming bad faith that it was mentioned on IRC. How ridiculous. Ghirla, get your facts straight before making such ridiculous comments. Majorly (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Marjoly and Pedro, there were seven supports before Wisdom accepted (see here!). So Ghirla is right and you can't blame him for smelling the worst. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When he accepted it completely irrelevant. The point is when it was transcluded to the main RfA page. At that point, there were 4 supports, not 7. Acceptance is not a requirement, and it was obvious he would accept, as this RfA has been in planning for weeks. Majorly (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Ghirla is entitled to have his own opinion and voice it with regards to what is and is not a "requirement" or acceptable. His concern is seemingly the premeditation of it all, which you are confirming. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Ghirla is not entitled to state that this RFA has been subject to some kind of IRC based movement to make it pass. If s/he even bothered to look at my slender contributions over the last few days s/he would see exactly how opposed I am to pre-transclusion voting. I stand by my comment. Ghrila is entitled to oppose, but to do so by implying, nay - stating that there is off-wiki activity and collusion is, bluntly, rude. He should not reconsider his oppose in light of this. But he should either produce evidence of collusion or retract that part of his oppose comment. Pedro : Chat 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro, Ghirla's not psychic and he didn't say that, he just voiced his "feel"ing of some kind of pre-orchestration, which frankly is understandable. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that further input is now without value. However I'm pressed to make this matter clear. Ghrila has mistakenly asserted the number of supports prior to transclusion was seven, per , "community has been given a chance to comment...". So this is factually in error and demonstrably so. Secondly, Ghrila asserts that "I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized...". This may well, as you state, be literal in that it is just a "feeling". Where I to type that I have a "feeling" that editor X is a sockpuppet of editor Y I would be asked to produce evidence or shut up. I'm sorry, and Wisdom's RFA is not the place for this. However I take great exception to the implication that I, Rudget, Tiptoey (by the extension that we nominated) and other editors have colluded in some way. I've dealt straight on Wikipedia, and to see these allegations against myself and other editors is disappointing to say the least. Pedro : Chat 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro, Ghirla's not psychic and he didn't say that, he just voiced his "feel"ing of some kind of pre-orchestration, which frankly is understandable. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Ghirla is not entitled to state that this RFA has been subject to some kind of IRC based movement to make it pass. If s/he even bothered to look at my slender contributions over the last few days s/he would see exactly how opposed I am to pre-transclusion voting. I stand by my comment. Ghrila is entitled to oppose, but to do so by implying, nay - stating that there is off-wiki activity and collusion is, bluntly, rude. He should not reconsider his oppose in light of this. But he should either produce evidence of collusion or retract that part of his oppose comment. Pedro : Chat 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Ghirla is entitled to have his own opinion and voice it with regards to what is and is not a "requirement" or acceptable. His concern is seemingly the premeditation of it all, which you are confirming. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When he accepted it completely irrelevant. The point is when it was transcluded to the main RfA page. At that point, there were 4 supports, not 7. Acceptance is not a requirement, and it was obvious he would accept, as this RfA has been in planning for weeks. Majorly (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Marjoly and Pedro, there were seven supports before Wisdom accepted (see here!). So Ghirla is right and you can't blame him for smelling the worst. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, what an unfair oppose. For one thing, it's completely false there were 7 users (there were 4, 3 who were supposed to be there, so that brings us down to one) and another thing is assuming bad faith that it was mentioned on IRC. How ridiculous. Ghirla, get your facts straight before making such ridiculous comments. Majorly (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <outdent>I am deeply disappointed this oppose has cropped up, for two reasons. Unprecedented allegations that we somehow worked together in a conspiracy to 'push this guy through' are completely unacceptable, as is the idea that somehow IRC has been used. The only time I ever use IRC is when I query anothers actions or enquire about certain aspects of something. Saying that we have used this medium abusviely is totally off mark. Rudget 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When this page was first placed on the RfA list, there were 4 !votes (3 of which were nom supports). All of us who had made the mistake of !voting before transclusion, removed them and apologised. You are simply using this as an excuse. As Pedro said, if you want to oppose thats fine. But please go and find a real reason! As for the conspiracy about us all getting together on IRC to push this RfA through, thats clearly assuming bad faith and quite frankly ridiculous. TheProf - T / C 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I find that unacceptable. If you wish to oppose by all means do so, but do not make slights on other editors and get your facts right. There were four supports prior to transclusion, of which three where nominators. As nominator I specfically asked people not to comment before transclusion (check the RFA history). And finally I have never discussed this RFA on IRC (indeed I have never discussed any RFA on IRC - I barely even use the medium). As I say, if you want to oppose do so, but oppose based on facts and evidence not a wild accusation that is both untrue and derogatory to other editors. Pedro : Chat 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Rspeer and Dark.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop with the "admin coaching" nonsense already. We need people with a clue, not just people who try to learn how to get promoted. It's what happens after promotion that's important. Many good reasons for opposition are given above (along with a few bad ones.) Too bureaucratic, not enough judgement. Those trying to teach people how to pass RFA, rather than teaching people what the project is about, should seriously reconsider whether their actions are helpful or harmful to the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rspeer. Seems to be a decent editor and I thought he is already a sysop due to his vigorous participation in Wikipedia areas but the diffs offered by Rspeer concern me about his ability to be an admin. --Appletrees (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per poor judgment in the deletion area, as shown by DarkFalls, per Rspeer also. I have the concerns of Friday and others too, though I don't oppose for that, I never trusted admin coaching and I think that it spoils the process. CenariumTalk 14:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Three RFAs in six months? Absolutely not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - sorry, but I'm not sure of Wisdom's... wisdom... yet. I share rspeer's concerns about some UAA comments and misunderstandings. - Philippe 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Really do not agree with his admin standards, but that's not enough for me to oppose. The recent wrong csd taggings are. Garion96 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per DarkFalls, and even without that, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions", when you've just been called on an incorrect report, was enough on its own. Black Kite 17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This user's previous oppose votes on RfAs lead me to believe that this user does not understand adminship. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an RfA, not a RfB. What does his opinions in !voting on a RfA have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that a candidate who views the tools as too dear may not act properly with them. An administrator who forgets that the tools are no big deal is a big problem. Before everyone rebukes me, I am well aware that adminship is no longer widely perceived to be "no big deal," however, the tools themselves are. Having the delete and protect tabs at the top of every page does not convey any special privilege, and I am wary to grant them to any user who has been capricious in opposing RfAs with extremely high standards. As an administrator, and therefore speaking from experience, this user's voting patterns on RfAs lead me to believe that he or she views the tools in such a way that I am uncomfortable giving them to the candidate. Specifically, in this case, I worry that Wisdom, by opposing editors for having "the wrong mix" of edits and "not enough project space" edits, will become an admin who injects him or herself into controversial areas without appropriate foresight; one who is involved in drama rather than actual administrative tasks. This, combined with the extensive admin coaching, and to borrow phrasing used before me, the presentation of this RfA as a fait accompli, gives me an overall negative impression. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an RfA, not a RfB. What does his opinions in !voting on a RfA have to do with use of the tools? Tiptoety talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Misread my posting in WP:AN recently and had the attitiude of wanting to antagonise rather then be constructive. SunCreator (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Errmmm.. "misread" implies you feel he made a mistake? Have we not all made mistakes? How is misreading a post at AN show possible abuse of the tools? Tiptoety talk 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't recall wishing to antagonize anybody at WP:AN since I've never made any comments there to my knowledge (unless you mean ANI), may I have a diff for this please? Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sorry, my mistake, I meant WP:ANI(the ANI archive template give me the idea it was in WP:AN, still my mistake because I should of checked directly). The section is here, rather then give one id thought it more informative to see it all together. SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Friday and the answer to six looks scripted. miranda 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately, too many RFAs too soon per Kurt. Adminship is no big deal, and that extends for not having it as much as having it. We don't need the bit to write articles, do research, and lend a useful opinion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Per Kurt. User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Giano. Sorry, nothing personal. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly per Friday and Giano. I've noticed Wisdom mainly through his participation here at RfA, and I'm not comfortable with what I see. Nick (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rspeer, Irpen and Friday have already said it best. ~ Eóin (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rspeer, Irpen, Darkfalls, etc. mathwhiz29 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The contributions adduced by Rspeer and Darkfalls, et al., prevent me from concluding with anything near the appropriate degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I have concerns about this user's judgment. My primary encounter with Wisdom is through his relentless WP:EDITCOUNT opposes on RFA. Not-enough-X-space-edits, indifferent-toward-the-tools type rationales. Lack of experience is a valid concern, but if an overwhelming body of evidence has been presented that though low in number the edits are extremely high-quality, it is the dreaded prima facie-reasoning to continue the opposition. His participation at RFA seems very rarely based off thorough analysis or familiarity with candidates. Is his participation elsewhere based off more? My comment could probably be considered superficial as well--I would contend much less so than guesswork based off Interiot's tool--but you'll also note that I'm neutral. --JayHenry (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Jay, thanks for the comment. I just wanted to highlight that only in extreme circumstances will I oppose based on a lack of namespace contributions. And it is never solely based on edit count. For instance, if the candidate wishes to work in "insert random admin-related userspace here" and then has a half dozen edits to those areas, if any at all, then I will oppose. I direct you to the following as examples: here I oppose on lack of experience coupled with questionable answers, here I changed my neutral stance to Support based on trust and the user's answers, here I opposed based on lack of experience coupled with a distorted idea of adminship which left a bitter taste in my mouth and here I changed from a Support based on diffs. I hope this helps illustrate my point. Cheers matey. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Switch to neutral per rspeer's links. I still can't put myself in the oppose category though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Was going to support, but the diffs presented by DarkFalls concern me. the wub "?!" 09:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rspeer and darkfall provide worrisome diffs, so I'm leaning towards oppose. But the edit summaries show a nuanced understanding of vandalism and unconstructive but good faith edits. Attempting to talk to a user called fickducker, rather than just reporting to UAA, is a good sign too. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral likely to switch to support I like you answer to my question and I've liked your contributions here. But I do have some concerns about some of the issues raised by the opposes. I need to take a closer look at your other contributions before supporting. (I can't see myself opposing, but don't know if I can support yet.)Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (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.
Thingg
Final (69/32/4); ended 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thingg (talk · contribs) - Over the last several months, I've been spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia. I've met many great users, and one of those who has really stood out above the rest has been Thingg. A prolific recent changes patroller, rather than simply reverting the vandalism, he follows through with appropriate warnings and AIV reporting if deemed necessary. Not only is he tireless in his efforts to combat vandalism, but he maintains an incredible level of composure in the face of the personal attacks that are often directed at him.
His contributions to the WikiProject Xbox, of which I'm a member, have been invaluable - and I'm sure the same can be said of his work in the other WikiProjects he holds membership in. Not only did he assist us in designing our project page, but he created many of the templates that we are using, as well as put his artistic skills to use in designing our logos (note we're in a transitional period right now). Also, he uses one of my userboxes ;>, and he's got a great sense of humour - which I think is an important quality no matter the position.
He's been a member since November 2007 and has already made over 10,000 contributions. Also, even though he's been registered for just 6 months, he seems to have already acquired a vast knowledge of wikitext, and has been able to solve every problem that I've ever put forth to him. Please note, I believe that Malinaccier wished to be included as co-nominator. For these foregoing reasons, I feel Thingg would make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. He is both a gentleman, and a scholar. xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination from Malinaccier–Thingg came to me yesterday asking whether he was ready for an RFA. I didn't respond "yes", I responded with the question "May I co-nominate?" I like Thingg's work on Wikipedia so much because he doesn't "specialize" in anti-vandalism only, article building only, or wiki-gnoming only—he does it all. In the five months that he's been here, he's helped get Playstation 3 up to Featured Article status, has made 316 edits to WP:AIV, and has had the time to be an active contributor in several Wikiprojects. In addition to these statistics, I've found that Thingg is a kind, attentive user who is always open to criticism. In response to a templated warning he once recieved for coming close to violating the three revert rule, he replied civilly and calmly here, and didn't blow up about "not templating the regulars." Incidents like these, coupled with his editing skills lead me to believe that Thingg is definitely ready for the extra burden of adminship. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. And thank you for your kind words. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Since I do quite a bit of vandalism reversion, I will block persistent vandals I come across and also help out at AIV, RFPP, and UAA. As Wikipedia has become more and more well-known (attracting larger numbers of vandals) and Huggle has come into relatively widespread use, AIV has often looked like this. I hope to help keep the number of extant reports to a minimum. Also, CSD seems to always have work to be done, and I plan to help keep the backlogs down over there. Once I gain experience with admin duties, I also plan to participate at AN, ANI, and RAA. Also, being able to move a page over a redirect will come in handy in situations like this where a page is incorrectly moved and is edited by someone else before it can be moved back.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My improvements to PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Portable are the probably the best contributions I have made to Wikipedia. Although the latter did not reach FA status, the article is still much improved over what it was. As Xenocidic mentioned, I helped with setting up Portal:Xbox 360 and designed some of the templates for WikiProject Xbox when it was just starting. I have made quite a few contributions to articles relating to the High definition optical disc format war and participated in the discussions on how to present information as events progressed through the format war's climax and aftermath. I also do a fair amount of vandalism reversion and I am happy to help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism.
- 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 largest conflict I have been involved in was how to present the studio support information on the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page after Warner Bros. announced in January they would be ceasing support for HD DVD as of June, 2008. The flash point was a pie chart that showed which studio supported which format and what their market share was. After much discussion, six or seven different image proposals, a few polls (that were contested afterward), and a not-so-welcomed "visit" by a group of students from Harvard University, an image was proposed that satisfied everyone. In my humble opinion, I kept my head throughout the battle and did not attack other users for their views. (full discussion is located on this page) Another very short conflict that I encountered on RC patrol was on how to word the lead sentence in the PlayStation Home article. The question mainly related to whether the service was called "PlayStation Home" or simply "Home." A rapid series of posts with links to various Sony websites revealed that both titles were used and a solution was rapidly proposed and implemented. (discussion located here)
- Neither of these conflicts caused me much stress because, at the end of the day, the exact wording of an article does not matter very much and I try to keep that in mind at all times. Also, if a discussion gets really heated, I usually try to just walk away from the conflict and find something else to do because edit wars and other conflicts are never productive and almost always turn out badly.
Additional questions
Question from DanBealeCocks
- 4 A new editor, user:wiwiwejd992728, has made 23 contributions to WP. 10 of those are vandalism, the rest are things like typo or spelling corrections. What do you do?
- A: If the user had four recent warnings for vandalism and had vandalized after the final warning was served, I would block him/her. Otherwise, I would take no action.
Question from Cyclonenim
- 5 How would you deal with an anonymous IP which has recently been released from a block yet continues to vandalise Wikipedia?
- A: If they had four recent warnings on their talk page, I would check their contribs to see if they vandalized a page after the final warning and to make sure they had indeed vandalized in all of the incidents mentioned in the warnings. If all of these criteria were met, I would block them. If they were not met, I would take no action.
Optional question from Guest9999
- 6 Are there any situations where you wouldn't block a user who had vandalised after four recent and correct vandalism warnings?
- A: If the user had an appropriate series of correct recent warnings (ie. they were all given for different obvious vandalisms and were not served "out-of-order" — such as level 1 warning for an article section removal and then a level 4 warning for changing the score in an article about a baseball game) and had definitely vandalized after the final one was served, I can't think of a situation where a block would not be appropriate. However, if a situation arises where it is not clear whether the user's actions warrant a block, I would consult other admins before taking action.
Optional question from Dominik92
- 7a A respectable admin account has started vandalizing relentlessly. Can you list the steps you would take?
- A: The steps I would take would depend on the type of vandalism they were doing. If they were simply adding offensive content/removing good content to pages (the kind of things "normal" vandals do) I would serve a warning for vandalism and additional warnings for further vandalizing if they did not stop. I would implement a block if they continued vandalizing after their final warning and then make other admins aware of the situation and help decide what further action to take. If they were doing other, more damaging vandalism such as deleting legitimate pages and blocking users who have done nothing wrong, I would serve them a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning and if they continued to vandalize, I would give them a block in accordance to this section of the blocking policy. I would then consult with other admins on what further action should be taken.
- 7b This same user unblocks himself and continues to vandalize through deleting pages and blocking users and protecting vandalized pages what do you do? (Assuming no other admins were consulted prior to your block of this account).
- A: (My apologies for not answering sooner, apparently I missed this question.) I would block him again and quickly notify other admins of the situation and contact a steward and/or a developer to remove the account's sysop status.
Question from Sandstein
- 8 A new user uploads three images: (a) a press photograph of a notable contemporary actor sourced to his website, downsampled to 300×300px and labeled as fair use with a generic rationale ("used to illustrate the subject"); (b) a self-made photograph from a scene of a theatrical performance of Hamlet, licensed by the uploader under the GFDL; (c) a self-made close-up photograph of an action figure of a character from a recent movie, licensed by the uploader under the Creative Commons Attribution license. Should these photographs be deleted or kept under our copyright policy, and why?
- A: As I have made mistakes with image licensing in the past, and still do not fully understand the laws, I would definitely ask an experienced user before taking any action regarding removing images. In situation "a", I would remove the image because it violates criteria 1 of the fair use policy because it is possible for a suitable free image of the actor to be produced and also violates the directive regarding the use of promotional photographs to simply "illustrate the subject".
- In situation "b", I would first notify the uploader that he cannot license a screenshot of a commercial production under the GFDL. If the image's use satisfied criteria 8 of the fair use policy in that it significantly improved readers' understanding of the article it was being used on and the user could provide the necessary information for fair use, I would direct them to (if necessary) resize the image to less than 0.1 megapixels and change the image's information to the correct fair-use rationale (which would vary depending on what the image was being used for). If they could not provide the necessary information and/or it did not satisfy criteria 8 of the policy, I would remove the image.
- In situation "c", I would first notify the user that you cannot license a picture of characters from a film under the CCAL and direct him/her to change the license to the correct one ({{Non-free character}}). If s/he could provide the necessary information for the rationale and the image's use would significantly improve readers' knowledge of the article's subject, I would follow the steps mentioned above. If s/he could not provide the information and/or the image did not significantly improve readers' knowledge of the article, I would remove it.
- Again, the above is what I would do if I had to do the whole process on my own. In reality, because I do not fully understand the image policy and copyright laws, I do not plan to perform any action regarding images until I have received advice from a user who is experienced in those matters.
- A: As I have made mistakes with image licensing in the past, and still do not fully understand the laws, I would definitely ask an experienced user before taking any action regarding removing images. In situation "a", I would remove the image because it violates criteria 1 of the fair use policy because it is possible for a suitable free image of the actor to be produced and also violates the directive regarding the use of promotional photographs to simply "illustrate the subject".
Optional question from Trusilver
- 9a An IP user has vandalized a dozen articles before he is finally noticed and his contributions rolled back. The person who notices the vandalism gives him an "only warning". During the next few minutes the IP user vandalizes three more articles before he is caught once again and referred to WP:AIV for a block. Supposing you were an admin monitoring WP:AIV, you have found that this individual has continued to vandalize since then and has now vandalized almost two dozen articles, what action would you take?
- A: I tend to shy away from using "only warnings" except in extreme cases like violent personal attacks, vandalism in Jimbo's userspace, and stuff like this; so it would depend on what "type" of vandalism was performed. If he had done "really bad" vandalism and/or I had reason to believe he had taken the time to read the warning (which could be inferred by a break and/or change in his editing immediately following when the warning was served) I would probably block him. If I had any misgivings about blocking him, I would serve him a level 4 warning ("this is your last warning" vs. "this is your only warning") to be sure that he had read the tag; and if he continued vandalizing after that, I would block him. However, if I was ever unsure about blocking someone, I would seek the advice of other admins before taking action. Although being an admin is not a big deal in that it does not convey superiority by receiving it, this does not mean that it is not a powerful position. Every time I read the bolded section at the end of the lead on this page, it just blows me away with how many people an admin's actions can affect. Because of this, if I ever had any misgivings or uncertainty about any admin related action, I would consult other admins before performing that action.
- 9b Would your action from the previous question change if the IP user had been given a level 2 and a level 3 warning but not given a final warning?
- A: Yes, it would be different. I would give them a level 4 warning and if they continued to vandalize after that, I would block them. Except in very extreme cases (such as a vandal-bot) I would never block someone unless they had received a final warning.
- 9c, You wouldn't block the editor who made these edits? I certainly did. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes, I would block the user because edits like that demonstrates that they are not going to listen to anything that is said to them. In cases that are less clear than that however, I would rather err on the side of caution.
- Actually, I blocked that account as a sockpuppet account, which is what the tag on the userpage says. Sockpuppets are exempt from the normal steps of warning, since they've seen them all before in other accounts. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes, I would block the user because edits like that demonstrates that they are not going to listen to anything that is said to them. In cases that are less clear than that however, I would rather err on the side of caution.
- Question from Irpen
- 10. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?
- A: I have often seen users come just short of a rule such as the 3RR multiple times without actually stepping over it. If they had a history of disruptive editing and/or incivility, even if they did not technically break a rule, I would be willing to impose a block if necessary. As for AE, Arbcom decisions are to be followed and I would enforce their decisions. Also, the 3RR is a rule, not an option (hence the name: three-revert-rule), and I would enforce it.
- 11. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on editors?
- A: If the user had a long history of revert warring and/or other disruptive acts, then yes, it would be appropriate to impose additional restrictions on the user. I would not invent a policy as new policies should always be discussed before they are implemented. It would really depend on the situation, but if I felt an extra restriction such as the one you mentioned would help prevent the user from doing disruptive editing, I would impose one.
- 12. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.
- A: I have never used IRC because, to be honest, I have no idea how to. As this is the case, I am not sure if I would use it or not if I learned how, but at the present, I have found email+talk pages to be adequate for communication regarding Wikipedia.
Optional question from DarkAudit
- 13. What should be done with editors found to be members of CAMERA, per this discussion?
- Comment - That discussion page has grown to 149KB since yesterday. That is a whole lot to digest and comment on, and it's clearly an issue that generates...er...strong opinions. Isn't that rather a loaded question to be asking of a potential admin? I mean, it seems to me it's sort of like asking a potential Supreme Court justice how s/he would rule on a specific case purely as a means of trapping them into making a political statement they are generally expected NOT to make until the case actually comes before them (if ever). Isaacsf (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should rephrase it to read "members of groups like CAMERA", i.e. groups who make it publicly known that they intend to stack the deck with editors and admins to push their agenda. No specific case was intend. My mistake. DarkAudit (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: If it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt (not all possible doubt) that the were indeed a member of such a group, they should be blocked indefinitely. A group such as this would undermine what is probably the most important rule on Wikipedia: always presenting information from a neutral point of view. If we cannot hold to this principle, than we have failed as an encyclopedia. Also, it violates the policy stating that Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is not a soapbox to promote your group's agenda. Large-scale, organized attempts to compromise Wikepedia's accuracy and neutrality cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with quickly and decisively.
- Perhaps I should rephrase it to read "members of groups like CAMERA", i.e. groups who make it publicly known that they intend to stack the deck with editors and admins to push their agenda. No specific case was intend. My mistake. DarkAudit (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That discussion page has grown to 149KB since yesterday. That is a whole lot to digest and comment on, and it's clearly an issue that generates...er...strong opinions. Isn't that rather a loaded question to be asking of a potential admin? I mean, it seems to me it's sort of like asking a potential Supreme Court justice how s/he would rule on a specific case purely as a means of trapping them into making a political statement they are generally expected NOT to make until the case actually comes before them (if ever). Isaacsf (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 14. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
- A: IAR basically means that if a rule prohibits doing what common sense would dictate for the situation, you may disregard the rule. In other words, be bold and do what you feel is the right thing to do. This does not mean that you may do anything you want, but that you may make discretionary decisions based on common sense. For example, if a user replaces the article on Jimmy Wales with "LARRY SANGER WAS RITE AL ALONG!!!11!!1!!!" after receiving one or two warnings, it would be appropriate to block that user without serving a final warning even though the rules dictate otherwise.
General comments
- See Thingg's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Thingg: Thingg (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Thingg before commenting.
- Doesnt take the time to determine if a link is truely relevent. He just deletes the important work of people trying to contribute without care.
Discussion
Support
- Support as the co-nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. xenocidic (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate. Will use the tools responsibly. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave Thingg rollback, and he's been great with that. I trust him with the tools. Acalamari 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Even while just from watching this RfA unfold as it happens, I see that the oppose added by 75.61.233.244 is in reference to this edit. Thingg responded appropriately, and also outlined politely why the link was inappropriate. Judging from this, and his previous contributions, I predict he will be a sound admin. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Will be a great asset as an admin. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seen him around a lot and I'm impressed by his work. Useight (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, even though yesterday some IP was attacking him (probably about vandal work) on articles. That's probably a good sign. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has done great work already and deserves the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dedicated WP editor, fellow vandal fighter, and sparkles with trustworthiness. κaτaʟavenoTC 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlways seen good work from Thingg in the vandal fighting department. I know the mop won't get abused.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Diffs brought up by opposes are troubling me. Striking my support while I ponder.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Good user, meets my requirements and per the noms...Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Support - Great editor, great vandal fighter and, most importantly, someone i trust. I'd go as far as to say, Thingg is one of my wiki-friends :-) TheProf - T / C 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Knee jerk support. Saw the name, know the history, no hesitation. Wondering when this one was coming. Easy support. Do your thingg, thingg! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Net positive to the project without a doubt. I'm sure there were some slip ups (a diff or two from the oppose section) and you know what? Who cares, we all make them. I also do not believe they should nullify the benefit this user will bring with the tools. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everything here would appear to be in order. SorryGuy Talk 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great AIV work. SpencerT♦C 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Response to the second oppose and question 4 show good character.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Count-on-left-hand Support The number of editors/bots who have beaten me to rving vandalism over a dozen times in one minute are few. In fact, I can count the number on my left hand. And I only have five fingers on my left hand. And one of those fingers would go to ClueBot. Another would go to Thingg. --SharkfaceT/C 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent user, would not abuse the tools, has the necessary experience to use the tools correctly. — scetoaux (T|C) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen this user around a lot, good participation on WP:ANI. ~AH1(TCU) 19:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An editor who would make very good use of the additional tools and responsibilities, and has shown good judgement many times over Howie ☎ 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - demonstrates consistent judgment. His participation at AIV is particularly good. Enjoy the tools. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportDan Beale-Cocks 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vandal fighter and has a very good track and no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per an earlier review. Taking note of the opposers concerns, I agree that CSD is a little light, but I believe that the candidates in process, in guideline and in policy contributions elsewhere demonstrate that Thingg will be accurate in this area as well. On balance a net postive to the project. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - just meets my standards. EJF (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - Had an encounter with this user earlier today, reverting some vandalism of his page. I watched his talk page for a while and subconsciously reviewed his responses in my head and quite frankly, I can't see anything wrong with him or his views. None of the below opposes have provided me with sufficient reason to change my mind in thinking that Thingg will continue to contribute excellently to Wikipedia and that his use of the tools will not be malicious in any sense of the word. Wow, an essay. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supportwith the caution that candidate use greater caution before deleting. Sometimes it's best to take the time to look for a way to improve an article. Simply reverting a tag removal without realizing an improvement had been made as well is an easy mistake to make. And while the hasty reversion was regretable, I'm afraid I don't see the biting. I would suggest checking the talk pages of new users and welcoming the unwelcomed. It can take the sting out of the warning and {{{welcomeg}}} gives them helpful links to policies. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Switched to not ready yetperDark. Dlohcierekim 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - not bad. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support: I can't tell you how many of this editor's AIV reports I've dispatched in the past couple of weeks. Stalwart vandal fighter and I firmly believe this editor is worthy of our trust. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Here goes my support for Thingg. I also liked the collections (Things that make me laugh) on your user page. --Bhadani (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --What does this button do? (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC) He has many great articles/edits[reply]
- Support Per nom. MBisanz talk 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like a fine editor to me. Keep up the good work. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have seen this user around rv vandalism and think he will do a great job with the tools, keep it up and good luck. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support althoughI hope that in the Q4 situation the candidate might try to steer that user away from vandalism and towards productive contributions. Switching to neutral; misc concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a good vandal fighter. DarkFalls' diff ([10]) is obviously clumsy, but everyone makes mistakes. the wub "?!" 16:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, vandal fighter and i think he will also be a good admin. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per inclusion on this list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I thought you were already an admin! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user and well thought out answers to all questions. Although, regarding my question, wouldn't you take the situation to WP:ANI? The DominatorTalkEdits 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - overall a net positive. Few issues to iron out but can be done on the job :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no real reason to oppose a good-faith contributor whom I can say I trust with the tools. Valtoras (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This took some thought, because those CSD-mistake diffs in the Oppose section were a bit troubling, but I trust that Thingg has learned from his mistakes. The revert error was trivial; I'm sure there isn't an editor on the site who hasn't done something along those lines. Thingg is very competent when it comes to identifying vandalism, and I trust that he use the tools in a thoughtful manner. 70.112.192.130 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support due to history of interaction with this user. Cool headed, would make an excellent admin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent addition to the vandal fighting arsenal of admins. Good luck! SWik78 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- I do some RC Patrol, and Thingg is constantly beating me to them. As 70.112.192.130 says, a couple edits mentioned in Oppose are slightly troubling. But what really convinces me is that he's perfectly willing in his answers above to admit that he doesn't know everything, and that there are some areas where he'd sit back and let a more experienced admin handle things. If admin is WP:NBD, I think Thingg has more than earned his or her mop. Vandalism consumes a lot of the community's time, so adding admins in that area is something I'd strongly support. I would definitely trust Thingg with the tools. Fogster (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good vandalfighter with a couple of slips with tagging, but I trust him to be careful and take things slowly in areas he's not experienced in. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think he is experience enough for the mop. jj137 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Ghirla's personal attack below. Dorftrottel (complain) 11:23, April 22, 2008
- Weak Support. This doesn't worry me all that much; strictly speaking, it could be argued Thingg was correct, since the article title was "Dubois Middle School History", and while obscure middle schools are (for some bizarre reason) on the edge of notability guidelines, a purported history of said obscure school could well be construed to fall under CSD A7. (Yes, I know, lawyer pedantry. Don't blame me, I'm a law student.) As to the Avenged Sevenfold diff, it isn't a major concern; forgetting to check the history is an easy mistake to make, especially if you're tagging lots of pages for speedy. I do have some concerns about his understanding of image policy, but if he avoids using his admin tools on images (as I have done, since I don't really understand image policy either), I am happy for him to become an admin. I wasn't going to bother voting, but it looks like this RfA will fall right on the borderline. WaltonOne 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count, and is presented by good editors for RfA? Suggests a good Wikipedian to me. We need more of that. Deli nk (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definite net positive. Areas where knowledge is lacking are made up for with good faith, Thingg is not going to abuse the tools. VanTucky 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Took a while to reach this decision, but I think the highlighted mistakes are not categorical in nature and would disappear quickly given some rudimentary use of the tools. I think Thingg would learn quite quickly the proper usage and go on to become a satisfactory administrator. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As I spend more time around here, I see Thingg more and more often doing a yeoman's job and beyond. Keep it up! :-) Isaacsf (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trustworthy user. Everybody makes mistakes here and there. Honestly, what do people want? -- P.B. Pilhet 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--BozMo talk 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per everyone else. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Consistent editor with more than 1000 edits per month dating way back, even more than that in the current month, which is yet to conclude. 173 edits to the Playstation 3 article shows persistence and willingness to improve an article over a longer time period. PeteShanosky 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When doing recent changes patrol you will run into Thingg's work a lot - as tireless vandal fighter he is everywhere. I'll agree that he doesn't have all the answers, and has sometimes made mistakes, but no one has all the answers and we all make mistakes. Sounds like a normal human being to me, as well as a good candidate for admin. Support per WP:NBD. Wikidenizen (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around, doing great edits. I think will make a good sysop. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A decent article writer and vandal fighter. I think it's time for to give Thingg the tools. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Naerii 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My metasense didn't go off, so I'm going to say support. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems like good work here —Alex•Muller 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose - I have seen this user around WP:AIV a whole bunch, and know that he has got the whole anti-vandal thing down, but now I would like to see a bit more participation in other areas that would require the tools, such as WP:ANI and especially WP:AFD. I also see little CSD tagging which makes me question this user knowledge of the deletion policy. My recommendation is to gain a little wider range of contributions and come back in a few months. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Mindless reverting. Don't bite the newbies. --- RockMFR 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a very weak reason to oppose (IMHO) TheProf - T / C 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally wouldn't respond to an oppose because I consider that bad form, but I just wanted to clarify that the only reason I reverted that edit was because it removed the speedy-deletion tag from the page. I can assure you, if the editor had not removed the tag from the page, I would not have considered reverting it. Respectfully yours, Thingg⊕⊗ 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you make the same revert again in future? Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but not the way I did it there (that was an error in judgment on my part). All speedy-deletion tags state that the tag is not to be removed by the article creator and give instructions on how to contest the speedy-deletion. I should have simply readded the tag (as opposed to reverting) and left an edit summary and/or talk page comment along the lines of "Please follow the directions on the tag". Thingg⊕⊗ 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another follow-up, if I may: in your opinion, was the version from which you reverted any longer A3able (I gather you submit that it was—I don't imagine that you'd re-add a speedy tag to an article that no longer met a speedy deletion criterion simply because the speedy tag was removed by the creator upon his/her expanding [albeit not all that significantly] an article—but I'm not quite sure that the revision at issue wasn't a valid stub, and I'm interested in your thinking here.)? Joe 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but not the way I did it there (that was an error in judgment on my part). All speedy-deletion tags state that the tag is not to be removed by the article creator and give instructions on how to contest the speedy-deletion. I should have simply readded the tag (as opposed to reverting) and left an edit summary and/or talk page comment along the lines of "Please follow the directions on the tag". Thingg⊕⊗ 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you make the same revert again in future? Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally wouldn't respond to an oppose because I consider that bad form, but I just wanted to clarify that the only reason I reverted that edit was because it removed the speedy-deletion tag from the page. I can assure you, if the editor had not removed the tag from the page, I would not have considered reverting it. Respectfully yours, Thingg⊕⊗ 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind here folks, that Thingg did not originally place the tag on the article. Someone else did. Thingg re placed the tag after the creator of the article removed it incorrectly. Don't hafta look at the article for that. Simply redoing what another editor in good faith did correctly. Whether the article is here or not is irrelevant as far as Thingg's abilities as an editor and potential admin. If anything, this isolated incident (because it's isolated) only solidifies my support. If anyone actually opposes based on one diff...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oppose was Mindless reverting. Don't bite the newbies. You haven't said anything to add or detract from that. It speaks for itself. Stop proselytizing. 86.44.27.56 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy tag on a page that doesn't or no longer meets a speedy criteria should not be replaced, even if the creator removed it. A warning is in order, though. Apparently it was isolate, but considering the inexperience of Thingg in the deletion area, it strengthens my oppose. CenariumTalk 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oppose was Mindless reverting. Don't bite the newbies. You haven't said anything to add or detract from that. It speaks for itself. Stop proselytizing. 86.44.27.56 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a very weak reason to oppose (IMHO) TheProf - T / C 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree with Tiptoety. In the deletion area, I've been able to find only these diffs through his contribs:[11], [12], [13], [14] and [15], So I really think that Thingg is very inexperienced there. If it were, say, in the fair use area, I wouldn't oppose for that, but the deletion area is too important to be omitted and is inevitable for an admin. This is particularly worrying when he says that he'd like to clear up C:CSD and backlogs in his answer to Q1. This said, I think that he's a very good vandal fighter and makes a great job with Huggle, but it's not enough to determine if he'll do well with the tools. Also, more participation in community discussions (e.g. XfD, ANI...) would bring me to support in a few months. CenariumTalk 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problems whatsoever in the diffs you provided. The first diff appears a valid tagging of the page (even though it is generally more acceptable to take schools to AFD); the second diff was three months ago, and he was fixing a problem; I don't see a problem with the third one except that the reason was "'", which is probably a typo; there is no problem whatsoever in the fourth, it is a valid reason to keep the page; and the opinion Thingg expressed was upheld by multiple editors in the discussion. Could you please explain the relevance of these to Thingg's experience? Malinaccier (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first diff is an error. It is explicitly stated that schools do not fall under the A7 criteria, and also there is WP:SCHOOL. Regardless, it's easy to learn from. Ready? Thingg, don't tag schools for speedy deletion anymore. People can easily learn. The rest of the diffs are absolutely fine, especially the last one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I've been unclear, the diffs are not problematic, it's just that it's the only contributions of Thingg in the deletion area. CenariumTalk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, happy editing =). Malinaccier (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I don't count the speedy tags on deleted articles, since I can't see them... I based myself on the notifications and on the comment of Tiptoety. CenariumTalk 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interiot shows 197 deleted edits, considering the amount of reverts of Thingg, a lot of them should be reverts of now deleted pages. It's possible that Thingg tagged pages for speedy among those without notification, but I don't think that the number is significant. CenariumTalk 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a quick look through Thingg's deleted contributions and I'm counting around 12 pages tagged for deletion (purely going on the edit summary), the vast majority are edits to deleted images, vandalism reverts and edits to now deleted user talk pages. Nick (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interiot shows 197 deleted edits, considering the amount of reverts of Thingg, a lot of them should be reverts of now deleted pages. It's possible that Thingg tagged pages for speedy among those without notification, but I don't think that the number is significant. CenariumTalk 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I don't count the speedy tags on deleted articles, since I can't see them... I based myself on the notifications and on the comment of Tiptoety. CenariumTalk 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, happy editing =). Malinaccier (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I've been unclear, the diffs are not problematic, it's just that it's the only contributions of Thingg in the deletion area. CenariumTalk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first diff is an error. It is explicitly stated that schools do not fall under the A7 criteria, and also there is WP:SCHOOL. Regardless, it's easy to learn from. Ready? Thingg, don't tag schools for speedy deletion anymore. People can easily learn. The rest of the diffs are absolutely fine, especially the last one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problems whatsoever in the diffs you provided. The first diff appears a valid tagging of the page (even though it is generally more acceptable to take schools to AFD); the second diff was three months ago, and he was fixing a problem; I don't see a problem with the third one except that the reason was "'", which is probably a typo; there is no problem whatsoever in the fourth, it is a valid reason to keep the page; and the opinion Thingg expressed was upheld by multiple editors in the discussion. Could you please explain the relevance of these to Thingg's experience? Malinaccier (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As of now, I am unconvinced of this user's ability to become a good administrator. This is shown through the awfully awry speedy deletion tagging and lack of understanding of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Doesn't bother checking a page's history before asking for deletion, "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Also this is exceptionally troubling. "The reason I did not actually take a picture of my own is because I feel it is pointless to take out a camera, take a photograph of my television with my PS3 turned on, edit and touch up the image, and then upload the picture (which by then will look almost identical to this one) to Wikimedia Commons." This is called a derivative work and will still be subject to the original copyright. The fair use rationale of this is very, very basic; and certainly not what I expect from an administrator. RockMFR also has some good points above. If the editor adds context and makes the speedy tag redundant, you don't blindly revert; even if the editor removes the speedy deletion tag. Rollback is to be used responsibly; that diff does not demonstrate a constructive use of them. —Dark talk 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) comment. Shame, I had come here thinking I would support. Maybe next time. Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; that Avenged Sevenfold diff is bothering me. If you had tools, then that would be a high-traffic article with a long history deleted. I admit, that one would be spotted/reverted quickly, but not all would. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as I agree the reverting is a worry. This user needs more experience. I see user joined in November 2007 and already has 11,000 edits! Checking wannabe_kate as I'm reading it now 6519 for April 08 so far. So number of edits not a problem for me. I just think this user could do with some more actual time on the project gaining experience, so not ready yet. Maybe I will support next time.--Sting au Buzz Me... 12:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to not ready yetper Dark's dif. The tagging of an article about a notability asserted subject as Vandalism seems overly hasty to me. One should check histories before tagging or deleting. It never hurts to Google the subject too, as there may be a notable subject lurking behind a badly mangled article. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per J Milburn. I don't think the tools would be abused, but perhaps misused George The Dragon (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Wanted to support, but the diff by Dark helped moved me away from it. I was actually the admin who came across the Avenge Sevenfold article when it was tagged for deletion. It only took 5 seconds to realize that the article should not have been deleted... could be an issue for sure. Jmlk17 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor understanding of image policy (bad rationale, licensing derivative works as free, uploading copyvios). And this too. east.718 at 01:01, April 21, 2008
- Per answers to questions 4, 5, 6. Adminstrator candidates need to show common sense–giving final warnings to suspected hacked admin accounts isn't the procedure we have, and thinking that commenting on another's RFA whilst undergoing one yourself is a violation of COI exposes some key components missing in this candidate. The Avenged Sevenfold diff is bothersome too. Sorry. Rudget 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page, and would have then lost his tools if he was up for recall. Also with the hacked account, warnings won't deter somebody who has already hacked an account, and a different direction needs to be persued in that situation. Grsz11 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page <-- As nominator I've been trying to refrain from comment, but I have to take issue with this statement as well as similar ones. I think the fact that Thingg doesn't have a lot of csd tags under his belt is actually A Good Thing™. It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs. I frankly don't see as how a handful of minor mistakes with csd tagging as a user inform this discussion. As an administrator, he would no doubt ensure that a deletion was warranted before actually performing it. Users can afford to make a mistake in tagging a page because administrators ultimately make this judgment call. xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Based on your logic, administrators can be careless and make mistakes because other administrators will correct them? It is an editor's duty to make sure they tag things correctly, and saying someone has a safety net misses the point entirely. Can you prove that Thingg will be more accurate in his deletions than his CSD tagging? In response to "It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs.", the diffs I listed above should be evidence to the contrary. —Dark talk 11:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't say that at all. I said that users can afford to make some minor mistakes because administrators are tasked with carefully weighing deletions. xenocidic (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent way of creating more pressure on an administrator's already-heavy workload. The speedy deletion tagging is to make administrative deletions easier not to make it harder. Clearly, either you are wrong with your reasoning or Thingg has the wrong idea on what an administrator's role is. Either way, how do you know that Thingg will not make these "minor mistakes" as an admin? —Dark talk 08:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't say that at all. I said that users can afford to make some minor mistakes because administrators are tasked with carefully weighing deletions. xenocidic (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Based on your logic, administrators can be careless and make mistakes because other administrators will correct them? It is an editor's duty to make sure they tag things correctly, and saying someone has a safety net misses the point entirely. Can you prove that Thingg will be more accurate in his deletions than his CSD tagging? In response to "It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs.", the diffs I listed above should be evidence to the contrary. —Dark talk 11:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page <-- As nominator I've been trying to refrain from comment, but I have to take issue with this statement as well as similar ones. I think the fact that Thingg doesn't have a lot of csd tags under his belt is actually A Good Thing™. It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs. I frankly don't see as how a handful of minor mistakes with csd tagging as a user inform this discussion. As an administrator, he would no doubt ensure that a deletion was warranted before actually performing it. Users can afford to make a mistake in tagging a page because administrators ultimately make this judgment call. xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose: I want to like, but I fear you might be a little too hair-triggered. A little caution never hurts.--Bedford 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose per recentness of the Avenged Sevenfold diff and general concerns raised by other voters. Will support in the future. Paradoxsociety (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count with low page average, and is presenting himself for RfA? Suggests career mandarinism to me. We need no more of that. Answers to later questions are also concerning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assumption about his person's motives might be accurate, but I'm afraid my assumption from the fact that you have made such a negative hypothesis on such slim evidence is more about your personality than his. However, I might very well be wrong, that's the problem with assumptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What assumption exactly would you be talking about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These [16], [17], [18], [19] should tell you something about Thingg's motives. J.delanoygabsadds 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the most ridiculous and overly cynical opposes I've read in a long time. A user makes an account and is immediately prolific. Geez. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope there's no hard feelings 'bout your own RfA btw. In case you hadn't realised, that wasn't the reason for my oppose. Please read (Dio also) again. ;) Shall bold career mandarinism for you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deacon, of course not, no hard feelings! However, I just can't help but feel it is cynical to point out someone's motives as entirely (insinuated) power hungry, or the desire for a position. Come on, I thought we assumed good faith around here? An article writer or not, the question is whether they'll abuse the tools... Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure what you mean when you say "career mandarinism". Thingg didn't "present" himself, I nominated him, completely of my own accord, because I thought he was doing a lot of good work and could do more benefit with the tools. xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's simply a case of I don't think wikipedia needs any more non-writing admins. Too many already. It's really not that complicated or unique an oppose reason I don't think, and is nothing personal against the candidate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope there's no hard feelings 'bout your own RfA btw. In case you hadn't realised, that wasn't the reason for my oppose. Please read (Dio also) again. ;) Shall bold career mandarinism for you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assumption about his person's motives might be accurate, but I'm afraid my assumption from the fact that you have made such a negative hypothesis on such slim evidence is more about your personality than his. However, I might very well be wrong, that's the problem with assumptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - I am not happy with the answers given to questions about how to deal with vandalism. The insistence on four warnings in response to Qs4. and 5. shows a lack of the necessary flexibility. The user appears to have a lack of understanding of Q.7 "A respectable admin account has started vandalizing relentlessly". This indicates that the account has become compromised and a compromised admin account puts the Project at serious risk. In such circumstances the account should be blocked immediately, to protect the Project, whilst enquiries are made. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only worse thing for Wikipedia (than deleting articles rather than correcting the problems) is deleting them even after the problems have been corrected. I see this happen too much on AFD as it is. RockMFR's diff which shows you (only a few days ago) re-inserting a "speedy delete" tag which was and is no longer applicable is not a good sign at all. — CharlotteWebb 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unsatisfactory answers to questions. Appears to have the wrong philosophy for an admin. Giano (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per answers to questions, abundance of supports from folks whose judgment cannot be trusted. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- not yet. I think you and the project will benefit if you wait a few months more. X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Has less than 5 months of experience, poor answers to added questions and per DarkFalls. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose strongly per answers to my questions. I have no problem per se with admins who apply sanctions discretionately. I think it is sometimes useful. I also freely admit that there are good admins among non- or little-writing editors. But non-writing admins who apply disretionary sanctions as they see is a dangerous game as those who don't write or write little often loose touch with what wikipedia is all about and apply tools on editors with a huge damage to the content writers and, hence, the project. --Irpen 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose vandalism warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. Answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 are completely unsatisfactory for me. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, per questions 9a and 14 - there's nothing special about Jimbo that makes vandalism on his userpage or article any different than another userpage or article (with the exception of BLP issues). Mr.Z-man 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that is true, but on the other hand, we often assign harsher penalties in society to those that commit crimes against certain classes of citizens, such as children, cops, judges, presidents, etc... on the theory that if someone will disregard status so flagrantly, they need to be treated more harshly as a deterrent against others doing the same. I think the Wikipedia equivalent might reasonably be vandalism on Jimbo's page. In addition, user did answer specifically to 9 (in part): "it would depend on what "type" of vandalism was performed", which certainly indicates a level of judgment being involved. Frank (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, per questions 9a and 14 - there's nothing special about Jimbo that makes vandalism on his userpage or article any different than another userpage or article (with the exception of BLP issues). Mr.Z-man 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the answers to several of the questions, 4 to 7 in particular, to be rather worrisome. OTOH, I'm not seeing the dubious tagging as quite such a big deal. I make mistakes, and I assume everyone else is roughly as dim as me, so it's only fair that you should get to make mistakes too. What concerns me more is the very mechanical look of what you're doing, which more or less matches the problems I see in the answers. Variety is the spice of wikilife. Or, to put it another way, if you spend all your time playing whack-a-mole and hanging round AIV, you'll tend to get a quite slanted view of Wikipedia and its editors. I'd suggest trying something different from time to time. XfD and PUI can always use more considered opinions. There are gazillions of articles to be written, expanded, categorised, illustrated, de-POVed, wikified, templatised, unorphaned, and so on. We have noticeboards for every taste - fiction, BLP, RS, Fringe, OR and who knows what else - and a help desk and village pumps. We have articles for creation, article RfCs, third opinions, and even mediation if that's your kind of thing. Why not spoil yourself a little? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Avenged Sevenfold issue mentioned above and per Sting au. Markovich292 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretfully oppose per Irpen's rationale and relative newness/lack of experience. Even for someone actively exploring all areas of Wikipedia's polcies and culture, 4 months is very early to be entrusted with the tools. Also, while RC patrolling and dealing with vandalism are important, the tools are not really necessary to do it (AIV is rarely if ever backlogged these days). My concern is that adminship is very much a big deal these days - recent ArbCom decisions have empowered admins with a remarkable degree of discretion - and in order to be trusted with that sort of discretion I'd like to see more evidence of article-writing and participation in the more difficult or controversial aspects of Wikipedia. I wrote "regretfully" because I think Thingg looks like an excellent editor and I can see supporting him in the future, but I think this is a bit premature. MastCell Talk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Seems to have too mechanistic a view of policies and procedures. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose needs more experience, per most of the above. The problems dont worry me about having the wrong attitude, just as needing more practice. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I hadn't chimed in on this RfA because it had a lot of !votes when I first saw it and it looked like it's fate was going one way. But now that it is a borderline case, I decided to take the time to investigate this candidate a little further. Based upon the opposes above and my general unease with this candidate, I have to side with the opposers.Balloonman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Carnildo. Ral315 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this time. Come back in a few months. Doczilla STOMP! 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I'll stick this in here for now, I did see the name and thought I would be able to support, but some of the behaviour from your co-nominator has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and indeed, a couple of valid points have been raised. The reverting diff above is a particular concern, as it removed content being added to an article, it wasn't a simple case of adding back the speedy deletion tag, now we've got some over-zealous tagging going on already, people who go around whacking CSD tags on anything and everything, resulting in some articles with a lot of potential being deleted, but when the revert actually removes content, that's really not fair. I'm also noting that the article is still around, it really looks like no thought has been placed into adding the tag back onto the page, it was a simple revert and run. That sort of works (though it's really unhelpful behaviour and I wouldn't encourage anybody to behave like that) but when you're an administrator, delete and running isn't an option, careful consideration and research is necessary to determine if an article like that should be deleted, I would expect an administrator to spend a few minutes looking to see if such an article is determined to be notable under our notability criteria, check on the internet to see that it's not a hoax article and so on. The revert and run behaviour I'm seeing doesn't exactly inspire confidence you'll do that. Secondly, I'm less that impressed by the answer to question 4, it's tempting to have see a user on AIV, take a stroll over to an alleged vandals talk page, see if they've got a full set of warnings and block them, but sadly, naughty little people edit warring have been known to warn each other for vandalism, users suffering connection problem have been warned for vandalism and so on, and I'm not seeing any indication that there would be any review of the edits involved, it seems very clear cut how they would enact a block on an account, it's not always as easy out there on-wiki, there's an awful lot of bad faith being assumed out there, assuming malice is the order of the day and people are branded vandals completely unnecessarily. Likewise, sometimes an inactive account will return to life a year after they last edited, and will begin vandalising, sometimes they aren't warned (I don't warn vandals, and I know a great many others don't either, I see collecting vandalism warnings as building some sort of trophy cabinet, but that's personal philosophy for another day) yet there's no question the account knows they're misbehaving and no amount of warnings will stop them. Perhaps that's something you'll get the hang of as you become more experienced, but it's just something to be aware of. I'm not sure where this will end up towards the end of the RfA, there will no doubt be plenty of more questions and I think I'll wait until they have been asked and answered before deciding on how to comment. Nick (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I find the boilerplate answers to questions 4 and 5 to be unimpressive and lacking in any critical thought. Real life doesn't always play out exactly how Wikipedia policy dictates that it should, there are gray areas that need to be addressed by admins that can think on their feet. At this time I do not have any confidence that this nominee is able to think for himself when difficult calls are needed. Trusilver 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I asked question 9 was not so much for the first part, but for the second part. I have always had little faith in WP:AIV admins that seem to have the belief of "ZOMG! nevermind that the vandal just hit 30 different articles and hasn't responded to any warning so far, we just CAN'T block him without a final warning!!11!eleven!" This place is one of the few places I invoke WP:IAR, I have a very hard time supporting a candidate who is going to be spending a lot of time monitoring vandalism who can't seem to make judgment calls for when vandals have to be blocked outside of the standard guidelines. This editor has way too many good things going for him for me to consider opposing, but with his answers to 4,5 and 9, I can't support this time. Trusilver 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many concerns have been raised for me to continue to support. I probably should have gone with my gut in the first place. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral — good vandal fighter for the most part, but makes some reversions such as [20] which a) could have been fixed with about two minutes of proof-editing the sentence and looking up a source to check whether the claim was true, and b) was not followed up with a message on the user's talk page. Prolific editors are not always the most diligent, although I believe that you could become both if you took a little more time and thought over your every action, rather than making some hasty decisions. haz (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that reflects current consensus (WP:PROVEIT) very well. The edit in question was fraught with grammatical errors and - more to the point - really didn't make sense. What does "after diluting US Justice resources for nearly a month" mean? Sounds pretty POV to me, and worth a revert. (I do agree a note on the user page would have been in order. The only other edit from that IP was 3 days prior and should also be reverted, IMHO.) Frank (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the burden of evidence protocol, but I feel that editors who merely discount others' edits without attempting to improve them go against the philosophy of an open-content encyclopaedia. At the very least, if the edit was reverted, then the user should have been warned for NPOV and/or adding unsourced material. However, it took no more than a minute to find a reliable source from a news wire and remove the point of view from the statement. Improving is always preferable to reverting, and I also feel that reversion without warning or notification is a bad practice. (I feel the same way about that previous edit, though, Frank, and have gone ahead and reverted it myself: I cannot find evidence to support any of the claims listed, including the spending of "federal tax monies".) haz (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that reflects current consensus (WP:PROVEIT) very well. The edit in question was fraught with grammatical errors and - more to the point - really didn't make sense. What does "after diluting US Justice resources for nearly a month" mean? Sounds pretty POV to me, and worth a revert. (I do agree a note on the user page would have been in order. The only other edit from that IP was 3 days prior and should also be reverted, IMHO.) Frank (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (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.
EclipseSSD
Final (21/32/12); ended 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
EclipseSSD (talk · contribs) - Active editor since June 2007 EclipseSSD (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the one known as EclipseSSD. I have been editing Wikipedia since early 2007, but I officially created my account on June 23. My main work here on Wikipedia, has involved media projects such as film, television and video games. I spend most of my time on Wikipedia watching over film and video game articles, to keep Wikipedia up to date with those, while maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. I do know, however, that I still have a lot to learn and contribute a bit more on Wikipedia, which is why I will understand if I am not successful in my first nomination, so I can improve over time, and hopefully be successful the second time round. I do not intend to abuse the administrative tools, because I believe in giving everybody a second chance, and I will only very reluctantly use the block tools because I do not wish to cause anybody any misery. I know I've made a few mistakes on Wikipedia, (such as the ban tools statement below here), and I would like to take this time to apologize to anybody who has been annoyed or frustrated with me or my mistakes, so I can learn from them. I would also personally thank anybody participating in this nomination, even those who oppose, so I know where my strengths and weaknesses are. Thank you all for this opportunity, and thanks for listening.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As an administrator, I will continue to work with the tools in my main areas of editing, the media (films, video games, etc.). However, I understand that being an admin is more than merely editing and blocking people. I see it as an important responsibility, a responsiblity, which is not to be abused and shadowed with bias, and also one which with I am willing to handle in order to bring Wikipedia up to a very high standard. Therefore, I will also contribute to other areas of work around Wikipedia, to prove to myself that I do not show any bias towards a user, or edit only one area of this site. I believe with the admin tools, it will be a chance for me to block and ban any people, if necessary, although I see those as a last resort, because many people are willing to contribute greatly to the project, and I will only reluctantly ban or block as relevant. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to prove myself worthy as an administrator, and help shape Wikipedia into a great encyclopedia.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I believe my best contributions to the project are my work in films, due to my high interest in the media (particularly films and video games), and that I would like Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, while maintaining the sense of an online encyclopedia. I realise that Wikipedia is not a film encyclopedia, which is why I always try to remove the irrelevant content in articles, and instead replace it with an overview of the articles in question. I have also tried to generally improve article quality of any subject, because I believe in quality, not quantity that counts. However, if good quality matched with good quantity, that would be even better.
- 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 have been in a conflict involving a film poster's credibility, upon which a user did cause me some stress. However, after thoroughly discussing the issues with the users involved, I understood that I was at fault, and issued an apology to the users. No further harm was done, and I now realise that I cannot afford to put personal issues into Wikipedia, because it wouldn't be fair on anybody. In future, I will be extra vigilent before I add anything to an article, so as to avoid any conflicts if possible. Conflicts disrupt Wikipedia, and do not do anything better for the project, other than causing distress to good Wiki users, and a certain amount of disruption. Therefore, I will strive to avoid any conflicts in the future, so as not to disrupt good editing for the project.
Questions from User:RyRy5
4. An editor, User:96.999.989.1 has created 1 attack page, and vandalised about 8 other pages. Since then they've made 10 contributions - all good faith. Their talk page is empty. What do you do?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A:Well, the first thing I would do would be to try and contact them on their talk page again, e.g. giving them a warning and discuss the issue. Also, I would encourage them to setup their own account if they feel they want to make good contributes to Wikipedia. If, however, they continually vandalising pages, I would think about blocking them for a period of around 24 hours. If, after that time, they've decided to continue, I would block them for a couple of weeks, before I'd consider a permanent ban.
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A:A ban is an action taken to stop users from editing Wikipedia for an indefinite amount of time. A block is an action taken to stop them temporarily from editing Wikipedia, in the hope that they might stop vandalising any articles and or talk pages.
Questions from Thehelpfulone
6. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
- A:I think that admin recall is a good thing to have, so as to find out if users still have faith in his/her work. Yes, I would add myself to the category of Admin Recall, so as to truly prove myself worthy of Adminship. If other uses agree that I have not been doing my duty, I will gladly step down
7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
- A: If I feel that a user has worked really hard to contribute and counter vandalism, I would then gladly give them rollbacks rights, if they so desire. If the user appears to be abusing the rollback granted, I would firstly discuss the issue with them, and if they continue to abuse it, they would then have their rollback removed.
8. When should "cool down blocks" be used and why?
- A: I believe cool down blocks should never be used, because it seems to be that kind of thing is more of a personal issue, and personal issues should not be brought onto Wikipedia. Even though the intention might be well-meaning, the situation might become worse, thus inflaming it.
9. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
- A:I have a neutral opinion on the subject. While I do agree that if a minor rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then it's okay to ignore that one, if it does not cause a lot of disrubtion. However, just because you ignore the rule does not mean you have to ignore every other, and vandalise the project. I belive it's a user's own opinion on whether or not they choose to take WP:IAR into consideration.
Optional Questions from Dominik92
10 A normally good editor makes one edit that deletes much sourced content from a page, what do you do?
- A: Well, I would first give the editor a change to redeem his/herself if they have done it on accident or only once. If however, they continue along that road, I would contact the editor in question to try and put a stop to the offensive edits. If they still continue, I would give them a temporary block in order to make them understand what they did was wrong.
11 Another admin has blocked good faith user "user:Examplee" (an obvious typo from vandal "user:Example") what do you do?
- A:Well, there would have to be a good reason for that, first of all. I would politely ask the admin in question what, if any, was the reason for blocked the good faith user. If it is a respectable reason, I would say no more on the subject. If, however, the reason semms unjustified, I would try and discuss it with the admin, and possibly persuade him/her to change their mind.
Optional question from DarkAudit
- 12. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
- A:Well, the editors should be questioned as to what exactly they are planning to do. They should understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not their own personal website. They can do good faith edits and with references, as they please, however they should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where edits should be Neutral , not a place to vandalise pages. I understand that they may have good intentions, and make good faith edits, but at the end of the day, if they only add their own opinion to the articles, then those edits should be reverted, and the users blocked from editing WP.
General comments
- See EclipseSSD's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for EclipseSSD: EclipseSSD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- I note that EclipseSSD has not accepted nomination, which I understand is a requirement for the request to be processed. I also note the lack of a statement by the candidate; while this does not appear to be a requirement it is standard practice and I do not know if the candidate is aware of this lack. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer that, you are not allowed to accept your own nomination, as per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#To nominate yourself. Also I will address the statement issue.--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful page - I never saw it in my self nom! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/EclipseSSD before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Good editor. Competent, potential administrator. Rudget 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm going to go out and say that Eclipse will do fine with the tools. While s/he hasn't had much experience in the projectspace, I believe that a quick look at WP:BLOCK, WP:PROT, and WP:DELETE will be all that Eclipse needs. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good guy. -- Naerii 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. More project-space edits would be beneficial, but definitely would make a competent administrator. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per overwhelming number of project-space edits, and fantastic nomination statement. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am bending the rules on my own requirements here but I think this user is worth it. The answers provide the wikipedian maturity that usually has to be provided by cruder means. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, appears to be mature enough, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support Dan Beale-Cocks 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User assumes good faith and has a brain. Thus, I trust him. The nomination was tl;dr and the answers to questions indicated power hunger, but I will still support because I don't think he'll screw up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Self-nom, and nearly enough Wikispace work. EJF (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has good intentions. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to no negative interactions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to great and thorough answers to questions. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nothing alarms me in sifting through the contributions, and I like the statement and the answers to the questions. Last time I checked, Admins lack actual superhuman powers, so claims of power hunger amongst the opposition do not concern me. That said, I will now attempt to use my X-Ray vision on some lottery scratch tickets to see if these admin powers are as diabolical as claimed. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust him. hmwithτ 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support, partly to counterbalance the "Oppose, self-nom" votes below. (Don't tell me the Weber philosophy is actually catching on...) I do have some concerns, in that q1 and q5 demonstrate a slight misunderstanding of the admin tools, and the candidate doesn't have quite enough projectspace experience. Regardless, he is clearly a trustworthy and well-intentioned user who might well make a good admin one day, and I encourage him to apply again in a few months after gaining more experience. WaltonOne 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Walton One's rationale: I'm actually disappointed with some of the reasons provided for opposing this candidate. Acalamari 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support I feel that you will eventually make a good admin, but this RFA doesn't have a chance. So far you have shown that you make good judgements and can think, which means your halfway there. I suggest that you have a Editor Review to see where you are. Also, I'm glad to see your working in a variety of places. If you need anything, let me know. Good luck EclipseSSD. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Plain and simple: He's trustorthy. -- P.B. Pilhet 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a reliable editor with no issues. See no reason, per WP:NBD, why they should be denied admin status. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose not because I distrust EclipseSSD, but I feel that he needs more experience around Wikipedia, especially in the project space. 55 edits is underwhelming. I like his answers, but I think he could be more involved with other editors and in more varied places on the project space. That way, he can achieve a better understanding of what it means to engage in dialog and use the tools accordingly. I would encourage his continued involvement, as I foresee that he will be a better candidate down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Simply more experience needed. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose but with strong moral support: I'm not being ageist, but more project space edits is fundamental, not least because you're only 14. Come back in a few months with experience under your belt and I look forward to supporting your RfA at a later date. WilliamH (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have been better not to mention age there at all, just experience. I'm only 15, so he's just a year younger than me.--Jaeger123 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I realise I wasn't very clear with my comment. The sentiment I'm getting at is that while experience is obviously necessary regardless, it is very likely that people may use his age as a basis to comment on his administrative actions. Since the candidate has made his age public, I find it important that his experience implicitly demonstrates that ageist criticism of him in an administrative role from passing users is unfounded. I certainly believe it is, and since it seems his heart is in the right place, I'd like to think I will be able to support the candidate at a later date once he's got said experience under his belt and I hope that he has found this RfA helpful dialogue by which to obtain this. WilliamH (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have been better not to mention age there at all, just experience. I'm only 15, so he's just a year younger than me.--Jaeger123 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry bud, gonna have to rely on the age old lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Also, the answers to the questions were just a tad too vague for my taste. I was a little confused reading about how you'd like to use the tools in areas you currently work in, which, frankly is the mainspace. I understand you were probably referring to disputes and vandalism, but administrators shouldn't concentrate their efforts on articles they contribute to, at least not exclusively. And, it gives you a chance to block and ban people? Strange thing to say. I know you tempered it with "last resort", but the tools shouldn't be desired to give you the chance to start blocking and banning users. Come back in 10-12 weeks after some moderate to high level activity at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP. WP:HD, WP:ANI etc..etc.. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per everyone above. Also because of the low number of edits in general (not just the low project edits). And it's a self-nom. And another thing to mention, out of your last 500 edits only two weren't marked Minor.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I happen to be disagreeing with my admin coach here, interestingly. EclipseSSD is a user is in good standing, but fails to have enough experience to fit my criteria. Hardly any experience in the admin related areas of interest. The user doesn't, therefore, have experience to know when blocks are used, which means learning by doing, as well as taking a look at WP:BLOCK. The answer to question five is also incorrect, per WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. And finally, the answer to question one also gives me the impression that he believes that administrators also ban users. The only time a single administrator bans a user is when that administrator happens to be Jimbo Wales. Sorry, but a bit more work in these areas and you would be a good candidate for adminship. — scetoaux (T|C) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you all for your honest opinion. I know I've got some work to do and I'll take your comments into consideration, and I'll hopefully have improved.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo is nothing special. If he's allowed to do something, then everyone else should be too. If no one else is allowed to do something, then he shouldn't be either. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Jimbo is the only single person that can ban other users (which he rarely does anyway). In any other case it requires the group decision of either the Arbitration Committee or the community itself. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you fail to grasp the meaning of the word "should." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo's authority is not legitimate, nor is ArbCom's (as it was created by a person without legitimate authority in the first place). Monobi (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the best place for you guys to give your personal opinions on Jimbo?--KojiDude (Contributions) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Jimbo is the only single person that can ban other users (which he rarely does anyway). In any other case it requires the group decision of either the Arbitration Committee or the community itself. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, just can't support at this time. The answers to the questions leave me a little ill at ease. Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with moral support - You're intentions are clearly valid and morally justified, you simply need a little bit more experience (especially in project space). I've not a problem with your age either, i'm only 16, young editors can still make correct decisions and excellent edits. Kind regards with best of luck too! CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per User:Wisdom89 but reluctantly as I don't want to stifle enthusiasm. The age issue is irrelevant to me, but I believe you need a little wider and deeper experience than you currently have. I think everyone here wants you to succeed but don't feel you're quite experienced enough yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, but just not enough experience yet. Great intentions, but the answers to the questions show a need to gain more familiarity with WP policies and what exactly it is that admins do. Keep editing, and participate in policy discussions for a while. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 2500 edits and hardly none in the namespace - maybe when you get some more experience. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too few edits and not enough information on the what and why you need admin tools? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose Self-nom, and not nearly enough Wikispace work. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs more experience and not even an intro to tell us why relying on qs the community asks except to say an active contributor since July? You will learn. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. Low amount of project-space edits, and your nom is supposed to tell me why I should support you. Xenon54 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kurt Weber and because the answers to questions (see comments above; for me 1, 5 and 6 were quite worrying). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I do not care about the age - we have had, and have, younger admins - but the lack of experience in admin-related areas is important, and the answers to questions 1 and 5 are worrying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because I'm uncomfortable with someone who declares "with the admin tools, it will be a chance for me to block and ban any people". Almost certainly a poorly phrased statement rather than a statement of a desire to block people, so it's more the lack of judgement that led to the statement rather than any thought that the candidate has a perverse wish to go around blocking people for the fun of it. SilkTork *YES! 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm Sorry, But I don't trust you and I don't think I ever will. You're argumentative and i think you will do wikipedia nothing but harm. You simply are not good enough to be an admin and i hope you never will be! SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) — SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Oppose: Far too few edits, especially to areas outside of articles; and per SilkTork. seicer | talk | contribs 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the Kurt Webber principle because, after all, we have enough power hungry admins without nominating any more.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please explain your reasoning on this? How has this user showed power hunger? Dusticomplain/compliment 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong OpposeYou just seem a little to anxious to get power. King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please explain your reasoning on this? How has this user showed power hunger? Dusticomplain/compliment 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per age, lack of experience. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs more experience and expert knowledge of policies. Bstone (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Talks the talk without forcing an instant headache but not up to scratch: way too young, too inexperienced, too self-loving, too fond of power, too overall problematic. Soz. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Paradoxsociety and others. Markovich292 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm sorry, you really seem to have the makings of a great admin, but wait a bit and get some more experience, the answers to q1 and q5 are worrying. Age however is no consideration. Harland1 (t/c) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Your answer to question 1 sounds vague and long-winded and like you really don't know why you want to be an admin, except for wanting to join the club. You say that you plan to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, yet you don't say which parts specifically. You say that you are planning to prove yourself once you become an admin, yet you don't say why you need the admin tools for that. What worries me most though, is that you say you plan to block users, however this record shows that you have almost zero experience in doing so. You haven't reported any users to WP:AIV or WP:RAA as far as I can see. I know from my own experience in reporting users that it is easy to get it wrong in the beginning, and that some of my reports were erroneous even if well-intentioned. I have reported dozens of users to AIV, and I would not trust myself to be an admin yet. Blocking a user isn't always a simple decision (even if it is most of the time). It requires a lot of experience in this area and detailed knowledge of wikipedia policies. Get involved a little bit more in the WP namespace, come back in a few months and I will support you. Cambrasa confab 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Mostly because of few Wiki-space edits. With some more edits in that area, I would probably support in a few months. Spinach Dip 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Editor has more to learn before administrating others. Doczilla STOMP! 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral A little more project-space involvement is needed. Epbr123 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Fabulous contributions so far, good editor in general (age is irrelevant to me). I agree with Epbr that I'd like to see more project space work from you before I'd support giving you the delete/block/protect buttons. Would you abuse them? Absolutely not. Would you misuse them? Hard to say, I don't have much to look at as far as the traditional editcounting, project work, AIV reporting, CSD/AFD nominating. Not a strong enough reason to oppose a good candidate otherwise though. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your opinions. I'll take those into consideration.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral To avoid piling on - A good user to be sure, but just needs more experience. His age doesn't even factor in, but I like to see around 5000 edits, and if an editor has less than that I want to see some extraordinary contributions. I could support in the future, but you just need a few more edits under your belt. faithless (speak) 05:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Will not knowingly abuse the buttons, but needs more experience to be trusted with them. Seemingly knows aspects of policy pretty well, mind! ;~) Should be a prime candidate in a few months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - not quite there with experience, but maybe in a few months? Bearian (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Needs a tad more experiance, though not necessarilly in the Wikipedia namespace. Try to get involved in somee major work. Editorofthewiki 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Not enough experience to support, nothing too bad to oppose.--Bedford 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Per Experience - and some of the other user's reasons. --The Helpful One (Review) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: While I would like to see some more experience, I also would like to see this user become an admin; I've seen few RFAs where the questions were answered so thoroughly without any fluff. I can't oppose or support; I'm a bit on the fence in this one. If he comes back next time with around 4500 - 5000 edits, this will definitely be a support. FusionMix 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I believe that taking the constructive criticism here to heart, and demonstrating it by actions around the project, will be very helpful in passing your next RfA. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral with Moral support. I'd really like to see you as an admin one day, if only because I believe you'd bring the number of admins in Hampshire to 3!!. I think you're on the right track, but not there yet. Please don't take this RFA too hard and continue your dedication. If you need any help please ask! Pedro : Chat 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I think that more experience is required before I support, however, I do think that you are an excellent editor. I hope that yuo take this on board, and work hard to alleviate the criticisms that have been levelled against you. Good luck. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:02, 25 April 2008 (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.
Bigtimepeace
Final (89/0/2); Originally scheduled to end 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs) - Bigtimepeace has had an account since June 2006 and has been editing reasonably frequently since March 2007. For those statistics-junkies out there he has made just under 5000 edits to Wikipedia, with a couple of thousand of those being to articles (more stats on the talkpage as usual). He is a competent content writer who has contributed new articles to Wikipedia and has been credited at Did You Know on several occasions.
Bigtimepeace reverts vandalism and follows up appropriately with warnings. His reports to AIV all seem to have been in order. He makes sensible contributions to deletion discussions, showing a good knowledge of the relevant policies. Likewise, his deleted contributions suggest a decent grasp of the speedy deletion criteria. Aside from an apparent need to use his username to boast about the size of his clock, he seems pretty reasonable in his dealings with other users. He has even participated in discussions around Arbitration cases whilst maintaining a cool that is uncharacteristic in that area of Wikipedia.
In brief, a good contributor who is willing to help out with administrative tasks and who will make decent use of the tools. WjBscribe 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, with thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I've been a regular participant in AfD's and find that to be one of the more interesting and important areas in project space, so I would expect to spend time closing out AfD discussions with which I am not involved. I've nominated a number of articles for deletion and believe all of them were ultimately deleted, so I think I have good judgment when it comes to our core policies as they relate to deletion. I also will definitely help out at CSD since we can always use help there. As WJBscribe notes I've done a lot of work reverting vandalism and would expect to continue with that, obviously blocking persistent vandals I come across after their final warning but also helping out at AIV. I'm also willing to step in and help with page protections and page moves. I don't anticipate myself getting that involved with image work (at least at first) since I'm on less firm ground with respect to our image policies. In general I'm fairly open to helping where I'm needed.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Ultimately I hope we are all here to put some work into writing the encyclopedia, and I think I have made some fairly good contributions in that regard (though not as much as I would like). PHASE 2 and Thomas Latimer were articles I wrote which were up on DYK and which I think are decent (if not of burning importance, but the PHASE 2 thing is cool). One of the things I've always liked about the AfD process is that it can improve articles, and I was glad to improve The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie (which I'd not heard of before) enough via detailed sourcing to help it survive AfD (though that thing still needs some real work...someday). In general I think I do good work sourcing articles with material not freely available online (as a grad student I have access to a lot of good stuff that doesn't come up on Google). More recently, I have written much of the content at A More Perfect Union, which I think is coming along nicely. Finally, aside from article writing and counter-vandalism work, I think I generally keep a cool head in difficult situations and have often helped to move discussions forward by engaging with all parties involved in a civil manner.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes, I've certainly been involved with conflicts. I always find it interesting in RfA's when editors seek to give the appearance, while answering this third question, that they almost never get in conflicts. I think it's important to be honest and admit that conflict is inevitable for any long-time editor on Wikipedia (even more so if one is an admin), and the real question is not whether you run into conflict but rather how you handle it. I think conflict should be approached as something which could ultimately lead to improvement of the encyclopedia, but the only way to do that is to talk, talk, talk with whomever it is you have disagreement. Many conflicts are rooted in misunderstandings, and it might take a bit of discussion to figure out where the real disagreement is.
- I've been involved with some extremely contentious articles, most notably the rightfully notorious Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I think I was one of a handful of editors who was able to work with some editors on both sides of that wildly contentious article (particularly last summer). A couple of months ago I got a bit frustrated with the article and took it off my watchlist, which points to the importance of walking away from conflicts when they become too much to deal with. Another example of editing conflict had to do with the article Mao: The Unknown Story. Here I was working with two editors who were opposed to one another in an ArbCom case to add new and improved content, which was obviously difficult. After much discussion, some of it heated, we came to an agreement and both users were happy with the changes we made (which were significant). It was very satisfying to be able to make good content improvements to an article with two users who were at the same time fighting in an ArbCom, and I think it speaks to at least some ability on my part to manage conflict effectively. I could give other examples and am happy to field questions about specific conflicts I've been involved with if folks who comment here would find that helpful.
- My general strategy in conflict situations (in the past and for the future) is to try to understand where the other editor(s) is/are coming from and meet them somewhere between their position and mine. It's extremely important to maintain civil discourse in these situations and to comment on the content and the arguments being made rather than the contributor. I think I keep in line with these principles the vast majority of the time, and as an admin would hope to model good conflict resolution behavior (otherwise, why would I brag about the "size of my clock" in my username?).
Optional questions from John Smith's (talk)
- 4. You say that you will help block vandals and look out at CSD - which is great. Which other admin-related pages/activities will you monitor and be involved with? Are there any which you will want to avoid? Please explain why.
- Comment: The candidate has already answered question 1. Please do not ask duplicate questions. Consider the crazy number of questions you are asking in total, and whether the burden you are imposing is absolutely critical to whether you trust the candidate or not. Splash - tk 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a duplicate question. I'd like to know whether those are the only duties he wants to focus on. And I'd say it's hardly a crazy number of questions. I know the editor reasonably well already, but I'd like to know more. But I've removed two as they're not that important. John Smith's (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind answering for clarification purposes. As I said above I do expect to help close out AfD's and with page protections and page moves. I'm sure there are other ways in which I will lend a hand with admin tools but those seem reasonable for a start. I don't plan to jump into image work right away as I noted because I don't feel fully familiar with those complex policies (which is not to say that that won't change later). I also don't imagine I'll spend much time at WP:SSP to begin with as sock puppet reports can be quite complex and I don't feel I have enough experience evaluating them as yet. Also, don't expect me to do a large range block of IP's anytime soon. These are all areas I need more experience with, and if I'm granted adminship I intend to proceed cautiously when it comes to admin-related issues with which I don't have significant familiarity.
- Comment: The candidate has already answered question 1. Please do not ask duplicate questions. Consider the crazy number of questions you are asking in total, and whether the burden you are imposing is absolutely critical to whether you trust the candidate or not. Splash - tk 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. How would you deal with edit-warring (if you did at all)? Do you believe in allowing a violator of the 3RR to self-revert to avoid a block - if so, after a report has been filed or only after a warning has been issued? Furthermore, can reverting three times within 24 hours be grounds for a block? If so, in what scenario.
- I think edit warring/3RR issues are best dealt with on a case by case basis since there is often some ambiguity when it comes to reversions (incidentally, dealing with 3RR violations is another aspect of adminship I'd expect to work on a bit, though not as much as what I mentioned above). I personally tend to hold myself to a maximum 2RR standard (I find the second revert can sometimes be useful for coaxing another editor to the talk page, but there's really never a reason to revert a third time other than dealing with vandalism, BLP violations, or personal attacks), and per policy I view 3RR as a bright line rather than an entitlement. If an editor is consistently stepping up to, but not crossing, the 3RR line than a block for edit warring might well be warranted. As a general rule, though there may be exceptions, if an editor self-reverts to avoid crossing 3RR that would suggest it is not worthwhile to block them. The purpose of a 3RR block, as with any block, is to prevent further disruption, not to be punitive. If an editor reverts her or himself it suggests that they realize they have erred by edit warring and will leave off that activity for the time being (though again, there may be exceptions). Regardless of whether or not I issued a block in a 3RR situation, I would certainly make a point of asking the editor or editors involved to discuss their disagreement on the article talk page rather than edit warring, and would probably watchlist the page myself to see if they are able to make some progress.
Optional questions from Rudget
- 6. What responsibilty do administrators have when clearing backlogs? Do you feel that they should be incensed to save or delete content, or should that be put down to personal preference?
- I'm somewhat confused by this question (it's the word "incensed" that seems out of place) but will try to answer as best I can (if I'm misinterpreting it you can clarify and I'll answer again). If an admin is clearing a backlog of items which are somehow up for deletion, obviously they should first and foremost be following appropriate policy (is article x really a WP:CSD#A7 candidate?, what seems to be the consensus - or lack thereof - on a given AfD and to what extent are both sides articulating their arguments based on policy?, etc.). Obviously when it comes to inclusionism vs. deletionism (and everything in between) we all have our own beliefs and biases (I personally tend to be strongly inclusionist in some respects and very much a deletionist in others, which I think is common). When clearing backlogs of material put up for deletion, I think administrators should be very attentive to their own beliefs on certain issues and work hard to keep those in check, instead rooting their decisions firmly in our policies. I hope that answers the question.
Question from User:DanBealeCocks
- 7. An editor, User:lahjh77327bd, has created 1 attack page, and vandalised about 8 pages. Since then they've made 10 contributions - all good faith. Their talk page is empty. What do you do?
- First off, I would say that that particular scenario is rather rare, at least from my experience. It's fairly uncommon for a contributor to create an attack page, vandalize some pages, and then start making good contributions; however it's even more unlikely that such a user would not have been warned at some point prior to that. If I did come across such a situation though, I would almost certainly write a personalized message to the editor in question. I would first thank them for the recent good contributions, and then point out our strong policy against attack pages and against vandalism of pages (note: if the attack page and vandalism were particularly vile, and if the "good edits" came immediately on the heels of that seemingly as a sort of cover, it is quite possible that a block would be in order to avoid further disruption). I would ask them to continue contributing in a positive manner and point out that I'm available to answer any questions they might have (as we always do when welcoming a new user). So long as there was no ongoing disruption a block would not be appropriate (bar the scenario I just mentioned), however I would probably watchlist the user's talk page to check for any future issues given that this is a somewhat unique situation. New users often start off badly, and it's important not to bite new contributors, particularly when there is evidence that they have an intention to contribute positively after an unfortunate beginning. (Additional comment: I was thinking more in terms of responding to the user in question and thus neglected to mention the obvious: if the attack page was still up I would of course delete it immediately and would likewise revert any vandalism that had not already been dealt with).
Optional question from DarkAudit
- 8. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
- A: Thanks for bringing this up, I actually had not noticed this brouhaha until you posted your question. I read through most all of the relevant discussion as I think this is a particularly important issue for Wikipedia in the years ahead. Though I'm hardly surprised, I was quite upset to read about such an organized effort to undermine the core goal of our project—i.e. an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view (and I'm quite certain there are any number of similar efforts, this is just one of the few we'll be privy to). Regardless of whether they come from groups that are pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-Pokemon, or pro-Basketball, organized efforts to recruit single purpose accounts to Wikipedia are obviously inimical to what we are trying to do here. Topic bans and even blocks or community bans for editors associated with such efforts are completely appropriate. With respect to that particular case, I certainly endorse the one-year block of User:Zeq based upon the current evidence. At the same time I think it is critical to assume good faith with respect to other editors—simply because an editor may articulate views that sound like those of an organized, off-Wiki campaign does not mean that such an editor deserves a block, or should even be looked askance at. These issues (particularly when they involve questions of nationalism as this particular example does) are among the more problematic for Wikipedia going forward. Quite frankly I think there are no easy solutions (after all, are there any in the real world?) and thus the best we can do is bring as many thoughtful editors as possible to bear on these questions.
Optional question from Jeandré du Toit
- 9. As an admin, how would you respond to admin Viridae's April 1 edits? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-24t20:57z
- A: A little bit of joking around on April Fools Day is fine and even a good thing - I participated in a jokey RFA that day - but Viridae went way overboard there. After being reverted and warned a couple of times he continued, and the "joke" edits he made were affecting an enormous number of pages. The last change mentioned by the blocking admin, David Levy, was particularly inappropriate. The first thing to do in a situation like that is to revert and warn the user to stop. Since the behavior was continued and even escalated I think a 12 hour block to prevent further disruption was completely appropriate. I would not at all be the kind of admin that is quick to block other users, but I think a block was called for in that situation. I'm not familiar with the full situation beyond the comments on Riana's talk page, but that's my take on it based on the information available there.
General comments
- See Bigtimepeace's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Bigtimepeace: Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace before commenting.
Discussion
- Same plea here as the one I have been making on other RfAs - lets make a real effort to stop the asking of questions for the sake of it. We don't need to know whether an admin would revert vandalism to the Spears or Jackson article first. It doesn't matter - both should be reverted and you don't need to be an admin to do this anyway. There is an increasingly held view that candidates are feeling overloaded with questions and that this is putting people off applying, which is a problem. A steady flow of new admins is important to a project that continues to increase in size - already we have the lowest ration of admins to users/pages of all Wikimedia projects I believe. Lets try to encourage candidates - if there's information you haven't been able to glean from what the candidate's contributions and what has been said already that you think is needed to decide whether they are trusted/competent to use to tools go on and ask. Otherwise, it's just adding extra burden to the process. Candidates shouldn't be here to jump through everyone's collective hoops - just to help people decide if they can be trusted with the additional user right. Please can we all try to avoid uncecessary/frivolous questions? WjBscribe 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, though, a candidate's position on specific issues may be important. For instance, I will never support a candidate who doesn't agree with the essentials of WP:EM, because I believe passionately that the number one responsibility of admins is to avoid driving contributors away. I'm speaking in general terms, since I don't have any issues with this particular candidate (and supported him below), but I do think RfA voters need to have the right to ask whatever questions they wish (provided they're not self-evidently frivolous). If you don't want RfA itself to get too clogged up with questions, we could suggest that such questions be asked of candidates on their talk pages rather than on the RfA. WaltonOne 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I offended anyone - but I wasn't asking questions just for the sake of it I geninuely need to know what were the candidates views of WP:RECENT as well as WP:BIO. I have to admit Q11 and Q12 got a bit carried away but I think Q10 was perfectly fine. This goes as the same as MilborneOne's RFA. Q12 was inapproprite but Q10 in my view was acceptable. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, though, a candidate's position on specific issues may be important. For instance, I will never support a candidate who doesn't agree with the essentials of WP:EM, because I believe passionately that the number one responsibility of admins is to avoid driving contributors away. I'm speaking in general terms, since I don't have any issues with this particular candidate (and supported him below), but I do think RfA voters need to have the right to ask whatever questions they wish (provided they're not self-evidently frivolous). If you don't want RfA itself to get too clogged up with questions, we could suggest that such questions be asked of candidates on their talk pages rather than on the RfA. WaltonOne 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as nominator. I believe Bigtimepeace has been around long enough to understand how the Wiki works and has demonstrated his knowledge of the relevant policies. WjBscribe 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen Bigtimepeace around before: he'll do well. Excellent candidate and nominator. Acalamari 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. (IIRC) Recently interacted with BTP on Sceptre's RfA, saw him/her as highly reasonable and able do discuss calmly. Will go far. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. No problems here. Giving this user the tools is a no-brainer. Malinaccier (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Good track has been around since June 2006. No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per DHMO, and the fact he's trying his best on the State terrorism article. Sceptre (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to.--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per being worthy of the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sound knowledge of policy per contributions to AfD. WP:CSD noms look good, as do WP:AIV. Can trust. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've never seen you before, but your answers are great, your nominator is enthusiastic, and your work looks more than satisfactory. Hope to see you around more, VanTucky 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a quick review of contributions throws up no problems and shows thoughtful comments and a firm understanding of WP matters. SilkTork *YES! 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like RfAs that are easy to evaluate, such as this one! :) — scetoaux (T|C) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. --SharkfaceT/C 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Hmm.. rather impressive. Tiptoety talk 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yup yup yup. MBisanz talk 05:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user that is experienced with admin-related tasks. Singularity 06:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Thanks for being honest on my question - I relaised some people may just say that both are important and that they'll revert both the pages. Go you beast. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointed that I didn't notice this sooner. Bigtimepeace is an excellent candidate: he's fair minded and friendly, maintains an eye for neutrality, and stays cool in the face of problematic behavior. By far the most qualified person I've seen come through RFA in several months, and I am pleased to give my unconditional support. east.718 at 07:50, April 19, 2008
- Support only for wikiadmin doing PhD. Future is now. Redeemer079 08:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support When your nominated by a bureaucrat you know theres something special in the user. I trust you will do a great job. Good luck. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - although being nommed by a bureaucrat shouldn't be such a big deal. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support agreement with the above but still a strong support. Evidence of a brilliant users who will go far! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't be any more supportive per sense of humour CycloneNimrodtalk? 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow i can't believe i've not encountered you before! Fantastic editor and vandal fighter. You are my perfect candidate for adminship. Good luck! TheProf - T / C 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just spent a while reviewing your history, seems A-OK to me. Impressed with the way you resolve disputes. -- Naerii 12:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support" Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice answers to questions, checked your recent contributions and was impressed. Davewild (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Been here a long time, no problems so far, behaves. Perfect, the user will not abuse the extra tools --Kanonkas : Take Contact 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user. Spencer : Talk 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yup. Without question or hesitation, based on talkpage comments like this. Anyone that is willing to go that length to converse with an editor that has called him a wiki-nazi will make a fine admin. Keep up the patience, you'll do great! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per Keeper. One of the few people who not only understands WP:BITE, but actually applies it even in difficult situations. I don't usually bother voting on unanimous or non-controversial RfAs, but this candidate deserves to get to WP:100. WaltonOne 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With a combination of an excellent WJBscribe nomination and a Keeper support (which is almost always supported by a diff), I'm happy to endorse to that end. Rudget 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - should make a great admin. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - mentions not biting newbies, sensible attitude to needed blocks, willing to delete attack pages. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definitely. iMatthew 2008 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This user has proven himself to be excellent in every important area the project needs; he has a fine scholarly precision with article content sources, and keen appreciation for NPOV, RS, and Undue, and other policies; he has always been civil, avoids drama but yet has not been afraid to put himself in the middle of it to play an exemplary moderating role in defusing conflicts as a peace maker. He has shown an amazing ability to keep a cool head, stay focused and rational while dealing with those who would challenge the best of us. And, I have seen how he has puts his own personal views aside in conflict in order to maintain a fair neutrality for the greater purpose of resolving disputes among the quarreling editors. Thus his service to the project and community should be greatly appreciated. In short, there is no question that he would make an ideal administrator that I'd hope others would model. If they did, this place would be vastly improved.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Balloonman (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fair answers to questions posed and previous editing history is good. John Smith's (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers to questions and no concerns that I can see. Looks good. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support he ain't perfect but he's damn good and level-headed.BernardL (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm shocked to discover that people who try and step into content in conflict areas sometimes stand for admin. Relata refero (disp.) 08:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, I always thought it was wrong to consider the promotion to admin status on the basis of an editors artificially avoiding all conflict. To step into the heat of the kitchen is the test of how one deals with the conflict, and that is the pudding in the proof, of the caliber of the demonstrated quality that we should be looking at.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While not recalling direct interaction - which doesn't mean it hasn't happened - this is a name I have seen in many areas I have recently been present in, and I do recall being quietly impressed by their attitude and conduct. No qualms over giving the keys to the mop cupboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Afd experience looks appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sure he will make a fine admin. the wub "?!" 16:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Always civil and calm with disputes, does good work mediating conflicts and has a grasp on policy - will make an excellent admin. Shell babelfish 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, has tried to be a peace maker on several controversial articles. Inclusionist (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I may disagree with some of his edits, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will make an excellent admin. Horologium (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should be fine. Jehochman Talk 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good and sensible person who will do well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong answers to the questions, and I trust the nominator. Good luck! GlassCobra 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- —Dark talk 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This contributor is a quality editor in every respect. Valtoras (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems okay to me. :-) - Philippe 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support BTP seems very level headed- even in difficult situations; and from my interactions has always attempted to find mutually agreeable solutions (consensus) rather than simply saying 'NO'.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great involvement here on Wikipedia; as an administrator, he'll clearly be helpful for the project. CenariumTalk 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets my usual standards, no concerns here. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No objections here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions, good answers to questions. No worries here. --John (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Worked with him, positive experience. - Merzbow (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yahel Guhan 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Experience with this user is best explained as level headed, and reasonable. They have made me rethink my position before based on providing evidence and reason over bickering and provocation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User appears to have demonstrated reasonable enough judgment in the main and appears worthy of community trust. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. hmwithτ 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a great future admin! Gary King (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like his answers to the questions and his contributions to the project appear to be of good quality and in my opinion he would make a good sysop. --Mifter (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly seems good to go. Grsztalk 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to be a dedicated and fair participant in the project. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Markovich292 06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should do just fine. :) DarkAudit (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hobartimus (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per nom by WJBscribe (talk · contribs), per answer to what Bigtimepeace intends to do with the tools, per some good article creation contributions and overall contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As I though I already had done at No. 35.... :) PedroChat
- Support. For every reason stated above. Spinach Dip 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I seen 'im around. Good guy. Cool Hand Luke 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- an experienced editor who will make good use of the admin tools. --BelovedFreak 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks just fine - Alison ❤ 19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A bit low on total edit count, but you know how to handle issues under pressure so you gained my support. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No worries about this editor. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
# Oppose very concerned for his support of editors with very long block logs and some that are indefintely blocked (i.e. User:Giovanni33, User:SixOfDiamonds, User:Stone put to sky and some of his edit waring at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I am concerned that he is a POV warrior that will use the tools inappropriately. --DHeyward (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are right to point this out and I did consider it myself but dismissed it when discovering User:Giovanni33, whom you list first, has given support above. SunCreator (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course he supported him. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has an extensive block log and was indef banned (again) only as recently as last week. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant to this adminship. Its a red-herring. The fact that my block was based on a mistaken identity and rectified. My block log involved wheel warring, from over a year ago--about two years ago now. So it's not relevant either. Bigtimepeace has never taken sides based on anything other than looking at the concrete evidence, and making assumption of good faith. While I'm not perfect (you certainly aren't!), his measured and reasoned support was valid per the facts and guided by not just facts but what is best for the project. He has notably stepped up to play a role in diffusing and moderating conflicts, such as that between myself and JohnSmith's (I note the JohnSmith's testifies to BTP's fairness per his vote to support). Like I said, if we had more admins model his critical thinking and fairness, WP would be drastically improved.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Giovanni, please do not speak for me. I made no comment on whether BigT is "fair" or not, because I have only seen him intercede on your behalf when you have been blocked or faced a block. If he had done the same for me, I would agree with you. As he has only done this for yourself, I cannot comment how "fair" he is in regards to how he treats users.
- Bigtimepeace, it may be a little unfair to ask this of you, but maybe as a sign of good-faith you could agree to not use your admin-tools in regards to Giovanni, myself and pages that we edit - unless we both asked for your help? That would probably remove any concern about what you would do as an admin. John Smith's (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unfair at all, and I certainly do agree to that. As a general rule admins should not use admin tools on articles they have been heavily involved with or with respect to users with whom they have have had significant involvement. It would be completely inappropriate for me to block or unblock either you or Giovanni33 (or for that matter DHeyward, who commented above) since I have been involved in contentious editing with both of you before. Likewise it would be inappropriate for me to take any sort of admin action on Mao: The Unknown Story or other articles I have done significant work on (unless it was an uncontroversial action which had obvious consensus, such as correcting a formatting problem while the article was protected). I feel strongly that is not only necessary for admins to do their level best to avoid impropriety as it relates to possibles biases, but even to avoid the appearance of impropriety stemming from a possible bias. John if I had an issue with something relating to you or Giovanni or other editors with whom I've been heavily involved I would discuss it with you (and if necessary post my concerns to an appropriate noticeboard) but would certainly take no actions myself. In matters where there could be a possible on-wiki conflict of interest, I feel it's best for admins to err on the side of caution. I hope that answers your question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It answers my question, though I can't say as how others will react to that - I was hoping to give you the opportunity to say something to win them over. I have a feeling that DHeyward may want to ask his own question. However, you have from what I see (and you may disagree if you like) indicated that you would not use your admin-status regarding issues concerning Giovanni, myself or any other editor you have been "contentiously editing" with, or on any articles you had worked significantly on. John Smith's (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, DHeyward has said on his talk page that he is still formulating a question to ask and I'm happy to answer it when he posts it. And your characterization of my previous comment is accurate from where I sit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if I was DHeyward I think I would be convinced. But I already support you so I guess that's a moot point. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, DHeyward has said on his talk page that he is still formulating a question to ask and I'm happy to answer it when he posts it. And your characterization of my previous comment is accurate from where I sit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It answers my question, though I can't say as how others will react to that - I was hoping to give you the opportunity to say something to win them over. I have a feeling that DHeyward may want to ask his own question. However, you have from what I see (and you may disagree if you like) indicated that you would not use your admin-status regarding issues concerning Giovanni, myself or any other editor you have been "contentiously editing" with, or on any articles you had worked significantly on. John Smith's (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unfair at all, and I certainly do agree to that. As a general rule admins should not use admin tools on articles they have been heavily involved with or with respect to users with whom they have have had significant involvement. It would be completely inappropriate for me to block or unblock either you or Giovanni33 (or for that matter DHeyward, who commented above) since I have been involved in contentious editing with both of you before. Likewise it would be inappropriate for me to take any sort of admin action on Mao: The Unknown Story or other articles I have done significant work on (unless it was an uncontroversial action which had obvious consensus, such as correcting a formatting problem while the article was protected). I feel strongly that is not only necessary for admins to do their level best to avoid impropriety as it relates to possibles biases, but even to avoid the appearance of impropriety stemming from a possible bias. John if I had an issue with something relating to you or Giovanni or other editors with whom I've been heavily involved I would discuss it with you (and if necessary post my concerns to an appropriate noticeboard) but would certainly take no actions myself. In matters where there could be a possible on-wiki conflict of interest, I feel it's best for admins to err on the side of caution. I hope that answers your question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant to this adminship. Its a red-herring. The fact that my block was based on a mistaken identity and rectified. My block log involved wheel warring, from over a year ago--about two years ago now. So it's not relevant either. Bigtimepeace has never taken sides based on anything other than looking at the concrete evidence, and making assumption of good faith. While I'm not perfect (you certainly aren't!), his measured and reasoned support was valid per the facts and guided by not just facts but what is best for the project. He has notably stepped up to play a role in diffusing and moderating conflicts, such as that between myself and JohnSmith's (I note the JohnSmith's testifies to BTP's fairness per his vote to support). Like I said, if we had more admins model his critical thinking and fairness, WP would be drastically improved.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course he supported him. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has an extensive block log and was indef banned (again) only as recently as last week. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are right to point this out and I did consider it myself but dismissed it when discovering User:Giovanni33, whom you list first, has given support above. SunCreator (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Pending answer to question I am posing. --DHeyward (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I will not oppose - The main reason I am neutral here is that Bigtimepeace is polite in discussion on difficult topics... You might say "Huh? Why not support?" Well, reason I am not supporting is based on the concerns of DHeyward. It appears that this RfA should be successful as per the timing of my post. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to serve as a sysop. It also means that you will very soon have the tools that can cause you much heartache if you are not careful. You will be scrutinized by some users for any and everything that appears to be a conflict of interest. Good luck to you in your soon to be role as a sysop - If you stick around in some of the areas you have contributed to, you are going to need it big-time (and no, no pun was intended). :-( JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:27, 21 April 2008 (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.
MilborneOne
Final (73/2/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne (talk · contribs) - MilborneOne is an active and diligent member of the community who now has a two-year track record of many useful contributions, mostly in the sphere of aviation. He is a trusted and valued member of WikiProject Aircraft, which is where I have been fortunate to work alongside him. He is consistently level-headed and courteous while at the same time unafraid to challenge vandalism and other breaches of policy (and breaches of common sense in general). I have no doubt that he will use the mop and bucket sensibly, fairly, and for the betterment of Wikipedia. Rlandmann (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Mainly concerning the work I do at the moment with the different aviation projects, with a lot of aviation articles in my watchlist and being active outside of the normal North American timescales I often come across vandalism and issues first. Having the admin tools will assist in this process. I have an interest in images and would like to get involved in related image WP:CSDs and copyright problems although so far my involvement with image problems are related to the aviation projects.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Over two hundred created articles for the aircraft project and others to fill in related gaps like Frederick George Miles and United Kingdom military aircraft serials. Always enjoyable to fill in the gaps missing to improve the coverage of the encyclopedia. Particularly pleased with getting three different projects to agree on a common guideline criteria for accidents and incidents on WP:AIRLINES, WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AIRCRAFT.
- 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 try me best not to be involved in conflicts, if reverted for the second time or in a difference of opinion I will discuss on the article talk page or directly with the other uses and or bring it up for discussion on the related project page. I dont do stress Wikipedia is an interest and a change from the day job so I avoid conflicts by discussion, talking can do no harm and sometimes has suprising results.
Optional question from Jon513
- 4. I know this might seem like a strange question. You have been editing Wikipedia for over two years, made almost 19000 edits and in all of this time you have made less than 20 edits that did not have an edit summary. How does that happen?
- A. Presumably the 20 are the few that I have pushed the save page to soon! I presumed that it was good practice to use the edit summary and have always used it, I have never used any tools or gadgets or scripts just entered by hand. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a bizarre question. It happens by typing something in the edit summary box. It can even happen by typing nothing into the edit summary box. Could this not have been asked on the candidate's talk page? Splash - tk 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asking how he typed a summary in the box, but more generally if it indicates anything about his editing habits. This might mean that he uses many automated tools for editing (which automatically make summaries) or that he often clicks "edit" by sections instead of the top 'edit this page'. Does this indicate that the user has a gadget or script that reminds him to use edit summaries? Or perhaps it reflect a certain personality trait, or ethic. I think it is legitimate to ask for some insight into a candidates editing habits, if he disagrees he is completely within his rights to not answer. Jon513 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from TheProf07
- 5. There has been a minor aircrash in a country you have never heard of (until now). A newly registered editor has created an article for it. And now lots of anon IP editors are adding unsourced information to it. What, as an administrator, would you do?
- A. First point would be to check the article and sources I dont think that the creator being new would necessary make a difference. If there was a problem with the article there would be a number of paths to go from asking for better sources and reference and checking if it meets any of the WP:CSD criteria. With the anon IPs it would be a matter of finding out if sources exist by discussion with the user is possible. If the edits are nonsense or vandalism then they may be some grounds for semi-protecting the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from User:DanBealeCocks
- 6 A new user, User:0912838716, created three nonsense articles yesterday, and today has corrected twenty spelling errors, and added some references to some stubs. The editor's talk page is blank. What do you do?
- A. Welcome the user to wikipedia and give them some guidance on where to find info like Help:Contents/Getting started. One would have to assume that the nonsense articles where produced in good faith it is not easy for starters to understand all that is required when they start editing. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
- 7. A user claims to have been banned just because an admin has a content dispute with the person. The admin gives the excuse that the person is a sock even though checkuser proof is not conclusive and the edits are not really the same as the other sock. Do you side with the admin or unblock the user or do you encourage the person to create a new account, edit, and just try to avoid the admin (in essence, ask him to really create a sock)? This is not a joke question because the issue of sock versus admin abuse is common in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) — Ads124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- A. Welcome to Wikipedia - an interesting question for your first ever edit. Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators and the first port of call would be to discuss it with the blocking administrator. If it appears to be an unresolved problem then it should be discussed probably at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and the help and advice sought of experienced administrators. Sock puppetry is not acceptable behaviour whatever the reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up question
- Q. How would you handle a situation where a user believes that an administrator does not completely follow Wikipedia policy? For example, a RFA candidate says that "sock puppetry is not acceptable behaviour whatever the reason" (see above, your answer) yet the WP:SOCK policy clearly allows certain reasons and prohibits certain reasons for socks. Will the RFA candidate change his mind and follow policy? — Asd124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- A. If the user thinks an administrator has acted improperly and cant be resolved by direct discussion with the administrator responsible a number of avenues exist and WP:ADMIN ("Administrator abuse") has a number of suggestions for dispute resolution which can be suggested to the user. WP:SOCK says that a sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively and all sock puppet uses are forbidden, in the example above it was suggested that an alternative account be used to avoid a block which according to WP:SOCK ("circumventing policy") sock puppets may not be used to circumvent sanctions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q. How would you handle a situation where a user believes that an administrator does not completely follow Wikipedia policy? For example, a RFA candidate says that "sock puppetry is not acceptable behaviour whatever the reason" (see above, your answer) yet the WP:SOCK policy clearly allows certain reasons and prohibits certain reasons for socks. Will the RFA candidate change his mind and follow policy? — Asd124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Q. What if the blocking administrator has no evidence other than "I say he is a sock despite lack of checkuser proof and lack of similarities in edits". In other words, I can call anyone a sock and my words are the final decision. Would you go along with this administrator or have the courage to unblock and resolve the situation when the administrator refuses to admit that they are really blocking because they want total control and censorship? This is no theoretical question, I have seen it happen to someone else.
- A. Refer to the answer to Question 7 and note that if the user claims that admin tools are being abused then this should be discussed at WP:ANI and a concensus agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q. What if the blocking administrator has no evidence other than "I say he is a sock despite lack of checkuser proof and lack of similarities in edits". In other words, I can call anyone a sock and my words are the final decision. Would you go along with this administrator or have the courage to unblock and resolve the situation when the administrator refuses to admit that they are really blocking because they want total control and censorship? This is no theoretical question, I have seen it happen to someone else.
Additional Question
- Q. What would you do if that user has brought it to ANI as you said above and it was promptly removed by someone that says it's trolling (but its removal might actually be because they don't want others to discuss or even see it). This is not theoretical as I have seen it happen. Is this an explanation why people get so fed up that they start to vandalise? Back to the question, would you intervene or just let the possible abuse go on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) — Asd124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Optional Question from SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK
- 8. Which Wikipedia policy is, in your opinion, most in need of improvement, revision, or clarification?
- A. Dont think I would consider any of the policies in need of improvement they have all had many years of work and consensus to reach the points they have to make. My main concern is that new editors can be confused with the differences between policies and guidelines which is not always apparent, like everything else this can normally be sorted with clear and concise discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from DarkAudit
- 9. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
- A:
General comments
- See MilborneOne's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for MilborneOne: MilborneOne (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MilborneOne before commenting.
Discussion
- Stop asking questions and read WP:ADMIN. Then read through the user's contributions. Then weigh in discussion. RfA is not a forum for platforms or debate or for the candidate to convince you. This is not an election. Ref: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Keegantalk 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Lack of all-round admin-related experience, but should be fine if he's going to specialise in images. Epbr123 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Epbr123: Not much all round admin work but OK if going to specialise in images...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good experience with editor in the past. Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can not find any faults with this candidate. ArcAngel (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The more article builders become admins the better. Nick mallory (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor. No sign he might abuse the tools. Looks like it would be good for Wikipedia if he gets involved in Admin-work, too. --Abrech (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Diligent editor. Rudget 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pundit|utter 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC) impressive work, clear specialization[reply]
- Weak Support. Well, this user has done great work in the mainspace, but projectspace work in "admin areas" is extremely weak. Please take the time to read everything on WP:ARL, and be careful with controversial actions. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers here + positive contributions = definitely trustworthy. VanTucky 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid, well-rounded editor. SWik78 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm a little concerned by your answer to Q1, I'd like to see you do a bit more with the mop. Maybe (once you pass) you should do some work at WP:AIV and WP:RPP. In any case, you passing this RfA is clearly a net positive to wikipedia! Good luck :-) Alternate account of TheProf - T / C (AC) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Question 1 and user track is good.The user has been around since with over 14000 mainspace edits since January 2006 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like his answers to the questions, and from my experience with this editor see no reason he would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as meeting my standards. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has been here a while and made plenty of edits to establish a solid history. He's been a solid contributer in WP:Aircraft and has shown to be helpful and level-headed in dealings with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough for me. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:20, April 17, 2008
- Sure, I'll support. Anthøny 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to no negative interactions with the editor, who seems committed to building Italic textWikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Also per Malinaccier. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, an inspirational answer to Q6. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No worries here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CSD always could use help. Yanksox (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like his answers to the optional questions.--Bedford 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Changed from neutral based on the candidate's answers to the questions. Seems like a level-headed user. I trust that they will not jump headlong into risky admin-duties without forethought. Recommend versing in several admin-related areas though. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – A top-notch, level-headed editor who would handle the tools responsibly. (Of course, that probably means he won't let me get away with creating Category:Flying things. <Inside joke>) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flying things? My son likes to fly---when I throw him up in the air at the pool he yells, "Flying!"Balloonman (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like what I see... and I like people who specialize in images---it's an area that frightens me :) Balloonman (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A well qualified editor who will not abuse the tools. --SharkfaceT/C 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never saw a non-admin with "all round admin work"... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yep, good evidence of 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support - lack of bite and good contribs. Dan Beale-Cocks 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - great candidate. Johnfos (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looked at his edits and would be a great admin. --FGWQPR (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No good reason to consider otherwise. Spinach Dip 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will make good admin. SpencerT♦C 10:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! — Athaenara ✉ 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: --Bhadani (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers. Axl (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good specialist editor, should cause no problems. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think this editor can be given the extra tools, and can use them wisely. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems worthy of community trust. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Use the force for good, young skywalker! -- preschooler@heart 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Need" for tools is irrelevant: no one needs the tools. I'd rather have a someone who uses them rarely and correctly than often and abusively. In addition, MilborneOne has said he wishes to work in image-related areas, and we need more admins who'll do work there, and if that's the only place he plans to work at as an admin, Wikipedia will benefit. Acalamari 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Reasoned answers that aren't just the usual boilerplate. Seems quite civilm, and has plenty of experience. My only concern is a sporadic editting history, but I'll defer to the philosopher Jagger Adam McCormick (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't see any reason not to. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Here are my reasons - 1. Individual has over 18,000 edits with a sufficient a mix of wikispace, talk mainspace. 2. Individual received no blocks, no obvious history of vandalism and the only edit warnings appear to be due to 3RR due to fixing a page due to vandalism. 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 15 January 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in at least 3 wikiprojects related to aircraft and aviation 5. This is the 1st time the user has submitted RFA that I can tell 6. Individual has a lot of articles, mostly related to aircraft and aviation 7. Individual has received several awards and accolades visible on their talk page and archives. 8. This editor seems to stick mostly to aviation and aircraft related articles and will likely continue to do so in the future but I see no reason not to support. Also, the editors responses to the questions leads me to believe that they will not abuse their admin responsibilites and will ask for assistance or read up if they are unaware what to do.--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - diligent and trustworthy. I see a desire to specialize as a good thing rather than anything else, as it ensures this user will stay at that task. At my RfA, I stated I was going to help at WP:RPP and WP:AFD and I think I've protected five or so pages and closed one AfD in the three months since then, as versus my activity at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, despite the total lack of contributions to autogyro... Nothing indicates a likelihood of running amok with the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, appears to be a great editor who I believe will not abuse of the administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I trust this candidate to tread lightly as they learn to use the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Kumioko's very nice assessment above. I come to the same conclusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You're answer to question six shows me that you will make a fine and friendly admin. iMatthew 2008 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An editor who sails in calm waters. SunCreator (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - has a good track record of encyclopedia contributions, and seems to be thoughtful and level-headed. the wub "?!" 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Handles issues well, responds positively to constructive criticism, acknowledges and even apologizes where appropriate when mistakes are made -- all excellent qualities for an admin. Shell babelfish 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. User seems capable of keeping a level head under pressure. GlassCobra 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators are trusted members of the community - we give the tools based generally on trust. This editor may not have tremendous experience in admin-related areas, but he has shown that he his clearly trustworthy. Valtoras (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is difficult to judge how the candidate will use the tools considering his inexperience in admin-related areas. We oppose hundreds of candidates because they showed poor judgment in these areas as a non-admin user. In regards to this, it may be viewed as unfair to support when the candidate never substantially addressed these areas. But the candidate seems to have the community's trust and I found nothing worth to oppose in his contribs. So I support, knowing that other admins will assist when necessary and that the user is dedicated to help the project. CenariumTalk 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have always found MilborneOne to be pragmatic in his dealings and willing to engage in collaboration. As he builds on his administration duties, I am confident that MilborneOne will be able to adapt and learn how to use the tools that will help support others. I have no reservations about this editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support A solid and very fair editor. I have worked on many pages with him and he is always a pleasure to work with. He would make a good admin. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be a good editor who will make a fine administrator. Deli nk (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You are an excellent contributor to aviation articles and the like who I have seen around from time to time; you seem to have the right attitude and trust with the community to be an administrator. Experience in admin related areas does not concern me much in this case, I think you will use the tools sensibly and appropriately. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen this user around and they do jatte bra ('Very good' in Svenska) work. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This looks like a good solid candidate who would make great use of the Sysop tools. --Mifter (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Naerii 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fly-boy, eh? Support. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Valued article contributor, would be nice to have an admin focused on the subject matter specialty like aviation. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Recent double edit war. Not quite 3RR, but his reply to #3 indicates that he would consider two reverts to be ok before even considering to initiate a discussion. In the recent case, he didn't even do that, the discussion was not started until an admin protected the page and explicitly asked for it. There are already too many trigger-happy admins. Also, I don't like the answer to #5: CSDs should be obvious, not something to search for. --Yooden ☮ 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose His answer to question one makes adminship seem un-necesary.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RfA isn't to prove that one needs the tools. Nobody needs them. This process is whether you trust the candidate to use them correctly and efficiently. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If one does not need administrative tools, then why does he/she need to be an admin? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the user will use them eventually. Instead of reporting a vandal to AIV, tagging a page for speedy deletion, asking for a protection or a protected edit, the user will just do it, saving time for everybody. Nobody needs the tools but people who have them use them, not solely to clear admin backlogs (for the most part, these are under control) but also to make better decisions in everyday editing, to evaluate difficult situations with full information (deleted contributions and edits is very useful in that respect). And to point out the obvious, users with admin tools don't bug admins. We kind of like that. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't write my oppose to put this long-debated topic up for discussion once again. I wrote it because that is my opinion on why I don't think the User should be an administrator. RfA's are too frequently turned into places for debates on things that aren't even relevant to the RfA in question. I don't think he needs the tools, I said Oppose, big whoop.--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think it's a stupid argument, double big whoop. The reason that RfAs turn into places for debates is that some of us actually think it's a good thing to have more admins. If you've ever tried looking for admin candidates, you'll find that many potential editors are in no rush to face the RfA mob, in part because of spurious opposes like yours. That's why I feel it's important to insist: by arguing that an editor needs to show a necessity for the admin tools, you're ultimately doing a disservice to the project. It leads to absurd things like people interested in adminship doing a week of AIV reports to show that they can understand a five line policy and to face the "no need for tools" crowd. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let the closing bureaucrat decide the weight of KojiDude's oppose. Holding this argument on this RfA here is just beating a dead horse, same as the responses made on every single RfA to Kurt Weber's "power hunger" oppose. It is generally accepted that these arguments for opposing RfAs aren't given much weight. We should probably leave it at that. Calling his argument stupid won't solve anything, and certainly won't change his mind at this point. — scetoaux (T|C) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think it's a stupid argument, double big whoop. The reason that RfAs turn into places for debates is that some of us actually think it's a good thing to have more admins. If you've ever tried looking for admin candidates, you'll find that many potential editors are in no rush to face the RfA mob, in part because of spurious opposes like yours. That's why I feel it's important to insist: by arguing that an editor needs to show a necessity for the admin tools, you're ultimately doing a disservice to the project. It leads to absurd things like people interested in adminship doing a week of AIV reports to show that they can understand a five line policy and to face the "no need for tools" crowd. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't write my oppose to put this long-debated topic up for discussion once again. I wrote it because that is my opinion on why I don't think the User should be an administrator. RfA's are too frequently turned into places for debates on things that aren't even relevant to the RfA in question. I don't think he needs the tools, I said Oppose, big whoop.--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the user will use them eventually. Instead of reporting a vandal to AIV, tagging a page for speedy deletion, asking for a protection or a protected edit, the user will just do it, saving time for everybody. Nobody needs the tools but people who have them use them, not solely to clear admin backlogs (for the most part, these are under control) but also to make better decisions in everyday editing, to evaluate difficult situations with full information (deleted contributions and edits is very useful in that respect). And to point out the obvious, users with admin tools don't bug admins. We kind of like that. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If one does not need administrative tools, then why does he/she need to be an admin? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RfA isn't to prove that one needs the tools. Nobody needs them. This process is whether you trust the candidate to use them correctly and efficiently. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Good editor, no history of doing anything that
requireswould warrant Admin tools though. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think it's safe to say that you're using the long-discredited "no need for tools" argument. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This neutral is fully justified. He's saying that Milborne doesn't have experience in areas that require admin-like decision making and policy knowledge. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I was trying to say. Vandalism was mentioned in the answer to question 1, but I didn't see a single AIV contribution (if I'm wrong by all means point it out to me). This person is obviously a great editor, but IMO being a great editor is different from being a great admin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying, T2D4, that's what I was hoping you meant! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I was trying to say. Vandalism was mentioned in the answer to question 1, but I didn't see a single AIV contribution (if I'm wrong by all means point it out to me). This person is obviously a great editor, but IMO being a great editor is different from being a great admin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This neutral is fully justified. He's saying that Milborne doesn't have experience in areas that require admin-like decision making and policy knowledge. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think it's safe to say that you're using the long-discredited "no need for tools" argument. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:DeletedContributions/MilborneOne says otherwise. Nick (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad only admins can see that link Nick. ArcAngel (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'd like to respectfully point out that adminship is not rocket science and, as every admin will tell you, it is not only rather simple but also rather boring. You don't need 50 AIV reports to understand how to deal with vandalism, nor do you need months of newpage patrol experience to understand speedy deletion. By design, all policies and guidelines are relatively short and simple: they're not legal text that scholars need years to understand. Any user with a lengthy track record of responsible editing and good communication with other Wikipedians will do just fine as an admin. 90% of my current work as an admin relates to policies I had never read prior to my RfA and I'd humbly suggest I'm doing an ok job. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - For now. I'm at work, and don't have ample time to go through the special contributions thoroughly. However, I felt it necessary to indicate the alarmingly few admi-related areas this candidate has worked in. Yes, yes, I know that some users don't look strictly at edit counts and what not when making their decision, but, the Wikipedia namespace is completely editorial. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Err, not really. Does this make me wary about the user's experience? Indeed. On the fence at the moment. Will return. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Changed to Support.[reply]
- Neutral for now MilborneOne seems to be a good editor. However, I fail to see why he actually needs admin tools. A more specific response to Q1 might change my mind. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (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.
VanTucky
Final (194/9/4); ended 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
VanTucky (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) - VanTucky, an editor active since August 2006
- Co-nomination from TimVickers
VanTucky has been contributing since August 2006, and is a prolific editor: with his contributions ranging the Signpost, a great deal of GA and FA reviewing, and most recently, bringing the article Domestic sheep through the FA process. With this level of both article writing and reviewing, VanTucky is well-versed in how our content policies operate in practice and has learned how to work well with other editors. These impressive editing achievements are balanced by experience in the Wikipedia namespace, as he regularly takes part in AfD discussions (with his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film being a particularly impressive example of a reasoned and calm discussion of our deletion policies), reports unacceptable usernames and vandals, as well as participating in the RfC process and discussions on the Admin noticeboard. Importantly, VanTucky often deals with subjects some editors have strong feelings about, such as homosexuality and racism, which gives him a great deal of experience in dealing firmly but politely with editors with deeply-held opinions, how to counter POV pushing and talk page trolling and how to carefully apply our NPOV policy in difficult cases. This level and breadth of experience, coupled with his calm and constructive attitude, means that VanTucky will be an excellent admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nomination from Acalamari
It is a great honor that I have been given the chance to co-nominate VanTucky for adminship. Why is VanTucky an ideal candidate? Well, to start with, VanTucky is an excellent article-writer: he has helped improve countless articles, including topics such as Tai chi chuan and Vancouver, Washington, and has done a lot of work with the featured article, good article, and did you know processes. He is also good with vandal-fighting, knowing when to use and not to use the rollback feature.
VanTucky was previously nominated for adminship by TimVickers and Wikidudeman in November 2007, but was unsuccessful due to some civility concerns at the time. Since then, however, he has worked on issues raised there, and in my opinion, has become one of the friendliest users I know: I think he has addressed past concerns. In fact, I even coached VanTucky (which can be found at User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/VanTucky), and he demonstrated good knowledge of policy and improvement on the coaching page. I was (and still am) impressed.
I think that VanTucky will make an excellent administrator. I am pleased to be able to co-nominate him. Acalamari 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nomination from AGK
It is my pleasure to nominate VanTucky for adminship. VT is an honest, hard-working editor who balances impressive article contributions, with thoughtful and reflective meta discussions. He's often seen around areas that are somewhat controversial, and has never been afraid to speak his mind. Although that's gained him a few more enemies than the average, "keep your head down" rfa candidate, it has also allowed him to acquire and refine exactly the sort of abilities we require in a project administrator: an editor who is not afraid to speak his mind, take action to protect the project, and point out problems, no matter how far it shifts those on the receiving end from their comfort zones.
At VT's last rfa, there were a few concerns about civility. I very much believe that those concerns are now no longer a problem. VanTucky manages to keep an even keel in the hottest of disputes, and I think that speaks bucketloads for how he'll cope under the pressure administrators have to endure. VT has shown himself to be very dedicated, and firmly in support of Wikipedia's principles and policies. VanTucky's robust show at his administrator coaching is simply the icing on the cake for me; having had a brief flick through there, I can see we'll have a very competent administrator in our ranks. I firmly believe VT will benefit the project through his being granted the administrator tools, and I do hope the editors offering input concur. Anthøny 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: VanTucky 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew my first RFA do to some valid objections over my behavior towards others. Some of the named incidents were months old at the time of my candidacy, others were very recent. Tellingly, the poor way I dealt with comments in the RFA itself was a factor in its failure. Since that time, I feel I have plainly taken the constructive criticism provided to heart. I also received some valuable admin coaching from Acalamari, which I encourage everyone to read. With the positive changes to my on-site interactions and some helpful advice from some fantastic admins, I feel confident that I am ready to take up the mop for Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to read this statement, the questions, and for adding your voice to the consensus. VanTucky 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I am primarily an editor of the mainspace and projectspace areas related to article improvement and assessment. Speaking plainly, I work on articles and in GA (as a reviewer and project member) and sporadically in FA (at my last RFA, it was suggested I try participating more in FA, and I've enjoyed doing so). I am hardly ever around XFD anymore, except when I spy an article in my usual work, but I do have experience with it. I occasionally do some welcoming (it can make a good break from writing, it's my form of RC patrol) and I enjoy helping new editors learn the ropes. Vandalfight is something that comes as second-nature to me, but I really only do it through my watchlist these days. I am familiar with AIV, UFAA, and RFPP, but I only see myself potentially helping out at the last one with any regularity. To be perfectly honest, I must say that the "big" admin powers of deleting, blocking and protecting are tasks I expect to be doing sparingly. I am willing to help just about wherever I'm asked, but mainspace and GA are my central focus. As a side note, I've been a sysop on a non-Wikimedia MediaWiki site since December, so I'm functionally familiar with carrying out administrative tasks of most kinds.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My userpage has a list of all the article work I've collaborated on, which includes several FAs (Guinea pig, Parapsychology), GAs (Vinkensport, Herdwick, Squab) and DYKs. In addition to those articles I have previously assisted get to FA or GA that I mentioned in my first RFA, I have done some respectable work since then. I did a complete rewrite of Domestic sheep and it's now FA-class. I additionally authored a couple dozen smaller articles you can see listed on my userpage, bringing a few to GA and making some DYKs out of them. My second largest area of contributions are as a regular GA reviewer, you can also see a list of my reviews on my userpage. I've recently begun to comment more on FACs and help out with them.
- 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: Conflicts of some sort are practically inevitable on Wikipedia. We strive to avoid them as best as possible, but they do occur. How I handle conflicts was the central concern of my first RFA, and I feel I have significantly improved in the way I handle them since. As I said back in November, my only block was in July 07 for 3RR violation on Mike Godwin. I haven't had a problem with understanding and obeying 3RR since then. How I've improved my conflict resolution is due to several important factors: first, I've developed a stronger ability to pick my battles. Several participants in my first RFA called me "intractable", which was not inaccurate. These days, I just as often simply prefer to not draw out arguments needlessly. I may also have lessened the amount of conflicts I get in to at all, perhaps because of the change in my topics of interest (parapsychology is infinitely more contentious a subject than sheep). However, GA can still be a harrowing place from time to time. Whatever the subject, the ability to diffuse conflict before it gets out of hand is important. I've been better at keeping a cooler head, and making sure that disagreement over content is not a personal matter. Those arguments over content that I have encountered lately have largely ended amicably on both sides.
Optional Questions from Legoktm
- 4 What is the difference between a ban and a block?
- A: Bans are formal rescinding of your editing privileges on Wikipedia, and can be enacted by the community, Jimbo, the Foundation, and ArbCom (or someone they designate to do so for them). A block is a technical feature used by admins to prevent editing.
- 5 When should you use a cool-down block?
- A: Never.
- 6 When should you give an IP an indef block?
- A: Rarely, if at all.
Optional question from Gwynand
- 7 What is your understanding of IAR, specifically on how it applies to admin actions?
- A: In my experience standing policy has a contingency for the majority of situations that arise, and editors should first look to them when encountering a problem. Only when following the letter of the law would cause more harm to the project is it appropriate to ignore all rules. In other words, legalese shouldn't contradict the encyclopedic principle that the policy was designed to support in the first place. In plain English: IAR isn't an excuse to do as you please. Example in admin actions: the spirit of PROD nominations is to provide a way of deleting pages that are inappropriate speedy candidates but are unlikely to require debate. Even if an editor removes a PROD tag after the five days has expired (i.e. the time between the expiry and what would be the deletion), the spirit of PROD says that you should take it to AFD rather than relying on the technical loophole of the "expired PROD", since someone has objected to the deletion.
Optional questions from Thehelpfulone
- 8. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
- A: I support the spirit of that endeavor, but I'm unsure of (the current form) of its practical application. I would definitely consider adding myself to the category, but I am currently on the fence abot reconfirmation RFAs. I think that only in the most extraordinary of circumstances would I put myself up for one, as many in the community find them to be wasteful or have a detrimental effect on the RFA process.
- 9. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
- A: To be honest I have not thought about this a lot. In principle, this issue behind granting rollback is the same as RFA, it all comes down to degrees of trust. Despite the fact that I am a rollbacker currently, I have no personal opinion on what the exact standards should be.
Optional question from Wizardman
- 10. I'm not a question asker and find it annoying to be part of the inevitable pile-on, but I'm on the fence on you and do wish to ask this one question. Let's say a middle school is up for AfD. There is no district to merge it to. How would you close such a debate?
- A: I would close the debate according to consensus of the discussion at hand. I understand your concern, because if you look at some of my old AFD contribs you might think I was pretty deletionist, especially when it comes to schools. I know debate still continues over school notability, but my personal attitude has definitely softened. My bottom line is this: the job of admins in closing AFDs is to disregard their own feelings about whether or not a particular article (or class of articles) should be deleted.
Question from ArcAngel
- 11. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
- A. I would not personally block someone, IP or user, who vandalized my userpage. It's not hard at all to make reversions, and request other actions. Vandalism against userpages can get personal in nature, and I would not want a block to appear to be punitive.
Question from Pedro
- 12. The bottom part of the contents of User:VanTucky/Sandbox, created a few weeks ago are, well, interesting. Do you see a succesful outcome of this RFA as a foregone conclusion? Pedro : Chat 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A.' Of course not. I am firm in my conviction that I've improved my ability to stay civil, but editors could very well bring up objections that never entered my mind. I wrote it because I wanted to formulate what I wanted to say in advance (I wouldn't need to do that for a failed RFA, that's already happened once). You'll notice that I didn't write in the pass or fail result next to vote tally. I did the same thing at my first RFA, and naturally I ended up changing it.
Questions from LessHeard vanU
- 13. I note from your count that you have a certain number of edit summaries left blank in each month. Do you consider that there may be times when a sysop does not need to make a summary, even an automated one, and that communication is not always a requirement when acting in the admin function?
- A. Repeating a theme from my admin coaching, I'm of the notion that increased communication should be a priority all admins, but especially new ones. The reason I have blank summaries still is that I'm still training myself to use them. There are times when it feels redudant to use them (repeated talk page discussions in a single thread), but they are important. When acting in the admin function in particular, there aren't any specific examples I can think where even an automated summary would be unnecessary. I may find differently if I am granted the tools, but for now I want to focus on increasing my communication, not finding reasons to trim it down.
- In which case, I would advise you that you have an option in your preferences to force you to add a summary. You may wish to turn it on.
- A. Repeating a theme from my admin coaching, I'm of the notion that increased communication should be a priority all admins, but especially new ones. The reason I have blank summaries still is that I'm still training myself to use them. There are times when it feels redudant to use them (repeated talk page discussions in a single thread), but they are important. When acting in the admin function in particular, there aren't any specific examples I can think where even an automated summary would be unnecessary. I may find differently if I am granted the tools, but for now I want to focus on increasing my communication, not finding reasons to trim it down.
- 14. As someone with very strong opinions regarding sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. I have nevertheless have some reservations about the "rights" that some - for want of a better phrase (and if anyone can think of one, please substitute it) - non stereotypical members of society believe they have in respect of editing certain articles; that being a member of a section of society that has and or has been the subject of victimisation is of itself noteworthy, outside of the notability of the subject. How do you handle instances such as this?
- A. I don't quite grasp your question I think, but here goes. The simple answer is: everyone, unless they are in violation of our policies and guidelines, is welcome to edit on a subject. But no one is specially entitled to edit on a subject. Being personally related to a subject or holding a title or certification does not give you special rights, for the reason that Wikipedia draws its accuracy from reliable published source material instead of personal expertise or experience. Speaking in generalizations, I would handle this by A: expressing empathy for the person's situation; it's easy to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. B: gently reminding them that our goal is neutral encyclopedic information as verified by published source material, not as an arbiter of the truth or moral rightness.
- Brilliant. You have my support.
- A. I don't quite grasp your question I think, but here goes. The simple answer is: everyone, unless they are in violation of our policies and guidelines, is welcome to edit on a subject. But no one is specially entitled to edit on a subject. Being personally related to a subject or holding a title or certification does not give you special rights, for the reason that Wikipedia draws its accuracy from reliable published source material instead of personal expertise or experience. Speaking in generalizations, I would handle this by A: expressing empathy for the person's situation; it's easy to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. B: gently reminding them that our goal is neutral encyclopedic information as verified by published source material, not as an arbiter of the truth or moral rightness.
Optional question from DarkAudit
- 15. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
- A: I didn't catch your question until just now, and I'm not familiar with the subject. I'll read it in depth and provide an answer.
Optional question from Balloonman
- 16. In the opposes below, there is a pretty damning dif. It's the one wherein you changed the MOS to reflect a position that you were taking in opposition to another user. You changed the MOS and less than 5 minutes later, it was reverted back to the original wording by a third party. Can you explain your actions? On what basis did you believe you were acting appropriately? I tried to find discussion on this subject, wherein consensus might have been reached, but couldn't.
- A: On the basis of one of our oldest and most respected guidelines: be bold in updating pages. I was wrong in my citing of MOS in the dispute with Hespersian. But I do think that pointing out in MOS#Images that most articles have forced thumb size in their lead image for aesthetic reasons is a good idea, regardless of my interaction with Hespersian. I honestly thought the whole idea was uncontroversial. I've never actually seen an editor reduce the size of taxobox images to the standard thumb size. I thought the guideline already supported my notion, it didn't. But I think it should. Thus, I wanted to change it. It's as simple as that. I didn't change MOS until, at least to me, the discussion with Hespersian was over and done. It wasn't some sneaky attempt to win an argument (how sneaky can it be if I used a clear edit summary and it's right there in the history? Wiki is very transparent, for good reason). Once that third party reverted me because they disagreed, I brought it up on the talk page and left it at that.
General comments
- Links for VanTucky: VanTucky (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/VanTucky before commenting.
Discussion
- Just so everyone knows, I now have the edit summary reminder enabled in my preferences. VanTucky 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a number of questions from this RFA [21]. Enough is enough quite frankly. The funny questions haven't been funny for a while and the point they were originally making about excessive numbers of questions was lost some time ago. Think about how this process looks to newbies and people thinking of running at RfA for the first time. No need to make an already daunting process more so. If these questions were an irritation to some of the more experienced people, think about the mixed signals they send to others. I've removed the most obviously silly/political/unrelated to adminship questions. This should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the remaining questions, I just decided it was time for a line to be drawn, and I'm drawing it now. Please lets make this self-regulating though (bureaucrats shouldn't need to be the question police). WjBscribe 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- As nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom beating ;), but Yes. Sceptre (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Beat the co-nom. :) Excellent editor. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support great user, has experience in all places, will make a great admin. Always civil.--Phoenix-wiki 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per rationale in my nomination statement. Anthøny 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has improved a lot since the past RfAs. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support VanTucky is a valuable editor, and will be even more valuable with the admin tools. — Scientizzle 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Knows what they're doing, certainly. Haven't seen this user screw up, which is also a good sign. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support since abuse of the tools seems very unlikely. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - credit to wikipedia! TheProf - T / C 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent candidate, excellent nominations, excellent answers. Overall, excellent. Rudget 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice article work, great editor, good project space contributions, well thought out arguments at WP:AFD. I recommend using your edit summaries abit more, but that's a minor skin irritation. Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A quite familiar username, I've seen VanTucky all over the place. Given the multiple civility concerns raised on his last RfA, I've checked his recent history in order to spot any uncivil behavior. Couldn't find any and I congratulate VanTucky for that. Guess you're cleared. Húsönd 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support Excellent example of how to overcome a difficult (and rightfully unsuccessful) RFA#1. Seen you around, you do great work, (your GA reviews are excellent for example), and you truly are here (both on wiki and in RfA) for the right reasons. Support without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I could have sworn I saw your last nom pass, but apparently not. bibliomaniac15 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSTRONG Support I started out supporting him last time he ran, but was eventually persuaded to change my stance because of some civility concerns. He had a propensity to drop the f-bomb when dealing with people. I've gone through and looked at quite a few of his edits since his last RfA and can't find any similar situations. In fact, I've seen a number of edits where I felt like he was restraining himself. Am giving him my support for now, but may reconsider if somebody shows a pattern of continued incivility since his last RfA.Balloonman (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Since nobody seems to be able to point to any new problems, changing to what I really wanted to do... strong support!Balloonman (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Liked the answer to Q10, like the general contributions. Wizardman 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have worked closely with VanTucky both on- and off-wiki. He is dedicated to the success of the project, and has extensive experience in various areas. Where concerns have been raised about his behavior, he has been responsive. A side note people may not be aware of, VanTucky has been an effective ambassador for promoting Wikipedia in the local academic community; see here and also here. -Pete (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Partly per the honest reposonse to my question. I weakly supported your last RFA, then switching to oppose as I had failed to be thorough enough in my review of your work, and the civility concerns identified troubled me deeply. I'd like you to look at your edit summaries more - sometimes you leave none and other times you appear to leave more info in the summary than in the contribution. But it's minor. There is no question in my mind that you have learnt from your failed RFA, and this is demonstrated by your work subsequently. I strongly believe that this learning curve will continue, and you will not relapse to past ways - you seem to be more "content and happy" in your editing recently (I am hoping you undestrand my meaning in this respect - you seem "calmer"). Your policy knowledge and abilities were never in doubt, in my mind, so with your refreshed approach to working with others I'm convinced that you having admin buttons will be a net positive to Wikipedia. Good luck, and, as ever, my best wishes. Pedro : Chat 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The answer to Q10 especially blew me away. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I love the answer to Q10. Very nice. Definitely can trust this user with the tools. Razorflame 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Generally excellent editor. Eusebeus (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No concerns. His answers at User:Acalamari/Admin_coaching/VanTucky seem to be even more cautious than necessary, and they do suggest good knowledge of policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen nothing but good things from this contributor. Always civil, always polite and always dedicated. He is a brilliant contributor to our encyclopaedia who just won't stop giving! He bakes good cookies too! Yum! ScarianCall me Pat! 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. (By the way, I nicked your userpage. You are credited mind.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think I supported him in the past, and I think I was right then. I understand others have had concerns, and I don't minimize them, but I think he's done enough to have even those concerns addressed. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I trust this user. Seen his work on the project and no problems with his edits. 42 was a good answer to Q5A (it had me stumped) and answer to Q10 confirmed my trust.--Sting au Buzz Me... 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Long-term contributor with substantial commitment to building the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. An excellent content contributor who has diverse experience. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Dlohcierekim 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am 100% positive that this editor will make a fantastic administrator, so I fully support this nomination. Valtoras (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per "Brilliant!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) - After reading through various recent opposes and neutral, and weighing up of overall impression against this incident; confirm Support LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - should have passed last time. Also good answers to my questions. :P Majorly (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. I usually don't declare strong support for a candidate, but VanTucky is exceptional. He's hard working, trustworthy and knows his way around. He'll make a great admin. Majoreditor (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen him around, looks like a good guy. MBisanz talk 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Same as in the last nom, all I have seen of this user has been very constructive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comfortable with the judgement that this editor shows. EJF (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support again. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support As per Acalamari.I feel the questions raised in the earlier appear to totally overcame after this admin coaching and user has reacted positively and has been constructive and the contributions have improved since the last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Would like to see better edit summary usage, LegoKontribsTalkM 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Just like last time. Jmlk17 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EC Support - I'm not all that concerned about the edit summary usage, VanTucky will be of great benefit to the project as a sysop. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Edit summary usage is disappointing, but everything else checks out. VanTucky is a very experienced editor who would do a good job as an admin. Useight (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great answers and a great contributor. Polly (Parrot) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a de facto neutral in VanTucky's last Rfa (which I didn't participate in) because although he does great quality work, I had some reservations about his civility, having seen him come across as brusque and dismissive in a couple GA reviews and talk pages, qualities that aren't good in any editor, but especially in an admin. Unlike many 2nd (3rd, 4th...) Rfa's I've seen, however, VanTucky seems to have truly taken the suggestions of the community to heart. VanTucky is very dedicated to the project and I think he'll make a great admin, and I'm sure if he has any bad days, he'll now know to take a step back before saying something he might regret later. He also really knows his way around the wiki and can actually contribute content, grammar and form and style edits to articles, something more admins should know how to do, IMO. Katr67 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Sorry, I need to see how VT handles the rest of this Rfa first, though it's ending soon and I'm sure it will pass. Katr67 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've had only good experiences with VanTucky. Good luck! iMatthew 2008 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - User seems to know their way around Wikipedia. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought you were an admin already. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support <insert cliche—yeah, you know which one—here> · AndonicO Engage. 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely, and about time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because... (already said) and because... (also said) and becu(also said) hmmm... ah I know because.... (dang it) well, because he's a good editor that's why. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be qualified. Also seems to have a good sense of humor. --SharkfaceT/C 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, and answers to questions are very impressive. GlassCobra 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Really regret my opinion the last time around. I think VT is a great Wikipedian, great article work, very helpful, some of the best answers to questions I've seen (particulary 7, 10 and 17). No reservations. --JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have seen this user on WP:GAN, and I think that he will be a good administrator. Macy (Review me!) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has to be my latest support ever for a nominee/co-nominee of mine! :) A strong support from me! Acalamari 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the tougher RfA decisions this year, simply because VanTucky's last RfA was so darn dramatic. He has, at times, been harsh, has called a spade a spade, has called a troll a troll, and has been called incivil. Perhaps he is. So the question the community must ask itself is "will we tolerate an incivil administrator?" I could rant about how we already have plenty (we do) or about how incivility isn't an issue (it is)...but I won't. What I will say is that VanTucky is "incivil", though his occasional bluntness, to those that can take a hit, or at least, should be able to. He is civil, respectful, and helpful, to new users, and indeed, to anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia. VanTucky is here to build an encyclopedia, and the admin tools will make that easier for him. That's what we should be doing—sysopping people who will use the tools to better the encyclopedia, not to better their rank, or to eliminate those they don't like, or whatever. VanTucky is an encyclopedia builder, and will do this work better as an admin. I trust him. But...Steven...you promised I could nominate you...:( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) You can tell I'm writing this after looking at the Giano ANI subpage, can't you?[reply]
- Not directly related to anything, but I will go on the record that VanTucky is, if not the best, then definitely one of the 3 best GA reviewers I've worked with in my time here. The other two in the top three are admins. He's a heck of a lot better than me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: --Bhadani (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great 'pedia builder which more than makes up for other issues. Big net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - solely because you like phở.</sarcasm> Will be a fine administrator. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --jonny-mt 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I could tell you that I waited so long to !vote because your last RfA confused me. I could also say it was because of your history of un-civility. I could also say that it was because of the Oppose !vote down there bringing up some good points. But to tell the truth, I just wanted to be Support #69. Ha ha ha.--KojiDude (Contributions) 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's hard to oppose a nomination such as this :) Anyway, great, well-rounded user; we could use more admins like him. Singularity 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was surprised he is not already an admin. A credit to the project. --David Shankbone 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Excellent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor. --CapitalR (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, again and strongly so. Dorftrottel (criticise) 06:03, April 17, 2008
- Support - Had some civility issues in the past, but has grown from those and does good work at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has addressed previous concerns, good answers to questions, should be a good admin. Davewild (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support coolios!! Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Hdt83 Chat 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - User is likely to oppose the bias at Wikipedia against anonymous IP editors, and likely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. Furthermore, the user's record and overall views impress me. Excellent admin candidate. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This guy is really helpful through IRC for me, and has basically governed WP:GAC helping to bring the backlog down. Will make a really good admin. Sunderland06 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - really good editor who will use the tools wisely. Civility has obviously been an issue but I think VanTucky has genuinely worked on this since the last RFA.--BelovedFreak 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per nom statements by TimVickers (talk · contribs), Acalamari (talk · contribs), and AGK (talk · contribs). VanTucky (talk · contribs) is a valued contributor and has been for quite some time now, an excellent GA Reviewer, and will do well to have the tools. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent editor who will make good use of the mop. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, GA's FA's no blocks? Seems to meet all my criteria! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WilyD 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Rarely do I feel it's worthwhile to pile on, but in this case, yes.[reply]
- Support Wonderful work on articles such as Domestic sheep, and my experiences with him have always been positive. I believe he's well-suited to be an admin, both in skills and temperament. Willow (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor who won't abuse the tools and may contribute even more to Wikipedia with the tools. --Abrech (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Duk 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! - I have been waiting for this! While the issues raised in VanTucky's previous RfA really concerned me then, those concerns are no more. I feel that this user has shown great improvement and a willingness to improve upon their mistakes. I actually have found myself going to VanTucky's userpage to search for anything that indicated he was already a admin, and always to my surprise came up empty handed, well after this that will no longer be the case. Net positive all together and will be a great asset to the team. Tiptoety talk 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great candidate. support like last time ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the mature responses persuaded me. Pundit|utter 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Most definitely. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support involvement in PAW-related articles is proof of VanTucky's insanity but he'll do fine as an admin. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's overdue. SWik78 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support absolutely. A great editor, cool under fire - I can't see him abusing the tools. Net benefit to the project. (Answers to Q5A and 19 are pretty good, too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work at GA. Thoughtful answer to Q7, which I recommend people read. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good editor, and more civil than he used to be (and I'm probably not the ideal person to be lecturing anyone about civility, in any case). His experience, of course, is more than adequate. WaltonOne 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per questions! Good Editor! Good Luck! The Helpful One (Review) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- miranda 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong support How could I oppose? Quite frankly. CycloneNimrodtalk? 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Just like last time. And solid answers to those extremely important optional questions :D (which have correctly been removed). Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Given the razor thin margin between support and oppose, I really felt it my duty to weigh in on your behalf to ensure your success. Additionally, I supported you the first time, and I see no reason not to this time through. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Learning from experience is one of the most important characteristics that sysop's need to have, and an example of good judgment. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An excellent candidate deserves pile-on support! -MBK004 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course. VanTucky is a great candidate. hmwithτ 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I did last time. Skinwalker (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:: I believe this editor is worthy of our trust. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All I can say is, if VanTucky is suspected of civility issues, then I'm in deep, deep trouble :) He's one of the nicest reviewers I've met. - Dan (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the user is a competent long-time wikipedian. See no reason why he should not be given administrator privileges.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- $upport Solid editor. Dfrg_msc 01:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this looks like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but this guy's legit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Hiberniantears. Keegantalk 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't usually even look at RFAs, let alone participate (except my own of course). There can be no doubt VanTucky is qualified for adminship: he excels in technical and communication skills, temperament, and attitude. —EncMstr (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have admired VanTucky's work on Portland-related articles at WP:ORE, one of the most collaborative and well-run WikiProjects around.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, he is not a kitten beater! John Vandenberg (chat) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some RfAs are easy to support, and this is one of them. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. — Becksguy (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. For every reason stated above, plus one. Spinach Dip 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well rounded. Very good candidate. SpencerT♦C 10:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - will make a fine admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - just to pile on. Absolutely no valid reason to think user will abuse tools. Tan | 39 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - No reason to oppose. Jaymacdonald (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Contribs look good, nothing of concern. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Well qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - absolutely. Previous concerns have all been addressed and are well in the past. Give this guy a mop! :) - Alison ❤ 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - preschooler@heart 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guinea Pig - the_undertow talk 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support VanTucky 2 seems to be trustworthy and reliable. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You are a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Because I want there to be no doubt why I voted in support. 1. Individual has a good number of edits with a mix of wikispace, talk and mainspace. 2. Individual received 1 block 5 July 2007, no obvious history of vandalism and no recent warnings 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 8 August 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in wikiprojects 5. This is the 2nd time the user has submitted RFA. 6. Individual has been a reviewer on numorous good and/or featured articles 7. Individual has received several awards or recognitions including The Good Article Medal of Merit for their work on wikipedia. 8. Has been coached by Acalamari, Co-nominated by Sysyop's User:AGK, User:TimVickers, User:Acalamari -->--Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'm late Support - VanTucky's first request gave him a fair bit of feedback to think about and address and I think he's done just that. The wide margin here suggests I'm not the only person who thinks so. I think he will make a fine administrator. Just watch out for Namespace Shift!!!! Your help on GA and FA will remain invaluable... ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think this is gonna pass...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has addressed earlier concerns. SilkTork *YES! 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Great candidate. Johnfos (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Horologium (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Haven't had any contact since last time, but if there are so few in opposition, and so many for, I think that says a lot. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a frequent and knowledgeable reviewer of articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A reliable editor of good judgment, from what I've seen.--ragesoss (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know it's a cliche but I thought... -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Will surely use the tools well, contributions are excellent. --Ryan talk 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Beagel (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very thorough, thoughtful editor. Gosgood (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Any friend of Dolly is a friend of mine. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good candidate for the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seen VanTucky all over the place. He'll be a great admin! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He is a great editor and deserves the admin tools - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - CenariumTalk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions, participation in FA process, WP:100. ~AH1(TCU) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I had had second thoughts about this user, especially because I don't believe we think about adminship in the same way, but the nominations by a number of editors whom I respect deeply, as well as this [22] brilliant application of policy, leave me more than satisfied to support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. — BillC talk 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems level-headed enough, no indication they'd abuse the tools. Plus, 155 Wikipedians can't be wrong. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support - Good to see civility issues have improved. Definitely ready now. - Shudde talk 04:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I appreciate his WP:GA contributions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good user and has lots of edits. He should be a good admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs)
- Support per the above 150+ supports. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the most clueful editors I have ever had the joy of working with. Trusilver 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support thoughtful editor. SunCreator (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support completely. the wub "?!" 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm confident having seen VanTucky interact with others lately that all concerns from the previous RfA have been taken to heart. Shell babelfish 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Superfluous Support!, but adding it anyway. Per answers to questions, contributions and other comments, especially those by Pedro and Katr67. Civility is in my opinion one excellent trait in an admin. The ability to learn from constructive criticism is another. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --John (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Adminship is a good thing for VanTucky. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, has the experience I like to see in admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Among many other things, I really like the fact that VanTucky speaks his mind. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I cannot believe I didn't see this before. I have no reason not to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If I were writing an article on how to respond for RFA, I'd link to this one. Royalbroil 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen around to have confidence in this user, and their insightful answers to questions demonstrance a strong grasp of policy. --Bfigura (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – most definitely —αlεx•mullεr 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support more than capable to help improve the project. Grsz11 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. He's not going to abuse tools and make the encyclopedia better. Basketball110 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No sense he'll abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A pleasure working with him. jmcw (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I do not find the opposition convincing enough to sway my opinion of this fine editor. James086Talk | Email 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have seen this user around before, and sorry to use a cliche, but I thought he already was an admin! ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (secret) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems to be a reformed, learned individual. Have trust that he would not abuse their rights. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good editor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Not so sure after reading his responses to the "blanket revert"ing comments below. I don't know who's in the right, but it would be nice if VT's comments were less confrontational. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Huge asset to Wikipedia, dedicated and experienced. κaτaʟavenoTC 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An excellent contributor who I have seen around and am sure will make a good admin. I read through the opposition's concerns and I have decided they do not concern me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A wonderful contributor who shows good understanding of Wikipedia Policy and in my opinion would not abuse the Admin Tools.--Mifter (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the consensus is already evident but nonetheless - extensive experience in resolving content disputes and dealing with fringe theories on routinely controversial pages in a calm and collaborative manner. Strikes a good balance between involving others in debates and ensuring their points are responded to, while identifying and not feeding the inevitable trolls. An excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and should make a fine admin. Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributor, enough time has passed since block for sure, points about the AfD's haven't been troublesome enough to hold back a good user. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? Very friendly, trustworthy, and has a catchy name (the three most important admin qualities). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without worry, has always seemed a good editor. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- +SupportLing.Nut (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per most the stuff that was said above. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my esteemed colleagues, above. It's weak, but there are 190-some-odd reasons to support above, and it would be unreasonable to duplicate them here. Candidate is a good editor who would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
StrongOppose due to unnecessarily unpleasant interaction with editor at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5 (notice how TenPoundHammer civily persuaded me to change my stance whereas VanTucky just added to wikidrama) and weak arguments expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Grey's Anatomy (an AfD tainted by participated from banned User:Dannycali), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy (another AfD tainted by Dannycali's participation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological List of Playboy Playmates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) (an AfD tainted by participation from banned User:Burntsauce), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Elementary School (Kansas), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti in popular culture (an AfD tainted by banned User:IPSOS, User:Burntsauce, and User:Eyrian), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer (2nd nomination). Thus, a bit too zealous to remove articles that we do not have clear consensus to remove (any examples that were deleted were marred by the participation of sock accounts). I am also persuaded by fairly widespread concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky#Oppose and a block for revert warring. As I do not like to say only negtaive things, I did agree with him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (second nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- All I have to say is that I request you read my answer to Q10. Thanks for participating, VanTucky 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but what do you think about ones like the Yeti in popular culture discussion, where at least three sock accounts were on the deletion side and many of the others were of the WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM variety? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question, as an example: things like sock puppets (if they are proven ones, not just accusations) should obviously be taken in to account when determining what the consensus is. Also note that I use the phrase consensus, not vote tally. Simple "per nom" votes carry little to no weight when determining consensus. All that said, I don't name AFD closing as an intended area of administrative contribution above for a reason. VanTucky 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fair enough, I'll switch to regular oppose then for now and will watch the discussion for other developments as if RfAs are not "votes", I think it is important to acknowledge how later questions are answered. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is the discussion regarding Van Tucky's request for adminship, not specific AfD's... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that the first concern stems from a debate in which you both were involved -- my less involved perspective doesn't give me any concerns (for whatever that's worth.) At least some of the other concerns are from last August, well before the first RfA -- again, for whatever it's worth. Just pointing these things out, I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first concern is an example of how his chastising my oppose is NOT what got me to change my stance; rather the candidate's civil interactions with me changed my perspective. It therefore demonstrates what does and does not work as effective ways of engaging Wikipedians. VanTucky ineffectively engaged me in that RfA; TenPoundHammer by contrast effectively engaged me. To be fair, VanTucky's reply to my oppose here is far more reasonable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How he argues in AfDs provides insight into his understanding of inclusion policies and guidelines. Because one third of adminship tools have to deal with deleting or restoring articles, how someone views content is relevant to their role as an admin. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that the first concern stems from a debate in which you both were involved -- my less involved perspective doesn't give me any concerns (for whatever that's worth.) At least some of the other concerns are from last August, well before the first RfA -- again, for whatever it's worth. Just pointing these things out, I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question, as an example: things like sock puppets (if they are proven ones, not just accusations) should obviously be taken in to account when determining what the consensus is. Also note that I use the phrase consensus, not vote tally. Simple "per nom" votes carry little to no weight when determining consensus. All that said, I don't name AFD closing as an intended area of administrative contribution above for a reason. VanTucky 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but what do you think about ones like the Yeti in popular culture discussion, where at least three sock accounts were on the deletion side and many of the others were of the WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM variety? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, why is the block from July 5 of 2007 a factor? VanTucky has stated himself that he's learned from the block, and anyway, it was over 9 months ago: that's easily enough time to learn from a block, and it took place several months before his first RfA happened (and it's roughly the same amount of time I've been an admin, for that matter). Acalamari 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By itself, yes, probably not a big deal, but it is combined with the various reasons other opposed and my own unfavorable experiences. One reason alone can easily be discounted, but even if there were a bunch of small things, they add up. Plus, I think most RfAs I've participated in have been users who have never been blocked or if they have were unblocked. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. Acalamari 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. Acalamari 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By itself, yes, probably not a big deal, but it is combined with the various reasons other opposed and my own unfavorable experiences. One reason alone can easily be discounted, but even if there were a bunch of small things, they add up. Plus, I think most RfAs I've participated in have been users who have never been blocked or if they have were unblocked. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a reference fetishist... see Talk:Geyser where he wants a reference per paragraph for purely decorative purposes, for example. GA is an incredibly bureaucratic and totally pointless process... I seriously question the judgment of anyone involved in it. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- On second thought I don't have time to reply to the abuse the above opposer seems to have been subjected to, which I'm sure people are typing up for me already... I'll come back this weekend to reaffirm my oppose if I feel like it, and be berated by the GA fans. See you then. --Rividian (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I'm a GA fan. I wouldn't have berated you, but rather, pointed out that he called it a rule of thumb, and didn't make a big deal about it. So I draw the opposite conclusion to you. But having differing opinions is a good thing. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought I don't have time to reply to the abuse the above opposer seems to have been subjected to, which I'm sure people are typing up for me already... I'll come back this weekend to reaffirm my oppose if I feel like it, and be berated by the GA fans. See you then. --Rividian (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I have to say is that I request you read my answer to Q10. Thanks for participating, VanTucky 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per what I said above... we don't need more admins who treat inline citations as if they're decorations, requesting one per paragraph. --Rividian (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm going to say is that I remind readers that the work Rividian is talking about is in relation to my reviews of articles according to the GA criteria, not all articles. VanTucky 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What he omits to say is he himself has made edits [23] to make the GA criteria include that ridiculous one-per-paragraph thing (changes that apparently didn't stick). --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark. I'm not sure this is as big a deal as you are making it out to be. It's VanTucky's honest opinion on referencing in articles. As it happens, that's somewhat unrelated to any direct administrator actions, except, perhaps, an obscure sub-task, such as resolving edit warring over referencing. I think you're looking for bad points, and have found one (rather weak, unfortunately), and are sticking to it, rather than undertaking a cost-benefit analysis, and looking at the bigger picture. Just my two pence. Anthøny 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing is at the core of many content disputes though, and admins have a frequent role in settling those. This mentality that the number of inline citations is more important than what the articles or even the references actually say... that's just not one I want admins to have. --Rividian (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to get in to a debate over in-line cites here, but saying I think the number of citations is more important than what article or refs say is a misrepresentation of my views (according to me anyway). VanTucky 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion of GA criteria moved to talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to get in to a debate over in-line cites here, but saying I think the number of citations is more important than what article or refs say is a misrepresentation of my views (according to me anyway). VanTucky 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing is at the core of many content disputes though, and admins have a frequent role in settling those. This mentality that the number of inline citations is more important than what the articles or even the references actually say... that's just not one I want admins to have. --Rividian (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark. I'm not sure this is as big a deal as you are making it out to be. It's VanTucky's honest opinion on referencing in articles. As it happens, that's somewhat unrelated to any direct administrator actions, except, perhaps, an obscure sub-task, such as resolving edit warring over referencing. I think you're looking for bad points, and have found one (rather weak, unfortunately), and are sticking to it, rather than undertaking a cost-benefit analysis, and looking at the bigger picture. Just my two pence. Anthøny 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What he omits to say is he himself has made edits [23] to make the GA criteria include that ridiculous one-per-paragraph thing (changes that apparently didn't stick). --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm going to say is that I remind readers that the work Rividian is talking about is in relation to my reviews of articles according to the GA criteria, not all articles. VanTucky 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Seeing him around occasionally, I'm not convinced the very consistent concerns of many opposers last time (in which I did not participate) over temperament, civility and aggressiveness have been overcome. No heckling please! Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Although his user talkpage no longer gives the elitist reasoning he once gave for his choice of editing names, nor the gratuitously cruel and again elitist link to to what he used to refer to as a " rube" on his user page shows an attitude that all to many administrators have. It is my strong, but humble, opinion that the project would be better off without this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet your username could be seen as offensive to I don't know maybe people of a certain color? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for posterity, not really in response to this oppose, I want to point out that my user page history only goes back to January 08, as I had it deleted in order to get rid of some personal information that once appeared there. VanTucky 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you deny that you linked to a Myspace page and assured other editors that you were not the" rube" to whose page you linked? Did you not pick "Vantucky" to because the name referred to those Iroq driving , wrestling watching, mullet-wearing Other and that in picking it you knew it was pejorative?In the interest of fairness, I think all the other editors here should be able to see that side of you. By the way, my user name passed muster and ne'er a single person of color has objected to it. The only ones who throw this red herring out seem to have some deep seated White Guilt. This is not about my username. I do not aspire to adminship. It is about this user and his quest for those powers. My concern is legitimate., and your ad hominem red herring attack is noted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone does not object does not mean they are not offended, it could just mean they are unaware of the process for challenging a username. Equating a lack of a complaint to not being offended is faulty logic. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, tis is soooooo not about my username. Imagine my name was , say, Movietime. Now please speak to my just criticism of the previous content of this user's page where he linked to a third person's Myspace , labeling the person a "rube" and thereby holding this person up for ridicule by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that this is behavior that is becoming an administrator, then more power to you. Please say so in the Support group above. If you want to open another complaint on my username because I object to this nomination, I'm sure you know how to do this. For your information, I am not only a direct descent of a confederate war hero, but also that of a slave. One of my grandfathers was an octoroon.Now if you would like to speak to the issue at hand, then let's discuss this nomination. If you want to discuss my Username, then feel free to reply to my talkpage.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was only pointing out the hypocrisy concerning your username complaint. As to VanTucky's actions from nearly a year ago (I believe, but certainly last year), I neither condemn nor condone these actions from nearly a year ago. Since nearly a year ago he apparently removed them when someone complained, again nearly a year ago. Since this happened nearly a year ago, and he has changed his ways and improved over that long period of time (did I mention nearly a year ago) the community takes that into account. I did not support his candidacy last time due to concerns of civility, but since that time (not nearly a year ago) he has improved and since we tend not to hold things over people's heads forever, I and about 175 people have moved on. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, tis is soooooo not about my username. Imagine my name was , say, Movietime. Now please speak to my just criticism of the previous content of this user's page where he linked to a third person's Myspace , labeling the person a "rube" and thereby holding this person up for ridicule by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that this is behavior that is becoming an administrator, then more power to you. Please say so in the Support group above. If you want to open another complaint on my username because I object to this nomination, I'm sure you know how to do this. For your information, I am not only a direct descent of a confederate war hero, but also that of a slave. One of my grandfathers was an octoroon.Now if you would like to speak to the issue at hand, then let's discuss this nomination. If you want to discuss my Username, then feel free to reply to my talkpage.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone does not object does not mean they are not offended, it could just mean they are unaware of the process for challenging a username. Equating a lack of a complaint to not being offended is faulty logic. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That content was there in December, a mere 4 to 5 months ago. Perhaps he could tell us when this was removed? I'm thinking when he removed the "personal" information. My complaint is that the reasons he gave for choosing the username were very different than the ones I employed. You can find the pertinent discussion on my talk page and an archived username complain page. I could care less what people choose to name themselves; however, I AM concerned about who is given the plenipotentiary powers of adminship. This demonstrates the one problem with consensus and underlines my concern with elitism: With so many people in favor, this user feels free to not address my legitimate concerns. Again, I note the personal attack in your choice of "hypocrisy" and your lack of civility and would ask that you refrain from both.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you deny that you linked to a Myspace page and assured other editors that you were not the" rube" to whose page you linked? Did you not pick "Vantucky" to because the name referred to those Iroq driving , wrestling watching, mullet-wearing Other and that in picking it you knew it was pejorative?In the interest of fairness, I think all the other editors here should be able to see that side of you. By the way, my user name passed muster and ne'er a single person of color has objected to it. The only ones who throw this red herring out seem to have some deep seated White Guilt. This is not about my username. I do not aspire to adminship. It is about this user and his quest for those powers. My concern is legitimate., and your ad hominem red herring attack is noted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What a fascinating word, but you might not realise that in Wikipedia only developers have "plenipotentiary" powers, in the sense of unlimited or full powers, and nobody has such powers in the sense of being deputised to act on behalf of somebody else. We're all responsible for our own actions here, we can't select an agent to act for us. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for posterity, not really in response to this oppose, I want to point out that my user page history only goes back to January 08, as I had it deleted in order to get rid of some personal information that once appeared there. VanTucky 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This leads me to more questions about this nomination[24]. It would seem that he considers personal attacks and incivility to be "reasoned advocacy".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:ATTACK to refine your view on what constitutes a personal attack. Thanks, Grsz11 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Die4Dixie, review what a personal attack is as defined here at Wikipedia. A personal attack would be when I would attack an attribute of you, for instance age, race, the color of your hair or sexual orientation or, even if I had called you a hypocrite instead of labeling your argument as hypocrisy. Think of it as similar to immutable characteristics, and the reasoning behind suspect classes. Now, calling your actions (i.e. your statement "elitist reasoning he once gave for his choice of editing names") hypocrisy due to your own issues with your username is attacking your actions and your argument, and not a personal attack. This is what debate on Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Attack the argument, not the editor. You may also want to assume good faith, but if not, feel free to seek out an admin about personal attacks. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC
- Please review WP:ATTACK to refine your view on what constitutes a personal attack. Thanks, Grsz11 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For you both:There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion....--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Yet your username could be seen as offensive to I don't know maybe people of a certain color? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My experiences with this user have not be positive or encouraging that he suitable to be an admin. Giano (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild oppose. As I speak he is blanket-reverting me based on a convention he hasn't read properly. This doesn't bespeak of the kind of thoroughness I like to see in administrators. Hesperian 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, I am not "blanket reverting you", whatever that means. In fact, I only reverted once or twice before I realized you were making useful category edits along with images ones I disagreed with, so I quit undoing and started editing. Second, I have read the images convention properly, but it's been edited since the last time I read it in depth. You can't fault me for not re-reading guidelines every single time I cite them. Last and most important, what matters in voting in RFA is whether or not you trust me not to use the tools in a content dispute, something for which there is no evidence suggesting I would, in fact, the opposite (if you read my answers and admin coaching). VanTucky 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be fair, Hesperian, he just hadn't got round to altering the MoS [25] when he made those edits, but he did straight after (only to be swiftly reverted by Sandy Georgia...) Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, you're blanket part-reverting me then. The point is that you didn't stop at the articles on your own watchlist; you walked my own contributions seeking to revert all of them; that's where "blanket" comes into it. In doing so you incorrectly quoted the Manual of Style. In fact the Manual of Style supports me, not you, but your edit summaries falsely claim the opposite. I see now you're editing the Manual of Style to make it agree with you; fortunately that was reverted. If someone will make a unilateral edit to the Manual of Style in order to gain an advantage in a content dispute, I think I'm entitled to think that they'll use their admin tools to do the same... not that I accept your proscription of the grounds upon which I am permitted to oppose you. Hesperian 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that seems sufficient evidence that you don't trust me. So be it. VanTucky 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, but I read "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences." in the WP:MOS, and I believe that's been there a while. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the dispute. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. But VT presumably couldn't find that bit, so boldly added his own figure of 250 somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Default thumb sizes and thumb sizes greater than or equal to 300px are consistent with that recommendation; thumb sizes less than 300px are not. VT was apparently unaware of the recommendation, leading him to blanket revert me with a false edit summary; e.g. [26] There's no suggestion that VT wasn't acting in good faith, but the fact remains that he charged off and reverted everything I did, without stopping to check the facts of the case. Hence my view that he probably oughtn't be trusted with rollback etc right now. Hesperian 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should take a closer look at my contribs, answers here etc. For example, you say I you don't think I should be trusted with rollback right now, so seem to have missed the fact that I've been a rollbacker for quite some time now. VanTucky 07:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you've got it doesn't imply that I must think you can be trusted with it. Hesperian 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the fact that I've had it for several months and not misused it does. That, and the fact that I've made it abundantly clear both here and in my admin coaching that I understand the utmost importance of maintaining a high level of communication as a sysop, which is why using rollback for anything but clear vandal fighting is inappropriate. But anyway, you're obviously of strong conviction on my unsuitability, so we can leave it at that. VanTucky 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Default thumb sizes and thumb sizes greater than or equal to 300px are consistent with that recommendation; thumb sizes less than 300px are not. VT was apparently unaware of the recommendation, leading him to blanket revert me with a false edit summary; e.g. [26] There's no suggestion that VT wasn't acting in good faith, but the fact remains that he charged off and reverted everything I did, without stopping to check the facts of the case. Hence my view that he probably oughtn't be trusted with rollback etc right now. Hesperian 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. But VT presumably couldn't find that bit, so boldly added his own figure of 250 somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, but I read "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences." in the WP:MOS, and I believe that's been there a while. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the dispute. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that seems sufficient evidence that you don't trust me. So be it. VanTucky 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, I am not "blanket reverting you", whatever that means. In fact, I only reverted once or twice before I realized you were making useful category edits along with images ones I disagreed with, so I quit undoing and started editing. Second, I have read the images convention properly, but it's been edited since the last time I read it in depth. You can't fault me for not re-reading guidelines every single time I cite them. Last and most important, what matters in voting in RFA is whether or not you trust me not to use the tools in a content dispute, something for which there is no evidence suggesting I would, in fact, the opposite (if you read my answers and admin coaching). VanTucky 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is one of those situations where an incident happens to a user during an RfA that may reflect on how s/he will behave with the tools. I've seen that happen quite a bit here, lurking at RfA, actually! First VanTucky (VT) reverts Hesperian (Hesp) here and leaves a note at Hesp's talk page here, misquoting the MoS, which is an excusable mistake--this is a wiki after all, and many of us have been caught off guard by sudden policy changes. However, Hesp made him aware that the MoS did not support his edit in this reply on VT's talk page. After Hesp explained this to him, he reverted four more of Hesp's edits, before changing the MoS to agree with him. I am not opposing because VT made a mistake--I am opposing because after he was told he made a mistake, he went on making the same mistake. When he realized that WP:MoS did not support his edits, he changed the policy to agree with him! We have too many admins that do that sort of revisionist history now, I do not think we need another; additionally, I believe his approach to Hesp's oppose here comes off as confrontational. Combine that with the old civility concerns raised at his previous RfA and what I perceive as an insensitivity to the BLP problem, I must oppose. Allow me to explain the BLP concerns: In the Stefano diff he chides others for their lack of "cojones" for voting delete and in the (admittedly old) Angela Beesley AfD, he suggests that if you do not want to be a public figure, then you should just remove yourself from a position of public scrutiny and "grow the fuck up".[27]. We need admins that are sensitive to the BLP issue--these two diffs show a person who does not consider the affect that these articles have on real life people. He felt this way in June 2007 and feels similarly now, it seems. Respecting the subjects of our bios does not include telling other editors to "get cojones" or telling article subjects to "grow the fuck up". In conclusion, admitting when you made a mistake, being humble and polite about it, and apologizing when one screws up are skills that an admin needs--the recent events here suggests he does not have these skills. My concerns over his feelings on BLPs and his civility in general is what caused me to watch this RfA; this incident with Hesp just confirms the bad feelings I had about him being an admin. daveh4h 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get in to a lengthy debate, but I will point out that the second AFD for the Beesley biography was literally my first serious venture in to the realm of XFD. I don't think it's a fair example of my XFD knowledge, and there is much said therein (on my part) that is completely wrong. VanTucky 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per daveh4h and his sleuth-like work. I wouldn't want this guy as an administrator.--Endless Dan 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - This is both the strongest opposition I've felt in a while and among the most regretful. VanTucky does great things, especially in creating and improving content -- which is what we're here to do. However, my own observations of VanTucky are enough to make me oppose this nomination. Far too interested in deleting stuff, even in areas where his commentary is infused with a strong opinion bordering on prejudice, he has a tendency to make comments in such away that others' views and contributions are demeaned. That, in and of itself, would require me to oppose this nom. // Having read the other opposes above, I conclude that my observations matched what others had seen or experienced themselves. None of these problems are major issues, as long as others make the final call. But, giving this editor the keys (and the trust to use them) entails an unaaceptable risk, as well as creating a civility quagmire. --SSBohio 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral: Not entirely sure on friendliness, but has definite done quite a bit of work for Wikipedia.--Bedford 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per concerns raised by dihydrogen monoxide but not an outright oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovich292 (talk • contribs)
- !vote indented as no sigBalloonman (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. VT's a great editor, but he needs to work on how he responds to people he doesn't agree with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. While I think that VanTucky as an admin would probably be a net positive for Wikipedia, the image size situation makes me hesitate from outright supporting him. For starters, I'm puzzled why none of the involved parties sought to discuss this first either at the Manual of Style talk page or at the Village Pump. I also think that VanTucky's comments could have been less controntational. On the other hand, he has been overall a great editor, and I feel that he has improved since his last RfA. --Kyoko 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that I did drop a talk note to Hespersian before there was any conflict at all. So I did try and make sure he understood my reasoning. VanTucky 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.Has douche-like tendancies. --Endless Dan 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- But have never once stooped to the level of name calling in an RFA to justify my position. Please redact your personal attack. If you honestly think I haven't sufficiently improved my civility to warrant your trust, that's your perogative. But calling me a douche is not. VanTucky 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great.--Endless Dan 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan, that was rather personal and I see where it could be read as an attack. I think (and this is just my opinion) that you commented that way to be a bit saucy, since a straight comment could be boring. It didn't get received so well by VanTucky, so maybe you could rephrase it, just to clarify that no insult was intended. --SSBohio 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great.--Endless Dan 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But have never once stooped to the level of name calling in an RFA to justify my position. Please redact your personal attack. If you honestly think I haven't sufficiently improved my civility to warrant your trust, that's your perogative. But calling me a douche is not. VanTucky 17:34, 23 April 2008 (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.
Kumioko
Final (47/33/20); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko (talk · contribs) - I have been making edits to Wikipedia since 4 June 2007 and since then I believe I have acted in the best interests of the Wikipedia project since then. I have, since June accumulated over 30,000 edits. Although, I was granted access to use AWB late in 2007, I had over 15000 edits before that request was approved. I am currently a momber of several different wikiprojects and have tried to support them to the best of my abilities. I believe that my best work has been to build up and add to the Medal of Honor recipient pages including getting 1, Smedley Butler to Good Article status and 1, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima to Featured List status. To answer another question I have on numorous occassions been stressed by editors for several reasons, particulary in acts of ownership over editing articles and what is and is not notible (particularly regarding military operations). In some of these cases I simply stopped editing those articles and moved on to others, in some cases I worked through it and continued on editing. I have also found myself somewhat disappointed at some of the conflicting rules within Wikipedia regarding what is and is not appropriate formatting for a Featured Article. In particular my recent submission of List of Medal of Honor recipients for featured list status. In this case there are rules in wikipedia which allow forking, however this technique is not allowed for a featured article. This debate rages on and is in fact one of the reasons I am applying for this RFA. I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept.--Kumioko (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to continue to edit and add to the articles on wikipedia and to guard against vandalism, and to help clarify the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I believe my best contributions are my edits and additions to the Medal of Honor recipient pages, especially Smedley Butler which was promoted to Good article status and List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima which was promoted to Featured List status.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes, but I believe I have learned from them and I continue to grow as an editor. I have tried to deal with them in a clear level headed manner and will continue to do so in the future.
- Questions for the candidate from User:DanBealeCocks
- 4. A new editor, called User:1089297PaloirK creates 3 articles, "Janice A Jenkins", "Paul Todd Jr" and "Martin Michael McDonald-Jones". These articles are each about a screenful long, reasonably well written, and do not contain any obvious BLP concerns. It's pretty clear that User:1089297PaloirK is either one of these people, or works with them. Someone points out the user to you. What do you do? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A:As long as the articles do not violate any privacy act rules, have POV content, theres nothing racial or derogetory, they are adequately referenced and the people in question are significantly noteworthy as to rate their own article I would likely leave them alone and watch them to see if they morph into something evil. Otherwise if the article fails any of the above I would place the appropriate tag (likely a speedy delete, with request for rebuttal) to give the users adaquate time to fix it. If they don't I would delete it. If you would like me to clarify more let me know but to me its a fairly broad question that could go a lot of ways depending on the credibility and referencing of the article.--Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no BLP or copy vio. The people and the company they work for are completely non-notable. The work of a boring afternoon in the office - a light hearted article on your colleagues. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.
- 5. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- 6. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
- A- Honestly I would probably ask for assistance from some of my fellow admins. Determining sockpuppets/meatpuppets can be tedious and dificult and the results are not 100%. If after being reviewed by my peers and myself we still couldn't determine I would go with the majority vote, even if my gut says its wrong. My gut can't vote.--Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
- 8. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
- 9. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- 10. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- A-Honestly, I think too many editors spend spend too much time voting on things like this that lends no value to the Pedia itself. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an online compendium of human knowledge, not a pool of endless votes and voters. Just look at how much time has been spent on this RFA alone, how many articles could have been created and edited in the time everyone, including myself has been spent on this. Additioanlly, I have seen a lot of folks commenting about how I am a great editor but I lack the admin experience. I offer you all a thought, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a gathering place for a bunch of admins looking for a purpose. You are an editor 1st not as a hobby or part time thing, so if you have in the past been choosing admins becuase they were running around answering questions and generating projects, then in my opinion you were voting them in for the wrong reasons. Additionally, I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 11. Please choose a question from User:Filll/AGF Challenge, and give an answer, including your reasoning, below. Thanks, and good luck. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I chose question #1 about the Wife being the coathour and I chose that we definately should report that if thats what all the references dictate. I suspect that threats are relayed to the wikipedia HQ frequently but as long as we stick the facts and use verifiable sources we are valid in our point. Plus most of the other questions are similar circumstances, trying to force or coerce their opinions based on little or circumstantial evidence or resources that contradict the majority opinion and or references. Basically, again if we stick to what we can verify then we are in good shape.--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's annoying that there are now multiple choice answers possible, I hadn't realized Filll had added those. Do you in fact agree fully with that multiple choice option, or would you prefer a somewhat different approach? For instance, had you considered going to the person and confronting them with the discrepancy? Perhaps they'd tell you an interesting story! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) See also under: User_talk:Filll#User:_Durova_interviews_me_about_the_User:Filll.2FAGF_Challenge, which also covers this RFA. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I chose question #1 about the Wife being the coathour and I chose that we definately should report that if thats what all the references dictate. I suspect that threats are relayed to the wikipedia HQ frequently but as long as we stick the facts and use verifiable sources we are valid in our point. Plus most of the other questions are similar circumstances, trying to force or coerce their opinions based on little or circumstantial evidence or resources that contradict the majority opinion and or references. Basically, again if we stick to what we can verify then we are in good shape.--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from barneca
- 12. Sorry to add to the question-palooza here, but this is pertinent to my decision. You’ve basically agreed with those saying you don’t have much admin-related experience. Please help me support you anyway by:
- (a) Explaining briefly how you plan to handle it when you run into a situation where you need to use the tools and aren’t familiar with the applicable policy/procedure.
- I believe that most of the policies I will encounter are well documented and I would have to read up on them case by case as they come up. If I get access to these tools I am not going to take off and start using them willy nilly throughout just arbitrarily doing admin stuff. I intend to start slow and go from there. I will probably start with Antivandalism since thats obviously a big problem. Aside from that I will likely ask for help. I have asked questions of several admins in the past and I believe I have a good report with them.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (b) Explaining briefly how you will handle it when someone tells you you used your admin tools wrong/unfairly
- I will ask them to explain why they think I used them unfairly and go from there. Likely, if they aregue the point and its remotely valid I will err on the side of good faith and undo it. Since there are so many possible cases its hard to say exactly what I would do.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (c) The really important bit: Can you point me to any discussions you’ve been in where someone has convinced you that your approach/opinion/philosophy was wrong? I have had some issues in the past where my edits made using AWB where wrong and I fixed those. I have also recently been engaged in discussions regarding wikipedia policy on why forking should or should not be used in a featured article. The juries still out on that one and I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong when I am given evidence that its wrong. All too often people just say its wrong and offer nothing in return as to why.--Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) Explaining briefly how you plan to handle it when you run into a situation where you need to use the tools and aren’t familiar with the applicable policy/procedure.
- If someone is willing to cheerfully admit mistakes and fix them, and cheerfully accepts constructive criticism, then learning on the job is perfectly OK. Please help me convince myself you are such a person.
- A.
- Optional Questions from Bpeps
- 13: In your current article space would having sysop tools make a difference?
- Yes I believe they would, As I mentioned I am interested in fighting vandalism which seems to be excalating on the military related articles (perhaps based on the issues in Iraq and such). But I am also interested in relieving some of the pressure from the Admins that work in the same areas I do. It often seems to take them some time to respond to questions because they are so busy dueing other more trivial tasks. I don't pretend that I will instantly be all knowing and be able to handle every situation immediately but I would be an extension of the admin communities wingspan and thereby hopefully eleviate some of the pressure of the little tasks.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 14: Being a sysop makes you liable to "asking the other parent" how would you deal with an editor contacting you about a situation you haven't been involved in before?
- Well on this I would say that it is doubtful that I would overturn the decision of another admin without at least consulting them first. If its just a matter of a user/editor asking a question, there is enough policy and guidlines out there that spell things out I doubt there will be too many circumstances where there isn't at least some literature. Basically, I would likely go with the standards that have previously been established and if the other admins do the same thing then the response should be about the same.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question
- 14 7 What is your stance on Beans?
- I believe in assuming good faith. People are faced with decisions like this every day and typically most make an effort to do the right thing. With that said our prisons are full of people that have shown, we'll say lapses in judgement. But they were given the opportunity to do the right thing and they chose not too. In a nutshell we can't go rounding up all the people in wikipedia that we think MIGHT be prone to doing something wrong and then ban them before they can do anything destructive. To me that would be counter to the very principle that wikipedia is built on. With that said if they make the decision to screw something up, they should pay the price wether that means they are blocked from editing or their admin tools are revoked depends on what they do wrong. I hope this helps but please let me know if you need me to calrify further.--Kumioko (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The user that originally left this question has been blocked from editing for the next 24 hours due to disruptive editing. Although the question seems reasonable, I will leave it to someone else to decide if this question should be removed.--Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Kumioko's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Kumioko: Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kumioko before commenting.
Discussion
I was going to put forth my vote on this RfA, but the candidate's response to the 17th oppose changed my mind.Oppose votes due to very little work in admin related areas are "extremely weak" according to the candidate, but they really are not. Editors feel that if you want to be an admin, there has to have been some related work in the areas prescribed, otherwise the mop is seen as the aforementioned "power hunger". If an admin candidate isn't going to use the tools for what they were intended, why bother having them? ArcAngel (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several people here seem to oppose because Kumioko has little admin experience?
Well, apparently on RFA talk, people have been saying they'd likely support anyone who gave good answers to questions like question 15 above (the very tough Filll's AGF challenge questions that is). Several others state that they'd likely have to hand in their bit if anyone actually tried asking them one of those questions, so I figure it's a pretty decent test. For the sake of trying to start a useful tradition, I'll support if a good answer to question 15 is provided.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You all should be ashamed of yourselves, as User:Keeper76 put it, "there are more questions than supporters or opposers in this RfA. For a candidate with 30K edits, FAs, GAs, no blocks, no civility issues. We've gone grossly awry." Seriously people, get over yourself enough to realize a great candidate when
s/he is standing in front of you. This is a disgrace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify since its come up a couple times, I'm a he.;-)--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point Gonzo. This user has demonstrated his civility, deliberative abilities, and Wiki-related skills. We can see that he will approach admin decisions with careful thought, thus the possibility of any misdeeds is near zero. In fact, in all likelihood, this user will make few admin actions. However, if he just once makes a good admin action, then we, the Encyclopedia, have gained. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify since its come up a couple times, I'm a he.;-)--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a number of questions from this RFA [28]. Enough is enough quite frankly. The funny questions haven't been funny for a while and the point they were originally making about excessive numbers of questions was lost some time ago. Think about how this process looks to newbies and people thinking of running at RfA for the first time. No need to make an already daunting process more so. It isn't a game, and what's humorous to some will be received very differently by others. If these questions were an irritation to some of the more experienced people, think about the mixed signals they send to others. I've removed the most obviously silly/political/unrelated to adminship questions. This should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the remaining questions, I just decided it was time for a line to be drawn, and I'm drawing it now. Please lets make this self-regulating though (bureaucrats shouldn't need to be the question police). WjBscribe 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm an idiot, but... What is the big deal about the answer to question one? People are "scared" by someone who thinks some unnamed policies are contradictory and want to clarify them? Scared that he will continue to edit articles? Color me confused. Avruch T 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people think the answer doesn't show any real need for the tools. While I'm not sure why this too is a big issue by itself, some continue to interpret that as the candidate not truly understanding what adminship is about, which is certainly a valid interpretation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since at this point it appears obvious that my RFA has zero chance of succeeding I would like to leave this parting comment before it is closed and archived. Although I did not win, and I do not have the intention of submitting again I do not regret my decision to submit for RFA. I learned a lot about the fickle nature of the voting and RFA process and I hope that my RFA, however disappointing it was to me, will serve as a warning to others. You might be the greatest editor in the world (which I admit I am not) but unless you get the support of the mob, you will not succeed. For all those who voted, Support, Oppose or neutral. Thank you for taking the time to review my application and happy editing. For you admins, stand ready for I shall be busy submitting requests to you soon for your assistance in dealing with matters of wiki-administation that only you can be trusted to assist with.--Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- 30k edits, a good article, a featured list, here for ten months, never been blocked? Certainly. Majorly (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per majorly. Sorry this isn't going well, but you seem to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I find it highly unlikely that you would become the topic of debate as far as misused/abused tools, and therefore I'm happy to support. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Majorly. Looks like a great editor. Acalamari 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support per Majorly. SpencerT♦C 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Naerii 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It'd be nice to have an admin who actually works on articles
as well asinstead of creating drama. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)I really should read the preview more carefully. :-([reply] - Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I note that Kumioko has made a number of mistakes in communication in this RFA but the opposition at present is not a balanced view of the candidates suitability for admin so I am going to support. SunCreator (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - not going to misuse the tools, what's the big deal? George The Dragon (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Auto-support for being asked too many questions.Granted, the lack of projectspace experience is concerning, but I trust that the user will remain where they are experienced. Plus, I thought we wanted more article-writing admins :P Since the questions have been dealt with, I'll strike that part but keep my support. Wizardman 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Does this mean you'll support everyone I ask the whole [29]? Woot! Rock on! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically I guess I would. Unless that was your plan the whole time ;) Wizardman 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the number of questions asked have anything to do with your decision to support or oppose a candidate? Unless this is some sort of counteraction to what may be perceived as the "cookie-cutter" oppose that Kurt uses on self-nominations, I don't understand it. — scetoaux (T|C)19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's how I see questions. If someone is on the fence, then asking one or two questions to get a feel for the candidate makes sense. Bombarding the candidate with 20 questions immediately, many of which are worthless (unless I'm completely missing the value in them), makes it look like the people asking them are trying to find a reason to oppose them, which goes against WP:AGF. No one needs 20 extra questions to judge a candidate's worth, and I will support a candidate that has to go through something like this withour reservation. Wizardman 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but the candidate doesn't really have to answer any of the questions asked, although now that I think about it, many people are likely to oppose on this basis alone. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, a question-count criterion? Let's not look at what the questions say, just count the number answered. (like we do with everything else. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) that was sarcasm, btw ;-)[reply]
- My feeling: if a user can't be bothered to answer a bunch of questions in a one-time nominating process, how are they going to deal with the basic workload of an active and useful admin, let alone the necessities of communication and availability? What's more, it's very important for the "little guy" at Wikipedia to be able to get in on the admin-selection process in a way that goes beyond casting a simple !vote - and questions are crucial to this democratization. I have started asking a standard question based on an issue which I feel is very important to the future health of the encyclopedia, but I don't make a litmus test out of it. I simply want to gauge where a candidate stands before I can speak for or against them. I'm not a single-issue !voter. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's how I see questions. If someone is on the fence, then asking one or two questions to get a feel for the candidate makes sense. Bombarding the candidate with 20 questions immediately, many of which are worthless (unless I'm completely missing the value in them), makes it look like the people asking them are trying to find a reason to oppose them, which goes against WP:AGF. No one needs 20 extra questions to judge a candidate's worth, and I will support a candidate that has to go through something like this withour reservation. Wizardman 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the number of questions asked have anything to do with your decision to support or oppose a candidate? Unless this is some sort of counteraction to what may be perceived as the "cookie-cutter" oppose that Kurt uses on self-nominations, I don't understand it. — scetoaux (T|C)19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically I guess I would. Unless that was your plan the whole time ;) Wizardman 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you'll support everyone I ask the whole [29]? Woot! Rock on! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He may not know exactly what he is going to do with the tools, we are not given that much evidence how he'll handle them, but somehow I trust that he'll be doing something useful with them without sinking the ship. Nothings is likely to change in six months anyway, if he is more the training-on-the-job type. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - User is highly unlikely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. However, this user's record as an editor is excellent, and there is no reason to believe that Kumioko would abuse the tools. We have seen successful nominations of users with little mainspace experience, and there's no reason we can't have an administrator with the opposite issue, as long as we have faith that the person can learn and handle the required tasks while on the job. Given Kumioko's long history as a good-faith editor, there is no reason to stand on formality and deny the opportunity to learn administrative skills on the job. Unless, of course, you think adminship is a big, big deal. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think this candidate has solid potential to become an excellent project administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per answers to questions 2, 15, and 21. Meets User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA Criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference sake, the actual link is: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria. Useight (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense support. · AndonicO Engage. 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Won't cause problems, has my trust, also per answer to question 21. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Kumioko has changed my mind. As noted in my original oppose vote, I was reluctant to oppose based on general agreement with Majorly. I did not get the impression that you really knew why you were here (in the RfA, not Wikipedia generally). Since my original vote, you have convinced me that you'll be fine by addressing the ridiculous number of questions posed to you in a knowledgeable manner. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to support Like the aplomb with which has handled 25
bleedingquestions in the face of an unsuccessful RfA. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Support, I would have nominated this user myself. MrPrada (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Isn't it natural that good editors can grow up to be good admins? The candidate's answers to the questions show integrity. He (?) has said several times that when he is in over his head, he'll defer to a more experienced admin. Knowing your limits is a good thing, being able to ask for help, once you've reached those limits, is a better thing. While looking at the candidates userpage, I get the distinct feeling that Wikipedia stress won't be anything worse than he has already handled in Real Life. And lastly, and not leastly, I've seen admin candidates with low project (non-article, mainspace) edits who were not torn up like this. I just feel no particular reason to oppose. Yngvarr (c) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The answer to question #24 did it for me, it was perfect! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I was a little underwhelmed by the answer to my question, but Jesus, there's like 25 fucking questions right now, I can't expect him to write a book on mine. I think we should be more open to the idea of learning on the job. We just need to be convinced of (a) the editor's good intentions to the project (I am) and (b) their willingness to go slow, accept criticism/correction gracefully, and learn from mistakes (I mostly am). The slightly aggressive tone in some of the responses in this RfA make it a "weak" support, but I think an RfA is more stressful than day-to-day adminning, and I'm willing to cut some slack for that. If given the tools I think Kumioko would be a net positive. --barneca (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per Majorly. Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no indication that this editor will abuse the tools. Valtoras (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any serious problems, nor do I honestly believe that you'd abuse / misuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see Kumioko become an admin after reading his answers to the questions and reviewing his contributions. Level-headed. Darkspots (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak support The edits are good but I see low namespace and admin related edits (AIV - AFD). Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <
small>!vote not signed, thus indented. I've notified the person who made the original !vote asking him to come by and confirm his supportBalloonman (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Thanks! - Signed Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <
- Support, not the strongest candidate ever, but the intentions are good, and I consider it unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support/ Yes, candidate seems worthy, despite opposition. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Despite the answer to Q1, and after looking over everything since I made my orignal comment in the discussion section, I am willing to give this candidate the benefit of the doubt. ArcAngel (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, since I see no risk for abuse, and I am hopeful that the candidate will contribute positively to Wikipedia with the tools. --Abrech (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don't see that he would abuse the tools, and we need more content-related admins. Also impressed with the way he dealt with all those, er, questions. Black Kite 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because if he was a dangerous wingnut, he wouldn't have answered all the questions. I wouldn't have, in his place. Avruch T 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why the hell not? I like your answers to the stupendous amounts of questions. henrik•talk 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - basically meets my standards, although is weak on the WP space work. May be a valuable vandal-fighter. No concerns; lot of edits. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Likely that Kumioko wouldn't abuse them and can use on article space. Editor is unlikely to step into situations he isn't conversant with so move from neutral to support. BpEps - t@lk 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support for a good editor with many excellent article contributions (not to mention an honourable record of service to his country, more than most of us can say of ourselves). This probably won't pass, and more experience would be better before becoming an admin, but the answers to the questions reveal sound common sense. I am sure his next RfA will pass, and I will certainly support it. WaltonOne 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- good editor with an good record and I record a support vote on that basis. Further, nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me that this user shouldn't be given the tools. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers, especially for number #10.--Bedford 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; not much project space experience before this RfA, but the barrage of questions allowed Kumioko to demonstrate how to do lots of work fast and carefully while under pressure. — Coren (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Level-headed candidate with remarkable tolerance and civility, as demonstrated by answering all the questions. Don't see how we could go wrong with this one. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Whatever--Langloisrg (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per majorly. preschooler@heart 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good track record of encyclopedia contributions. He could make use of the tools and is unlikely to abuse them. However I would point out that policy formulation and discussion is open to all editors, not just admins, and always will be. the wub "?!" 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. At this point I think it will only be moral support, but nonetheless I hope that you won't be too discouraged by this RfA and hope that you will take the suggestions (read:criticism) that you have received to heart and use it as a guide to preparing for a new RfA four or five months down the road. Trusilver 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - Sorry, but I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an administrator given your answer to question 1, and the last line in your self nom. Being an admin does not give one any authority over anything, and especially not on pages against other editors, say, in a debate or edit war. Also, you lack experience in the project space - out of 30,000 edits, only 94? Sorry, must oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand but just as a note, I may not do many edits in the Project namespaces per say I do a lot under that project. For instance as a member of the Biogrpahy and Military history projects I have worked diligently to clean up, expand and add to the articles in those categories. Just because I am not adding conversations arbitrarily to every project I am a member of does not mean I don't participate in them.--Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By project space, he means Wikipedia: space. You've fallen into a common trap there. *Adds to cheatsheet*. Majorly (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, as Majorly has indicated, I was referring to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm not entirely sure what Majorly means by you falling into a "trap", but, please allow me to further clarify my position. As an administrator, one becomes endowed with a few new buttons that could potentially cause harm to the project if used by an editor who 1.)Lacks vital experience in admin-related areas, or areas where administrators perform their duties and 2.)Seems to have a distorted picture about the fundamental role of an administrator. Does this mean you are unfit for adminship? Not entirely, it just means that now your promotion would not have a net positive effect. Do I encourage you to reapply in the future? Absolutely. There is not a doubt in my mind that with, say 10-12 weeks, you could garner the necessary experience. I suggest that you thoroughly read WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK during and after this RfA as a start. Cheers and good luck. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By project space, he means Wikipedia: space. You've fallen into a common trap there. *Adds to cheatsheet*. Majorly (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand but just as a note, I may not do many edits in the Project namespaces per say I do a lot under that project. For instance as a member of the Biogrpahy and Military history projects I have worked diligently to clean up, expand and add to the articles in those categories. Just because I am not adding conversations arbitrarily to every project I am a member of does not mean I don't participate in them.--Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. Per Wisdom89, per response to Wisdom89, and per edit summary usage below the least acceptable. I may support in the future if you become more involved in admin-oriented tasks, but right now it is clear that you do not understand the roles of an administrator. Húsönd 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (double edit conflict)Oppose. Not enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace, which roughly translates to "not enough admin-like experience". Your answer to Q1 doesn't really make it seem like you'll do a whole lot with the tools, if granted. This is further evidenced by the dominating mainspace edits, not to nitpick, but 95% of your edits are mainspace. I am a big supportor of mainspace work, since that is the whole reason we are here, but if you want to become an admin, you'll need to get experience in admin-like areas (such as AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. Plus you don't do a whole lot of communication, which is a critical skill for admins. Useight (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - You say you want to help "guard against vandalism", but you have less than 2 edits to WP:AIV. Now, I know that isn't the only measure of vandal-fighting, but it is a common one. Useight (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanting to fight vandlism is separate, at least IMO, from AIV. For example, I've literally never posted to AIV myself, and I've been an admin for months. Useight, have you looked at the contribs from this particular user? I personally don't see a strong reason to oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I believe AIV is a part of vandal-fighting. With 30,000 edits, I obviously couldn't take the most in-depth look at the editor's contribs, but I did a little. I am impressed by their amazing amount of mainspace work. However, if you take a look at his last 50 contribs, 40 were via AWB. Of the remaining 10, 7 were to this RFA. Taking this one step further, out of his last 500 edits, 376 were using AWB, if my counting was correct. If you take a look at my RFA standards, you'll see that I frown upon excessive reliance on scripts. Do I completely condemn users of Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc? No. Do I want an editor to do their own work? Yes. I have over 10,000 edits and every single one was completely manual. Additionally, less than 100 edits in the Wikipedia space is a big indicator of lack of experience in admin-like fields. My standards list, as linked above, also mentions that I want to see at least 500 edits in that area. Do I sound like I have editcountitis? Maybe, but I can oppose a candidate for any reason I see fit and I'm opposing for lack of Wikipedia namespace experience and far too much reliance on AWB. Useight (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I also agree that this editor would not misuse the tools on purpose. I just don't see the experience I want to see before giving him the tools. Useight (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean my post to sound like you "weren't allowed" to oppose. Far from it. Thanks for your clarification. FWIW, I personally have never installed any scripts, nor will I anytime in the future, so I agree with you there. That being said, is there anything in this user's script use, or contribs outside of script use, that is leading you to oppose? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I also agree that this editor would not misuse the tools on purpose. I just don't see the experience I want to see before giving him the tools. Useight (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I believe AIV is a part of vandal-fighting. With 30,000 edits, I obviously couldn't take the most in-depth look at the editor's contribs, but I did a little. I am impressed by their amazing amount of mainspace work. However, if you take a look at his last 50 contribs, 40 were via AWB. Of the remaining 10, 7 were to this RFA. Taking this one step further, out of his last 500 edits, 376 were using AWB, if my counting was correct. If you take a look at my RFA standards, you'll see that I frown upon excessive reliance on scripts. Do I completely condemn users of Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc? No. Do I want an editor to do their own work? Yes. I have over 10,000 edits and every single one was completely manual. Additionally, less than 100 edits in the Wikipedia space is a big indicator of lack of experience in admin-like fields. My standards list, as linked above, also mentions that I want to see at least 500 edits in that area. Do I sound like I have editcountitis? Maybe, but I can oppose a candidate for any reason I see fit and I'm opposing for lack of Wikipedia namespace experience and far too much reliance on AWB. Useight (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanting to fight vandlism is separate, at least IMO, from AIV. For example, I've literally never posted to AIV myself, and I've been an admin for months. Useight, have you looked at the contribs from this particular user? I personally don't see a strong reason to oppose. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Somewhat reluctantly. Majorly makes a good argument, but I don't see much evidence that you understand what being an admin entails. You're a very good editor, and I would encourage you to look at some of the opposition above my vote (Useight has some good suggestions). If this doesn't pass, then giving a little attention to the admin related tasks will definitely get you over the hump a few months down the road. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Changing to support based on Kumioko's efforts in this RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - You say you want to help "guard against vandalism", but you have less than 2 edits to WP:AIV. Now, I know that isn't the only measure of vandal-fighting, but it is a common one. Useight (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Oppose - it appears as per the last sentence in the self nomination that the user wants adminship so as to have more weight to throw around, which is in my eyes weak but tangible evidence of at least some degree of power hunger. May change my !vote as more information arrives. In any case, I will reassess this later. — scetoaux (T|C) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Lacks experience in project namespace, what experience the editor has is on the nomination of two articles for featured list status. Seems like an avid (and prolific) contributor but disproportionately small amount of communication. Also per Wisdom, seems to misapprehend the role of admins. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Answer to Q1 indicates the candidate needs to research what the moptools are and why they are used and why they are restricted to certain users. Also answer to Q4 is a little perplexing (privacy act?). I am sure this well-intentioned user can work toward a sucessful candidacy in 6 months or so, if a coaching program or thorough review of the adminship documentation is undertaken. Further experience in the various namespaces would also be important. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, why don't you ever use different wording when you oppose an RfA? You (Kurt Weber) always use the copy-pasted reasons for the oppose, and I would like to see different wording next time, even if the oppose is related to power hunger. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncivil objection removed. · AndonicO Engage. 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored perfectly civil objection. Give me a break. Weber is going to continue to generate detractors as long as he persists in his repetitive opposition votes. Consensus dictates that he is welcome to continue opposing any candidate for any reason; this does not imply that his actions must never be criticized. You may find the discussion tiresome, but Weber's critics should enjoy the same right to be tiresome and repetitive as Weber does.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, why does it matter? And secondly, I'm almost positive Kumioko doesn't appreciate you guys quarling about this on his RfA.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to be uncivil. I was just stating my opinion. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but I'll keep it blanked, because there have been far too many attacks on Kurt's rationale. · AndonicO Engage. 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, many people were opposed to the way Kurt has opposed users, because he has used the exact same oppose comment on self-nom RfAs. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have proposed that Mr. Weber subst the template User:Kmweber/Adminship comment and I also think it would be beneficial to create a separate page for each of his objections, e.g. User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale/Kumioko which will contain the substed template and ensuing counter-objections and counter-counter-objections, etc., which will transclude to individual RFAs as well as being listed under separate headings on the centralized page User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale in much the same way as AfDs, FACs, and, indeed, RfAs. That way, we can have a centralized viewing place for the ongoing controversy related to these comments (it is, after all, mostly the same rehashed arguments raised over and over again and this will increase the efficiency of it all). Personal use (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, many people were opposed to the way Kurt has opposed users, because he has used the exact same oppose comment on self-nom RfAs. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but I'll keep it blanked, because there have been far too many attacks on Kurt's rationale. · AndonicO Engage. 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I support Kurt's viewpoint, as I think it's a valid point to raise. As much as possible, given the lack of face-to-face contact, we should know the motivations of anyone we trust with the buttons. My father used to say that anyone that wanted the job, (of US president) should not get it. Can we honesty say that every single admin didn't start out with some sense that it was a promotion and a position of some power? I've been an admin (not here) and it's a royal pain in the neck. You often piss off one side or the other, sometimes both, and the pay is lousy. And damn stressful if you really try to do the right thing all the time. So why would someone want to become an admin? Yes, having the tools to help keep WP going and develop is an obvious answer, and I think the main reason for almost all successful canidates, but I think occasionally, not the only one. But we often only learn that after getting and doing the job (not just here), when we really find out what it's like. If I thought it would do any good at all, I would strongly oppose self noms, and support nomination and seconding before being considered. IMHO. No, this is NOT an oppose opinion for this candidate in any way. — Becksguy (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored perfectly civil objection. Give me a break. Weber is going to continue to generate detractors as long as he persists in his repetitive opposition votes. Consensus dictates that he is welcome to continue opposing any candidate for any reason; this does not imply that his actions must never be criticized. You may find the discussion tiresome, but Weber's critics should enjoy the same right to be tiresome and repetitive as Weber does.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Only 230 or so edits to user talk space is not enough data for me to get a sufficient understanding as to how the user will interact with others, when under pressure, if user has access to the bit. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Out of 30,000 edits a whole 29,000 or so are mainspace. Not that there's anything bad about being a vigilant editor, but only 94 project edits? Also per Kurt Weber.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, not enough experience, there are many roles that admins play on wikipedia, you dont need to be one if your only doing the things you mentioned in question 1. Agree with the many points above. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- I will reconsider if the answers become longer. At the moment you seem a brilliant editor, I just can't see why you need the tools? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Not answering the questions takes it from support to neutral, and the last line of your nom shows that you will possibly abuse the tools. Sorry, maybe in a couple of months. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose since self-nominated. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh don't you start as well. Consider the alternatives: after one month on Wikipedia, you RfA yourself into ignominy, or you can stop before you start and build a shining Wikipedic career. Splash - tk 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this response and this response don't strike me as the attitude someone with admin power should have. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready yet.I would recommend a very thorough reading of the policies pertaining to blocking and deleting. I would further recommend obtaining a coach and participating in admin related areas under the coach's tutelage. I would not recommend submitting another RfA for another 6 months and 6000 edits. Cheers, and best of luck. Dlohcierekim 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh don't you start as well. Consider the alternatives: after one month on Wikipedia, you RfA yourself into ignominy, or you can stop before you start and build a shining Wikipedic career. Splash - tk 14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose You do not fully grasp the role of being an administrator. Your answer to #1 scares me. I agree with what Wisdom has said. Maybe try again later? Razorflame (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience.
- Sorry you feel that way. Not everyone makes it the first go. I'm afraid that you currently lack sufficient understanding of admin related policies. The way to remedy that is to gain experience as a non admin by participating at such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK as well as WP:AN/I. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, WP:Admin, the admin reading list. Many current RfA cabalers require a balance between tool related and and article building edits. Also, adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential, thus the desire to see how another participates in community discussions and under stress. Hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it. If I don't have the tools I can't do the job thats the bottom line. I am not going to run around looking for admin related stuff, telling an admin and then by that time it gets handled by someone else.--Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it bluntly, if you're unwilling to do the necessary grunt work it generally takes to become an admin, you won't be one. Sorry, but steadfastly refusing to act on the very reasonable suggestions being given here is hardly a productive attitude to have. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it. If I don't have the tools I can't do the job thats the bottom line. I am not going to run around looking for admin related stuff, telling an admin and then by that time it gets handled by someone else.--Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry you feel that way. Not everyone makes it the first go. I'm afraid that you currently lack sufficient understanding of admin related policies. The way to remedy that is to gain experience as a non admin by participating at such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK as well as WP:AN/I. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, WP:Admin, the admin reading list. Many current RfA cabalers require a balance between tool related and and article building edits. Also, adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential, thus the desire to see how another participates in community discussions and under stress. Hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience.
- I can think of scarier things than the answer to question 1. Majorly (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the experienced-based arguments have some merit, though I wasn't 100% swayed by them (it is possible to get on-the-job experience, after all). I was considering sitting this one out entirely, but Kumioko's comment above of "I don't like to waste my time"... yeah, no, that's absolutely the wrong attitude to have about RfA opposition. Unless its something specifically stupid, like "User has a puppy and I'm more a cat person", then comments in the Oppose section should be considered valuable feedback, and not so readily dismissed. You're turning a deaf ear to feedback when you're an editor, which makes me very, very concerned about how you'd respond to feedback as an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify I completely understand the reasons being given, I just don't agree with them. To say that I can't be an admin because I haven't done any admin stuff is absurd. Also, don't take what I said as having a bad attitude or that I am turning an ear to the arguments. I am hearing everything being said my only point was that I don't waste my time on things so if the majority says I can't be an admin thats fine, I can live with that and I will continue on my merry way editing as I have been. But I will not resubmit in 6 months, a year etc. I have 30000 plus edits and I think that I have done right by wikipedia so far. I just think that most of the reasons being given in opposition are extremely weak (Oppose because self nom, oppose because I don't do enough admin stuff, not enough experience, etc).--Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks as though you disagree with every oppose reason, based on this comment, because you have 30,000-plus edits. As one of the oppose votes, I would just like to point out that the general theme isn't that there is anything wrong with your editing. Rather, quantity of edits is not reason enough to automatically grant an additional set of tools to someone. I'm an admin, and I failed my first RfA. Many of us do, but it was anything but a waste of time. My initial reaction, when my first RfA went down was similar to your reaction above. That said, what I learned from the experience allowed me to better grasp not just what people look for in an RfA, but it also allowed me to fully understand what about the mop was important to me. Feel free to look at both: [30], [31] Hiberniantears (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've definitely done right by wikipedia and I don't find the opposes to have very strong arguments either. You're a terrific editor (a lot better than certain useless admins). There is certain amount of herd thinking in RfA, and occasionally a perfectly fine editor is turned down. Just don't be discouraged should this fail, and please consider accepting a nomination in a little while - not doing that would deprive the project of an excellent future admin. henrik•talk 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify I completely understand the reasons being given, I just don't agree with them. To say that I can't be an admin because I haven't done any admin stuff is absurd. Also, don't take what I said as having a bad attitude or that I am turning an ear to the arguments. I am hearing everything being said my only point was that I don't waste my time on things so if the majority says I can't be an admin thats fine, I can live with that and I will continue on my merry way editing as I have been. But I will not resubmit in 6 months, a year etc. I have 30000 plus edits and I think that I have done right by wikipedia so far. I just think that most of the reasons being given in opposition are extremely weak (Oppose because self nom, oppose because I don't do enough admin stuff, not enough experience, etc).--Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry i just don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Maybe next time! Also, per Wisdom89. TheProf - T / C 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Re: I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis. You can participate in policy discussion as a regular editor, without the "tools". Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right it doesn't require it but it does lend some credibility.--Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One could also argue that contributions and a good point lend themselves to credibility more so than the mop... not all admins are credible... :P Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your right it doesn't require it but it does lend some credibility.--Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the tools can be very much a hindrance when editing policy. "Senior" editors might be better off without an admin bit. Still, let's see how question 15 gets answered. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Me? chiming in to agree with an oppose? Unheard of! Sacrilege! O:-)[reply]
Lack of familiarity with Wikipedia processes. EJF (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Moved to neutral after a long period of consideration and per my revised adminship standards. Issues raised by the opposers still concern me however. EJF (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the answers to the questions, I would perhaps have been neutral, due to concerns about the candidate's experience in areas relating to policy and admin work. But based on responses to Oppose comments, I believe the candidate isn't suitable admin material at this time. There is no deadline, and sometimes one will not get recognition or thanks for one's work. That's not why we do it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you list which oppose answers gave you that impression, and why? (or at least one or two of them?) This would help Kumioko improve themselves, so that you'd hopefully be able to support in a future RFA. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Let's see...
- AfD(Q9). Sufficient editors must offer an opinion if consensus is to be determined. AfD is not a race against time. If after 5 days, one editor says "Delete per nom" and no one else contributes, I would probably relist the AfD, but it seems that Kumioko would always close it as delete, based on the answer given.
- COI(Q4). Perhaps it was just me that saw this as an "are you aware of WP:COI" question, but I think that the expected answer would mention conflict of interest. Editors with a COI can be either very good or very bad contributors depending on how they're handled, so it's important to take the right approach with them (not wait to see if they morph into something evil).
- Admin work(Q1). I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with policy to get involved in "clarify[ing] the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory".
- Hope this helps. Needless to say, Kumioko is a great contributor to wikipedia and I hope to see them as an admin one day. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA sorry Kim, I missed the word "oppose" in your post. Hopefully this info is helpful anyway. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thank you. And interesting to hear that you based yourself on the questions. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Let's see...
- Could you list which oppose answers gave you that impression, and why? (or at least one or two of them?) This would help Kumioko improve themselves, so that you'd hopefully be able to support in a future RFA. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - No reason to assume there would be abuse, but maybe too many mistakes. I think this user has a little more learning to do before I am willing to hand over the mop. Like Dlohcierekim said, I recommend getting a admin coach. I think your article contributions are wonderful, and like to see a user that is here for what this place is created for, and for that reason I hope that you try again (give it about 3 months). Tiptoety talk 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready yet; this user doesn't have enough experience and also lacks edits in the project-space pages (pages that starts with "Wikipedia:", such as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard). Get more experience and be part of the discussion on the project-space pages and I will support you in a few month once you are ready. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Editing experience not varied enough, too tightly focused. Mainspace edit count artifically inflated by trivial semi-automated edits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per An administrator on duty has no friends, an administrator is never on or off "duty" and we should strive to be friendly with everybody. This appears to me to be completely the wrong attitude. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- While I understand entirely where you're coming from, I believe this is a humorous paraphrase of a military saying. "A Marine on guard duty has no friends", or insert your favorite branch of the service. I personally think that on Question #24 a deadpan-joke response is very much in line, and that said joke doesn't indicate that Kumioko is bitey. Darkspots (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, maybe it's his actual opinion, seeing as how he hasn't said anything about it yet.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would point out that the user was in the Marine Corps for 13 years (from his user page), so the likelihood is high that he was referring to the military. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Darkspots is correct, I delt that a moment of levity was appropriate given the bloodbath that my RFA has become. And here I thought I was a good editor.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, maybe it's his actual opinion, seeing as how he hasn't said anything about it yet.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't catch the reference, (I'm Scottish). I'll assume the best here and switch to neutral. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now I think Kumioko would benefit from more admin-related edits and tasks before becoming an admin. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I thought about this one for days. I'm not a big fan of telling a candidate what I believe they should be doing to get my vote, but I'd say my oppose comes from the fact that I am not sure how Kumioko will handle tough admin situations involving lots of drama. More involvement in the project space could be what satisfies me. I may be in the school of editors who throws no big deal to the wind, but I'd like to think of an oppose vote in a situation like this as protecting the community from an unknown, not from the very good editor that Kumioko appears to be. In this RfA, when he had opposition, he responded with diffs like this which really bother me. It looks like heat-of-the-moment editing, no sig, it was bitter and immature. If an editor can't fully respect oppose voters (and shows that they can't), I don't feel comfortable with giving them the ability to block. As I've said before, it is potentially much more damaging to the community to promote inadequate admins than to reject a potentially good admin that we are unsure about. To sum up: I am quite unsure, and considering the admin abuse I observe too often for comfort, I don't feel comfortable supporting someone--despite their great editing--who is a very big question mark for handling tough admin decisions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to above For what it's worth, the candidate hasn't fallen to drama so far, and doesn't appear to be prone to it. Just like trolling, one can either respond to drama, or not. If he chooses to not respond to drama, and continue doing his tasks, I find that to be very good. I personally believe that drama is unnecessary and unwarranted. Yea, there's no way of telling how he will respond, but I think this RFA might be an interesting study in his behaviour. Yngvarr (c) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I've missed something, I see nothing at all wrong with the candidate's (few) responses to opposes on this RfA. The diff you object to seems pretty harmless, and a poor substitute for a substantive oppose based on a comprehensive review of contributions. Avruch T 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to above For what it's worth, the candidate hasn't fallen to drama so far, and doesn't appear to be prone to it. Just like trolling, one can either respond to drama, or not. If he chooses to not respond to drama, and continue doing his tasks, I find that to be very good. I personally believe that drama is unnecessary and unwarranted. Yea, there's no way of telling how he will respond, but I think this RFA might be an interesting study in his behaviour. Yngvarr (c) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, your contributions are admirable and you should be praised for it. But adminship is not the way. Once you get the mop you stop looking at articles. Yanksox (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind explaining this oppose, I'm not sure I understand.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are certainly entitled to your opinon but I disagree. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a place to become admins and stop editing. To become an admin doesn't mean (to me anyway) that you stop editing and pick up the mop never to edit again. It simpy gives you more tools to help make wikipedia better. IMO if an admin never edits articles and only does admin stuff then that is wrong. You should be an editor first and and administrator as an extension to that, not drop the pen and pick up the mop. Just to clarify my intent has never to been to stop editing, that will always be my primary purpose as I believe that IS the point of wikipedia, the sysop tools will just allow me to do more.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind explaining this oppose, I'm not sure I understand.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Looks like you may use admin tools for your advantage in edit wars and debates. --FGWQPR (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I can't even remember the last time I voted in a RFA but I have to say that anyone who suggests that adminship would be helpful because it lends credibility to policy shouldn't be one. There's too much indication of potential use of admin status in conflicts. Given his work, I'd love him to be an admin, but his responses here worry me. I fear more wheel-warring in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per unacceptable response to Queerbubbles' oppose. SashaNein (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also several poor responses to questions and oppositions. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose BlackBeasts (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - This account was only created today and has done nothing but vandalise! TheProf - T / C 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented oppose as vandalism only account.Balloonman (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I feel uncomfortable with someone wanting to become an admin in order to bypass the need to explain and negotiate when discussing policy. And I feel very uncomfortable with this comment: "I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience." This comment gives the impression the user is impatient and dismissive of the process the community goes through to judge if an applicant is trustworthy, and also feels their time is rather more important than gaining the community trust in the future. Probably just a poorly phrased statement prompted by some disappointment at the way this AfD is going. I do hope that Kumioko will take on board the comments that people are making and will consider applying again in 6 months time. SilkTork *YES! 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, your right the word were probably poorly chosen so I will clarify. I will not resubmit again, however if someone chooses to submit my name I MAY consider it. From what I have seen though the process of selecting an admin needs some work on clarification and standardization so perhaps I will assist in devising a way to make the process of selecting future admins more quantitative rather than a simple majority/minority vote, perhaps more along the way that articles are assessed. It seems to me that would greatly reduce the phenominal amount of time currently spent on RFA's and streamline the process.--Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The process is about finding out if the community trusts the candidate. Different people have different ways of judging trust. The process itself, and the way the candidate handles the process, gives people a realistic view of how the candidate will deal with the odd situations they may encounter as an admin. I understand your thinking about having a consistent set of measurable criteria; however, simply matching a set of declared criteria in order to become an admin may not produce a decent variety of admins nor produce the most secure and sock-free admins. SilkTork *YES! 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, your right the word were probably poorly chosen so I will clarify. I will not resubmit again, however if someone chooses to submit my name I MAY consider it. From what I have seen though the process of selecting an admin needs some work on clarification and standardization so perhaps I will assist in devising a way to make the process of selecting future admins more quantitative rather than a simple majority/minority vote, perhaps more along the way that articles are assessed. It seems to me that would greatly reduce the phenominal amount of time currently spent on RFA's and streamline the process.--Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. 30 000 edits in ten months indicates a desire for quantity of edits, not quality. It seems Kumioko is a good editor, evidenced by a GA and no blocks. Sometimes it's better to keep doing what you're good at ... used to be called the Peter Principle. There is not much evidence of discussion and the candidate mentions in one of his replies that he thinks these discussions are one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. I disagree. Discussion is a prime tool that admins need. I suggest he keep on editing and contributing to the Pedia, not because he would make a bad admin; rather, he makes a better editor. Truthanado (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Good editor, great asset, but not experienced in the right areas yet. Also, per Kurt. Jmlk17 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - response to oppose #30 lacks maturity ("I'll take my tools and will never ever apply for the mop again... well, I mean, unless you really really want me to" - reminds me of the Gary Hart non-resignation resignation technique) and also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process (RfA is more than a simple majority vote - even at its most votey-est, it's still not a simple majority). --Badger Drink (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse a United States Marine of being immature. WaltonOne 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's appropriate to bring the user's social status into the RfA.--KojiDude (Contributions) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I think it's very naive to bestow mental traits on someone based solely upon their occupation. Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine as well - not exactly a paragon of maturity and emotional stability, he. Additionally, Kojidude's point above is well-stated. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, a married father of two who was in the Marines for over a decade is a pretty safe bet to be more mature than a 13 year old who makes it through RfA for knowing how to game the process ahead of time. More to the point, this oppose vote is a fairly snarky mischaracterization of what Kumioko is actually saying. I'm with Walton on this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So marriage and armed forces make a man mature? Sorry, but I strongly disagree. His actual actions here in this RfA speak louder than the best semi-educated guesses you or I could make ever could. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he wants to Oppose for a reason you think is stupid, then just let him be stupid. What harm does it do to you?--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He just compared him to a murderer Koji. The disturbing absurdity of the insult speaks for itself, but now certainly warrants an apology to Kumioko. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned before that I think the way Kumioko is handling himself in this RFA shows what he is made of. Everyone is jumping over the statement I don't have time, with the inference that the candidate is basically saying I'm going to take my toys and go home. I actually read this quite differently, as him saying he doesn't have for drama. Let's be blunt, there are a breed of people who thrive on drama, and there are those who don't care, and want to do their "jobs". I've not seen any real indication of drama, nor any real indication of immaturity. If anything, the blatant baiting of this particular oppose remains unaddressed by the candidate. Yngvarr (c) 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I compared him to a murderer? Can you show me where this comparision was made? --Badger Drink (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He just compared him to a murderer Koji. The disturbing absurdity of the insult speaks for itself, but now certainly warrants an apology to Kumioko. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, a married father of two who was in the Marines for over a decade is a pretty safe bet to be more mature than a 13 year old who makes it through RfA for knowing how to game the process ahead of time. More to the point, this oppose vote is a fairly snarky mischaracterization of what Kumioko is actually saying. I'm with Walton on this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent) You piped a link to Jeffrey R. MacDonald. I certainly felt as well that was an implicit comparison to Kumioko, in this context. It comes across as highly inflammatory, and I agree that you owe Kumioko an apology, and you also owe Hiberniantears one as well [32]. Darkspots (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear Jonathan Swift ate babies, too. I opposed Kumioko for (among other things) an immature attitude, which apparently upset Walton, who, based upon his statements in this and other RfA's, evidently believes that all members of the armed forces are mature manly men who walk on water, simply by virtue of the job they perform. I informed Walton that this was not the case. Hiberiantears jumped in with mention of the candidate being a family man, to which I responded with the MacDonald link, a rather notorious family man who also happened to serve in the armed forces. At absolutely no point did I "compare" Kumioko to MacDonald, nor MacDonad to Kumioko. Anybody not trying their absolute damnedest to get offended at something could clearly see that my point was that Mr. Walton and Mr. Hiberiantears were using naive over-generalizations of irrelevant outside social functions to support a conclusion that ran counter to what was displayed in this very RfA. To Kumioko's credit, he has not jumped in on this particular brouhaha, but I will not apologize to him nor anybody else for people's (willful or otherwise) inability to comprehend simple rethoric. To demand I do so is misguided and petulant-sounding at best. Hope this helps - --Badger Drink (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the comments speak on their own. That said, a conversation surrounding this RfA is that we are driving off qualified candidates with what has become an over indulgent process (no, this is not a cry for "fix the RfA") that allows for silly questioning and opposing/supporting. I'm just hoping that the 'crat who closes this takes a long look at the entire RfA, rather than the percentage. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear Jonathan Swift ate babies, too. I opposed Kumioko for (among other things) an immature attitude, which apparently upset Walton, who, based upon his statements in this and other RfA's, evidently believes that all members of the armed forces are mature manly men who walk on water, simply by virtue of the job they perform. I informed Walton that this was not the case. Hiberiantears jumped in with mention of the candidate being a family man, to which I responded with the MacDonald link, a rather notorious family man who also happened to serve in the armed forces. At absolutely no point did I "compare" Kumioko to MacDonald, nor MacDonad to Kumioko. Anybody not trying their absolute damnedest to get offended at something could clearly see that my point was that Mr. Walton and Mr. Hiberiantears were using naive over-generalizations of irrelevant outside social functions to support a conclusion that ran counter to what was displayed in this very RfA. To Kumioko's credit, he has not jumped in on this particular brouhaha, but I will not apologize to him nor anybody else for people's (willful or otherwise) inability to comprehend simple rethoric. To demand I do so is misguided and petulant-sounding at best. Hope this helps - --Badger Drink (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, why is lack of knowledge about the RfA process relevant to actual adminship? I could understand that lack of RfA knowledge would be a (very big) problem if running for bureaucratship, but not knowing much about RfA itself should not matter as long as the editor knows about actual policies. I'd be surprised if everyone who ran through RfA (and even those who pass) know what the criteria for promotion is. As I said, I'm curious. Acalamari 21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping into anything without making an effort to familiarize one's self with the process they'll have to go through strikes me (and others, apparently) as impulsive and lacking foresight. Doubly, or perhaps even triply (why not!) so for the RfA process itself. It sets a dicey precedent, especially considering the recent overly-bold actions that've gone on (i.e. East's flooding of the main page edit history and subsequent adminbot running - not trying to pick on East, just the two most recent examples that came to mind). WP:BOLD is great for editors, but admins need to look before they leap, and calling RfA a "majority vote" does not seem to support said looking. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This brings up an interesting point, perhaps we should also change the way editors are allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Maybe we should make sure that they are familiar with the MOS and other policies before they can edit. Just a thought but it seems like some of this thinking is contrary to the concept of wikipedia, that OJT is NOT ok. Its seems to me that some people are scared that I will use my status as an admin for my own gain. Some have said that I may use it to win edits wars. Since I have never been engaged in an edit war, I fail to understand what the basis for this argument is. Some have said that I should spend more time doing admin stuff rather than editing. I would argue that editing is more important than participating in Wikispace pages, that is after all what wikipedia is for. :-)--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough: thanks. Acalamari 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping into anything without making an effort to familiarize one's self with the process they'll have to go through strikes me (and others, apparently) as impulsive and lacking foresight. Doubly, or perhaps even triply (why not!) so for the RfA process itself. It sets a dicey precedent, especially considering the recent overly-bold actions that've gone on (i.e. East's flooding of the main page edit history and subsequent adminbot running - not trying to pick on East, just the two most recent examples that came to mind). WP:BOLD is great for editors, but admins need to look before they leap, and calling RfA a "majority vote" does not seem to support said looking. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse a United States Marine of being immature. WaltonOne 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger as well.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose: Per Above, most certainly. I am sorry, but you simply are not fit for admin, and i doubt you ever will be. Just give up! SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose: Per Above, most certainly. I am sorry, but you simply are not fit for admin, and i doubt you ever will be. Just give up! SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I'm in two minds as to this request. On one hand, Kumioko is, per Majorly and the other supporting editors, an excellent article contributor, and that very often provides an administrator with robust inter-editor communication skills. It could also suggest that he'd be competent at article-related administrator duties, such as protection. Having said that, we also have an editor who has very little administrator-related-activities experience, insofar as I can observe, and that brings some doubts into the equation for me: I fear Kumioko may not have a sufficient grasp of admin. duties, and may (unintentionally, of course) cause damage through some bad calls. Whilst I'm sure that would improve with time, it concerns me: there's simply not enough experience here. Perhaps if Kumioko could expand on the RfA standard questions with some strong answers, I'd be willing to support, but at present, they are very thin, and really don't do anything to sway me to support. On the fence for this one, depending on a response from Kumioko (which I'd be very happy to see forthcoming), and further developments. Anthøny 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I don't think this editor is ready yet for the tools. --SharkfaceT/C 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuetral I'm not convinced either way just yet. Will change to support or oppose base on further actions within this RFA (e.g. questions, responses to votes, etc. . .) --Liempt (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuetral More admin-related experience needed. Epbr123 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainspace work doesn't necessarily mean you should be an administrator. Also per EVula. Rudget (review) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'd say that you should review everything at WP:ARL and try again in a few months. A short bit of admin coaching may also be helpful to you. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that might apply if, in the so far as I can tell unlikely event, that this RFA passes, but there's no need to have a coach if you can't make the team.--Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this would be the coach for getting you onto the team in the first place. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that might apply if, in the so far as I can tell unlikely event, that this RFA passes, but there's no need to have a coach if you can't make the team.--Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Oppose until/unless question 15 gets a more extensive treatment (I am very strict ^^;;) Support for answers to Scepters questions. Total ends up neutral. Either way there's definitely hope for you. Try and do some more thinking about question 15, and I may yet switch :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - He has been a tremendous asset for anything Medal of Honor related. He always pops up in my watchlist cleaning up and improving articles. However, for that many edits, Wikipedia project space participation is just way too low. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I don't want to support, but I don't want to oppose either. You're doin' a good job with the Miliary related articles, but I don't think you have enough experience with the fields that an admin works in. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral because I don't pile-on stuff. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - A fantastic article writer, but in terms of the day to day routine janitorial chores, I can find a single vandalism warning directed at another editor. Prospective sysops having the "tools" need to demonstrate some experience of reviewing a wide range of articles, communicating (or attempting to) with editors with frustrations or just a mean streak. Get a couple more months RC patrol and re-apply. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, within touching distance of support. Ngghh, this is hard. You are obviously a good contributor to the project, but under 100 Wikipedia space edits doesn't seem to say that you need the tools. However, you would not abuse the tools, I'm sure about that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support Ooh, I like the looks of you, and your temperament seems ideal for adminship, but can't bring myself to go S for now. If I measure you right you'll take good note of the more useful comments in the Oppose section and come back in a few months and zip straight into WP:100 never mind adminship. --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I wasn't going to comment or place my name in any list, but the answer to Q.22 is excellent and I believe indicative of someone who will make a good admin. Maybe just not this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, switch from oppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral does not deserve an oppose. SexySeaShark 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, very low number of edits to talk pages, and the Q&A above doesnt move me to look deeper. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I rarely vote neutral, but this users lack of wikipedia space edits worries me, on the other hand though, he seems dedicated to the project. So, I can't support or oppose. Maybe support in a couple months. Spinach Dip 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per my comments in oppose section. EJF (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Dweller. Spend some time in the nuts and bolts of the operation, and I'll very likely support in a few months. KrakatoaKatie 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral AGK's reasoning tracks closely with mine. The occasional intemperance aside, Kumioko appears to be possessed of the sound judgment and deliberative temperament that commend one well to adminship, but I can't conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that he knows whereof he does not know (and there do appear to exist areas in which his knowledge of policy and practice is not complete; the answer to question four, for instance, isn't stellar in substance or form), such that might he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, and so in the final analysis cannot say with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed would be positive, but I come relatively close to so saying and so almost certainly can't oppose. Joe 17:32, 21 April 2008 (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
About RBAG
![]() | This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion. Please see the relevant talk page discussion for further information. |
The Bot Approval Group members are editors who approve or deny request to run bots (computer programs that edit Wikipedia in an automated way), and who oversee the operation of such bots.
The process for administrators is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for membership in the approval group is, in general, less stringent since the BAG makes group decisions, and have no additional tools beyond those given to every editor.
Candidates for BAG membership are expected to be familiar with Wikipedia policy in general, and the bot policy in particular. While technical knowledge of bot operation is not necessary, a significant part of the members' work entail evaluation of technical aspects of bot operation.
While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfAs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|bag}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.
Please note that, at this point, the process itself is still under discussion at the policy page.
As this process is currently under community deliberation, a moratorium has been placed on new nominations while the current nominations are running; please do not add any new nominations at this time. Please feel free to offer your input at the policy page discussion.
Current nominations for BAG membership
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Cobi
Final (43/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cobi (talk · contribs) - I am Cobi and am a member of the BAG prior to the policy rewrite. Per the new policy, I have been "grandfathered" in for 6 months, but I would like to go through this process now so I don't have to do it again in 6 months. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
- A. I currently operate the well-known ClueBot, as well as ClueBot II, ClueBot III, and ClueBot IV.
Optional questions from Franamax
- 2. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
- A. Yes, the BAG should have the ability to restrict or revoke a bot's approval. The BAG should also be able to change the conditions of the approval.
- 3. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
- A. Yes, the operator is responsible for the edits made by their bot(s), and responsible for cleaning up the mess that their bot(s) may make. If the bot is being disruptive and the operator is not willing to fix the bot, the bot's approval should be revoked, and possibly blocked if the bot isn't stopped.
- 4. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
Optional questions from Gnangarra
- 5 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort.
- A I am assuming you meant "sought" and not "sort". There are no tools being sought. While it would be nice to have the ability to give and revoke the bot flag, that is currently not the way the servers are set up. As for the authority being sought, the authority which comes with BAG membership — The authority to trial, approve, revoke, and alter bot requests. The BAG, subject to consensus, controls all bot operations on the English Wikipedia.
- 6 What do you expected from and of the community when discussing this request
- A I expect the community to be rational, civil, and to provide constructive criticism if there is something I need to improve on.
- 7 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess your knowledge and whether you are an appropriate person to participate in WP:BAG.
- A The community can use my past record at WP:BRFA, User talk:ClueBot Commons, User talk:Cobi, and wherever else I have demonstrated my technical aptitude and civility to assess my knowledge and whether or not I should be a member of the BAG. As for my actual coding skills, someone can always take a look at my bots' source code posted here.
General comments
Please keep discussion constructive and civil.
Discussion
Support
- Support Good editor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. Darkspots (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly. Captain panda 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Duh! MBisanz talk 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per DHMO. Rudget 11:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't know why anyone would say no!. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course. You run the ClueBots, and have a great knowledge, from what I can see, of bots. I see no reason to not support here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously qualified, no concerns here. the wub "?!" 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fully qualified for membership. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Per duh". -- Naerii 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Handy enough with CVN work. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I feel you to be trustworthy enough to possibly be an administrator someday, why would I not trust you with something you've already proven yourself to be trustworthy in? Valtoras (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Perfect for the job. User has a great understanding of what is being done here, not to mention he has previous experience. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; operating an anti-vandalism bot is the most complicated and on-the-frontline task imaginable, and Cobi performs it with grace and skill. His understanding of policy has been demonstrated clearly. — Coren (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The operational experience is patently obvious. Yup. I see no reason not to support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Double edit conflict support! --Chris 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have vehemently opposed Cobi's RFAs, but there's no way I could oppose this. Even though I hate ClueBot for stealing my edits. Useight (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cluebot... :) Razorflame 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, extremely competent bot operator with a sound track record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without a doubt. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - ClueBots are extremely useful - especially now with the major vandalism! The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Res ipsa loquitur, and loudly :) Xymmax (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I know little about bots, but I have participated in Cobi's past RfAs and I believe him to be experienced and trustworthy. WaltonOne 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the king of ClueBot! TheProf - T / C 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If only your RfAs were like this :) Majorly (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, for great justice. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No problems in my opinion. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent choice. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zginder 2008-04-26T03:12Z (UTC)
- Support Common sense Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great job so far. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --SMS Talk 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent bot writer. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Except for the fact of your bots being written in php, I support 110%. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 10:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Very qualified user to me, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Prolly shouldn't be voting at all in tht case[reply]- The above BAG membership 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 BAG membership. Please do not modify it.
Coren
Final (23/9/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coren (talk · contribs) - As the original proponent of this new method of selecting BAG members, I propose this review of my membership to the wider community.
I've been a significant contributor to Wikipedia for over a year (with irregular edits going back to 2003), mostly on the technical and administrative side of things where I can be of most help. I believe I have gained and maintained the community's trust by operating CorenSearchBot for many months, and with my work on Copyright violations. I am familiar with bot operation and policy (indeed, I am one of the contributors to the recent rewrite), and while I no longer have as much time to dedicate to the BAG as I would like, I can still give a hand whenever it's needed. — Coren (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a member of the Bot Approval Group. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. Are you currently, or have you in the past, operated a bot on a Mediawiki?
- A. I have been operating CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without problems on Wikipedia since August 2007.
Optional Question from Mr.Z-man
- 2. You support bringing in more of the community to the bot approval process, yet you led a major change to the bot policy after that was discussed for only 24 hours and now seem to be trying to steamroller over all the opposition building on WT:BOT after more people heard of it by implementing it now. How do you rectify these positions? Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I presume you mean reconcile those positions. Even attempting to get more than a dozen editors involved in the process fails; being bold, and seeing if the result work is the objective, here. In other words, I don't see a conflict in those positions; I support community input and act to gather it.
Question from SQL
- 3. What/When was the last bot you approved, or trial approved? Would you characterize yourself as active in the approvals process?
- A. Not nearly as much as I'd have hoped; real life has limited my opportunity for wiki work lately, and most of that time has been devoted to arbcom clerking. I've nonetheless kept abreast of what was going on, in particular the growing concerns of the community towards the process as a whole, and felt that some work there would pay a lot in the long run.
Optional questions from Franamax
- 4. Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict operations of previously-approved bots in light of misuse or mistakes? Do you think that BAG should have the ability to restrict or direct changes to the operation of previously-approved bots as a response to disquiet expressed by the community over the bot's operation?
- A. Yes; this is in fact part of the reason I feel the mandate of the BAG needs to be clarified. A great deal of the policy changes we've put forward are designed exactly for that purpose: giving a method by which the community-at-large can express grievances and a means for the BAG to act when warranted.
- 5. Do you think the onus is on bot operators to clean up erroneous edits made by their bot? Would you revoke bot approval if the bot operator shows unwillingness to address mistaken edits made by their bot?
- A. Part of the bot policy is that, ultimately, the operator is responsible for all edits made by their bots. It's certainly expected that operators will fix damage caused by errors, and approval of bots is contingent of taking that responsibility.
- 6. Do you think that BAG should have a component of relatively non-technical members who would instead bring familiarity with community norms and expectations, basically representing the "community-at-large"?
- A. I don't think there should be a requirement for such a contingent, but having such members would be quite welcome. Understanding of policy is the only really needed qualification.
Optional questions from Gnangarra
- 7 as this request is to validate a proposed process while discussion continues. What tools/authority are being sort for the editor.
- A The authority to approve or decline requests to run automated processes, to hear grievances about them, and by proxy that of granting or removing the "bot" flag from accounts (bureaucrats flag accounts according to BAG request, that decision having been delegated long ago). There is ongoing discussion that members of the BAG might get the right to directly set the bot flag, but that's for the longer term.
- 8 What is expected from and of the community when discussing this request
- A It's primarily a "yeah, we trust" stamp of approval. See the next question.
- 9 While presuming that the 75% approval as per sysop request is the benchmark, what does the community use to assess the knowledge of the editor and whether they are appropriate people to participate in WP:BAG.
- A There has, actually, been discussion that 2:1 support should be sufficient in the case of BAG membership since the BAG acts as a group so that individuals do not have as much direct authority than in the case of an admin, say, or a 'crat. Indeed, the tentative policy states so explicitly, though that may not stay. I would expect the community to evaluate technical ability when they can (although the current BAG members are the most likely to chime in there), trust that the candidates have good judgment and that they understand policy. It's basically a light RfA with a focus on a particular aspect of policy.
General comments
Please keep discussion constructive and civil.
Discussion
- I would like to point out that, as I comment here, most of the opposers are BAG members or users otherwise involved in bot related activities, while there are numerous supports from users who have minimal involvement otherwise. I think that's a sign of something. We (the non-bot community (and I say this as a bot-op, but not a bot-guy)) would very much like to have a say in BAG related issues. Sure, some kinks need ironing out, but please let us have our say. Thanks for reading, thanks for considering, thanks for the bots you've written so far. We all want to make this a better encyclopedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to ask a question of all those who have voted 'oppose' on this RfBAG: if the candidacy fails, will you want Coren to resign from BAG? Happy‑melon 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have already agreed to abide by the results of this process. I was quite aware that my boldness in pushing this proposal through all the way through experiment might cause a backlash, and am quite willing to accept censure for having swam upstream. — Coren (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Don't see why not. Rudget 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yup. Trust the candidate. No qualms from me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason to oppose currently. FunPika 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Support Very trustful. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the process and the candidate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is a discussion on Coren's abilities, not on this process. If you want to comment on the process, then go over there, don't unreasonably oppose a user's legitimate request. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - Coren is a competent programmer with a firm grasp on the bot policy and the working of bots and the BAG. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Understands the bot policies and will do fine. Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Knows plenty about bots. Captain panda 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yep. MBisanz talk 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support candidate and process (seriously, haven't we been asking for accountability in BAG membership? And now we get it and complain about it? Oh noes!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure about the process (although I don't have any better ideas), but I fully support Coren's membership of the BAG, given his technical expertise and previous good work. the wub "?!" 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, an exceedingly competent programmer with a sound record at BAG already. Happy‑melon 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Cobi. Franamax (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Werdna talk 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- zomg whatever. Majorly (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep Trustworthy. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --Kbdank71 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ral315 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- doubleplusgood, Zginder 2008-04-26T14:14Z (UTC) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --SMS Talk 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Based on the comment below, this is apparently also a referendum on the system itself, which I believe is unnecessary process and was implemented with virtually no community involvement. Mr.Z-man 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know very little about how BAG ended up here at RfA, and so please forgive what I am about to say if I missed a key fact, but this oppose and all that follow it seem a little pointy to me. I know you oppose Coren's bringing of the discussion here, but don't you think it is unfair to oppose him for BAG, when, I presume, you do not know his qualifications for it? To say he made this a referendum on the entire system seems a misconstruction of his words, he merely wanted to see if participation would come here. I don't think he meant participation for the sake of opposing the system, that would seem to make this trial fruitless as it does not allow it to answer the original question for why it was here. SorryGuy Talk 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this apparent attempt to push a disputed policy against growing opposition, it also calls Coren's judgment and willingness to listen to the community into question for me. Later comments on another talk page and on IRC clarified the comments here to mean something like "If people participate at all, it is a success and we should use the system" yet there is no disclaimer here telling people not to participate if they don't support the process and it ignores the opposition growing on WT:BOTS and now also the adminship poll. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know very little about how BAG ended up here at RfA, and so please forgive what I am about to say if I missed a key fact, but this oppose and all that follow it seem a little pointy to me. I know you oppose Coren's bringing of the discussion here, but don't you think it is unfair to oppose him for BAG, when, I presume, you do not know his qualifications for it? To say he made this a referendum on the entire system seems a misconstruction of his words, he merely wanted to see if participation would come here. I don't think he meant participation for the sake of opposing the system, that would seem to make this trial fruitless as it does not allow it to answer the original question for why it was here. SorryGuy Talk 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no pre thought out policy/ procedures and they do not have consensus. βcommand 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unneeded bureaucratic process. (Coren himself is a competent programmer). Monobi (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- per Monobi. Nakon 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Per Mr.Z-man, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Mr. Z-man. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Z-man. Process itself is not yet ratified, therefore all nominations are out-of-order. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination solely to push forward a favored version of a now-disputed policy (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen is an interesting history lesson on avoiding such things). This is not commenting on Coren's skills, as from what little I've seen he's very well-spoken and a competent programmer. east.718 at 03:13, April 21, 2008
Oppose since you want the process to be changed into rfa I can do a stupid rfa oppose. I oppose any one who doesn't open the source to their bot (it would be nice if you could open the source to your editing framework, as far as I can tell yours is the only perl framework that uses the api). Also per the above --Chris 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Erm, you mean like this? Caveat: the code isn't very pretty and the new API didn't support edits at the time this was written— updating it is on my to-do list. — Coren (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Edits a policy page protected due to a dispute? A very dangerous sign. --Irpen 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the timestamps of the protection and his subsequent edit: it's very likely it was protected while he was already editing it, so he received no warning that it had been protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, that is indeed exactly what happened. — Coren (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: I've been asked at my talk about this vote and gave an answer there as well. I don't have a problem with being asked for an explanation and I was not annoyed by it in any way. --Irpen 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, that is indeed exactly what happened. — Coren (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the timestamps of the protection and his subsequent edit: it's very likely it was protected while he was already editing it, so he received no warning that it had been protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
This process is currently disputed and does not have consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put, I don't want to be a contributing member of what will likely devolve into a dramafest. Valtoras (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on how I know him he seems qualified, but because I know little of the bot world I feel I am unqualified to add a support or oppose in. Wizardman 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above BAG membership 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.
Related requests
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of 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.