Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MB: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 51: Line 51:
;Optional question from [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]
;Optional question from [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]
:'''12.''' Is there anything you'd like to say in regards to the concerns expressed in the oppose section about your deletion work? If not please do ignore this question but since the conventions of RfA (rightly I feel) discourage direct response I wanted to make sure you did have a place to respond if you wished. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''12.''' Is there anything you'd like to say in regards to the concerns expressed in the oppose section about your deletion work? If not please do ignore this question but since the conventions of RfA (rightly I feel) discourage direct response I wanted to make sure you did have a place to respond if you wished. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''A:''' Thank you for extending me this opportunity. Project “governance” is filled with minimum requirements and best practices, and they often differ significantly. [[WP:BEFORE]], while recommended, is not a requirement (i.e. [[WP:POLICY]]). NPP is faced with many thousands of new articles every month, and has only a small number of active reviewers. It is a thankless job, and baseless accusations like this drive people away. We actually accept nearly 90% of the articles, but the other 10% is still a large number. It is simply not possible to follow every “best practice” and spend the time it would take to do a thorough search, and deal with paywalls and language translations. NPPers are not obligated to do the research that should have been done by the author. We have to use our best judgment and make decisions quickly. NPP should be considered [[triage]] – accept or not. If not, we utilize all the deletion processes, draftification, redirecting, and merging as appropriate. Every one of these is subject to some form of community review. CSDs are reviewed by an Admin. Everything else can be contested by anyone, and they often are. Sending articles to AFD actually provides the most visible opportunity for community input, so I don’t see it as a “last resort” at all; it is often the best way to reach a consensus determination about an article that will “stick”. Because there is no abuse of policy, there is no real need to oppose or cast doubt on my knowledge and use of the NPP processes or claim that I am likely to abuse the admin tools. I am firmly on the side of new users who in good faith want to create articles (that are suitable), but the burden must be left to the creator to write the article, and write it to minimum standards. I know some people will not like this answer, while most NPPers will probably think “right on”. As I said in a different answer, we get accused of being both too strict and too lenient. If you want to please all the people all the time, you shouldn’t be in NPP. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''A:'''
<!-- Add your question above this comment. -->
<!-- Add your question above this comment. -->
<!-- Use this template to add your question: {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}}. If you have two questions, use {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question|question number|your question}}. Check [[Template:Rfa-question]] for further documentation. -->
<!-- Use this template to add your question: {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}}. If you have two questions, use {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question|question number|your question}}. Check [[Template:Rfa-question]] for further documentation. -->

Revision as of 00:29, 3 January 2023

MB

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (99/7/0); Scheduled to end 14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

MB (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to nominate MB for adminship. MB has been editing since 2015; I noticed him while monitoring NPP, and I don't ever remember declining a single tag. He also does a tremendous amount of categorization and gnoming, completing the small but essential maintenance necessary to keep our articles top quality. In particular, MB has a lot of technical skills working with templates and parameters; goodness knows we always need more technically-minded admins. A perusal of the discussions he's been involved in shows a lot of positive interactions, and he clearly demonstrates the levelheaded temperament that is essential for being a good administrator. Deletion discussions in particular can get very contentious, and his comments at AfD and RfD are always well thought out and helpful for coming to a clear consensus. It's my judgment that MB will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

There had been a hiatus in leadership for a couple of years when MB, an established content provider, drafted a NPP newsletter early last year to call attention to the ever increasing backlog. What ensued from his energy was the creation of a solid coord team who together have now addressed around 50 long outstanding bugs in the Page Curation and have organized drives which have brought huge backlogs to their lowest level ever.

Through his own initiative with the Open Letter action to the WMF which garnered 444 signatories, he obtained the attention of the two most senior people in the WMF, the CEO and the CPTO, and set a new precedent for direct community dialogues with them and obtaining progress.

Most previous NPP coords have had the much needed extra tools to efficiently manage the important content control processes. Please join with Blade of the Northern lights, one of the earliest pioneers of modern NPP and support MB's need for the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks to The Blade of the Northern Lights and Kudpung for their kind words. I have never edited for pay or other forms of compensation, and do not have any other accounts. MB 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: I have been involved at NPP for five years, becoming a coordinator last year. Being able to view deleted articles is very useful when looking into likely recreations of spam articles and it would be more efficient to be able to do this myself rather than having to contact an Admin. I would also be able help other NPPers out in the same way, as well as assign and remove the NPP and Autopatrol perms. The Redirect autopatrol is another pseudo-right that only an Admin can add or remove. I could also process CSDs, especially deletion of redirects holding up AFC moves to mainspace and PRODs placed by NPPers on new articles. All prior NPP coordinators have been Admins. MB 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my favorite articles is East German balloon escape. I found there was no article about it so I wrote it and it has received 20,000 views both times it ran on OTD. Fred Thomas (athlete) is another “missing article”; I say that because there so many articles on athletes with questionable notability yet this one didn’t exist until I wrote it two years ago. Kerima’s ethnicity was publicized inaccurately for promotional reasons decades ago making it look as if she was Algerian. Research uncovered the true story, and Google now says she’s French. Firoza Begum is an article I found at AfD and saved.
Beyond content, my best work for Wikipedia is in stepping in as coordinator at NPP last year to fill a void. MB 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 course happen. I avoid acting impulsively/emotionally and usually try to cite a policy/guideline that supports my position first, and then if necessary try to get a consensus by starting a discussion. For example, when I remove overly promotional text, and it is restored multiple times, I’ll ask the user if they have a COI. They usually don’t respond and if they restore again, I just escalate to WP:COIN. MB 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Optional questions from Casualdejekyll
4. The most important part of being an administrator, in my personal opinion, is judging consensus and closing discussions. Do you plan to be active in this area?
A: I have never closed any kind of deletion discussion and don’t plan to work in that area, preferring to just contribute to the discussions. I have formally closed some Move and Merge discussions and will continue to do that. I have informally closed some non-content discussions by implementing the proposals. MB 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. If so, do you have experience (i.e. past closures) you can point to in this area?
A: Talk:James Bryant House and Talk:The Centaurus are uncontroversial Merges.Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization in section headers that start with numbers is a policy MOS change I recently implemented after assessing there was consensus for the change. MB 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Rschen7754
6. What are your views on how WP:BURDEN and WP:NEXIST should work in practice in the NPP process, while factoring in WP:BITE?
A:. In my monitoring of NPP related commentary at various discussion boards, I am well aware that some editors feel NPP accepts too many poor quality articles, while others feel our acceptance standards are too high. We need to try to navigate between these two positions as much as possible. Sometimes, we accept an article with no sources and tag it with {{sources exist}} if the subject is clearly noteable, particularly if it is otherwise well-written. I support that. Often, our judgment is that an article shouldn’t be in mainspace yet and we Draftify. I support that too. Making the process less WP:BITEY has been a focus of mine at NPP. I recently had NPP policy changed to delay draftification for at least an hour (from 15 minutes) from the last edit to give an editor more time to work on the article. I initiated changes to the draftify script to make it guide the reviewer to provide useful simple-language messages to the author about what improvements are needed, and I co-authored HELP:NPR, a new simple-language help page specifically for new users who have tried to create an article directly in mainspace. MB 00:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Liz
7. While I have a positive opinion of you, MB, I am skeptical of candidates who answer Question #3 as you did. Conflict, or the pontential for conflict, is a big part of being an active administrator. If you are an active admin, it can happen daily. You can't have a leadership role like you've taken at NPP without encountering some disagreement with your decisions. Rather than saying you avoid conflict, I'd like you to answer with an actual incident of conflict that occurred and discuss how you handled it, whether it was a positive or a negative experience that you learned from. If you gain adminship, you can expect angry editors to show up on your User talk page and before supporting, I'd like to see how you have handled specific conflicts when they happen instead of reading about your philosophy of how one should handle conflict. Thank you for putting your name out there for consideration, I wish you good luck with this RfA process!
A: I am a coordinator at NPP, but not the boss, so I don’t really get to make decisions. I make proposals and try to convince people that they are worthwhile. There have been plenty of times I have been unsuccessful, but I don’t see that as direct conflict.
As a reviewer, there are disgruntled users all the time, it comes with the territory. I consider most of this indirect conflict as well, that comes in the form of ignoring our messages, reverting, recreating, moving articles back, and so on. This is just part of NPP and we just have to take it in stride.
Of course I have had editing conflicts of the type I believe you mean. A specific incidence can be seen here when I innocuously changed an image caption and was reverted and tersely warned. I responded that the OP was out-of-line, and you can read their response. Sensing it was pointless to continue, I sought to involve others to get a clear consensus and started this discussion (just as I said in Q3). I can’t say I learned anything from this; I already knew it is best to just disengage and get second/third/fourth opinions. MB 05:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Ritchie333
8. Please can you explain this edit and how the changes to “north” and “south” are “typos” (which, to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, would mean words clearly incorrectly spelled)?
A: The changing of the dash in north-south is not a ‘typo’, but a MOS fix applied by Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. The tool however does report these as "typo(s) fixed:" in the edit summary. It has been suggested that this be changed to "replacements made:" (requested in Phab:T293555), however this is a volunteer-maintained tool with no active maintainers. There are many other open but dormant tickets on more important AWB issues, so this is unlikely to be addressed anytime soon. MB 14:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Ritchie333
9. I'm concerned about User talk:MB/Archive 16#I am still asking nicely, where there appears have been a dispute between Elinruby and Kudpung over something on your talk page, which I guess involves something you did. Can you give us your side of the story over what this is about, ideally with diffs so I can understand what's going on?
A:
Optional question from RZuo
10. what's the correct procedure to handle "an objection to moving a page to draft ns"? is there something you should do to Draft:Henderson County Bridge now?--RZuo (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Optional question from DaxServer
11. What would you say would be your not-so-best contributions (converse of Q2). How have you tried to remedy them?
A: . Unsurprisingly, the first articles I created. This is an early article from November 2015. I see there are things like bare urls, a dablink, wrong heading capitalization. A year later, I had a track record of much better articles and was made Autopatrolled. I went back in 2019 and expanded Jedediah Sanger about 10x, and took it to GA. I have similarly improved some of my other early articles, but none as extensively as this one. I believe they are all in decent shape now. MB 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Barkeep49
12. Is there anything you'd like to say in regards to the concerns expressed in the oppose section about your deletion work? If not please do ignore this question but since the conventions of RfA (rightly I feel) discourage direct response I wanted to make sure you did have a place to respond if you wished. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thank you for extending me this opportunity. Project “governance” is filled with minimum requirements and best practices, and they often differ significantly. WP:BEFORE, while recommended, is not a requirement (i.e. WP:POLICY). NPP is faced with many thousands of new articles every month, and has only a small number of active reviewers. It is a thankless job, and baseless accusations like this drive people away. We actually accept nearly 90% of the articles, but the other 10% is still a large number. It is simply not possible to follow every “best practice” and spend the time it would take to do a thorough search, and deal with paywalls and language translations. NPPers are not obligated to do the research that should have been done by the author. We have to use our best judgment and make decisions quickly. NPP should be considered triage – accept or not. If not, we utilize all the deletion processes, draftification, redirecting, and merging as appropriate. Every one of these is subject to some form of community review. CSDs are reviewed by an Admin. Everything else can be contested by anyone, and they often are. Sending articles to AFD actually provides the most visible opportunity for community input, so I don’t see it as a “last resort” at all; it is often the best way to reach a consensus determination about an article that will “stick”. Because there is no abuse of policy, there is no real need to oppose or cast doubt on my knowledge and use of the NPP processes or claim that I am likely to abuse the admin tools. I am firmly on the side of new users who in good faith want to create articles (that are suitable), but the burden must be left to the creator to write the article, and write it to minimum standards. I know some people will not like this answer, while most NPPers will probably think “right on”. As I said in a different answer, we get accused of being both too strict and too lenient. If you want to please all the people all the time, you shouldn’t be in NPP. MB 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. I have not interacted with the candidate directly, but I often see them around, and I don't have any concerns regarding their behaviour. Their content creation is good, they are civil, and seem to have a good temper. The only thing for me is their rare participation in technical aspects of Wikipedia, but this is not a big issue. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – some of the best have come from NPP (yes, I am biased when it comes to NPP) but there is no denying this candidate is among our best. To say MB is qualified would be an understatement. Adminship is a no-brainer. Atsme 💬 📧 14:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ +1 to everything you said. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have seen them around NPP, and particularly the proactive open letter regarding NPP's dire need of maintenance and support from WMF. I would like to hear your feedback, as a veteran editor on how documentation for transcluding/substituting templates could be easier. I saw you struggled a bit earlier with transcluding this RfA. It is in no a deal breaker/concern for me, because I trust you to be cautious with tools you are not familiar with, when acting in mod capacity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A good candidate who will make an excellent admin. The editor has a very solid grasp of policies and has done excellent work at NPP. scope_creepTalk 14:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support looks good. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, amazing editor. signed, 511KeV (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support no concerns. Sarrail (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No concerns and an amazing editor. Thingofme (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No objections. Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Trey Maturin™ 15:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support LGTM NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Will be an even bigger help with the mop. Miniapolis 16:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great work at NPP, not worried about their AfD match rate; arguments show good understanding of the process even when in the minority. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support no problems. Sheep (talk • he/him) 16:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per noms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - No issues. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A prolific and accurate problem-fixer with good uses lined up for the tools. Enough content creation to satisfy those who consider that important. Certes (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. The new year only minutes old; this sort of candidate is a good portent for the days ahead. Fully qualified. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No issues, net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom. ZsinjTalk 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: Great nom statements, looks like a swell editor. May this new year bring more great candidates like MB. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I think MB will be a helpful administrator. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Fully qualified candidate, who has taken on an important role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Net positive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: yes. jp×g 18:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. As a fellow NPP coordinator, I've worked closely with MB and I have every confidence he'd do a great job as an admin. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Impressive work, level-headed, and no concerns after reviewing their contributions. Best of luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. MB has done excellent work in managing NPP, and I am certain he will bring those skills to the administrative side. The Night Watch (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - gladly, net asset to the project, no issues.Onel5969 TT me 19:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Happy New Year and Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Volten001 ☎ 19:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as the nominator, of course. Sorry for the delay, my day hasn't quite gone as planned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good way to start 2023. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A definite plus for the project. No concerns about being entrusted with administrator tools. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - A perfect fit for the job: trustworthy, competent, good disposition. Thank you for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - the wub "?!" 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Not a jerk, NOBIGDEAL. Excellent work at NPP. Additionally, it seems we are averaging 1 RfA candidate/day in 2023. Maybe we can keep this up? HouseBlastertalk 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  44. DanCherek (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks good to me. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support—I believe we would benefit greatly from having this editor as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support All of my interactions with this editor have been positive, and will make good use of the tools. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Leijurv (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, this is exactly the sort of nomination that gets 2023 off to the right start. BD2412 T 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 23:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, no concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I trust these noms, and anyone who does that much for NPP deserves our unending gratitude. Toadspike (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I have interacted with and seen MB a few times over the past year and have never once seen anything problematic in any way. I think having this editor as an administrator would be a benefit for Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I've also interacted with MB numerous times, and I've found him to be exactly the kind of editor we need as an administrator. I do not think opponents' comments below provide enough evidence to counterbalance MB's positive qualities. Even though he has !voted in favor of deletion in most of the XFDs where he participated, his !votes largely align with the outcomes of these discussions, and his rationales tend to be well-reasoned, Although I may not be a deletionist myself, I feel like giving MB the tools would be positive for Wikipedia, and not giving him the tools would be a net negative for the project. –Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support An NPP veteran who would be an asset with the tools. Looking forward to passing the baton. Complex/Rational 01:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I've had amazing interactions with them and have full confidence in their ability to understand Wikipedia's PAGs. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support mostly on the basis of the noms and the user's talkpage as an "Administrator without tools". I'm willing to revise this for now if the current oppose proves to show a pattern. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Per my comment on MB's talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ — Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support MB is an editor who has done lots to help around the site, especially NPP, and would greatly benefit from the tools! echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support MB is good at both teamwork (i.e. discussions) as well as solo work. I've noticed MB being polite in situations where a less competent editor might either blow up or avoid the discussion altogether. Should make a good admin. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support solid experience and thoughtful answers to questions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support – trustworthy, good content creation, has a plan for the tools. Aza24 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. No concerns. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Good tenure, good edit count, impressive hat collection and barnstar collection. Is obviously competent to use the tools. -- Ϫ 08:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Looks good. - SUN EYE 1 08:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I may sound like a broken record, but I thought MB was admin already. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 09:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Banks Irk (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I trust the nominee to know their limits and use caution with the tools. casualdejekyll 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Supremely qualified. Plus full confidence that Blade would have done their homework.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support No concerns, and I find the three (at the time of my support) opposes unconvincing.Intothatdarkness 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Despite the opposes, I think MB will be a net positive as an admin. ceranthor 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Anyone looking to have more "simple-language messages" would be a good addition to the admin group. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support LGTM. JPG-GR (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support: This is one of the easiest support votes I've ever cast. They're an incredibly valuable contributor and I have zero concerns trusting them with the admin tool set. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support noting concerns raised by opposing editors, but believing that editors do not need to be perfect before becoming admins. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support If not MB, then who? I have no concerns. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - no real concerns, despite the opposes. GiantSnowman 18:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Three opposes at this time of this support have no merit. First user, a former IP, brings up not considering redirects over PRODs. Okay, whatever. I'll have a side of toast with that. Second user clearly has an axe to grind and is upset. Which, frankly, ARS is typically a very battlefield kind of crowd and everyone is exhausted with their tactics - it's like a hit and run. Third, we're denying admin because a user once changed a new article to a redirect to a draft article and then nominated it for deletion 3 hours later? Come on people! RFA already sucks, we don't need to find trivial matters to screw with candidates. And let's be honest, we don't have a rush of new candidates coming to RfA in droves that we can be this picky. @MB: Curious, do you cough into your hand or your elbow? Just want to make sure there are no more trivial skeletons in your closet that someone might oppose over.--v/r - TP 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimizing my oppose with your silly soliloquy is unbecoming of an administrator. And saying my valid concerns are axe grinding is a form of PA. I said just such a thing in the past and was forced to strike it or risk a block. The fact that some volunteers have their concerns on wikipedia marginalized and scoffed at is evidence of a problem with the project. How about just carry on with your rubber stamp party wthout diminishing other volunteers. Lightburst (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop spreading ad-hominems around RfA. Other people have been banned by Arbcom for it in the past.--v/r - TP 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - When I see MB edits in my watchlist, I know I don't have to worry about them. Frankly I am glad to see someone becoming an Admin who seems less interested in many of the Admin powers and responsibilities. MB's answers above are also confidence inspiring. (Tparis: I fully agree with you, but remember, we were all IPs once!)  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Good candidate. Lively Toad (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: great content creations and evidently competent. My main criterion is temperament and I've seen no issues—including some calm responses to deliberately aggressive or aggravating comments. I have no more interest in their AfD "vote accuracy" than in their IQ or star sign: all are terrible as indicators of anything. Spotchecking some AfD comments shows they are sensible and founded in policy. We should be more than happy to help everyone who works at NPP in any way we can. I'm delighted to see the current backlog size—let's keep it that way! — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support – Seen them around and they have been consistently civil and level-headed. Experienced and a good addition. Ovinus (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support: I'm pretty sure I had an interaction or two between them and they were all positive - no concerns from me. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Terasail[✉️] 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Has a clue, works in good faith, makes this project a better place. The concerns brought up are isolated cases and not enough for me to vote against. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support great help in proposing and implementing useful measures for new page patrol Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Many Admins I resepct say yes, so do I. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I had an old account for 6 years and I was a frequent editor on it, and I have seen this user around a lot. They are a very kind, experienced, and helpful person, I personally see no reason to oppose them. Signed Plantman (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Solid editing history and great work at NPP. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support There are a couple of opposes by editors I respect but I do not find them wholly convincing. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. User:MB/PROD log for 2022 shows that the user is not careful when considering redirects as an alternative to deletion. PROD should be uncontroversial and should be used only when an article should be deleted. Editors interested in administrating areas of deletion should know how to blank-and-redirect things instead of simply deleting them. We need to build the web, not destroy it. Their AfD stats only shows them aligning with the community about three-in-four times on AfDs that were closed with a consensus. MB is only only slightly better when looking at nominations created by the user, and many of those nominations (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naranjo Museum of Natural History and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Right Hand) do not look like any effort went into them to find sources before nominating the article for deletion. Much like MB said here, people with a low "success rate" should proceed more cautiously and have a better understanding of where the community stands—especially if one wants to become an administrator. God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC) — God keep our land glorious and free (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    MB's Afd stats are not particularly bad nor is their prod log stats, considering the areas they work in. Prods by definition are contentious and its incorrect to state its only for uncontroversial deletes. If that was the case, the process wouldn't be used. I see you only created your account at 15:25. For clarity, what is the IP address you edited under previously, please? scope_creepTalk 16:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: By Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep:
    1.WP:PROD says that Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. Your claim that Prods by definition are contentious and its incorrect to state its only for uncontroversial deletes" is false.
    2. Regarding what is IP address you edited under previously: I was on a dynamic IPv6 Rogers Communications range and living in a New Brunswick city centre. I've been moved to a Bell Canada IPv4 when I recently moved to another part of the province (and I think this one is static). What about you, Scope Creep: may I ask your internet provider and where your IP address geolocates to?
    God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that isn't what I was meant. It states on your on your userpage "Formerly a longtime IP editor." It was that IP on Wikipedia that I was looking for, so I could look at your contributions. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my talk page, @Scope creep. God keep our land glorious and free (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I was sorry to see MB was up for administrator. I did work with MB on Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina). Background on that: I had tried to convince Cones Lake AfD participants that they had ivoted Keep based on references for another lake. Nobody listened. Next MB sent Cones Lake to AfD again based on my arguments in the original AfD. So I started an article for the correct lake. Beyond that one article on Bass Lake, the majority of my experiences with MB have not been positive. Here are just a few recent examples. When NPP was backlogged I offered to help and MB's comments had me excluded based on my AfD match rate. MB is also an anti-WP:ARS (article rescue) editor and he said this about the group: "...they collaborate to "win" by any means and then disappear without actually improving the article". MB had to know that this was a complete falsehood, but they made this inaccurate statement in an anti-ars ANI thread. MB has demonstrated that they will not be an impartial administrator. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a lead coordinator of NPP, I’m not certain this user would be able to patrol from a purely neutral standpoint based on their record at AFD - This comment doesn't seem to be about your match rate (which is 70%), but about your !voting to keep more often than to delete (2:1 ratio), which is a rather more pernicious reason to prevent an editor from receiving permissions. I say this, because MB is not claiming that you lack the competence or accuracy, but that you are not capable of neutral editing because of that record. That has squat to do with match rate. You can contrast MB's AfD record which is heavily skewed to deletionism and his 'accuracy' is barely better than yours.[1] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles end up at AfD specifically because in most cases their suitability for the encyclopedia is usually correctly challenged and probably the vast majority do end up as 'delete'. That's the whole purpose of the exercise and why the system was created. It's a fail safe instead of NPP being simply a binary process; AfD does its job and that's why indeed a few articles do get kept or merged. The statement about MB's ANI comment justifies a thorough read of that case before singling out it as an RfA oppose rationale and certainly read more than the closer's accurate statement. - many well known admins made similar comments. If I had seen this comment - as I do still occasionally comment at PERM - I would have endorsed it. I sense there is more to this oppose vote than is wholly appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a rather cryptic thing for you to say about my concerns - you yourself were desysopped for cause and you also have a history of questionable admin noms. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You definitely do not want to respond to Kudpung's rebuttal with ad-hominems in an RfA.--v/r - TP 18:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I cannot support a candidate who replaces an article with a redirect to draftspace and tags it for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect, or one who thinks that "Recreation by same author of declined Draft:Newport" is a valid speedy deletion rationale. I can accept someone who tags pages in a way that is in the grey area of discretion, but things like tagging an article as a duplicate of a draft (apparently as an experiment, while being unsure of the policy when it was clear at the time) are simply bright-line policy violations. This is a shame, given that he has taken up the difficult role of coordinating NPP, but this is about whether an editor should be given access to administrative tools and not about whether he is a good editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdrqaz Replacing a newly created article with a draftspace redirect, then tagging it for deletion per R2 is a normal part of NPP. Also, the A10 tagging seems to be justified, as the Draft was deleted for promotion and the article was a recreation of that. Both the draft and article were created by the same (banned) user. It may not of been the correct criteria, but it should of been deleted none the less, so it doesn't really seems like a policy violation. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC) See below - I now understand the oppose, striking comment. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially, regarding the R2 issue, the page Henderson County Bridge was created in mainspace twice. The first time, MB validly draftified the article at 02:54, 13 December 2022 by moving the page to Draft:Henderson County Bridge without leaving a redirect behind—nothing improper there. However, at 11:53, 13 December 2022, the original creator recreated the page in mainspace with the same content. This time, MB redirected the mainspace title to draftspace, then tagged the page with {{db-rediruser}} a few hours later. This is indeed a bit of an unorthodox way of using R2—technically, in order for a page to qualify for speedy deletion, all historical revisions must also qualify under a speedy deletion criterion (otherwise, the solution should be to revert back to the non-infringing revision). In my view, R2 can't be used as an alternative to AfD after an editor objects to a draftification by recreating an article. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mz7 explains what happened with that redirect above. Given that R2 is one of the more "easy" criteria for an administrator to carry out, they're typically deleted very quickly (four minutes this time). As he writes above, it is a very poor shortcut to actual discussion, with the community weighing in.
    The article that was tagged was not G11-worthy. Maybe two sentences that should have been removed, but not unambiguously promotional. The sentence "It may not of been the correct criteria, but it should of been deleted none the less, so it doesn't really seems like a policy violation." appears to contradict itself – if you're asserting that the wrong criterion was used (I don't think it's that simple), then there's the policy violation. I would also hope that administrators (and the wider community) would not just be satisfied with a page being deleted, but that they were deleted for the right reasons. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I can not see deleted pages, and couldn't see the whole picture, making it somewhat unclear. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in question also said "I have never closed any kind of deletion discussion and don’t plan to work in that area". Given that, I feel like it's easy enough (for me at least) to say that they'll take caution and avoid repeating these mistakes - they say they only want to work in permission granting and want the tools for deleted contribution viewing, and while I'm sure they'll branch out eventually (pretty much every admin does as far as I know), I'm confident that they know their limits and will do great work with their tools. casualdejekyll 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that is relevant, given that my opposition is based on speedy deletions and not deletion discussions. As the candidate himself states while answering Q1, they do intend to work with speedy deletions. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the instance you brought up and I find the candidates actions to be wholly appropriate. Article was created and lacked references, formatting, and needed work. Candidate moved it to draft space w/o redirect. Original creator recreates the article, Candidate initially adds a redirect but then nominated it for speedy delete. What in this chain of events is so egregious that they are unfit for adminship?--v/r - TP 19:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I don't recall interacting with this user but reviewing their edits shows a lack of understanding of basic deletion related policies and concepts. Some examples:
    These examples paint the picture of an editor who is quick to nominate articles for deletion instead of putting in the work of checking whether they can be fixed, be it by checking for sources and adding them or by exploring alternatives. Such behavior is concerning in an editor but it's alarming for an administrator who - especially when it comes to speedy deletion - will oftentimes be the one to "pull the trigger" (with little to no oversight in practice). I understand that in their answer to Q4, the candidate has said they don't want to close deletion discussions but in Q1 they indicated an interest in working in CSDs. I don't see how they could though because either they know deletion policy or they don't. Thus, at this point in time and with this many (recent) examples of mistakes and trigger happy nominations I cannot in good conscience support this user getting access to the ability to delete other people's contributions. Which is sad because they otherwise seem like a good editor. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just randomly looked at three of your concerns. The Trigger-happy A7, as you noted, he immediately corrected it. He did what you wanted him to do. The Union Jack PROD, PROD is meant to be for uncontroversial deletions and, frankly, I still think that article doesn't belong. Its only source is pretty weak at best. And the process worked, someone opposed. Honestly, I'm tempted to AfD it right now. Regarding the Garland J one, his rationale is solid. It's such an extreme niche thing to put a J after a justice's name that you'd have to be in or around law to know. I won't fault him for having a blind spot - one that only came to light for me as a result of trying to understand the controversy here. v/r - TP 21:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Oppose basically per SoWhy and Sdrqaz. While I am aware that this editor has done good work, and I don't believe I have interacted with them much, I think the opposes by SoWhy and Sdrqaz, two experienced and trusted admins, are sufficient to give me some pause. Hopefully if this RFA is not successful, they will take those lessons to heart for the future. Nobody is perfect and they seem overall a good editor and a net positive for the project with their work, but I would like to see attention to the issues noted. Andre🚐 21:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OpposeMB Seemed to be a good candidate, but there are few too many fresh red lights.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SoWhy. Clicking the link to the Wikipedia search for reliable sources doesn't take much effort. Others had no trouble doing it. Dream Focus 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy, Andrevan, and Dream Focus: Sorry to disappoint you, SoWhy, but there has been no abuse of policy whatsoever, and Andrevan, no misuse of tools. WP:BURDEN is the policy. Nether the deletion policy itself nor WP:BEFORE state that ‘before’ is mandatory. Oft cited, especially brought up at ANI (to mention just one recent example) and the community has more than once rejected it as a requirement. Whether or not it should be a requirement will need to be put before the community in a major RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When something comes up, is he going to rapidly click through it, or take time to look through all the information and consider all options? Dream Focus 22:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: so now we are dismissing our guidelines and best practices? All of these failures of WP:BEFORE subject the volunteers to additional work and they are disruptive. They also may inadvertantly get content deleted. My often repeated refrain during RFA is that admins are here to protect content and content creators. I have no confidence that this candidate will do either. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also wouldn't kill the people creating said articles to follow policy by, let's say, providing actual sources. I've only ever created one article, and it was 11 years ago, but I somehow managed to do just that. Unlike WP:BEFORE, WP:V and WP:N are core policies. Also, as I'm not only an admin but an oversighter, I can say with confidence there's a good amount of admin work that quite pointedly involves not protecting content and the people who create it; anyone who's ever seen deleted content can attest there's a lot that's best hidden from public view and forgotten, I've seen "articles" and "contributions" that would make your stomach turn. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I said anything about misuse of tools, but I do agree that failing to observe BEFORE or that AFD is not cleanup is not what I want from an admin Andre🚐 23:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments


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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MB&oldid=1131192494"