Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mandsford

Mandsford

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (32/2/1); Scheduled to end 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Mandsford (talk · contribs) – Mandsford has been in the community since May 2007. He is one of the most active AFD participaters using sound policy based argrements[1] [2] [3]. [4] [5]. He is the author for most of the Month and Day articles March 1981 for example. He was blocked for incivility almost two years ago but he learned from his experience. We need more AFD closers in RFA as AFD is constantly backlogged, and I'm sure Mandsford will make a fine admin. Thanks Secret ^account 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The area where I think I'd do well is in closing a deletion debates. I have enough understanding of Wikipedia's policies and common outcomes to examine the policy arguments made by different commentors. Although I think that most of these can be closed in ten words or less, I have enough experience with the reason for a particular policy that I would be able to respond to a person who asked why a decision was made a certain way (WP:MEMORIAL is a perfect example of something that an absolute necessity, for instance, although it's going to cause hard feelings when it's invoked). I had originally added the matter of giving fair warning to people on civility, although it's been pointed out that you don't have to be an administrator to do that; I already do quite a bit in trying to defuse situations that may be getting out of hand, usually by pointing out that civility can include "aggressive behaviour", and that some things aren't necessarily incivil, such as an opinion of the quality of an article (that's still a fine line); I honestly don't want the power to block a user, although I could be prepared to carry that out if it appeared that repeated warnings failed. I'm aware that administrators do other things besides handling AfD matters and keeping the peace, but most of my encounters with admins are through the AfD forum.

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

A: The articles that I'm proudest of are the month and year pages. I work on those in userspace, and my goal on those has been to have citations for each item before putting them up. The other contribution, though, is trying to keep new editors here. We were all new once, and any time that we have a first-time contributor whose article has come up in AfD, I make it a point to acknowledge their work, even if it comes with a statement that the subject might not meet notability requirements.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I haven't had conflicts over editing recently. Generally, I try to create good-quality articles that have sources or citations. Have other users caused me stress? It happens, although over the course of time, not as often as it once did. I've learned other ways to deal with an argument besides responding in kind (sometimes, you just have to let it go with the meaningless "Perhaps someone will agree"). I try not to start an argument, although I recognize that I can be rude or sarcastic, and that sometimes I step on toes; I've had my feelings hurt before at AfD, and sometimes I'm the guy who causes hurt. I do feel that it's necessary to respond to a rude or bullying comment, but there's a middle-ground between the two extremes of tolerating aggression or trying to be more aggressive. As I told Secret before the nomination, I was blocked for a day back in December '08, and it was the best thing that could have happened to me; if nothing else, I try to give some consideration to what I write before hitting the "save page" button. Mandsford 15:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Chzz

4. In one of the above AfDs, you mentioned inherent notability; can you explain what you'd consider inherently notable, especially re. smaller geographic places and educational establishments. I'm interested in both how you would apply policies, and your own opinions.

A:

General comments

• Links for Mandsford: Mandsford (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mandsford can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit counters have the potential to be evil, but do you mind opting in at X!'s counter? Thanks, —fetch·comms 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom Support—I've seen only good work from this user and have no qualms with them wielding the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator Secret ^account 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Mandsford has solid AfD experience and even when we don't agree I respect the perspective he brings to the discussions. His arguments aren't biased nor do they stray from established consensus. He would make a great AfD closer. ThemFromSpace 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Mandsford is a sensible, experienced AfD contributor who gives intelligent and policy-based opinions. Also, (s)he possesses a sense of humour which is a valuable admin trait - AfD would be a little duller without Mandsford's comments. Good luck! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support With sincere apologies for my hasty oppose, I see after further review that in fact, as you say, the block shortly after the comment I referenced seems indeed to have been "the best thing that ever happened to you". Subsequent to that, I see nothing of concern, and a healthy history of positive contributions to AFD, along with good humour, intelligence and tolerance. Apologies again, and this is in no way an excuse for my 2008 based "oppose", but you should probably archive your talk page once in a while - it's pretty big. :-)  Begoon^talk 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Seems fine to me. Good AfD experience, would be helpful there. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. AfD work looks great to me, and the candidate shows civility and good humour, and seems to understand consensus well - and the AfD backlog often needs mopping up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Agree with the above, the candidate has a good body of quality input at AFD, and appears to be well-suited for adminship. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support More than demonstrated his suitability with good work at AfD. Rje (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. I was somewhat surprised by this request, but I guess I always assumed you'd never run because you didn't want to be an admin. However, I think you could be a damn fine admin. We do indeed need more admins to close AfDs and Mandsford shows himself to be consistently clueful and widely read in his AfD comments, where I'm constantly impressed (often as either a nominator or a closer) by the consideration that goes into his comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support, I quite frequently don't agree with Mandsford's opinions at AfD, but they're almost invariably sensible ones nonetheless. A conscientious user that definitely puts thought into what he does, I'm confident that Mandsford will make a good admin. ~ mazca ^talk 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
13. No problems here. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
14. (edit conflict) Support. I've frequently cited his arguments when I'm closing heated AfDs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣</front> ♠ 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - huge number of edits, sufficient WP edits, and autoreviewer. The only minus is the current lack of a user page. One of our most clueful and civil editors. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Pretty much everything checks out. In fact, it has done for some time. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Looks good with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
18. In my view, Mandsford is one of the most thoughtful and sensible contributors at AfD so of course I think he will make thoughtful and sensible AfD closes. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support no reason not to Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - no problems here. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Trusted user, should do fine w/ the tools. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support Trusted user who has a clue. Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Ray^Talk 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support – We need more users working at AFD, and this candidate will be a fine admin. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
25. weak support. AfD hero (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Weak support Although the candidate's portfolio has quite a few thin spots (e.g. no user page, no opt-in of X!'s counter), the need for the tools in support of AfD work is what convinces me to vote in favor--Hokeman (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support – An editor who has matured with experience and learned from mistakes. He's found an area where he does excellent work, and would use the admin bit to further that work. All valid reasons to support and nothing to cause me any concerns. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
28. If all admin candidates were able to demonstrate the levels of policy-based decision making that Mandsford can, we wouldn't have had people crying about the lack of successful RfAs the other week, because the minority of people that believe sysops should have this quality wouldn't be opposing. Will be an excellent admin. --WFC-- 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support - An excellent AfD mind. I've agreed and disagreed, but I highly respect the sum of Mandsford's opinions. The oppose only reinforces my opinion here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Support. Contrary to Colonel Warden; if somebody has changed their mind after encountering new evidence or persuasive arguments from others, and struck through their old opinion, I find that very impressive. I think wikipedia needs more people - and more admins - like that. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not object to him changing his mind and thought I had said so clearly. The objection is that his judgments are too hasty and shallow. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support As with so many things, I can't see eye to eye with the Colonel. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Definitely. Remember disagreeing with him but always found his arguments to be solid. A wonderful candidate. ceranthor 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Sorry to be the first, but as soon as I went to your talk page to start looking at your contributions, I found several instances of what I would call very abrupt, bordering on uncivil comments. By the time I reached this comment: [6] I'm afraid I had reached the conclusion that you will have to demonstrate a much higher level of collegiality and civility before I am able to support.  Begoon^talk 16:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In his defense, that was from almost 2 years ago....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair call - I didn't go any further after reading that - I'll review some later contributions. I didn't realise it was quite that old as it was not yet archived.  Begoon^talk 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - candidate owes me a dollar. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

After lengthy deliberation I've decided to forgive Mandsford and move to support. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose I've seen Mandsford at AFD many times and it has often struck me that he seems only to give his personal opinion of the matter, without reference to any independent evidence such as sources. To confirm this impression, I started sampling his contributions from Oct 2009 and immediately found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates. In this discussion, he flounders because he's not looking to see what external sources have to say about the matter. So, it seems that he views AFD as a place where people vent their personal opinion of topics, contrary to all our core policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Just because he flip-floped in one AFD it doesn't mean that he just looks at the article without sourcing. You need more proof than that. Secret ^account 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, Colonel Warden will easily find more proof of cases where I have changed my initial opinion and struck through it; I view it as keeping an open mind rather than being wishy-washy. One could call it floundering or flip-flopping, I suppose, but I look at it as taking subsequent developments into consideration. Sometimes, the initial objections to an article are cured by subsequent edits, and original research gives way to statements cited to sources. And, sometimes, the arguments of others persuade me that I should reconsider my initial stand. If I'm arguing, I believe that it's crucial to make points sooner rather than later; on the other hand, I think that an administrator shouldn't even begin reading an argument until the customary waiting period has passed, nor form an opinion until considering what everyone has had to say. There has to be a difference between being a "lawyer" and being a "judge", but in either instance, I'd rather hear what others have to say. Mandsford 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   I've often changed my mind at AfD too, based on development of the article and on other people's opinions - it is, after all, supposed to be a discussion rather than an argument, and I think having an open mind in the face of such discussion is a strength, not a weakness. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   • It seems easy to find more examples. I go back to October and immediately find another case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of band theme songs. In this case, he changes his mind because "My initial objection was, in retrospect, over nothing more than the name of the article, which is not a very good reason for deleting it." I'm fine with him changing his mind - I'd much rather have that than someone who digs in and refuses to budge. What I don't like is his apparent willingness to make snap-judgments on little evidence. This may be ok in a contributor to AFD, where he gets plenty of opportunity to react to the evidence that other editors bring to the discussion. But I don't want this shoot-from-the-hip style in an admin who may be resolving lots of speedy deletions and proposed deletions. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   You'd rather have and admin who can't be swayed by reasonable argument or can't admit they made a mistake? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'd rather have an admin like Michig. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose I hate to admit it, but the Colonel might have a point. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple, Mandsford starts with a (rather inexplicable) Speedy Delete !vote, and then three hours later switches it to a Keep !vote. Looking at it again, I see that Mandsford likely meant A7 and not G7 as the speedy criteria, but either way it shows both a lack of thought being put into his !votes (followed by backtracking once he's proven wrong) as well as a gross misunderstanding of speedy deletion criteria. It's great that he's capable of admitting that he's wrong (which is a rare character trait), but it would be nice if he was wrong less. SnottyWong ^chat 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Although I never thought I would say this I have to agree with Colonel Warden. I have gone through three or four of Mandsford's more heavily edited AfDs at random and find Mandsford to be very wishy washy. I don't see this as a good basis for an admin running on his ability to deal with AfDs. However, I reserve my right to be wishy washy and sit on the fence for now, I cannot fully oppose based on this concern at present. Polargeo (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)