Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing

GoldenRing

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (7/11/6); Scheduled to end 09:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

GoldenRing (talk · contribs) – I realise I'm not your typical user who becomes an admin. I've been here for a long time now - I registered this account in 2004 - and my edit count is on the low side for someone who's been here that long. I haven't done a lot of content creation - most of my activity has been anti-vandalism patrolling (and I created the User:GoldenRing/MoveStats tool to help with this) and project-space lurking and contributing.

But I think I've demonstrated that I have the right temperament for an admin. Despite a long time contributing to fairly controversial parts of the project, such as ANI and ARB, hostile run-ins with other editors have been pretty few and far between, and where they have happened I've always sought to calm things down rather than inflame them. I also go out of my way to have a sympathetic word with those who I think have come off worse in a situation, whatever I think the rights and wrongs of the situation were. I have little time for straight-out vandals, but a lot of patience with anyone I think could become a productive editor.

So why an RfA now? Frankly, I'm sick of seeing notices of backlogs at AN and not being able to do anything about it. I would be the sort of admin who keeps an eye on the backlogs and works through them as best I can.

If the community decides it doesn't want my services in that way, that's fine. I'm offering to help as best I can, but if the community thinks my efforts would be better employed by continuing as I am, then that's fine with me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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 places that I've been involved in as a non-admin and that are often backlogged; CSD, UAA, AIV and so on. Possibly the more routine bits of AfD.

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

A: The things I'm most pleased with are the tools I've created to help with the work I do, MoveStats and WRCP. I'm not sure how generally used they are, but I find them helpful. The edits that I think have done the most good are my patrolling of edits by new users. I try to quickly get a feel for how likely a new editor is to become constructive in the future and react accordingly.

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've been involved in a couple of very small conflicts but I wouldn't say users have caused me stress as such. I had a brief run-in with User:Jehochman back in 2014. I took him to task - I hope respectfully, but still letting him know I definitely thought he was wrong (this was over an ITN nomination). I had a run-in with User:AusLondonder in 2014, which I tried to keep calm an on-point. I had a quite confused interaction with User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:M. A. Bruhn - all entirely my fault - which as far as I can tell stayed friendly, despite my criticism of others' actions, and I hope they think so, too. I've been openly critical of a few recent Arb cases (notably the treatment of Michael Hardy and The Rambling Man), though (probably to their credit) the arbs have regarded it as beneath their notice.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ritchie333

4. A brand new user with no other edits creates an article with the following text : "aldford house is a posh house in west london". There are no references. What do you do?

A: First, quickly google it to check that my recollection is correct and Aldford House really is a posh house on Park Lane. From there it depends how much time I have at the time; if I have a lot of time straight away, I'd go looking for RS to make some sensible judgement as to whether it meets the standard of WP:GNG (note that WP:GEOFEAT just restates the GNG in this case). If I don't have a lot of time, I'd reword it to something, "Aldford House is a large residential building in Park Lane, London," tag it as a stub with no references and leave a friendly note at the creator's talk page. I think it's unlikely that it meets GNG, but this is not a case where any of the CSD criteria would apply, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Oshwah

5. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?

A: Well. Can I just try to second-guess you a bit? I'm guessing you don't really mean "content creators," you mean people who polarise the community and use "content creator" as a defence against the half who don't like them. Content creators who get on well with everyone aren't really the problem, are they? Sanctions have to be preventive, and in these cases I don't think a block does anything to prevent anything much. These types of people are not going to have their attitude changed by a block of any duration, so the only block that's going to prevent it is an indefinite one - and then we lose their contributions to the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that the only way that works with such people is for someone they respect to take them aside and have a quiet word about specific situations. My feeling is that if you say to these people, "Cut it out or I'll block you," their response is, "Bring it!" But if you approach them and say, "Look, I know the situation was horrible but what you said was over the top and this'd be a nicer place for all 'round if you went back and struck that and maybe even apologised," there's a small to middling chance that they'd actually do it - and that the effect might be rather more lasting than the effect of a block. Such people generally consider themselves to be decent and upright, and I think they respond better to people who expect them to behave in a decent and upright way than people who come along with a big stick.

Sorry for a long answer, but there's another point to make here: When such an editor is blocked, of course the pitchfork brigade turn up. And all too often they kind of have a point. I don't particularly want to mention specific situations here, but I'm sure we're all aware of the admin who's had a long term grudge who jumps on an AE report to issue a long block, or the admin who makes a false accusation and then continually doubles down on it, or the admin who takes a thread with a lot of back-and-forth and issues the maximum possible block within the letter of an arbcom remedy, or the admin who treats an ANI request about themselves as vandalism and edit-wars it closed. Admins should always take time and care when blocking someone, but failing to do so when dealing with people who you know will have a pitchfork-bearing army behind them always strikes me as rather short-sighted. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

6. How could this ANI have been handled better?

A: Could you clarify - handled better by whom? The closing admin of course did a stellar job...

I don't think the outcome of that ANI was particularly bad. By the end of it, TQP understood the concerns about how he'd approached the discussion and had agreed to act differently in future. No-one needed a block or a ban. It even only lasted three hours. Reading back through it, there was a point there where it could have easily turned ugly - "You can call me a potato because I am a potato" is not a saying likely to win friends in ANI, even if I can see what he means when I stop and think about it. 'lol' was never going to be a particularly constructive response to suggested sanctions. OID did decidedly well to calm it all down. I can see what MjolnirPants was trying to achieve, but I'm not sure it did a lot of good.

So things I think could have been done better: For the OP, I understand getting to a point where an ANI report is the right thing to do. You feel too worked up to calmly deal with the situation yourself and you need someone else to help. Fine. But it probably would have been best left alone after the initial report. OPs suggesting topic bans and site bans is not often constructive in this type of discussion, precisely because the OP is too worked up about the situation to be (or be perceived to be) even-handed. He should have left it alone. For MjolnirPants, I think what he was trying to do was good but it would have been better said at the user's talk page. Serious, sensible, calm, independent advice is so rarely found at ANI that even when someone sees it, they tend to dismiss it as flippant, stupid, outraged, partisan drama-stirring. The same words said at the user's talk page might have gone rather more to heart. For the closing admin: brevity is a quality to be valued (says me!) GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Supprt Not everyone might be good at content creation, but he's sure good at what he does and deserves the tool. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Support I'll go out on a limb and say that despite the low mainspace count, this editor has demonstrated plenty of experience and understanding of Wikipedia in well-argued contributions to discussions such as here, here and here. Participation in AIV, UAA and ANI are on a respectable scale. His Taxonomy of new users page would be well worth reading by anyone starting out on patrolling-type activities. Anyway I'm glad he will remain part of the Wikipedia workforce regardless of the outcome here: Noyster (talk), 12:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Seems to be a nice guy. I'm so tired (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Tonton Bernardo: Could you please adjust your signature as per WP:SIGPROB. Many thanks. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Imperatrix mundi: àImperatrix mundi - why? that's my signature: 4 'snakes" I'm so tired (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Please read WP:SIGPROB and compare it to your own as it appears as markup. Thank you, Tonton Bernardo — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   This discussion keeps messing up the numbering. Besides, it's not germane to this RfA, so perhaps it could be taken to Tonton's talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Support, probably just moral at this point, but.... The Opposes based on productivity or lack of edit count or no articles started or, even worse, NOT NOW (seriously, have you read that essay and WP:NOTNOTNOW?) are unconvincing. It is clear to me, from even a cursory look at the candidates contributions, style, and answers, that he understands the purpose of the project (an encyclopaedia), its means (a community), and his own limitations and desires towards those two. Obviously, he's not going to delete the main page, so i say give him the mop. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Moral support. Probably won't pass, but bring activity up and maybe next time. When I became an admin, 2000 edits was enough. That being said, that was over 10 years ago. Andrevan@ 13:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. I recognise that this almost certainly will not pass, but anyone insightful enough to come up with the arguments and taxonomy that Noyster links to in his support vote above deserves the tools IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Passing/not passing, don't care. You've got clue and tact. I like your answers to Qs4 and 5, like your willingness to get feedback at User talk:Richie333 today and hang the editcount, you're clearly ready. If this fails, address the concerns below for a few months and then ping me and I'll strongly consider nominating you myself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm sorry but your activity levels are simply far too low for me to be comfortable supporting at this time. 2370 edits overall and only 13 this month, none at all in November don't suggest to me someone who is going to be an active admin. Worst of all, you seem to have little interest in adding any content, I had to go back to 14 February to find an edit to an article and back to 11 January to find an article edit which wasn't a revert, indicating a serious lack of experience if it ever comes to content disputes. Lack of any articles created and apparent lack of understanding of speedy deletion processes as recently as January also make it a no. Valenciano (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Obviously I don't have access to the article in question any more, but I'd like to point out, as I did to KGirlTrucker81 at the time, that that article qualified, in my view, for CSD under at least four of the criteria and it was the third time the same article had been deleted under CSD in less than two weeks. The original creation, two years earlier, was deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user evading their block or ban. In such situations, despite the consensus that creators should be given a good-faith-assuming chance to improve their articles, it seem unlikely in the extreme to me that it would actually be constructively improved. I happened to pick a CSD criterion to tag it with that technically required a brief pause first, but the speedy deletion was never in doubt and my conscience is not particularly troubled - I don't think there's any question that I was improving the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree with the latter point. Previous deletion history is relevant although not binding. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   I know at least three people in real life who will never, ever, edit Wikipedia again because their first article was deleted per A7 within minutes. We can argue over whether the deletion was correct or not, but that's not really the point - these people's first impression of Wikipedia was so bad they will never contribute again. It is always worth putting that at the front of your mind when doing NPP, and making sure you can put yourself in the other person's shoes. However, in this specific case, the article in question was (as far as I can tell) about a website advertising pirated software and cracks, and there are certain topics I am more lenient about saving than others - that's not one of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose At this point there has been insufficient practice using the different Wikipedia facilities. The first few things I checked for, were not done yet. That is I saw no page moves, no file uploads (I am also looking for fair use uploads), and no creation of an article. I did however see patrolling and tagging of new pages, and automated user talk notices. Also I see successful sockpuppet investigation proposals, and AFD's and prods. So this is not a permanent oppose, just that you may need to explore more Wikipedia functions so that you know how they work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't mind the low edit count or the lack of content creation. Any editor who can help a little bit as an admin should be one. What I do find problematic though is your speedy deletion work. Yes, your taggings were deleted, but they were deleted in error and I can't in good conscience support giving someone access to the delete button who believes that A11 applies to people, tags pages within minutes of creation for lack of context or content or tags an article with multiple RS as A7. We have enough admins who don't care about the restrictions the speedy deletion policy stipulates; we don't need another. As you said, you have not many edits, so I had to check the few that you had. And those didn't inspire me with confidence. That said, do come back here when you have some more experience in the areas you want to work in. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   @SoWhy: "Yes, your taggings were deleted, but they were deleted in error" - in whose opinion? Doctor Donald Ratajkowsk is not A11, but @Deb: deleted it as A7, which is fair enough. James Uberti starts off "James Uberti (born January 29, 1965) is an entrepreneur, inventor, anti-aging author, motivational speaker and wellness advocate" and that immediately makes me think "G11", particularly when the sources are all trivial passing mentions - and presumably @RickinBaltimore: deleted per A7 for the same reason. I might just about be persuaded to commute it down to AfD, at which point I would expect it to be deleted. If these articles are deleted in error - go and moan at the admins who deleted them - don't take it out on somebody else who isn't an admin and can be afforded a little more give and take. Yes, I'm fed up of admins deleting articles I can salvage, but I'm more fed up of the community who don't actually do anything about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Knowing what A11 applies to and what not, is something I can expect from a candidate for adminship. As for Mr. Uberti, the article contained not only sources but multiple claims of significance. Yes, I, too, am fed up with admins who delete articles which can (and per WP:ATD should) be fixed instead but I don't think the solution should be to add another admin like that and absent any actual deletions, the candidate's taggings are the only indication we have of how they will handle the delete button. That said, you know that I'd love to be proven wrong and if he demonstrates that he has actually understood the policy and those were honest mistakes, I'd be the first to support another RfA. The answer 4 is a good start. As some might remember, I once helped "derail" an RfA for a user I then ended up nominating (successfully) the second time around, so I really mean it when I say that I will support someone once they have demonstrated better knowledge. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   I don't disagree with anything you've said; my point was more that just as much as vetting and educating new admin candidates, we should make sure existing administrators understand what the right thing to do is, and don't inadvertently create poor role models for admin wannabes. I personally am less concerned about an admin deleting something incorrectly, as to how they manage the situation when somebody (usually the article creator) complains about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   @SoWhy: As others have pointed out, Doctor Donald Ratajkowsk was deleted as A7 - but I remain of the opinion that he is the invention of the author, not a real person with no credible claim to significance. Yes, I tagged Caleb Walker as A1 very shortly after creation; as it was the third attempt at creating the article in two weeks, it didn't look like a credible attempt to create a viable article to me. As the creator has made no contributions whatsoever that haven't been deleted, I think my judgement here was borne out. As for James Umberti, RickinBaltimore agreed that there was no credible claim to significance and deleted it. Citing an RS in an article doesn't mean that those RSes provide significant coverage (or indeed any coverage at all) of the subject. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Uberti's article looks like a stereotypical paid editing piece, and on that account I can think of at least one prominent admin would rain fires of hell if it wasn't deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose Doesn't seem to have ever created anything in article space; not even so much as a redirect. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose I normally don't like opposes for edit count, but you don't have enough edits, and there's no point in giving you the mop if you aren't active. I have more edits in the past 3 months than you have had in 12 years. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose As I can see, this user has almost as much edits done in 13 years, as I do in 4 months. Also the 0.5 edits per day mean a lot. I think it was said somewhere, that an admin applicant should have at least 3000 edits Maybe content creation is not everything, but 0 pages created in 13 years? 17.4% of AfD votes from this user were wrong. It might not be safe to give this user deletion tools. I do not want to discourage a candidate and I believe, that he would become a great admin, but maybe it is too early. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 12:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   Do we really need to go in that hard? This RfA has little chance of passing and will probably be closed as NOTNOW or withdrawn. Also, for those of us who were barely around, but kinda, in the mid-to-late 2000s, life often got in the way of editing for several years after you signed up for this really cool website that anyone can edit. I'm not supporting, but I think this oppose is somewhat harsh. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   I am sorry, TonyBallioni, but this is my personal opinion on Admins. An inactive admin is no help for the project. The editor made 1720 contributions in previous 3 years (his most active years so far) and this is a clear sign of inactivity. Why am I going harsh? Because admin have a lot of tools, that need to be used actively. An inactive user, who does not have time to use the tools, might just be fine without them. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying just saying bolding edit counts and getting into the average edits a day over a 13 year period that included long breaks is a bit less than charitable of an oppose for a good faith contributor. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW - you have little edits and have no experience in content creation. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose: I don't quite think GoldenRing has enough experience. I'm not concerned about the low activity level, but GR has fewer than 600 article edits. The 82.6% AfD vote match rate is not in itself a dealbreaker (to me, it's about a C or C+), but when combined with the low edit count and lack of creation of a single page in mainspace (article or redirect), overall I don't think GR is experienced enough. However, GR, you're doing a good job; keep it up and I'd be happy to support in a year or two. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose because of a very low number of edits. Need more work, especially in content creation. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose – Not enough experience just yet. With more work on content creation and if the concerns about speedy deletion judgement are addressed, then I would certainly consider supporting candidacy in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
11. 'Oppose. Insufficient editing experience, including no article creation experience whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't think I can support; there just isn't enough solid of evidence of good judgement and tact that is required in adminship, as much discussed at User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. However, your answer in Q4 is thinking along the right lines, and your reason for wanting the tools ("I'm fed up with the backlogs on AN") and general feeling you just put this RfA up to see what would happen is the correct way to go about it. Get some experience under your belt with content, and some more NPP work, and then consider filing a poll at WP:ORCP about this time next year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Moral support. I don't think there's any question that you are here to build the encyclopedia, and all evidence I have as to your temperament is encouraging. That's not a substitute for experience, though, so I'd suggest chugging along for a little while longer (how long that is depends mostly on you). I'd happily support at some point in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
3. I'm with Vanamonde. I want to support but don't think the experience is there. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
4. I agree with what has been said above. You seem to be a good editor, but you need to get more experience before you can pass here. Lepricavark (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Neutral with moral support per Vanamonde93. I'll be more than happy to support once you get some more experience under your belt. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Edit count should not be a barrier. Rather, understanding Wikipedia's policies and having respect for other's contributions should be deciding factors -- especially those editors who are new to Wikipedia. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• H'mmm: about four years' effective tenure; less than 2,000 manual edits; ~500 edits to article space; <70 AfD !votes; no articles created. Haven't got the heart for the first !vote to be an 'oppose'- and 'TOOSOON' would be an insult. I do think, however, your self-nom is delightfully restrained, almost to the point of self-deprecation. Good luck! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: TOOSOON away. No insult perceived. As I hope I made clear, I'm very aware I'm not the typical star candidate. I've not tied a lot of my self-esteem to this nomination, just offering my services if the community want them, such as they are. GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Plus one on FIM's !vote. - The Bounder (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Or since it's not a !vote, a !!vote. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd agree, I think with a bit more editing you'll make an excellent admin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't want to pile on the oppose votes, but I'll definitely enthusiastically pile on the sentiment that the candidate shows a great deal of promise, and I'll be happy to support once they've worked a bit to fill in a few weak spots. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm in here with the rest of the above generals. Shearonink (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think GoldenRing's answer to Q4 was superb. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think his answer to Q5 is brilliant, personally. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm bordering on saying the hell with it and moving my neutral moral support to full support because I think GoldenRing's forthrightness with the answers and attitude through this process are actually the exact type of antidote needed to some of the worst parts of RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)