Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colin M

Colin M

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (43/0/0); Scheduled to end 14:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Colin M (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to present to you Colin M for consideration. While Colin first registered for Wikipedia in 2007 he started editing more seriously in 2019. Since then he has worked to improve a variety of articles, including five he has brought in the last year to Good Article status. You will also find him knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with a particular focus on Article Titles. He has brought that expertise to his work in closing Requested Move discussions. The content he has produced often requires sensitivity and you will find him a thoughtful collaborator and one who is willing to lend help to others where he can. This combination of qualities should make Colin a capable administrator and I hope you join me in supporting him. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Colin M is the sort of potential administrator I like to see, somebody who has done a lot of work on improving the encyclopedia in neglected areas (including several good articles), politely and helpfully assisted others do the same, and would now like to help out with some of the administrative backlog. I've been particularly impressed with his contributions during content debates, such as at AfD, where his opinions regularly match the final consensus, and show he can politely respect views of those who disagree with him. He shows the right attitude and communication skills that I believe are essential for administrators to have, and I’m happy to endorse this request for adminship. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you Barkeep and Ritchie for the kind words. I have never edited for pay, or on another account. Colin M (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2022 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: Mostly because it would help me close requested move discussions. I've been active at RM for a while, both as a participant and a closer, and having the admin bit would make it easier to close a wider range of discussions (for example, by making it easier to move over a redirect with history, or in cases where a page is fully move-protected). RM has had a sizeable backlog in recent months, and I'd like to be able to more effectively help clearing it out. I'd be open to helping out in other admin areas as well, but moves are my bread and butter.

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

A: I'm most proud of my content creation work. My first big project on Wikipedia was working on Magellan expedition, a level-4 vital article. Since I began working on it in 2019, it's gone from 10 kilobytes and 4 footnotes to 80 kilobytes and 160 footnotes (though I can't claim all the credit, and there's still lots of room for improvement). I've also created several dozen articles from scratch, with topics ranging from linguistics, to 19th century periodicals, to LGBT history, to... Cow Tools (somehow my most viewed article by far). I've had the pleasure of bringing a handful of them, such as The Hobby Directory and Wormwood: A Drama of Paris, up to GA with the help of some great reviewers. Aside from my content creation, I think my participation in requested moves over the years has been a positive force in the project.

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: Rarely. My content work is mostly in obscure corners, and, fortunately, the atmosphere at RM is pretty consistently respectful and collegial. When a content dispute does come up, I try to resolve it through talk page discussion, assuming good faith. An important lesson that took me a while to learn is that sometimes it's best to just walk away from a low-stakes dispute, even if you're confident that you're right. Spending a long time in pursuit of a change that makes the encyclopedia a little bit better can ultimately feel a little silly when you realize you could have instead spent the same amount of time to make 20 other uncontroversial edits which each improve the project just as much. On the other hand, if it's a truly important matter and 1-on-1 discussion is clearly not heading toward consensus, that's when I would consider bringing more voices into the conversation, for example by posting a neutral notice to a Wikiproject, or opening an RfC.

Optional question from LindsayH

4. Hey there ~ thanks for allowing your name to be put forward. What do you think is the most important (if such a thing exists) or valuable of all our guidelines or policies?

A: This feels a bit like choosing which of my vital organs are most important! I think the project would be irreparably harmed if any of its core content policies went away, with verifiability and NPOV being among the keystones. But I guess one policy I would call out as an unsung hero is Consensus. It is absolutely amazing to me that Wikipedia functions as well as it does – if you traveled to a parallel universe without Wikipedia and tried to explain to someone there how an encyclopedia that anyone on the internet can edit had actually blossomed into a vast, high-quality information source relied on by a sizable fraction of the world's population, they would never believe you. I think Consensus is the key reason Wikipedia doesn't end up looking like the wall of a public bathroom. Using consensus for decision-making elevates good arguments over noise, it encourages civility, and attracts thoughtful editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. If decision-making was done by a straight vote or through some top-down process, I don't think the project could have ever achieved the remarkable success that it has.

Optional question from Andrew D.

5. I just looked at Cow Tools as you seem especially interested in this topic. I notice that it still has an {{italic title}} despite all the recent effort invested in this issue. Is this an oversight or what, please?

A: Yes, this was absolutely an oversight which I've just fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Optional question from Ganesha811

6. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?

A: I'm generally more interested in working in areas related to content rather than conduct, so I have little familiarity with venues like WP:AIV or sockpuppet investigations and would be unlikely to do admin work there. I participated in requested move discussions for months before I started closing any, and when I finally did, I started with cases where consensus was very clear, and gradually worked my way up to more challenging closures. I would take a similar approach if I were to start doing closures in other venues such as WP:FFD, or WP:AFD.

Optional question from A. C. Santacruz

7. Would you be open to recall? If so, under what criteria?

A: Sure, at a high level, I can say I definitely wouldn't want to continue being an admin if my peers decide I'm no longer fit. I'll admit to being a bit green about the context and details surrounding recall but, having browsed some of the criteria used by current admins, User:Firsfron/Accountability strikes me as a reasonable and straightforward process I would be willing to follow.

Optional question from Iffy

8. Have any of your RM closures been challenged? If so, how did you deal with those challenges?

A: I have not had any closes formally challenged at move review. I can think of only one case where I've had a closure informally challenged. This was an unusual case where I found consensus for a position supported by a minority of participants, so I can understand the editor's confusion. I tried to explain the reasoning behind my close in more detail, with reference to certain principles related to consensus like WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DISCARD, which seemed to be enough to satisfy their concerns.

Optional question from Celestina007

9. I want to know your thinking of this theoretical scenario, you observe very reliable sources giving different information on a statement made in an article, what do you do about that? There is no specific “right answer” per se, but I want to understand your thought process, in order to ascertain if you are capable of making good judgement, so could you be so kind as to please explain your course of action if you observe the aforementioned hypothetically scenario?

A: Great question. I've actually encountered this scenario pretty frequently. My usual approach is to hedge between the options in the body and add an explanatory footnote explaining the discrepancy in the sources. For examples of this, see Magellan expedition § Notes, or Ah Men § Notes. In rare cases, common sense will dictate that one answer is clearly correct and the other is a simple error. For example, sources A, B, C, and D say something happened in 1521 and source E says it happened in 1251. In these cases, I probably wouldn't bother to note the discrepancy.

Optional question from Celestina007

10. You already have my support, I’m indeed impressed by your response, second question, and this doesn’t really change anything, my name has become quite synonymous with fighting Undisclosed paid editing, what are your thoughts about UPE or, what do you think is an ideal approach to get rid of such unethical practice?

A: Undisclosed paid editing is antithetical to the first and second of the five pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a soapbox or advertising platform), and it is written from a neutral point of view. Those who work to keep UPE under control have my deep respect, but since it's not an area I have much experience with, I'm not in a great position to suggest solutions. I will say, I think the essay "Buy one, get one free" makes some compelling points about how well-meaning attempts to clean up (rather than delete) promotional content can have the unintended effect of actually rewarding or incentivizing COI editing, but there are pros and cons of each approach, and the overall problem of detecting and dealing with promotional content is incredibly complex.

Optional question from Mdewman6

11. In your answer to Q1, the examples where having admin tools rather than just page mover rights are necessary seem to apply in a small percentage of RM situations. Overall then, how do you view your role at RM changing going from being a page mover to being an admin? Or more generally, how do you view the role of admins at RM being different from the role of page movers?

A: RM/MRV regulars are generally quite accepting of closure by experienced non-admins (even non-pagemovers), and I share this view. In theory, there's nothing preventing me from closing any RM, and then just getting help from an admin when necessary to effect the technical requirements (e.g. by filing requests at WP:RMT, or WP:RFHM). But I would prefer to be able to close without making work for someone else, and these scenarios can cause tricky coordination problems (e.g. I may need to hold off on post-move cleanup until a technical request is fulfilled). So in short, I don't see the nature of my role in RM changing. It would just make it easier for me to close certain requests. (As for what proportion of moves would involve admin tools, see my answer to your next question.)

Optional question from Mdewman6

12. Another follow-up to your answer to Q1, would you continue to preserve page history as much as possible (to the extent appropriate) using round-robin moves and other techniques using suppressredirect, or do you view the ability to G7G6 redirects in the way of moves more as a useful convenience than an occasionally necessary tool?

A: Great question. My impression, based on the wording of the requested move closing instructions and my observation of closes performed by admins, is that G6 deletion is the default method for dealing with redirects with minor history that block a move. My understanding was that the swap procedure was a next-best approach available to page-movers as a workaround. Based on that, my default would be to switch to using G6 over pageswap in most of these (redirect with minor history) cases, but the framing of your question makes me think you might prefer swaps as the default procedure. I can see pros and cons there. I don't want to get too into the weeds of what's already a bit of an "inside baseball" topic here, but I'd definitely be interested in having a discussion about this at WT:RM and hearing the views of experienced closers.

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

13. Would you ever block an Administrator when necessary? And would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking an editor who isn't an admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A:

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

14.Thanks for volunteering. I have seen your soapbox, and I saw your support for stubs. I have gone through your articles a bit, and saw many have nothing to do with stubs. Do you want to add anything to to your support for stubs? I myself felt a bit puzzled, but else I guess you will make fine admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A:

---

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.

Discussion

• Links for Colin M: Colin M (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Colin M 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. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
3. Not familiar with the candidate, but I trust the nominators. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
4. Support A good candidate who will make an excellent administrator. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Support: I trust the nominators, and I particularly appreciate the content creation work. Bsoyka (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
6. Support: I remember the candidate from his exchange with Persicifolia half-way through this discussion on the expression "wheelchair-bound" on WT:MOS. He certainly seemed to consider other points of view, even if he did not quite finish up the exchange. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
7. Support per noms. Also good to see someone with an edit count of less than 10k run. 15 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Support 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
9. Support — Colin M did justice to my question. I wanted to hear something along those lines and they delivered! I’m impressed. Furthermore if Barkeep49 & Ritchie333 trusts you, I am inclined too to trust you. Once again good work on the remarkable answering of my question. They have given a honest well thought out response to my second question and this solidified my stance on them deserving the mop. Celestina007 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
10. Support - friendly, good work, and knows when to ask for an outside opinion. Femke (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
11. Support per noms. For what it's worth, Colin does meet the the most controversial admin criteria. However, everything's made up and the criteria don't matter, so he will do just fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
12. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
13. Support per noms. Justiyaya 17:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
14. Support looks good >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
15. Support I haven't interacted with the candidate but I am happy to support based on nominator, co-nominator and answers to questions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
16. Support. Haven't seen anything objectionable from Colin, so I don't have any concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Support, precious and with clue in interactions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Support, no concern at this time and good answers to questions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
19. Support. User is level-headed, has good answers to the questions, and shows exceptional competency. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Support --- FitIndia ^{Talk (A/CU) on Commons} 20:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
21. Support due to general need for more admins. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
22. Support no concerns from me, and I respect the nominators and their faith in Colin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
23. Support, good work at RM. Ruбlov (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
24. Trustworthy, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
25. Support, good contributor and no issues. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
26. Support not seeing any reasons for sitting on the fence. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
27. Support - A sensitive and thoughtful editor. I reviewed one of their GAs, and while we disagreed on some of the finer points, they communicated with great eloquence. There are emotional aspects to building an encyclopedia, and I think this editor has a handle on what it means to work with others. Urve (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
28. Support. No issues, deserves the mop. Sea Cow (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
29. Support per nominators ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
30. Support seems to have a clue, has some good content to their name, great noms whom I trust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
31. Support: Seems to have experience with Wikipedia procedures. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 00:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
32. Support Experienced user, has my trust. Spencer^T•C 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
33. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
34. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
35. Endorse due to Colin’s expertise in XfDs and CRs. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
36. Support. ––FormalDude talk 02:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
37. Support. Sure. //Julle (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
38. Thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles on historical photographers and publications! Good luck. DanCherek (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
39. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
40. Support: impressed, in particular, with their ability to politely handle contentious discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
41. Support. Excellent judgment in RM discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
42. Support. No problems. SethWhales ^talk 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
43. Support' ~ joining the crowd for many of the reasons above. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 05:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)