Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan

Logan

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (45/2/1); Scheduled to end 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Logan (talk · contribs) – After over 36,000 edits and some years of experience on Wikipedia, I feel that it is about time to request the mop. At first I was reluctant to be considered at RfA due to my relative lack of contributions - however, I recently created an article about Google's new music streaming service, and it was accepted at DYK.

My strengths, however, are centralized in quasi-admin tasks, such as reporting vandals to AIV, notifying reviewers at UAA of inappropriate usernames, transferring tons of files to Commons in the hugely-backlogged Commons transfer category, and creating accounts for users through ACC. Furthermore, I am a prolific NACer at Articles for Deletion, and I've never experienced significant controversy regarding an AfD close (save one DRV which was more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than actually representing policy).

I feel that I have established enough trust by others on Wikipedia to be considered for the sysop mop, and I hope that the community thinks highly enough of me to support this RfA! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: For the most part, I plan to work in areas such as AIV and UAA for blocking vandals and those with inappropriate usernames, respectively; CAT:CSD for performing or declining speedy deletions, the latter of which I have already been doing as a non-admin, and AfD for closing deletion discussions. Furthermore, I would use the mop to help clean up and delete local files after my Commons transfers, as mentioned above, in order to clean out the backlog.

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

A: To take this question in its most figurative sense, I feel that my best contributions to Wikipedia have been, rather than in my content creation, in anti-vandalism efforts, general article cleanup contributions, and declinations of speedy deletions at CAT:CSD, which is a very, in my experience, a very controversial area (see below). However, I feel that my recent article contribution, Music Beta by Google, demonstrates my knowledge of article conventions and related stresses on referencing most statements in articles in order to maintain Wikipedia's verifiability.

On the off-Wiki side, I have helped many users at the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect channel on IRC, which is a contribution to Wikipedia in itself through the encouragement of confused editors to continue editing.

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: Yes, I have been in some conflicts in the past, mostly regarding my speedy deletion declines. I have found that most users stand by their speedy deletions and do not like having them contested; however, every time that I am questioned for a decline with CSDH, I always respond in a polite manner and both explain my rationale for contesting the speedy deletion and point the user to related deletion processes, AfD and PROD, especially when the user has used the A7 criterion to reflect his or her opinion that the article hasn't met the notability guidelines, where A7 only covers articles with a lack of claims of importance and/or significance. In my opinion, it is always better to help and not to snap back because it will reduce future conflicts and make future editing more productive.

Optional question from User:Filelakeshoe

4. Do you feel that this (which I agree is not patent nonsense) is appropriate content for Wikipedia? If not, how would you deal with it as an admin?

A: Ah, yes. I felt, for that article, that there definitely was salvageable content and not patent nonsense, as you agree. However, Google is not really returning hits for the "Verdantha" term, as you said in your PROD rationale. I would probably consult the people at WikiProject Hinduism to see if that is just a bad transliteration of a Hindi word that is causing Google to not return any results, or whether it is just pure original research. In the first case, I would probably tag it for wikifying, and in the latter case (or if there isn't a response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism, I would probably bring it to AfD. However, the current PROD is a good indicator to the creator of the article that it needs to be improved to become encyclopedic.

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

5. Give an example situation where you would invoke IAR and why, and a different situation where you think it would inappropriate to invoke IAR and why.

A: WP:SNOW closes for discussions such as those at Articles for Deletion are effectively ignoring all rules; instead of waiting the whole seven days, closing early with the SNOW criterion is possible. I haven't done that many SNOW closes via NAC before, but I would definitely employ one if the discussion is clearly leading to a deletion or keep outcome based on a most likely unanimous consensus to perform one of those actions, judgment involved, of course.

However, IAR should not be used in multiple situations. One example could be while editing an article and adding controversial, unsourced information, and re-adding that information when it is reverted by another editor. The editor could point to WP:IAR, saying that, even though he or she is ignoring the policies about verifiable contributions, the editor is improving Wikipedia from his or her standpoint. This is not the right attitude to take, as Wikipedia is a community, and if edits both violate policies and are disputed by other editors, the editor should not continue to commit them to articles.

Additional questions from Σ

6. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?

A: In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with cursing, as it suggests that a user is stressed and needs to make that evident (although I never curse in public channels). However, if the cursing becomes disruptive and leads to personal attacks involving said cursing, I would warn the user about his or her attitude and possibly employ mediation in order to resolve the content dispute.

7. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?

A: I am not sure what you mean by "always watched" after a vandal is blocked, but I definitely feel that vandals can be reformed and become constructive editors. This page comes to mind regarding this; there is (almost) always a person behind the vandalism, and people can sometimes change for the better with the proper encouragement and training.

8. Can you write a credible reason for opposing yourself, and answer it with a credible counterargument?

A: Oppose: This editor does not have enough content contributions to demonstrate knowledge of article policies.

A possible counterargument for that oppose could be: "Although my content creation may be limited, I have demonstrated my knowledge of policies for articles in areas such as Articles for Creation, where I both accept and decline pending articles based on their verifiability/notability, and speedy deletion, through which I both nominate for deletion based on the associated criteria and contest nominations based on their non-adherence to the criteria."

Additional question from NuclearWarfare

9. Please link to and describe a situation where you had to use significant judgment and analysis of policies and guidelines to make an action.

A. Hmmm... I guess the most recent example was a "Keep" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tense-aspect-mood, which led to a deletion review of that close by a party who did not participate in that discussion. Many editors supported my close, and I commented in that discussion, citing an essay that explained why the DRV was essentially invalid and also maintaining quasi-WP:UNINVOLVEDness, although I am not an administrator, by maintaining that my opinion, since I closed the AfD, had essentially no validity in said discussion. I made sure to adhere to policies and guidelines.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk page. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes! Before I retired I worked with this user, and I still work with him on other projects. He's very mature, knows the rules (and so do I) of how to deal with trolls/vandals/other morons. Quite honestly, he is one of the nicest, most honest, and politest (is that a word?) person that I've ever met. I rarely edit anymore, but supporting this RfA is just something I have to do. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Ooh Rah! BarkingMoon (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
3. I've been out of the loop for quite a while, so I missed this user's rise to prominence, and only became familiar with his contributions recently. I suspect this section will end up on the north side of triple digit votes, so congrats in advance. Juliancolton (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   "rise to prominence"? Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Support. My primary awareness of Logan's activities comes from seeing many, many files transferred perfectly to Commons with all original file information intact and his follow-through on Commons, double-checking the bot moves there. If Logan is as conscientious as this in everything he does he will be an outstanding administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Excellent user who is thoroughly qualified for what he wants to do. sonia♫ 00:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Weak support I have some concerns with your content creation and that 55% of your edits are automated, but overall, intelligent, willing and knowledgeable candidate. As I said to him in IRC and I will say it here: Its about freaking time. mauchoeagle _(c) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support You're a great editor, you'll make a great admin as well. —Soap— 01:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support I fully support this candidates, particularly for the work with speedy deletion declines, and I think having more admins who take the speedy deletion criteria so seriously is exactly what we need. While I would have preferred to have seen some followup in the example from Q4, the challenge was clearly correct. Monty₈₄₅ 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Veteran Wikipedian who is already entrusted with a large number of tools; adminship seems to me to be the logical next step.--Hokeman (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. Definitely. Very helpful editor, lots of clue. -- œ^™ 04:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Seen great work on ACC and seems a commmitted user, can't see any reason why not to support giving him the mop. Jamietw (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. An editor I'm familiar with, though nto someone with whom I've had a great deal of interaction. My impression has alwyas been one of a level-headed editor keen to help with some of the grubbier areas of the project. While UAA abd AIV aren't yet crying out for more admins, both boards can back up at times, so it's better to do something about it now than wait until we desperately need more admins (RfPP is in need of more admins eyes as well if you fancy helping out there). I trust Logan to be effective but fair as an admin and to help keep the backlogs down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support, good answer to my question and to be honest I knew I was going to support, because we need more admins who are willing to decline speedies more often. However I feel that once you remove a speedy tag from an article you should always make sure it meets Wikipedia standards (at least as a stub), or if not send it to PROD or AfD or a WikiProject as you said.. otherwise badly formatted/inappropriate articles sit there festering for a while. - filelakeshoe 10:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
16. My first impression of Logan was very good, and I think he'll make a good admin. ceranthor 11:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent vandal fighter. Will do fine. —GFOLEY FOUR— 14:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Support My main interactions with this user occur in the #wikipedia-en-help channel. It seems like much of the oppose reasoning centers around the IRC channel, but I must say that I can't recall any time Logan has come off as "too eager" in a negative way. When I see him there, he is always more than happy to help new users, and is both very helpful and very patient: two good qualities for an admin. I completely agree with Juliancolton's comment. If Logan is being too eager to the point where it is a problem, there should be diffs available to prove that. Until those are provided, I'm not sure how much weight those comments hold for me. Although there should be certain standards for behavior on IRC, IRC is not Wikipedia. There is much more leeway given for behavior, and like I said, I've never seen Logan do something that I think pushes the boundaries in that respect. Anyway, I agree with the comments about his CSD work. I've yet to run into an incorrectly-declined speedy, and it's always good to see an admin candidate who clearly understands A7. I think he will do well! :] – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 16:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Support Chester Markel (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
20. Support If there's a good reason not to give him the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Support - nice lot of experiences in all the relevant areas. Orphan Wiki 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - I'm quite convinced that someone with Logan's experience level is more than capable of administrative tasks. Swarm ^X 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Excellent contributor. He's been really helpful in #wikipedia-en-help channel and helped out a lot of new editors. Theo10011 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
24. Support – Excellent editor. —mc10 (t/c) 20:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
25. Support, I don't see why not. --Σ _☭^★ 20:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
26. Support Very experienced editor with plenty of contributions in the areas he says will be his main roaming grounds. I have also interacted with Logan on #wikipedia-en-help and he is always very supportive of new editors and communicates effectively. Net positive. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Extensive record of useful contributions, particularly in areas where administrative tools may be helpful. When past decisions have been questioned, he maintains a courteous tone and resolves things quickly without drama. (After only a quick review of his talk page and recent contributions.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Support - Fully qualified candidate who will be a good administrator. My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - but if you disappear off into the admins channel and abandon us peons, I will scowl and shake my fist angrily in your general direction. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
30. "Being eager" is a ridiculous reason to oppose, but an excellent reason to support. AD 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
31. Support per User:N5iln. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
32. Sure Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
33. Support I have handled quite a number of AIV reports from Logan and don't recall a single false positive, that is, I can trust the candidate at least in this area. I consider vandalism fighting important (at this WP stage) and believe that administrative tools will make this editor more efficient. Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
34. (edit conflict) Alea iacta est. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:17pm • 02:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
35. Support - Why not! Monterey Bay (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
36. Support While I trust the judgement of Fetchcomms and Prodego, I don't think IRC actions are enough to have serious bearing on whether Logan is basically trustworthy. Steven Walling 04:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
37. Support Wait...I thought you were one... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
38. Per Fastily. --John (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
39. Support - No concerns. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Good solid experience and plenty knowledgeable - should be just fine with a mop -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
41. Support Experienced editor, no concerns Jebus989^✰ 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
42. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
43. Support per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Strange AfD and answers to the questions, Logan seems to be have a fair bit of clue. Can see where the opposers are coming from, but they aren't compelling enough to convince me not to support. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
44. Support Aren't you already an sysop? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
45. Support I've seen Logan performing non-admin closures and relisting debates at AfD, and he seems to be competent as far as that goes. I'm moved to support in part because there are administrators who have supported above on the basis of Logan's accurate CSD tagging and AIV reports. But perhaps more importantly, Logan comes across as thoughtful and articulate, both of which are desirable traits in an administrator; I think he'll do just fine. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose concerns with competence. Logan is a bit too eager, and that tends to lead to poor decision making. Prodego ^talk 01:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   Could you please give examples of this said incompetence and eagerness? mauchoeagle _(c) 01:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   This is primarily based on my experience with Logan in administrative positions elsewhere. I'm not particularly interested in going through upteen million vandalism reverts to find similar things. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   I'd like to address this oppose (and that of Fetchcomms) before the issue escalates. Prodego is most likely referring to my operator actions on IRC, which involve removing disruptive users from Wikimedia channels. I have already adopted a less "eager" and more thoughtful policy on freenode, and I also want to make it clear that my actions on IRC in no way represent my judgment and actions on Wikipedia. I have always been thoughtful and careful in my edits on Wikipedia, and I do not want off-wiki experience to define my role on this wiki. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Per Prodego. I've interacted with Logan on IRC and while I think he's a generally good user, I've always gotten the "eager" impression—and I'm not going to nitpick through the last 500 edits, because that would be nitpicking and this is a general feeling I get. I don't like basing comments off IRC, but it's true that people are more "free" and true (open, maybe, or less formal?) in how they interact there and I've found it easy to learn things about people from that. Regardless, I'd like to see more content creation and development work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   Please see above for a relevant comment. I hope that this response satisfies your concerns. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   Somewhat, but it's more of your past mindset and actions that I observed in a Wikimedia channel—where one would expect to see similar standards as onwiki actions. I may still move to support or neutral, so let's see what you make of this RfA. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   What's wrong with being eager? I would say he's enthusiastic instead which is a good quality. And this is his first RfA in 36,000 edits, I wouldn't exactly call that being eager for the bit. -- œ^™ 04:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   No, IRC is a social venue, which is in no way expected to be a continuation of Wikipedia's behavioral standards. It's like finding out how somebody acts on Saturday night at the bar with their friends, and then opposing their RfA the next Tuesday because you didn't like the fact they got a little rowdy. Believe me, 36,000 edits is a lot – if there existed such a serious issue in Logan's character as to compromise their abilities to wield the admin tools, you'd surely be able to find at least one edit illustrating it. I'd like to see said edit. Juliancolton (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   The problem is that IRC is not always a social venue. There's a reason for #wikipedia-en-help, -spi, -accounts, -unblock, etc.—socializing is not their purpose. As I said earlier, this is not an oppose based on on edits, but one of how I interpret his attitude. In any case, further questioning my opinion is going to make me change it. I'll support if I feel comfortable doing so later in this RfA. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   Well there's always #wikipedia-social and #wikimedia-social, but that's where all the loners hang out. The cool people party at Club #wikipedia-en! :P -- œ^™ 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   Like sonia♫ 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm a bit torn on this. There appears to be tons of upside to the user, yet I trust the two opposers' judgements. Also, the candidate's answer to question 8 does seem rather flimsy, as opposes based on content contributions are always controversial and not always "credible" per the question. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   I was going to try to respond to this, but I'm speechless... Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

   And I see no reason that you had to. I'm not up for being bothered by supporters/opposers/neutrals from the opposing camp. I'll change my !vote if I feel at a later stage persuaded that the user's suited for adminship. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)