Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual

QuiteUnusual

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (52/8/2); Scheduled to end 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen of Wikipedia, I stand before you to present an editor who I believe will make a fine administrator, QuiteUnusual. QuiteUnusual has been around for years, editing on and off, reverting vandalism and generally improving the encyclopedia. Over the last twelve months, he's become regularly active, and has shown himself to have a good understanding of the policies and principles of the encyclopedia.
QuiteUnusual's primary work has been in anti-vandalism, leading to a lot of good work at AIV and UAA. As I'm sure you know, we can always do with more hands there. Whilst he's not the most prolific of content creators, the articles he's written such as Control self-assessment and Woodham Mortimer show understanding of our content creation requirements.
Finally, to confirm his trustworthiness, I invite you to look beyond Wikipedia and peruse his global contributions. With a further ~18k edits at WikiBooks, it is noteworthy that QuiteUnusual is an admin, a 'crat and a checkuser there. The project may have different standards than us, but they certainly trust him. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: thank you for your kind words, I accept QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 12:01, 17 October 2012 (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: My main focus area would be at WP:UAA and WP:AIV where I have a fair amount of experience and a generally good success rate. I'm certainly not perfect and I'm sure you will find some declined UAA and AIV reports from the past; but I believe I am good enough to be trusted. From another project I have quite a lot of experience in history merging and I'm happy to help out what appears to be the lone admin (Anthony Appleyard) at WP:REPAIR.

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

A: It's no "FA", but I like Control self-assessment where I think I've covered the topic well with strong referencing and good style. Rescuing Engineered bamboo from the incubator was worthwhile. Over the years though I'd say my major contribution is gnome work and anti vandalism work. On the gnome side you will typically find me using the random article button and cleaning up things I find. As an example, I will improve the referencing for BLPs and this can be surprisingly difficult for lesser known subjects and take considerable effort. Here is one example that took me 3 hours of elapsed time for a small but important improvement. In the anti vandalism work, beyond the Huggle reverting I take the time needed for deeper investigation of contribution patterns where I see "red flags" indicating possible wider abuse. This example albeit from three years back, is one that took a lot of tracking down. Same with spam - when I find what looks like persistent spamming I will search out and clean up all the other examples, which I think is a positive contribution to the quality and perception of Wikipedia.

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, a couple. I lost my temper once two years ago over something that was mainly my fault. Next time I'd think about it a bit better before replying. If you examine my talk page archives from that point forward I hope you'll see a calmer and reasonable approach to dealing with both criticism and also obvious trolling and insults. For the record a mediation request was raised (since deleted) over a dispute that is detailed here and here. Broadly it was a policy based argument on my part (I believed the editor was struggling to understand "original research" and how they should phrase their edit; the other editor felt I was disagreeing with the content per se). I avoided engaging in an edit war and discussed it for some time with the other editor. Eventually I decided there was no purpose to the mediation as it was more a competence issue so it went no further.

Additional question from Diesel-50

4. Could you list your substantial contributions towards article content? Thanks!

A: Articles I created, with the exception of the articles mentioned in Q2 above, are short but not exactly stubs as either the subject is "small" (a village in the case of the series I created on Essex villages (links to my original version here, here, here, here, here, here)) or the information available is very limited (Thomas Bushell (mining engineer)). Beyond that there are a number of Gnome like improvements that are slightly larger than "tiny" (examples include diff, diff). But without question the majority of my content work is like this, this, this and this - turning something unreferenced (usually a new BLP of an obscure but notable individual) into something with sufficient referencing to be in Wikipedia. It is time consuming and challenging to find reliable sources for these kind of articles - it just doesn't lead to many words.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 5. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: The line for me is the clear distinction between my work as an editor and my work as an administrator - ignoring cases of blatant vandalism measured by the standard that any other administrator would agree it was vandalism. If I am a contributor of content (beyond trivial things like typo fixing) to an article, then I would consider myself involved with regards to that content and with regards to other editors who I had a current or previous dispute with over that content. Based on this standard, I would not block any editor I was involved with and I would not protect any page I was involved with. In addition, I would not protect a page that I wasn't involved with if it was being actively edited by an editor I was involved with. Hopefully that's clear!

• 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: There are very few real rules on Wikipedia in the sense of policy that must be followed. I always thought IAR would be better worded as "Ignore all Rules Unless they are Real Rules that you can't Ignore" but I guess IARUTARRTYCI isn't very "snappy" and would perhaps be more confusing.

Short answer: We should IAR if the rule does not serve the core purpose of WP in the specific circumstance, and we should do it boldly if it is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes waiting for consensus to arrive first is slower and produces a lower quality result than acting boldly to produce a "strawman" that consensus can then develop around.

Much longer answer: Being bold to all intents and purposes does not apply to codified policy except in proposing changes to the policies themselves. I cannot "boldly" ignore the rules around content, conduct, legal, etc. Beyond this small set of "hard rules" I judge all others against the core purpose of Wikipedia and ignore them if they are not compatible with that purpose. This is an easy thing to say but its implementation runs into the counterforce of consensus. Quite right too as there is no area on Wikipedia where anyone has all the answers and is right all the time.

Consensus operates at a number of levels. At the top level, with things like the Manual of Style, we have an encyclopedia wide consensus. Beneath this many subject areas have a consensus and lower down each article has a consensus arrived at by discussion or editing. This layering of consensus means that those higher in the hierarchy are typically more abstract; those at the article level sometimes highly granular and detailed (and sometimes non existent).

I, as an editor working on an article for the first time may feel that it requires substantial, bold, revision - perhaps even a complete rewrite - to better meet our core goal. Absolutely I should do this work. It would be a good idea to look at the Talk page, discuss with other active editors (if there are any) and any relevant article history first. I would hope that other editors would avoid immediate reverting (something that anti-vandalism editors can be a little prone to as large edits often look like vandalism through the lens of Huggle if you aren't paying attention) unless they feel the changes are not in line with our goals. This is where consensus at different levels needs to operate.

For the article itself, the rewrite or amendments may be a huge improvement. But if in doing so they make the structure of the article conflict with others in the same subject area (e.g,. it is one of a linked series of articles), then taking a broader view on usability to the reader might mean a need to build consensus towards either bringing the other articles into the same structure, or partly reverting the changes.

Then the amendments may conflict with the MOS - and quite possibly for very good reasons as the MOS is never going to cover every possibility. This can lead to bold changes being reverted or changed to comply with the MOS by other editors basing their arguments on the "rules". With this example consensus needs to build towards whether the net benefit to the encyclopedia is for a consistent MOS or for some exceptions for particular articles or indeed changes to the MOS. But what comes first is the outcome we are all focused on - creating an encyclopedia collaboratively.

In summary, if I have a strong view that content can be improved I will act boldly to improve it but recognise absolutely that consensus operates at many levels and those bold changes need to be balanced.

Outside of content, as this is an RfA, the same approach applies. Let's say I come across a user who is new to the English WP who has had an appeal for an unblock declined where the block was originally given for a disruptive username (blocked as the name implied a personal attack). If I was aware of the editor from another language project where they have been a long term productive contributor and it is apparent the "disruptive" username is in fact nothing of the sort in their native language then I would probably unblock immediately rather than going to AN/I for a block review. This would obviously be followed with a discussion with others involved in the original block / block appeal to explain myself. By the rules this could well be considered to be "wheel warring". If the consensus arising from that discussion is, despite the evidence that the name is not a personal attack, that the name will always be disruptive then I would follow that consensus - but boldly removing the block from a valuable innocent editor first is in my opinion the right approach.

• 7. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: I'm not qualified to answer this for RfC, RM or DRV. I've only contributed one or two times to RfCs, never to an RM and although I used to participate in DRV it was a long time ago. Any answer I gave would be based on reading up on the subject and giving a textbook answer. I wouldn't presume to judge consensus in these forums until I had participated in them for an extended period. For XfDs I have little experience outside AfD. For an AfD I would judge the consensus giving due weight to arguments founded in content policies and guidelines. But I am unlikely to be involved in AfDs given my lightweight content creation experience.

• 8. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: With the obvious caveat that it depends on the specifics, I would start by checking the recent edit history to ensure JohnQ's message was accurate. Assuming it was, then if it is a clear case of one editor reverting obvious vandalism by the other, then I would warn the vandal (if not already warned) and then follow the normal process of escalating warnings for vandals who refuse to desist. This might result in a block, depending on the nature of the vandalism and their response to the warnings. If there is an edit war running that has reached the 3RR stage then I would ask both to desist and work together to establish consensus. This could lead to short blocks if the warring continued. Between the extremes of edit warring and blatant vandalism there are a whole series of other possibilities. One editor could be new and not realise the problems with their edits, say adding uncited controversial material to a BLP, with the other using automated / templated reverts that the new editor doesn't understand. This would call for a request to the reverting editor to desist while I engaged with the new editor to try and explain the problem.

• 9. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I believe I can make a useful contribution as an administrator. Much of my work here is focused in areas where the need to block, protect or delete is obvious and sometimes needed quickly to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. By being able to act rather than report I think I will be actively improving the quality of the "encyclopedia experience" for both readers and good intentioned contributors. Although there are only a few areas I'm likely to be active in initially, one of the benefits of working on small projects is one gets to experience the full range of possible admin actions. I have the patience and take enjoyment from doing the ones that other admins sometimes find boring. For example, I've been known to import and history merge 50+ articles to create a coherent book - an extremely tedious task unless you enjoy that kind of thing; I do. So, as well as wanting to better improve Wikipedia, I want to have a little more enjoyment from contributing.

Additional question from Carrite

10. Have you ever edited Wikipedia previously under any other user name? If so, would you kindly list the name or names?

A: No. I have made perhaps five edits over the years when accidentally logged out. I operate the account "QUBot" on other Wikimedia projects, but it isn't used on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Go Phightins!

11. What do you enjoy about editing Wikipedia?

A: Mostly I enjoy the research that goes into making a good edit. I like being huddled in comfy chair with my books and online sources researching a subject that I know nothing about (usually having found it via a random page search) in order to improve the article. In a similar vein I like turning an "ugly" article into a smart one. By that I mean tidying up the language, format and structural elements to give the reader a better and more accessible encyclopedia. As an aside this means I spend most of my time on "factual" articles - I'm much less interested in novels, music, TV shows, etc.

Additional optional question from Reaper Eternal

12. I've looked at your content contributions, especially Woodham Mortimer, since none of them seem to be "recognized" (i.e. GA, FA, or FL). What, if anything, would you do differently if you were to create that article now?

A: Just to confirm that you are right that nothing is "recognized" - the only one with any kind of rating is C class I believe. With Woodham Mortimer you have picked an interesting one for me to discuss as I know the subject matter extremely well. Woodham Mortimer is a small village with very little that is notable about it, and even less that is documented in a reliable source. It is, however, a place I am utterly familiar with. So, I know lots of interesting "facts", but most of them are not verifiable and may not even be true. As I was very conscious of the need for the article to be verifiable and based on reliable sources I ended up with virtually nothing to write and a dull article. I'm comfortable I went through the right policy based approach to creating it. I do question though whether this is appropriate in all cases for these kind of articles and if more local colour that cannot be verified to quite the same standard (e.g., it is documented in an independent source, but not one that meets the gold standard of something like a national newspaper or journal) should be included, with caveats, to engage the reader better in our encyclopedia. I'm undecided on this point at the time of writing.

Additional question from My76Strat

13. As an administrator, if you see an account created with what you believe to be an offensive username, will you block the account or file a report at UAA?

A: It depends. Ones that need dealing with straightaway, typically personal attacks and offensive ones, I would block on the basis that any reasonable editor would agree that they needed blocking (e.g., names like "QuiteUnusualIsATool" I would block, with the caveat that if I was the target of the attack then I'd be involved and wouldn't block). Borderline, promotional, misleading names - these I would report.

Thank you for expressing that fine answer. Please indulge this follow on:

13a. Describe how you would handle noticing a recently created account that is extraordinarily inappropriate; unequivocally requiring oversight suppression? Please consider this scenario against an account that has not as yet edited, and also an account that is actively editing.

A: If it requires suppression, say for legal reasons with a name like "MrJohnDoeIsARapist" and it had no edits, then I would contact the Oversight team without blocking. I would take this approach because blocking creates another log entry that then needs suppressing and therefore increases the likelihood of other people seeing the username. While waiting for the suppression to be done I would keep a close eye on activity ready to step in and block if editing begins. If there are edits, then I would block first because not blocking would leave us exposed to more content that needed suppressing. In addition, I would check for crosswiki contributions in case a Steward needs to be asked to suppress on other projects and / or lock the global account.

Additional question from SilkTork

14. In this discussion on Wikibooks you explain your inappropriate attitude toward the new user as a mistake because you are the only active administrator on that project. As you're overstretched at Wikibooks, what are your plans to cope with doing extra work as an admin over here? Do you feel that your work at Wikibooks will decline or in some way suffer? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A: I work on Wikipedia and Wikibooks at different times of the day and I wouldn't expect the pattern of work to be greatly affected if I was an administrator here as well. It's broadly linked to what access I have where (e.g., the availability of Javascript based tools, the performance of the computers I use, the quality of the network connection, etc.) and when the projects are active. Wikibooks is most active when I am unavailable and I often return there to find no other admin has been active since I left leaving me a stack of work to do in one rush. That isn't going to change if I have elevated access elsewhere - I'll still be covering the same hours at WB.

The specific mistake I made in the link you provide relates to this problem - I returned to find a stack of newly active and newly created probable "Chinese pattern spambot" accounts which needed a CU to deal with. But, as well as the CU, I had to deal with the related admin cleanup. I worked my way through the list in the normal manner but one of the accounts I thought was a "bad" account, because it had a name all but identical to another created within 24 hours, turned out to be a legitimate account. If I hadn't been the sole CU dealing with the spambot problem for the past 6 months then I would have been more likely to spot immediately that it was a good account. So yes, I was a bit snappy towards the user initially, realised I was wrong and profusely apologised; I also made no attempt to excuse my behaviour or cover up that I was wrong. This type of situation (the only person around to deal with all the problems) isn't likely to happen here at WP either.

Additional question from Dpmuk

15. What's your take on the copyright / close paraphrasing concerns raised in Oppose 1? Do you think they are a problem and why / why not? I'm trying to get a sense of your understanding of copyright and given the subjective nature of copyright I think this is best done, in all but obvious cases, by getting the person in question to explain their understanding rather than a trawl through contributions.

A: I am aware of the dangers of close paraphrasing and actively work to avoid it. I am also rigorous in my use of citations and references where there is a close link to the source. In the example given I made the decision on this closely related wording because of the paucity of information available on a fairly technical subject and the article's history of being "nearly deleted" several times for being promotional. That is, I was acutely aware that to substantiate that the article was not an advert and had sufficient notability backed by sources then I needed to ensure the content was all backed up by a suitable reference. This limits the variability that can be introduced in the language. I believe I am well versed regarding copyright in this situation and the related area of plagiarism and I don't believe I've strayed over the line into a copyright violation - but I accept others may judge it differently. In the academic part of my real life plagiarism of a public domain source would be as equally unacceptable as a copyright violation so I tend to strive to avoid paraphrasing at all times. There are cases though where it is necessary to use the precise definition of the source, and the same words, to avoid slipping into original research or generating misunderstanding. For example, if you take Scout Moor Wind Farm as an example the lead paragraph contains this referenced statement "The turbines are visible from as far away as south Manchester, 15–20 miles (24–32 km) away". I've never read this article before today, I just picked it as a random FA so I could illustrate my view of this problem. The reference source reads "The wind farm at Scout Moor and Knowl Moor will have 26 turbines stretching nearly two miles across the moor and be visible from the far side of Manchester". So, in (presumably) an attempt to avoiding copying the source we have turned "far side of Manchester" into "as far away as south Manchester, 15-20 miles away". This, in my view, is an interpretation of what the source states and can't be really substantiated. In particular, by adding the distance we are adding a misleading air of precision that isn't clearly supported by the source. But to stay closer to the reference means somehow rephrasing "be visible from the far side of Manchester" without any embellishment and without it looking like a close paraphrase - and that's tricky indeed. Please don't misunderstand me, I think the example I'm using is a trivial point and you could pick holes in the specifics. I am just trying to help you understand my approach better. Thanks.

Additional note: I should also have said - could clearly have done better on Engineered bamboo; point noted for future content creation. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 07:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from NTox

16. Hi. If the following usernames showed up at UAA, what would you do? Note that they have all been created in the last few days, and nobody has communicated with the users yet.

1. User:Sexygirl398, who has no edits listed
2. User:2c948s39d938m, who has 3 edits to a BLP
3. User:PiliforDirector, who has promoted a "Palifor Foundation"
4. User:Troll429384, who has 1 vandalistic contribution
5. User:MyAngryRobot, who has 7 edits to various articles
6. User:CorenIncDavid, who has promoted a "Coren Inc."
7. User:John Smith Artist, who has just cited his blog, called "John Smith Artist"
8. User:BobAndJane, who has 1 edit in their sandbox: "Bob and Jane are awesome"

A:As follows, although with a couple of these I might defer to someone more experienced first time around...

• User:Sexygirl398, who has no edits listed

No action. Name is not offensive and with no edits no action is needed.

• User:2c948s39d938m, who has 3 edits to a BLP

Talk page note that the name is confusing and requesting they choose a new name but no block yet. Any further action would be based on their editing pattern, etc.

• User:PiliforDirector, who has promoted a "Palifor Foundation"

Block for promotional elements in name and promotional behaviour. Additional grounds for the block as this is an implied shared account. No offer to allow creation of alternative account.

• User:Troll429384, who has 1 vandalistic contribution

Hard block for disruptive username as the name suggests a deliberate intent to vandalise plus pattern of edits.

• User:MyAngryRobot, who has 7 edits to various articles

No action or block. It falls narrowly into "misleading" because of "Robot" but it would be unlikely to be misunderstood to be a bot.

• User:CorenIncDavid, who has promoted a "Coren Inc."

Block as containing promotional elements in the name and engaging in promotional activity. Soft block allowing new account to be created is possible depending on how promotional the edit(s) were. For example adding details on the products they sell to an article about their company without obvious advertising might be okay for the soft block; writing a full on sales pitch inside another article isn't. This could be an honest user who just misunderstood the conflict of interest and advertising policies.

• User:John Smith Artist, who has just cited his blog, called "John Smith Artist"

Note on the talk page regarding spam / inappropriate external links if there isn't one already. Note the drawbacks of using what appears to be a real name. No block as the name isn't obviously promotional.

• User:BobAndJane, who has 1 edit in their sandbox: "Bob and Jane are awesome"

Note on the talk page that accounts are supposed to be for one person only and the name gives the impression it is, or might be, operated by two people. Suggest they create a new account - and create one each if there are two people. If the user begins to edit the article space I would soft block but while the edits remain in the sandbox there's no need to risk upsetting a potential new and valuable contributor with a block.

Additional question from Tazerdadog

17. If you are given the mop, will you be open to recall, and if so, what is necessary to trigger a recall? Tazerdadog (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is some controversy over whether this question should be answered or not. So I will answer it obliquely. If I believe my competence is insufficient, or the trust is gone then I will stop using the tool(s) until such time as I am confident the problem has been dealt with. If this entails giving up the tools, then so be it. If it helps, then you can examine the following: In October and November 2010 my edit count per month was around the 600 mark. On 11 November I made a mistake with Huggle (discussed here). I apologised but I also took immediate steps to avoid making the same mistake again. I did not use Huggle again after that incident until 27 January 2012 - a 14 month break (you can check this from my contribution history). In addition my edit count dropped from that 600+ to just a handful of edits until September 2011 - a 10 month break. I took this outage while I worked on my experience and competence to revert properly with Huggle. I'd do the same with the admin tools. Thanks QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for QuiteUnusual: QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for QuiteUnusual 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

• Edit stats are on the talk page. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. In before.. oh. Nominator Support. Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Support I was hoping this would come soon - no issues with a mop for you. I hope you get a chance to use it well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Support with notes. There are a couple of concerns such as very high automated edits and low-ish article creation considering the total contribs. Because most of your user talk edits are automated, I had to do some serious searching to find personal messages outside of templates, but I did find them and they show that you are capable of communicating concerns clearly and thoughtfully when you take the time. You will need to use personalized messages much more than you have done in the past if you become an admin. After weighing the concerns, you would still easily be a net positive as admin as you have a broad set of experience, and it looks like you have the right demeanor for admin, which is my primary criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Clearly not a danger to the project. Support, and good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Support trusted and seems experienced in anti-vandalism. I think you would benefit Wikipedia as an administrator. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 14:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
6. In general, anyone who does a fine job as a CU on another project can be trusted to block vandals. Courcelles 14:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
7. Support although this candidate is quite unusual. Sorry, sometimes I can't help it (or don't want to)! AutomaticStrikeout 15:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Of course--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Support checkuser on a medium-sized project a good sign. --Rschen7754 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
11. Quite unusual indeed. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, more than 5 years experience, and more than 10K edits to mainspace makes this a clear "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation for me. Thank you for your efforts for the project. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Support I know him because of his great work as a checkuser on Wikibooks, but I'm sure he'll do good as an admin here too. Trijnstel_talk 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
14. Unusual Support. I trust the nom, and contributions are great in and off en-wiki. I'd like to see more monthly edits here but that's a personal opinion. Good luck. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
15. Support No problems with automated edit count. A very cool, collected editor and unquestionably trustworthy with CU access on another good sized Wiki. Make good use of the bit mate. Cheers! The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Noticed the user around. Good Q1-Q3. Perspective seems right. Long edit history runs hot and cold, but that is not a big deal; edits declining but still at 200/month. 200 WP:AIV edits. 200 WP:UAA edits. I'll trust the claim of a good success rate. Strong AfD main diagonal; enough recent. While pawing through talk page archives, I came across the User talk:QuiteUnusual/Archive 9#Stop erasing my contributions with its Cote de Pablo zinger; I've seen enough. Glrx (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Seen around with no problems for me that I can remember. As to the link in the post above - I like it... Peridon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Activity is good, and diligence in anti-vandalism and other automated areas is definitely a plus. More personalized messages and editing, rather than automated editing, would be nice to see, but even so, the author's content creation certainly has been quality and of a reasonable amount. dci | TALK 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
19. Quite an unusually qualified candidate. Sorry had to do it. Anyway, support pending the answer to my question. Go Phightins! 20:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

    I resisted the temptation to say that his username proved he wasn't Tom Jones... Peridon (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

    No you didn't ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

20. Support — I only just recently discovered that QuiteUnusual has not yet been granted the sysop bit. He is a very sensible, intelligent editor who will make an excellent administrator. Kurtis (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
21. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Yes - per nom - clue? Yes. Editing chops? Yes. Already knows what the admin tools do? Yes. Has written content? Yes. Can communicate? Yes. Have I said enough? Theopolisme 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Support - The wide community support from several respected members is enough for me to support this candidate. Good luck and stay positive! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Stephen 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Support I checked this users contributions and he seems to be a great editor that will also make a great admin, and also per other support comments here. TBrandley 23:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
26. The image of a trusted wiki editor. Juliancolton (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
27. Quite an unusual RfA... Zac (talk · contribs) 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

    Damn, everyone made the joke before me! 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

28. Support I see no reason why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
29. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
30. Support No problems here. Michael (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
31. Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
32. Support- No problems with this one. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
33. Support: Generally happy with answers to questions. The people nominating also have good reputations, and their trust in this candidate makes me feel more comfortable. --LauraHale (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
34. Net positive, for sure. But Worm, please don't say stuff like "I stand before you" when you're actually sitting behind a computer on the other side of the globe. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

    As it happens, I was standing at the time - but I take your point. Worm^TT(talk) 06:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

35. Long editing history with no dead bodies and no trace of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Great editor. Everything looks great. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
37. Support I prefer to see some evidence of admin type activity and interaction on Wikipedia, however QuiteUnusual does have admin experience on Wikibooks, and there's nothing alarming appearing on Wikipedia, which, coupled with an open attitude and a reasoned approach to matters, suggests that QuiteUnusual would make a decent admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. Pretty much "as per everyone else" - lots of good work here, trusted positions in other projects, plenty of evidence of understanding policies, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. Looks good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - looks to be a good candidate, no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
41. Support - can't see any problems. Deb (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
42. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or their position.MONGO 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Don't see a problem thus far. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Trusted nom.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
45. Support, although he needs to brush up on citing/copyright issues. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
46. Support I don't think avoiding close paraphrasing is as difficult as the candidate makes out, but I think if his understanding of it is was lacking, this RfA has been educational enough. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
47. Suppose - looks good to me; they don't seem like they'll abuse the tools. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Support This user has a good solid record, and there seems to be no real good reason not to award the mop Tazerdadog (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
49. Support if for no other reason than surviving the gauntlet of questions above. A good contributor all around and likely to be a solid admin. The concerns about copyright fall into misty gray area at best. Brief paraphrasing does not constitute copyright infringement, nor plagiarism. – MrX 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, not gray at best, and in this case not so gray at all. Besides, your final comment is off the mark: correct paraphrasing does not constitute copyright infringement. Drmies (talk)

50. I support this refreshingly unique candidate with an apt user-name. I do find this candidates competence and skill to be quite unusual; uncommonly good. As an oft participant at wp:uaa, I am encouraged knowing the admin ranks will be strengthened upon the successful close of this RfA. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Generally good contributions. A little shaky on the copyright issue, but not enough to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
52. Suppose. Good candidate. Spencer^T♦C 00:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am concerned that QuiteUnusual does not understand copyright policy. Some examples from contributions showcased in Q2 and Q4:
   
   "knowledge of fresh shoots as a food source is minimal. In contrast, the engineered bamboo industry is expanding and there are plans to compete with China’s export of engineered products. Replacement of timber by bamboo in low-cost housing is reducing more expensive wood imports." (article) versus "knowledge of fresh shoots as a food source is minimal; and canned (imported) produce provides a secure commodity supply. It is unlikely that this situation will change without a promotional campaign. ¶ In contrast, the engineered bamboo industry is expanding, and demand for a culm dryer and tile-making machine (the latter described in these proceedings) is increasing to ensure a consistent, good-quality product. Plans to compete with China’s export of engineered products are afoot, but current production costs and lack of unique products are limiting. Replacement of timber by bamboo in low-cost Philippine housing would open wholesale markets and reduce costly imports of wood for the same purpose." (source).
   
   "Panel composites made from bamboo have better strength and dimensional stability when compared to panels made from several fast growing timbers." (article) versus "Panel composites made from bamboo have great potential due to their better strength, dimensional stability and other characteristics compared to panels made from several fast growing plantation timbers." (source).
   
   "Engineered bamboo was developed by a company working with the University of Illinois.... Engineered bamboo is appealing because it sequesters 35% more carbon, has stronger material properties, and is resistant to thermal expansion." (article) versus "It was developed by a company working with the University of Illinois. This product is appealing because bamboo sequesters 35% more carbon carbon sequestration, grows much faster than trees, has stronger material properties, and is resistant to thermal expansion." (source, which is now a dead link). QuiteUnusual removed the quotation marks from a direct quote and integrated it into the article with minimal changes as if it were original material.
   
   "There is little evidence of altitude decompression occurring among healthy individuals at altitudes below 18,000 feet (5,500 m)." (article) versus "However, there is very little evidence of altitude DCS occurring among healthy individuals at altitudes below 18,000 ft. who have not been SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) diving." (source).
   
   "The usefulness of recasts in second language learning are controversial with some research indicating that they do not lead to any repair by the student as the student can only repeat the teacher’s reformulation." (article) versus "Recasts do not lead to any self- or peer-repair: when there is repair, the student can only repeat the teacher’s reformulation" (source).
   
   "• Establishing a clear understanding of the objectives and activities of business units and processes • Building the awareness of risk and controls and embedding responsibility for the controls amongst managers and staff • Providing a framework for improving controls throughout the organisation" (article) versus "• Obtaining a clear and shared understanding of major activities and objectives of business units and processes • Fostering an improved awareness of risk and controls among management and staff • Providing a flexible but structured approach to improving the controls framework through the organisation" (source). Syntactical similarities and identical phrasing are prevalent.
   
   In light of these issues, I cannot support at this time. Goodvac (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Just to point out, at least two of those sources are Public Domain works from the US government. I'll ping Moonriddengirl and see if she can weigh in. Ryan Vesey 01:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I don't want to down play the issue of close paraphrasing, but when you are citing facts that must be cited every sentence, it is often hard to NOT be close to the source sentence. It also looks like it was properly attributed. If you stray too far away, it is synth. If you are too close, it is paraphrasing. To me, these looks like editorial decisions that can be moved farther away from the original source, but it seems a good faith effort was made to connect the source directly to the claim, while not quoting verbatim. Not optimal, but not deceptive since they were cited. In the fourth example, do we use "human" instead of "individuals"? "Happening" instead of "occurring"? Convert to metric? How many different ways can you possibly say that one sentence? Didn't he cite the exact source you show? These are single facts, single sentences, and using a thesaurus to change every possible word just makes it look awkward and labored and inconsistent with the rest of the article. If this was full sections, I would be more concerned, but some sentences/facts can only be expressed in limited number of ways, particularly if you want to be true to the source and not imply any additional meaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Going to point out a similar RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab. --Rschen7754 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Dennis: That's why we write in summary style, not paragraph-by-paragraph.

   More directly relevant: I have done some more checks of his contributions, and they seem to be far more summary style than the few examples cited here, so I'm going to assume that this is just a couple isolated incidents rather than an ongoing problem. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I should mention that I do general copyright violation checks as part of my vetting of candidates and have turned down two or three based soley on that. For QuiteUnusual, I didn't find anything that concerned me unduly. Having said that, my checks are likely not as thorough as some, and I didn't check the article mentioned above. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrase permitted? allows close paraphrasing in several circumstances, such as "when there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing". That is not the case for the examples I have provided; in every example except the last one, there is verbatim duplication of entire clauses without a structural change.
   
   Here are my own paraphrases of three examples: (1) "People are generally unaware that newly harvested shoots can serve as ingredients for food production. On the other hand, production of processed bamboo has increased significantly. Although the Philippines intends to challenge China in the processed bamboo market, they presently cannot, constrained by their homogeneous products and their manufacturing expenditures. Bamboo has also been supplanting timber in the construction of inexpensive houses. This has resulted in a diminished need to import the more pricy types of wood." (2) "A comparison of panel composites derived from bamboo and panels derived from burgeoning timbers revealed that the former was superior. Bamboo panel composites were found to be sturdier with greater dimensional stability." (4) "Under 18,000 feet (5,500 m), healthy people without a scuba diving history have rarely been found to incur altitude decompression sickness."
   
   In these examples, I have used my "own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article". Some text cannot be paraphrased because doing so would dilute the meaning. In such cases, to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, quotation marks should be used to attribute the source properly, which did not happen in the cases above. While the close paraphrasing may not have been willful, it demonstrates that QuiteUnusual does not sufficiently understand the conventions of content writing.
   
   A recent RfA candidate failed in part because of close paraphrasing issues (Reaper Eternal's oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123). Goodvac (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Close paraphrasing isn't just vocabulary, it's how the sentence is phrased. He can use many or even most of the same words, but it's how close the phrasing is to the source that makes it a copyright issue. I'd hazard a guess that what's happened in Goodvac's examples is that bits of the text have been pasted into the edit box and then reworked. That might not be the case, but if it is, it's a pretty bad habit. That altitude source can been reproduced verbatim, but to comply with our policies on plagiarism it still needs an attribution template. QU hasn't been deceptive here at all -- I'd say over 90% of editors who closely paraphrase don't know that they're doing it -- but it could be something that really needs to be addressed by the user before it gets worse. Osiris (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Your assessment makes sense, and as Rschen7754 points out, this has previously been shown a weak and often discounted rationale at RfA since it is a good faith mistake and a simple issue of editing method, not infringement. I'm confident that the closeing crat wouldn't conclude this is a reason to think he would misuse tools. Addressing it on his talk page, however, makes sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Extensive close paraphrasing is indeed copyright infringement. That's the only reason to be concerned about it. It's not plagiarism if you cite where you got it. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Incorrect. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

   That's a quite extraordinary misunderstanding Gigs. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, passing off the work of others as your own, which is what you did, citation or no. Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Concerns about close paraphrasing. Also, insufficient experience creating content. An administrator should have at least one GA under his belt. I'm saying this because at my university there is a conflict between the academic staff and the administration. The administration is widely seen to be more interested in enforcing its rules than supporting the academic mission of the university. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   While close paraphrasing and copyright concerns are a legitimate concern amongst !voters, DYK, GA and FA writing has almost nothing to do with being an administrator. If they are competent in the article namespace, can improve articles, and show that they have a clue about what and what not to add, then that is sufficient, in my opinion, and nothing to opine over. Administrators don't need to be the MacGyver of Wikipedia. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   When I got my mop, I hadn't got any of those initials after my name. Still haven't. That's not my area. (Might surprise you all one day...) And as to "The administration is widely seen to be more interested in enforcing its rules than supporting the academic mission of the university" - isn't that what they are there for, so that the academics can be academical without having to come down from their lofty towers of knowledge to make sure the rubbish is removed and the students are aware that they mustn't smoke in the library? Peridon (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   It is easy to lose sight of what the mission of any project is when one is not involved in that mission. Wikipedia's mission is to publish articles, that is why I will not support anyone who isn't the author of at least one GA. Diesel-50 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Ehh. While we are here to publish articles, there's a heck of a lot of other stuff for admins to do. Not everyone is great at writing articles. They are great at copyediting, patrolling for vandalism, etc. I don't think a good admin has to be a content creation admin, but there we go. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 02:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Oh darn ... I only had a single DYK to my name when I became an admin. I do have to concur - those who believe that an editor must be a prolific content creator to become an admin certainly does not understand the admin role at all. In fact, I'd hate to lose a content creator to adminship as the tasks of the latter often outweigh the former dangerouspanda 11:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I had a few DYKs (slightly over a dozen at the time) but no GAs at all. GiantSnowman 11:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   And on the other side, (not mentioning any names) some very poor admins over the years have had excellent content work on their resume. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I'll take that as a compliment, Mark. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose I hate sitting in the oppose category, especially with someone like QuiteUnusual. I have a lot of time for people who help reference exiting material, and looking at QuiteUnusual's recent contributions, I see someone who could make good use of the tools. So based on that I'd be happy to support. Unfortunately, I agree with Goodvac's concerns, and found similar problems with Control self-assessment - overly close paraphrasing rather than plagiarism or blatant copying, but enough to raise flags. If two of QuiteUnusual's best contributions contain overly close paraphrasing, then I have to be concerned.

   It feels like QuiteUnusual hasn't always been taking enough care with writing from the sources to get the right balance between expressing the core points in the reference and sticking too close to the original's words. Given the problems an administrator might face (and some have faced in the past) if this becomes an issue, and the importance of copyright compliance, my feeling is that it would be better just to say "wait a tad", give QuiteUnusual a bit of time to show that this isn't an ongoing concern, and then move forward knowing that there won't be any risk that it will come back and bite QuiteUnusual in the future. - Bilby (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose as per Bilby. Plagiarism is a serious issue, as it's stealing the work of others by claiming it as your own. Dennis may well be right that the closing bureaucrat will discount any oppose votes based on plagiarism, but it would clearly be an abuse of power to do so, as we're talking about honesty here. And why has the candidate taken no steps to clear up this issue in the articles given as examples? Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Plagarism: "The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."[1] Since he is using the actual cites directly afterwards, it is imprecise to call it "stealing". Obviously, I have no problem with any oppose based upon the perfectly valid concern but it should be accurately labelled. "Stealing" implies he was trying to deny the original author credit, and he clearly wasn't, nor were his edits verbatim copies of individual sentences. It was likely ignorance, and not malice or deception. Had he been deceptive, my vote would be down here with yours. Since he wasn't, it is my opinion that your wording is stronger than the reality here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   While plagiarism is more relevant to essays that allow primary research, I would disagree with the idea that close paraphrasing or direct copying is not plagiarism if the author is attributed. When you take a direct quote from somebody, or a quote where the structure is not sufficiently changed you are taking two parts of their work. First, you are taking the idea. Second, you are taking the creative thought. To show that you have taken someone's creative thought requires more than in-text attribution, otherwise it is plagiarism. Ryan Vesey 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I don't agree with your analysis Dennis, but obviously in the light of recent events I'm in no position to discuss this further with you here. So I've simply cast my vote and am now leaving. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Yes I'm meant to be retired but reading crap like Dennis Brown's reply to Malleus makes me angry. In the circumstances of an RFA, the ignorance of a candidate is just as bad as malice or deception. Administrators, like first year tertiary students, should know what is right and wrong in this area, because we expect administrators to be able to act when circumstances demand. The problems that infected DYK for so long were precisely due to ignorant and ineffective administrators. We don't just want our admins to be 'good people', we need admins with a basic level of competence in applying core project matters. Detecting improper writing is a core as things get on that front. I'm sure QuiteUnusual will be able to attain that competence quite quickly after this RFA, but obviously not there yet, sorry. On that note I'd endorse what Reaper Eternal says above -- start writing in summary style. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   If reading Dennis Brown's comment "makes you angry", you've serious issues involving anger management! Your presumption that provocation invited (caused actually) your visceral, is equally misguided. (metaphor redacted) 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I really thought I was going to support this. I was going to wait make my final decision until there was more input concerning the paraphrasing concerns. And I was really liking your answers to my and others' questions. I had intended on merely asking for a follow-up clarification on #7 (admins simply act too much concerning consensus, and clear understanding of that is required, even if just merely commenting regardless of venue). But the answer to Q#6 makes me very uncomfortable. And the last paragraph seals it. Talking to the others (such as the blocking admin) BEFORE unblocking (especially if this means you would fall under questions of WP:WHEEL) shouldn't be ignored even in the case you noted. There is a rather big difference between IAR and taking unilateral action as if we operate in a vacuum. - jc37 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   jc37, I've generally not responded to points raised as I don't want to appear to badger; it isn't my intention and I'm only noting this here because I feel I've not explained myself clearly. As you've raised a number of concerns I'm hoping it is okay to comment on one of them as it wouldn't influence your overall position. I wanted to say that perhaps I wasn't clear in my IAR example. I did really mean that in a case, where the blocking admin wasn't available and it was clearly an experienced editor in good standing on another project with long tenure being blocked then it ought to be okay to unblock while the AN/I review was ongoing (an AN/I review being necessary as the blocking admin isn't available) rather than waiting for that discussion to complete. I wasn't intending to suggest I would just wander around removing blocks I didn't agree with without trying to contact the blocking admin first. Thanks for your questions by the way, very thought provoking for me. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   No worries about being accused of badgering. I appreciate and welcome requests for clarification. In a type-written environment, I find that this is just a way-of-life that we should expect particularly in regards to the tools and responsibilities of adminship.

   I'm re-reading your comments. And if you don't mind discussion here, I'll be happy to ask follow-up clarification. (And welcome it of you to me as well, of course.) Though of course, no worries, if you'd rather not. - jc37 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I respect eventualities like this !vote, which reasonably asserts polar opposing views of equally viable conclusions; respectfully! I think the jury is still out on which of you is most correct, but I think it's worth noting the stringent resolve and principled stand taken, regardless of who the majority favor. I suspect you would agree? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what jury you're speaking of. But as far as the paraphrasing concerns, it looks like User:Moonriddengirl has commented here on that. If there is anything you would like me to clarify in my comments above, please feel free to ask. - jc37 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   I apologize for being obtuse. My regards are meant to compliment the agreeable manner demonstrated; in disagreeing. The "jury being out" was mistakenly presumed by me to be an intuitive metaphor, used to illustrate a grey area where opposing sides are both viable. My focus was regarding Q#6 primarily. And I'm generally clueless, so pardon my disruption. Best regards. - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   No worries. And thank you for expressing the compliment. My apologies for not discerning that/understanding. - jc37 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Care to provide a reason? Not needed, but with <100 contributions it helps. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

   Plagiarism. And edit counts are not relevant. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose Plagiarism.Those phrases are disrinctive and not yours, and they require quotation marks. I wish wikipedia writers would get the hang of summarizing rather than plagiarizing. And it is again a problem on DYK articles. However, learn to stop plagiarizing, and I will support a future run, if you don't make it this time. Otherwise seem to do well in the community and you appear to like doing work related to admin work. Eau(W)oo (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Undecided - Per the answer to my question, I cannot support this RFA because I believe that an administrator should have a good understanding of WP:NOR and WP:RS. You state that you believe you went through the correct policy-based approach when creating the article, yet unreferenced content and original research that you added remains today. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2. [ec with Reaper:] Neutral for now. I was reading this and thought, hey, here's someone who understands that properly writing and sourcing articles can be difficult, and who took the time to do it right. They pointed to this diff. However, when you see what was done there, one wonders to which extent the editor has a proper understanding of RS, and what kind of search methods they used. A quick search in Google Books leads to this, which is infinitely more reliable than this for sourcing the subject as Legolas. The same applies to this link, which is an interview with the subject on a dependent site. It may well be deemed reliable enough to "count", but does finding three links really take three hours? And do you really want to cite that diff as proving that editing can be hard? It can be, of course--here's an example. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It was two years ago so I'm afraid I can't be certain if it really took three hours - I'm just basing that on the time between the diffs and my memory of events. I agree completely with your points and the alternate sources given; presuming they were available online two years ago (and I have no reason to say they weren't) then I would indeed have been better using them. Thanks for the feedback. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)