Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2

Danielfolsom

Voice your opinion (talk page) (8/5/4); Scheduled to end 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) - People probably want to know why I’m nominating myself when, since my last RFA, I’ve only really been active on Wikipedia for a month. The reason is that that time and because of my last RFA, along with the new experiences I’ve gathered within a month: I believe that I now have views that are more mature than the one’s I held in my previous RFA; I realize I can't prove this through text, so I encourage all who have doubts to ask questions - because I am confident that I can answer more than adequately. I believe that I can greatly improve this encyclopedia as an administrator, and while most of my answers to the questions brought up will concern actions in the one month I have been really active, if asked for I am perfectly ready to answer all question about any edit I have made, because those edits are part of my history, and they still count. If I made a lot of edits to templates - those count. If I vandalized a few pages - that counts (I never did that - but you get my meaning).

I encourage users to try my knowledge of policy with their questions. I realize that said knowledge is a concern since I’ve taken time off. But I’ve read through the policies, and I surprised myself because I forgot little (I wish I could say I forgot nothing, but there were one or two things that just completely escaped my mind; the biggest thing was a MOS thing; I thought that the references section came before the See also section). I know I am ready, and I’m prepared to see if the community thinks I am or not. danielfolsom 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - I'm well versed with the policies concerning deletion, and I know what is and what isn't an acceptable page. I have edited quite a few templates, a few of which are now protected, and on with something like Template:Articleissues, where users ask for changes, I think I’ll be able to help there. As most can probably tell, a lot of my time has been spent reverting vandalism quickly, so I hope to be able to keep up the quality of some of Wikipedia's lesser known pages, as I'll have time to browse Special:Unwatchedpages. I'm also going to say what I'll do on a limited basis, because while I'm sure I know the policy regardless of the situation (with maybe one exception: Images, for me, are a little tough), I think it's important to clearly define limitations - which I do have. I have been in a few conflicts. However, I do not believe I have been enough conflicts to actually search for conflicts and protect pages based on them. That being said, I do know when a conflict is bad, and if I arrive on a conflict, I will be able to tell if the page should be protected. I will never touch images. I have uploaded on image before, and the reason it is only one is because images are just too difficult for me. Finding the right attribution, finding the copyright stuff, ect., is all just over my head. I will not seriously edit the main page. I don't have experience with wikinews or featured content, so that is not my place. I say seriously because if there is a typo or a format error on the main page, I know enough about templates and wiki-syntax that I will fix that.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm going to use what I have on my userpage here, because I've actually logged some of, what I think is, my best stuff. I've worked with WP:Spotlight. There are two articles that I've edited under that that I am very proud of.

On John Jay I was the main writer (as of this revision) on the During the American Revolution section (not including the Minister to Spain sub-section, but including the Treaty of Paris sub-section), the The Jay Court, 1789-1795 section (which is probably the one I'm most proud of, it was something like 11 sources for 3 paragraphs–I know that doesn't seem like a lot, but the Court opinions were very dense), and parts of the Jay Treaty section.

• Some of my edits (trying to do them by importance):
  • Writing on Jay's arguably most important case, Chisholm v. Georgia, also expanding other areas and adding a quote box
  • Writing on Hayburn's Case
  • Pretty much rewriting the Treaty of Paris section
  • Adding A LOT of references to detail what Jay was doing during the American Revolution
  • Added background to treaty - fixed a lot of {{fact}} tags

On Biafra (as of this revision) I was the main writer on the History section and the Economy section. This was a hard article to write; there really wasn't that much information out there, so I'm pretty proud of what i managed to get.

As I said in my last RFA, I'm also proud of 2004 NBA Finals (a few diffs from that: 1, 2, 3, and a recent one: 4).

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: Well, to warn everyone this is going to start a long story that will actually take up the entirety of my answer - so know that end of the first paragraph isn’t the end of the incident brought up in the first paragraph.

Since a long wikibreak, I have been in one controversy, where a user was drastically changing the tone of a page I didn’t have much familiarity with. I saw that the same user had been reverted in his or her previous edits, so I reverted, and suggested that, in order to avoid conflict, the user simply bring up the proposed edits on the talk page. I was reverted, and then quickly found myself in a mini-edit war ( I believe I made 2 revisions, including the one previously mentioned, and I also toned down the user’s edit just a bit).

Now before the wikibreak - I got into at least two arguments over pages I had no familiarity with. I have reviewed a GA nominee once - Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. It did not go well. I suggested changes to the article, and there was a mini-dispute over those suggestions, but ultimately it worked out. Then the article got into an edit war over a different subject. I hadn’t given it a second review, and after a few days, with the edit war continuing, I felt guilty for not giving a review for so long, so I explained on the nominator’s user page the reason for the delay - I said I was waiting to see if the edit war was serious, or whether it would die out soon. I eventually failed the article because of the edit war, but my comments to the nominee were brought up on my RFA - I would say it bringing brought up was the dispute I’m taking about. I mean that dispute was never completely resolved, but it was a dispute nonetheless.

The other controversy before my wikibreak was over Negroid - another page I knew nothing about. I was trying to resolve a dispute over pictures - I think it was questionable which pictures accurately represented the subject. One of my first edits was this:

Ok, I'd like to ask just a few things:

1. First of all, a question - can we confirm that each of the three proposed pictures (including the one on the page) accurately represent the topic.
2. Secondly, is there any chance that we could get a labeled drawing of a "negroid" skull? This would be less personal and thus more ideal - especially since we refer to the term as offensive.

Unless we have confirmation of the first, and unless we can assure ourselves that the second is not possible, then this debate is going to become extremely monotonous.--danielfolsom 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem started when I tried to keep civility (that’s a pretty big lesson I learned: mentioning that users should remain civil can do more harm than good), and eventually everything just blew up. After a winded discussion there were many different thoughts (one person wanted to just delete), but luckily eventually the problem was solved. I think my biggest gaffe in that situation was trying to keep the peace by bringing up policy; a simple different choice of words might have let us resolve that situation sooner and more smoothly, but luckily, again, it it was resolved in one or two days. For this article I went to User:tjstrf for help. I regret this. It’s not that tjstrf isn’t a great editor; it’s just, in hindsight, it was very unfair for me to put this on his shoulders. So, me knowing that guided my actions in the debate I first mentioned (and to conclude this long-winded story):

I posted many comments to the questionable user’s talk page. None were responded to, so I went to WP:AIV. The page was protected, and the conflict was over.

Optional question from Autumn Fall

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: I, sadly, would not unblock the user. I understand that as we are on Wikipedia, we should not be afraid of vandals. This is the encyclopedia that everyone is allowed to edit. If we become afraid of those who vandalize pages, then we will block too harshly and too quickly, and perhaps lose what would have been a reformed, quality editor. However, in this instance the user was initially blocked for a very brief amounts of time; this block was really this user's second chance. The user failed to take advantage of the chance (s)he was given, and despite making one quality edit, the user's irresponsible vandalism before and after that one solid edit show that he ultimately is a source of harm. As administrators, when it becomes clear that a user has become a source of harm, it is our duty to protect Wikipedia from this harm; we do this through blocks. The blocks are not used to punish the user, but rather to simply make clear that we are serious about Wikipedia's quality. I feel like removing the one week block would both put Wikipedia at risk and let the user know we aren't really serious about blocking. Instead, I would explain essentially what I have said above on the user's talk page, and I would point to the blocking policy, because the user seems to think I am blocking him or her as punishment, as (s)he says "i hereby give you permission to block me for life in the event that i vandalize again", and obviously that's not how the block policy works. Lastly, I would offer myself as a source of guidance should the user need help upon the blocks expiration, because if the user is genuine, obviously I want to make sure that the user doesn't think the community now looks down upon him or her, and I would let him know that he still has all the same rights as other IP users (and I might plug the idea of getting a user account so the user can create pages).

General comments

• See Danielfolsom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom
• Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2

• Links for Danielfolsom: Danielfolsom (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/Danielfolsom before commenting.

Discussion

• Essentially I'm running on all of my edits, but the major difference between this time and last time is my comprehension of policy, which has improved greatly. I realize this is not the best political time for me to run, but I think that I can make a difference now, and I truly believe I've changed over the last few months.--danielfolsom 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "best political time"? Ironholds 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Screw-it support for now, you seem like a really nice guy and I don't think you'll have much trouble with being an admin. It's a little concerning that you've only been active again for a month but to be honest, you seem to have got straight back into it with hardly any problems. If something substantial comes up, I might switch, but for now I don't see why you wouldn't be a net positive for this project. Good luck with your impending opposes (I guarantee they'll be a few) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support-I trust that this user will use his powers for good, rather than evil.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - The low activity isn't a problem for me, since it's the only thing I can see that could be construed as "negative". Net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - though he has only recently returned to regular activity, I am confident he has the good sense needed to become an admin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Plenty active, has clue. —Giggy 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support — Appears to be a conscientious and helpful editor. I checked out a few pages of contribs and found no problems, although use of the mandatory-edit-summary tool would be a good idea for the future. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - I believe that he would be a good admin. Xclamation point 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. I think taking breaks, or at least editing at reduced levels of activity, should be mandatory for everyone. It prevents people getting too vested in the project and allows them to look at things with a clear mind. naerii 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose for now. A month of edits doesn't (for me) show you have enough experience with current wiki policy (rather than October 2007 wiki-policy) for me to feel able to trust you with the tools. My vote may change based on questions. Ironholds 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Activity in the past 9 to ten months has been very low, and I would have troble trusting you with the tools with that record. Sorry. America69 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Fails my standards. One month of activity is simply not enough.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Just to clarify, I say one month of major activity since my last RFA, total I have 10 months of activity.--danielfolsom 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Unfortunately, I must question the wisdom of any candidate who uses his or her real name. An administrator often finds themselves the center of a lot of controversy, regardless of whether or not they intend to perform controversial actions. Said controversey can easily mushroom, and the potential real-life implications can cause unwarranted complications both with the administrator and the project as a whole. Badger Drink (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   Is this really a valid reason to oppose, though?--Winger84 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   I believe it's rather valid. Less cut-and-dried than seeing a bunch of "on wheels!" page moves, a bit more valid (or at least more complex) than "power hunger" / "voted to delete once", probably about on par with "articlespace" / "too soon". It speaks to the candidate's sense of judgement - for instance, his ability to distinguish good-faith contributors from "civil POV warriors". Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   Are you certain Daniel Folsom is his real name? I can think of at least one instance where someone's pseudoname looked like a real name. Xclamation point 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   That must have been me. My name is Eve Ryme. user:Everyme 07:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'll take a wild guess and assume you're talking about this guy (aka this guy? Anyway, in absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no choice but to make the assumption I made. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   At the risk of WP:BEANS, I'd say that this argument can also be used in reverse, leading to another CDB Q&A dilemma; We also have people who believe that those applying as administrators should reveal their real identities. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose per not enough time from the last RfA to demonstrate clear progress. --Winger84 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   Do you mean that he hasn't shown the progress you would like to see or that it is iyo absolutely impossible that he even could have progressed enough in that time ? user:Everyme 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Aside from this month, you haven't edited much in the last nine months, so I'm not convinced as to your familiarity with the project. Useight (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - You seem to have been slightly inactive the past few months, besides this month like what User:Useight said above. Can't really support this user just yet until I see more activity around Wikipedia. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Apologies, but your activity on the project hasn't been enough to gauge your experience with any degree of accuracy. We simply haven't seen enough. Come back after a few more active months. PerfectProposal 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral-- I like you but coming back too soon is a problem. I would also recommend using the "force edit summary" tool. --Cameron* 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)