Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Somno: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:39, 1 February 2009

Somno

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (41/2/1); Scheduled to end 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Somno (talk · contribs) – For some 16 months now, Somno has been quietly contributing both quality content and routine maintenance, amassing over 6000 useful edits with a minimum of fuss. I have had plenty of opportunities to observe her participation here, and am impressed by her good judgment and steady, helpful demeanour. Combine these with a solid understanding of policy and procedures, and we have the makings of a first-rate administrator.

Many of Somno's contributions are in areas like CSD and new pages patrol, where being challenged by the cranky and clueless comes with the territory. A look through her talk archives shows that she always replies to such challenges with a patient and polite explanation. Of course, these are also the areas where possession of the sysop tools can really boost productivity.

Here we have someone who has clearly demonstrated both a need for the sysop tools, and the wisdom and temperament to use them well. I think it is time we trusted her with a little more. Hesperian 11:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept the nomination. Somno (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would continue to patrol new pages, and I would be able to speedily delete articles myself rather than tag them for others. I could also action items in the deletion queue. This category does become backlogged, which doesn't matter so much for items tagged with A7 (doesn’t assert significance) or test pages, but can matter when items are tagged with G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack pages). I would also like to action expired prods.

I'd also work at administrator intervention against vandalism. I used to be an active vandal fighter in my early days here, and obtained rollback in January 2008, shortly after it became available to non-administrators. Now, I mostly revert vandalism to articles on my watchlist, which explains why articles such as Baldwinsville, New York and Omarion top my most-edited list. It also explains why I rarely get past giving a level 1 warning these days, but there are plenty of examples of those in my contributions list. For an AIV-reported user, it is simply a matter of determining whether they are vandalising, whether they have been sufficiently warned, and whether they're still active, then acting – all of which I have the skills to do.

I believe in branching out slowly, so those are the two areas I plan to focus on first. In the future, I would like to close and action items at articles for deletion, and learn how to perform history merges and the like to help out in suspected copyright violations (fixing cut-and-paste moves) and requested moves.

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

A: The single edit I am most proud of is this one, as it took quite a lot of time behind the scenes to complete! I have contributed to two Good Articles: Sindy and Aeroplane Jelly. There are also several works in progress, such as 2008 Western Australian gas crisis, which I hope will get to Featured Article status eventually, and most of the articles listed here under "New articles" and "Expanded".

A recent article I'm proud of is my rewrite of Ben Cousins, an Australian rules footballer that is constantly in the limelight for various "controversies". Like everyone else in Australia, I'm tired of hearing about him, but when I came across his article and it looked like this, I took it upon myself to rewrite it. This is an biography of a living person that had 12,000 hits last month, but was a shameful mess due to recentism, proseline and more importantly, neutrality problems, with nearly two-thirds of the article about newspaper gossip and little about his football career. I believe I've turned the article around to be more fair by greatly expanding the information on his career and integrating the controversies. In my humble opinion, if the article had a section about his playing style, it might be worthy of Good Article status. I think this shows my dedication to the project (spending hours rewriting the article of a former West Coast Eagle, despite being a supporter of their arch rival!) and understanding of Wikipedia's fundamental policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view and biographies of living persons.

Aside from contributing article content, I patrol new pages and, where appropriate, fix them or tag them for fixing or deletion. I have helped rid the encyclopedia of articles that do not belong, per the deletion policy, and rescued a few articles from articles for deletion (e.g. Road Island Diner, Womensforum, and to a lesser extent, Saraswathi Sabatham).

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 tend to edit neglected articles, rather than contentious ones, so I haven't been in many editing conflicts. I have received some "Why did you delete my article?" questions in response to speedy deletion tags, but I've discussed these with the editors and they haven't turned into issues. Overall, I believe in discussion and compromise, which generally works well both on Wikipedia and in real life.

The only two situations I can think of that caused me stress were in February and July 2008, so it's been awhile. The July issue related to another user's ownership of Jimmy O'Connor (author) and seeming unwillingness to work collaboratively (discussions can be seen at the bottom of User talk:Somno/Archive 3 and at Talk:Jimmy O'Connor (author)). I didn't handle this as well as I could have; I was taken aback by the editor saying I was not allowed to edit the article because I didn't know the subject personally. I was just slow to realise that although Wikipedia's motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not everybody understands that anyone else can change their edit, and that it's an encyclopedia, not a personal webpage. I am now better at approaching such editors, both as a result of this experience and of continuing to patrol new pages.

The other issue was early in my days here, when I was harassed and impersonated by an IP editor. I found it very stressful at the time because I didn't understand why someone would target me personally – I had merely reverted vandalism on Cooper University Hospital. It's another experience I've learnt from, and I certainly don't take things on here to heart anymore.

Additional questions from SoWhy

4: You mentioned you like to work in deletion. Do you think there are reasons to delete pages without a five-day-period (PROD/AFD) even if they do not meet WP:CSD?

A: The criteria for speedy deletion are strict because with one person making the decision to delete, we need to make sure it's for a clear cut reason (i.e. objective and uncontestable). For a simple example, we don't want someone to speedily delete an article because they've never heard of the topic and assume it's non-notable or nonsense, when the opposite could be shown through AFD and the participation of more people.

Speedily deleting an article that doesn't meet speedy criteria would be an ignore all rules scenario. Often at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the "spirit" of criteria is discussed and that's an idea I agree with. For example, A7 is for deleting articles about a real person, organisation or web content that don't indicate that it's significant. In the spirit of this criterion, I would consider deleting articles about a character that was made up (I have seen articles created by kids that clearly state it's a character they've made up), a pet cat (that didn't assert it was notable for a reasonable reason) and the like. These are not examples that come up often, hence they're not included in the criteria, but I believe they meet the spirit of A7.

In most cases though, if an article isn't an attack page or vandalism, I don't see any problem with waiting five days for a prod tag to expire or an AFD to finish. There's no hurry and it's better to be sure than to delete an article worth keeping that has to go through deletion review, be recreated, or worst of all, we just never get it back.

General comments

Links for Somno: Somno (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Somno before commenting.

Discussion

Support

(Nominator) Hesperian 11:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good contributor, clean block log, civil talk and user pages, and I'm very reassured by this Were Spiel Chequers 11:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a review of your last 500 contributions turns up nothing bad, lots of good work in the article space, excellent edit summary usage, need for the tools, good nomination. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quick review of recent contributions turns up nothing worrying, and the review by Balloonman is reassuring. — neuro^(talk) 12:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Mojska (m) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really liked the answer to #1 so you've got my vote.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An outstanding candidate. Maneur (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - having interacted with this editor since her starting I have been impressed by the level-headedness in dealing with issues - I also have noticed a thoroughness and attention to detail, and knowing the range of contributions to WP Australia and Western Australia - I would consider adminship to be a further step in a positive presence on wikipedia Satu Suro 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I interacted with Somno while (s)he worked on Sindy (and, I'm sure, in other places) and know I can trust them based on the good work done there. Giggy (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
absolute, a level headed contributor like all the people Hesperian suggests for RfA. Gnan garra 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most impressive RfA's I've seen in terms of answers to questions. I'd be delighted to see you with the tools. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very persuasive nomination and I liked the maturity displayed in the answers to the questions. --NrDg 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has been around since October 2007 and after looking at contributions feel giving the user tools will only help the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very good candidate with a good nomination and excellent answers. I see there being no potential problems if Somno had the tools. Rje (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, very impressive candidate. Terraxos (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having not been blocked, having received a couple barnstars, and due to no negative interactions in AfDs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —_macy^{es: bot} 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong candidate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't foresee any problems/issues. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This is one candidate I can trust the mop with. In going over her contributions, I see no issues. ArcAngel (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your answers look very good. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me. LittleMountain5 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A review of this users deleted contributions shows that s/he is a quick learner. The first deleted edit reversed an author blanking a page (in order to re-insert an A7 tag), not really a practice that we like to see. Later edits did not show this pattern. An informative edit summary was used each time (even prior to the candidate installing some tools which automated the csd edit summary), as the policy demands. there is a selection bias involved in checking deleted articles for proper speedy tagging, but keeping that in mind the overwhelming majority of the tags were appropriate. Likewise their nose for AfD nominations is dead-on. The only one that looked out of whack was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Teenage Girl, where the candidate did the right thing: withdrew the nomination when contrary information surfaced. I can support this user. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patton^t/c 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A great all-round candidate who will make a superb administrator. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from oppose Support per my RfA Criteria. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rare patience in handling newbies (i.e. User_talk:Rcsadeh#Moving pages); human (humane?) explanations appending userpage templates, etc. signs of a good citizen. Uneventful and apparently safe deletion record, leaning to PRODs; hope you won't switch to shoot-first CSDs. NVO (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Wizardman 06:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. A good editor! S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Garion96 (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Graham87 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. GARDEN 10:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like, duh. FlyingToaster 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to questions show a level-headed candidate; I trust her to not jump into an area with the tools where she is not yet comfortable, if there are any such areas. Happy to support here. GlassCobra 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above fine arguments. Dloh cierekim 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support No reason not to trust him. rootology (C)(T) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fit for the job ♣PrincessClown♥ 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Look at the answers to the questions, hell, ask more if you like. This user seems very well endowed with policy knowledge. Assuming that the candidate "likely" lacks policy knowledge isn't good enough IMHO, why not try and investigate to find out for yourself? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ Extended discussion moved to talk page. Regards So Why 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose (See RfA Criteria). I looked thru your contributions and they didn't tie into the part in Question 1 where you mentioned the speedy deletion que. In the last month (where you probably had 500 edits) you worked more with notifications of Speedy Deletions, not actually working with them and tagging. The one item you did tag here was not spam and you tagged it as if it was. According to WP:CSD#G11 "...pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic..." The page at the time didn't have to be rewriteen. I do appreciate your vandalism work so I'm not going to give you a full oppose but I will have to do a weak one. K50 Dude ROCKS! 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Switched to support. K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K50 Dude, I hope you don't mind but I'd just like to understand your oppose a little better. Do you mean that in my contributions, all you see are several talk page messages like "Notification: Speedy deletion nomination of Thomas Hoeren.", but you don't see that I tagged Thomas Hoeren? That's because the page was deleted after I tagged it, so it no longer shows up in the list of contributions. Or, do you mean that I nominate more new articles for speedy deletion than I fix? That's true, simply because I think getting rid of those articles is more of a priority than fixing articles that are essentially OK. Somno (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Thanks for letting me know. Sorry about that \= K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - the desire to work New Page Patrol with only 500 edits in Wikipedia mainspace? Okay, now I can put my thumb on it. If you want to work the area, why aren't you working the area? There is a lot of stuff non-admin can do, and you can easily get over 100 edits in a day from new page patrol just from reverting vandalism, fixing nonsense, tagging things, etc. Lack of experience in the area, lack of familiarity, etc. If you want to do the administrative side, then you should really be showing up on the pages related to NPP administrative action - deletions, page protections, vandalism, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from AIV, what does WP-space edit count have to do with new page patrol? Protonk (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the reasoning too - NPP is related to Wikignomish activity and CSD tagging - which the candidate has done plenty of. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you two saying that a non-admin going through new pages doesn't use vandalism? page protection? ANI or AN? AfD? or anything else related? Because when I went through NPP, I could only do a few at a time because I would get bogged down on those. That is why I only perform NPP when there is a backlog and lots of complaining about no one doing it. NPP requires follow through. If he wants the tools to work NPP and yet doesn't go through the process that would normally have admin involved on the pages, then whats the point of giving him the tools? So he can avoid the processes all together? That doesn't seem right especially with lack of experience in the background areas. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. why would they use RFPP? Why would they use AN/I and AN? S/he seems to use the csd tags a fair bit on new pages. I can see the point about AIV, but lack of edits to AIV doesn't mean that vandalism wasn't reverted. I think I was on wiki for 2-3 months before I figured out AIV existed. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never needed to use ANI/AN as a result of new page patrolling, but I do end up taking things to AFD from it (which wouldn't change if I became an admin). I can't think of any examples where I've needed to report someone to AIV based on NPP; if a user is creating attack pages or vandalism pages, they are generally blocked before I need to report them (usually by a deleting admin). I have taken a couple of pages to RFPP for recreation protection, but again, this generally seems to be done by the deleting admin so it doesn't come up often for me. Somno (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank for a moment, this oppose just isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. NPP rarely results in reports to AIV, RFPP or ANI. I honestly can't believe ANI was even mentioned in an RfA where the candidate appears to be a sound CSDer. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it out why someone would ask me why they would use ANI when it is blatantly obvious - you patrol new pages, you find problems. You find vandalism. You find SOAP issues. You find other problems. If you don't go to AN, ANI, AfD, page protection, vandalism, etc, then you aren't doing a thorough job at NPP. When I perform NPP, I always end up in those areas. I list articles for deletion. I report vandalism. I report soap. Etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
~~Neutral~~ - there seems to be something missing but I can't put my finger on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-I'm just not convinced that this user should have the tools, nor am I that they should not.-Kieran4 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 #'''Support''' [[User:Tim Q. Wells|Tim Q. Wells]] ([[User talk:Tim Q. Wells|talk]]) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' No reason not to trust him. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
+#'''Support''' Fit for the job <font color="cyan" size="2">♣</font><font color="lime" face="georgia" size="2">[[user:Princess Clown|Princess]]</font><font color="cyan" face="century gothic" size="2">[[user talk: Princess Clown|Clown]]</font><font color="lime" size="2">♥</font> 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 =====Oppose=====