Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語 / Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
This is not EDITOR REVIEW |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}''' |
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}''' |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
---- |
---- |
||
Line 41: | Line 39: | ||
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below --> |
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below --> |
||
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raghusri}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 16:21, 24 October 2012
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks. |
A trial admin election process is underway. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writ Keeper | 114 | 18 | 6 | 86 | Successful | 23:29, 26 October 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
QuiteUnusual | 85 | 37 | 6 | 70 | Unsuccessful | 18:48, 24 October 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writ Keeper | 114 | 18 | 6 | 86 | Successful | 23:29, 26 October 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
QuiteUnusual | 85 | 37 | 6 | 70 | Unsuccessful | 18:48, 24 October 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
AirshipJungleman29 | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 27 Sep 2024 | 34 | 21 | 4 | 62 |
Significa liberdade | RfA | Successful | 21 Sep 2024 | 163 | 32 | 10 | 84 |
Asilvering | RfA | Successful | 6 Sep 2024 | 245 | 1 | 0 | >99 |
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Monitors
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 20:16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (114/18/6); ended 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Maxim(talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Writ Keeper (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to propose Writ Keeper for your consideration as admin. He is relatively new, at least from where I'm sitting, and has impressed me, quickly picking up knowledge of the policies and guidelines and conversing with editors old and new. He does good work in various areas where a tool comes in handy, such as recent changes and new pages patrol, and in associated pages like UAA and occasionally RFPP, areas where I trust his judgment and where he intends to put the tools to use. I looked at his CSD log, which is pretty impressive. He'll be the first to admit that he's no competition for Dr. Blofeld in the field of article writing, but with some gentle nudges (from Uncle G and me) he did produce two DYKs, Sülde Tngri (a Mongolian god) and Adab al-Tabib (a medieval Arab book on medicine and ethics). What I find interesting is that these are nice articles in underdeveloped areas, quite a breath a fresh air, and that he was willing to dive into something he didn't know much about.
Writ Keeper does other stuff--stuff that I barely comprehend, scripts and the like; others can judge, at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts, how good it is. Hey, I think he might be clever enough to delete the main page (he once made me make an edit I never made--I still don't know what happened), and that in itself is reason enough to support him. He tells me he wants to work with edit filters and title blacklists and has suggested a few changes that have been implemented. He's also a really nice guy: I haven't seen him lose his temper or get into conflict, and he does lots of helpful stuff for new editors.
Closing remark: he tells me, and I have no reason not to believe him, that he intends to stay away from ANI. How about that? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conomination from The Blade of the Northern Lights
I have to largely echo what Drmies says above, and perhaps add a bit of my own experience. As someone who patrols CAT:CSD and UAA with some frequency, I’ve seen Writ Keeper’s name on more than a few tags and reports, and I can’t remember having declined one yet. His 1905 deleted edits should quite nicely demonstrate the excellent work he does in speedy deletion and his thorough understanding of the sometimes counterintuitive policies surrounding it. He’s never had a problem calmly giving new users the right guidance and advice even in the face of a less than friendly attitude, one of the most important qualities of both a NPPer and an admin. And god knows we need more technically-oriented admins to do the really hard work to make civilized life possible for the rest of us. I have complete confidence he’ll make a great addition to the admin corps and continue to do an excellent job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Mostly I'd start at UAA and CSD, also helping out at AIV, if there's a backlog there for some reason. Admin-y stuff that I'm already familiar with. I'd also be keeping an eye on RFPP, although I wouldn't actually be taking action there until I have a little more experience with it. Later down the road, I'd like to work on things like the title blacklist and edit filters, if those bits ever need help, though I definitely need to hone my PCRE skills first. Perhaps SPIs and stuff, I hear they need help every now and again. Really, my plan is to just help out wherever help is needed; I won't be rushing into anything headlong, but if I see an area that's chronically short on admins, I'll shadow it for a while, see how things work, and then start pitching in. As Drmies says, I have no desire to go near ANI, as either a commentator or a disputant; seems like we have enough of both to go around.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: For my best single piece of work, I'm pretty proud of how Adab al-Tabib turned out, though my content creation is an admittedly short list to choose from. Writing doesn't come very naturally to me, but it is the most important part of contributing to Wikipedia, and a surprisingly fun challenge. It's funny: I wouldn't have said that content creation was that important for choosing admins before I actually started doing it, but now I see why people say that. Outside of content creation, I'm proud of what I do at 3O and the Teahouse; they're both pretty fun and, although they're still never-ending tasks like maintenance work is, they feel less...sterile than pure maintenance work does.
- 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: Nothing that really caused me stress, I'd say. I did get pretty annoyed at the SkepticAnonymous kerfuffle (the very first one) a few months back; wouldn't have remembered about it if I hadn't seen his name somewhere in the last week or two. It can be found at this diff; I'll let y'all be the judge. Context: I had watchlisted his talk page from a comment I left him about speedy deletion vs. prod; later I noticed that he had been blocked, so I popped in to try to give him some advice and things went downhill from there. My general strategy for dealing with Wikistress is usually to pop on some relaxing music, take a break, and come back with fresh eyes. I'm really not too worried about Wikipedia things; there's plenty other stuff to be worried about, no sense in worrying about this stuff, too. :)
- 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.
- 4. 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: Well, the first step for me is to go read WP:INVOLVED. :) I really have no desire to be a drama magnet, so I'm probably going to be interpreting that pretty broadly. Basically, any username or article name that I recognize will me an automatic flag for me to consider myself involved and/or ask another admin's opinion. If I don't really remember where I remeber them from, I'll probably take a look at their talk page history/archives, see if I can find my interaction with them. If it's anything more than nominal, then I'd consider myself involved. By "nominal", I mean anything more than a brief message between us; any significant conversation between the two of us (detailed, handwritten messages, or several back-and-forth messages) would count. Obviously, it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, as with everything, but when in doubt, I'd be asking other people for opinions. We're not that short on admins that I couldn't find someone to ask, so no harm in erring on the side of caution.
- 5. 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: I don't think I can really give a concrete answer for this, because IAR by its nature is meant to be flexible and situation-specific. The key idea I try to keep in mind is that it's not what I think is best for Wikipedia, it's what Wikipedia as a whole (if there is such a thing) thinks is best for Wikipedia. It's more of a loose over strict interpretation of the rules (U.S. history analogy is the interpretation of the Constitution), instead of the rules not mattering. It's more useful for adapting the rules for novel situations that their formulation doesn't account for, rather than ignoring them outright. And one way or another, if I invoke bold or IAR, I better be ready to explain my actions, to have evidence on my side, and to be ready for people to disagree with it. Bold actions should (generally) start the conversation, not end it; then a new consensus can arise.
- 6. 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: The glib answer is that consensus is wherever the strongest policy-based arguments are. It's not a headcount, though headcounts aren't entirely irrelevant, everything else (mainly strength of arguments) being equal. There usually isn't going to be a perfect agreement by all parties (if only there was!), so it has to be weighed to the best of one's ability. The important thing is the strength of the arguments, especially their grounding in established policy; global policy generally trumps local policy. RfCs, XfDs, RMs, and DRVs are similar in this regard, but they all have a different action if consensus hasn't been reached. Generally, the default result of a no-consensus discussion is to preserve the status quo, though they can also be relisted if there just weren't enough voices to make the consensus clear. For XfDs, the default is not to delete. For DRVs, the default is to remain deleted. For RMs, the default is to leave things where they are, unless it's an uncontroversial move that simply hasn't been discussed much. For RfCs (the most general in scope of the four), the default is to preserve whatever the current state is, unless there are BLP or other overriding concerns. There are also differences in the possible outcomes. RfCs are more open-ended; they can have many different possibilities to choose between. XfDs are generally choosing between delete or keep, but have other potential options, like merge or redirect. DRVs are pretty much just choosing between "endorse deletion" or "overturn". RMs are usually just supporting or opposing the requested move, although people can offer other alternatives.
- 7. 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: Well, the first step for me is to look at the article history and talk page to see what's going on, and whether people are trying to discuss things or just blindly edit-warring. Next, make sure I'm not involved (as above). Assuming that I see a real edit-war and not reversion of vandalism or BLP problems or the like, if it looks like they're using the talk page, I'll probably post there, asking them to stop editing the article and stay on the talk page to hash it out. Probably drop some talkback notices, to make sure it's not overlooked. If they're not using the talk page, I'll probably post a message to each of their talk pages, asking them to stop editing the article and move to the talk page. From there, hopefully we can work things out. If that doesn't work, then warnings are going to start going out. If that doesn't work (and I should be making sure that there's time for them to react to the messages in between steps), then blocks or page protection might have to follow. The choice between the two would really depend on the situation, I think: I'd have to balance the disruption to others caused by full protection against the fact that blocking prevents the user from participating in discussion. I'd probably ping a more experienced admin and ask their advice if I'm not sure; I'd definitely try to apply common sense here (as with everywhere else), but I don't see anything really helpful on the policy pages.
- 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
- A: Because I think I'd be more effective with the tools. I'd imagine it's an overused trope, but "admin-as-a-status" or "admin-as-a-role" doesn't really appeal to me. For one, there are admins I respect, but there are a lot of non-admins I respect as much or more, and there are a few admins (no names!) that I don't particularly respect, so I don't see it as "joining the ranks of the elite" or whatever. It's just a toolbox; one I think I could make good use of.
- Additional questions from Amadscientist
My main areas of concern with new administrators are conflict/dispute resolution. Could you please address the follwing questions:
- 9. In regards to user conduct issues and the use of the block tool, many admin feel inclined to block and some inclined not to block. If an AN/I report was made against a user for civility and/or conduct issues and you regarded these issues as serious enough to deal with, please explain in general terms how you would determine whether or not a block would be justified and why you would consider not blocking as a better choice. (I give no example as to allow the candidate more room to speculate)
- A: Well, that's kinda a weird question, really, because it presupposes part of my response already. Conduct "patrol" is not something I have a desire to do, and so if I think it's serious enough to deal with, it's probably going to be pretty bad to begin with (not to mention that someone else will probably be on top of it). I'd imagine that I'm usually going to be asking for another admin's advice on matters of conduct and civility. One of the (few?) things that has been evident from the recent wiki-discussions on civility is that there are as many views on it as there are editors of Wikipedia. At least. Plus, there are culture barriers and even language barriers on occasion. So, I would be extremely reluctant to block for anything that's not really blatant, and even then, I'd still probably want a second opinion before I take action. The thing about blocking is that it can make people righteously indignant (for lack of a better term); it's more like avoiding or delaying the problem than dealing with it directly. Not to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's not always the right move, and it's a move that I would think twice, three times, etc. before taking.
- So to summarize: You find the very question weird to begin with because the scenario assumes you see something you would be willing to deal with (which is the point). You see civility issues as "Conduct patrol". If it is that bad you assume others would deal with it and you would still require assistance from another admin on even blatant civility issues. You believe blocking makes people indignant and is avoiding the problem and would think hard before using it.
- My (Amadscientist) follow up questions are:
- Arbcom has kicked back civility issues to be dealt with by the community. Do you not see yourself as part of the communtiy as an admin?
- If you cannot place yourself in a situation where you have to make a choice, why should I trust you in the future to actaully make the right choice?(whatever that might be)
- Please elaborate on the "Conduct patrol" comment. Is this to say that you believe admin has no place with civility issues on Wikipedia?
- Replies, in no particular order:
- It's not that it's something I'd be unwilling to deal with. It's more that you're assuming that I've already decided that it requires action. The problem is that, in the absence of a clear, specific, actively-enforced community standard on the matter, your and my standard of what requires action might be different, so I'm uncomfortable with working on that assumption, since we could be starting from two different points. All I meant by the "conduct patrol" comment was that I, as an admin, wouldn't be looking for conduct disputes to handle; I would just be finding them in passing. I didn't mean anything else by it; certainly wasn't a value judgement on admins who deal with conduct disputes (I specifically avoided the loaded term "civility police", and put patrol in quotes, to try to convey this). Ditto with the "other admins are on it already" comment; all I meant by that is, since I would've probably just happened across it, it has probably been reported already, and the people who watch for such things are probably already on it. It's not that I would ignore the problem and leave it for others to deal with (I wouldn't), it's that others most likely will have dealt with it already by the time I get there.
- It's not that I don't trust myself to make the right choice; it's that, again, in the absence of a clear, enforced standard of what is or isn't incivility, I wouldn't trust any one person to make the call by themselves. There are too many subjective factors in incivility, which include the culture and language barriers I mentioned. Unless it was completely 100% blindingly obvious, I think I would always try asking for a second opinion on a civility issue, because my standards are different than yours, than the two or more people involved in the dispute, than anyone else at Wikipedia. The more eyes, the better: a larger sample size might average out to something approximating the social norms, whatever those might be. Your summary of my feelings on blocking are accurate.
- Replies, in no particular order:
- My (Amadscientist) follow up questions are:
I have another follow up on this and will post it tomorrow.Thank you for taking a moment to address my questions!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 10. Adminship is "No big deal", however once made an admin you will have more user rights than an average editor. With only about a years experiance on Wikipedia, could you explain why you feel you are ready to deal with issues with more experianced editors?
- A: Forgive me, but I don't really understand the thrust of this question; I already deal with more experienced editors. It wouldn't really be any different from how it is now: I go in with the knowledge that they probably know what they're doing, that I can be wrong, and that they're another human being somewhere, and treat them accordingly. One of the models of DR that I really like is that of 3O. In 3O, you can ask for a third party's opinion without giving them any sort of power or authority over you. That's like what I'd want for my interactions as an admin. I know that the tools themselves are a big deal (after all, blocking and deleting can have pretty big negative impacts on users new and old if misused), but I don't think that makes me any more authoritative.
- I'm pretty big on forgiveness. LOL! But to be honest you pretty much got the jest of what I was asking as I am satisfied with that answer.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 11. Dispute resolution is an important issue and one admins should have a good grasp of. As an editor in the last year, could you provide any or all examples where you helped to resolve a dispute that was between two or more editors for any reason, including content, conduct or behavior?
- A: As I said, I do work at 3O, so I've gotten some DR experience there. If you'll let me cherry-pick a bit, Talk:Hedge_fund/Archive_1#Systemic_risk is one that got settled pretty amicably (really, the whole thing was pretty amicable all throughout; a pleasant change of pace). Looking at my edit history to the WP:3O main page should yield some links to the disputes I've taken on there. If you'd like more examples, let me know; I'm not averse to doing some digging for them. Perhaps on the talk page or something?
- Hmmmmm. While 30 is a part of the DR process, I am more interested in how you actually resolved the issue. Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, fair enough. But I don't really have a set strategy when I go into DR. As someone once said, "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." I guess my strategy, such as it is, is to try to distill the dispute down as much as I can. I feel that a lot of disputes in general tend to snowball a bit; people start to go on tangents, which then get picked up and debated, and things spiral out of control once the cumulative wieght of the dispute gets too big to handle. I see my role as trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense throughout, at least to me.
- That wasn't an answer to my actual question, which was: "Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?" To clarify, how did you resolve the dispute you mentioned from WP:3O?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I first read the discussion from the two editors while looking at the article for context. If there are two specific versions of the article that the disputants are working with, then I like to have both open while I read, to gain context. I saw that there was a bit of a sidetrack with AWhiteC questioning Bryant about a COI, so I tried to clear that up at the outset. This allowed us to work on the real issues, since Bryant's possible COI wasn't affecting his edits problematically. There was another problem that seemed to be based on Bryant's misreading of a sentence, so we cleared that up next. The meat of the dispute was over the context of a quote; with the discussion now refocused, I allowed the two to go back and forth a bit, and when they appeared to be deadlocked, I stepped in with another variation, which was accepted by both of them.
- I thought that was an excellent answer. Thank you. That satisfies my DR concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I first read the discussion from the two editors while looking at the article for context. If there are two specific versions of the article that the disputants are working with, then I like to have both open while I read, to gain context. I saw that there was a bit of a sidetrack with AWhiteC questioning Bryant about a COI, so I tried to clear that up at the outset. This allowed us to work on the real issues, since Bryant's possible COI wasn't affecting his edits problematically. There was another problem that seemed to be based on Bryant's misreading of a sentence, so we cleared that up next. The meat of the dispute was over the context of a quote; with the discussion now refocused, I allowed the two to go back and forth a bit, and when they appeared to be deadlocked, I stepped in with another variation, which was accepted by both of them.
- That wasn't an answer to my actual question, which was: "Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?" To clarify, how did you resolve the dispute you mentioned from WP:3O?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, fair enough. But I don't really have a set strategy when I go into DR. As someone once said, "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." I guess my strategy, such as it is, is to try to distill the dispute down as much as I can. I feel that a lot of disputes in general tend to snowball a bit; people start to go on tangents, which then get picked up and debated, and things spiral out of control once the cumulative wieght of the dispute gets too big to handle. I see my role as trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense throughout, at least to me.
- Hmmmmm. While 30 is a part of the DR process, I am more interested in how you actually resolved the issue. Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from My76Strat
- 12. Do you believe you would feel an emotional pain if this RfA drew significant opposition, ultimately being unsuccessful?
- A: Good question. Nope! As I said above, I'm really only interested in helping out with the tools. If I don't get them, no big deal; might be a minor efficiency loss for Wikipedia, but it's not that bad. I mean, obviously it'll sting a bit if people don't trust me, but I'm not perfect, and the tools can do a lot of damage if misused, so they should require trust. So, it is what it is. I like to think that I've been useful without them so far; no reason I can't continue being useful without them after this. Things will still get done; perhaps not quite as quickly with one more admin, but no big deal.
- Thank you for that response; please indulge a follow-on consideration:
- A: Good question. Nope! As I said above, I'm really only interested in helping out with the tools. If I don't get them, no big deal; might be a minor efficiency loss for Wikipedia, but it's not that bad. I mean, obviously it'll sting a bit if people don't trust me, but I'm not perfect, and the tools can do a lot of damage if misused, so they should require trust. So, it is what it is. I like to think that I've been useful without them so far; no reason I can't continue being useful without them after this. Things will still get done; perhaps not quite as quickly with one more admin, but no big deal.
- 12a. I set the above question to allow the possibility that you could have answered with a simple yes or no. Please tell me the summary of your reasoning that moved you to prefer including additional extenuation's?
- A:Two reasons: first, because it's been an aspect of this that I've been thinking about for a while, and I kinda wanted to get it down on paper (so to speak). To be honest, if you hadn't asked it, I probably would've said something to this effect in jc37's last question, but I thought it would fit better here. Second, because I don't see it as that straightforward; emotions rarely are. Would I describe my feelings as "emotional pain"? Not really. Would I feel some kind of negative feeling as a result of opposition? Well, yeah. I wouldn't say it reaches to the level of "emotional pain", but I would feel something.
- Thank you for this response. FWIW I appreciate that you answered the question just as you did. Frankly if you had chosen to simply answer by saying "no", I'd have been disappointed. So again, thank you. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A:Two reasons: first, because it's been an aspect of this that I've been thinking about for a while, and I kinda wanted to get it down on paper (so to speak). To be honest, if you hadn't asked it, I probably would've said something to this effect in jc37's last question, but I thought it would fit better here. Second, because I don't see it as that straightforward; emotions rarely are. Would I describe my feelings as "emotional pain"? Not really. Would I feel some kind of negative feeling as a result of opposition? Well, yeah. I wouldn't say it reaches to the level of "emotional pain", but I would feel something.
- Additional question from Hahc21
- 13. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
- A: Well, one of the telling things about blocking is how many new (and some not-so-new) users refer to it as a "ban". They take it personally and see it as they're kicked off of Wikipedia forever, which is totally understandable from their end. The trite expression applicable here is "preventative, not punitive"; that is a sensible saying, but we have to remember that not everyone sees it that way. Blocking is a tool: it's a means to an end, not an end in itself, and so we always have to evaluate whether it's the best way of reaching that end. Part of that is recognizing that it can and will drive away good-faith editors. But sometimes it still is the best tool in the box; people don't always listen to their talk page (or know it's there), page protection has the nasty side effect of locking out other, totally innocent editors, and we can't just let editors keep disrupting the article forever. I wish it were otherwise: I sometimes wonder whether some sort of pop-up chat window might have a better effect than the big orange bar, and it would be a bit more human an interaction. If that were implemented and it worked, that could avoid a lot of blocks. But it's not, possibly wouldn't gain consensus with the community (WP:NOTFACEBOOK and all that), so all we can do is what we can with what we have.
- Additional question from Glrx
- 14. Please comment on the notability of Pope John Paul II Elementary School.
- A: Ha, I vaguely remember that, now that you mention it. It's probably not notable, though as a school, it obviously doesn't qualify for A7 or anything. Thinking back, I think that's why I wanted to work on it; I stumbled across it probably from recent changes, saw the speedy deletion tag, and thought, "Why not, let's give it a shot." I don't find anything in a quick Google/GNews/Highbeam search, and that squares with my vague memories of not finding any sources that weren't just the school website, so it probably doesn't pass the GNG. That's why I ended up not being able to write anything about it, though I wasn't familiar enough with Wikipedia processes at the time to actually nominate it or even tag it or anything. (Keep in mind that I was only two weeks into Wikipedia at that point.)
- Follow-on question from Kudpung
- My questions are always entirely optional and I would not expect anyone to criticise you if you choose not to answer. You conceded that Pope John Paul II Elementary School is probably not notable. It's clear that schools do not qualify for A7, so I'm asking a). how, with an admin's knowledge of policies/guidelines/consensus, you would expect a New Page Patroller to handle such an article, and b). how you would expect a knowledgeable editor to vote on Pope John Paul II Elementary School if it were brought to AfD for being unsourced and failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-on question from Kudpung
- A: Ha, I vaguely remember that, now that you mention it. It's probably not notable, though as a school, it obviously doesn't qualify for A7 or anything. Thinking back, I think that's why I wanted to work on it; I stumbled across it probably from recent changes, saw the speedy deletion tag, and thought, "Why not, let's give it a shot." I don't find anything in a quick Google/GNews/Highbeam search, and that squares with my vague memories of not finding any sources that weren't just the school website, so it probably doesn't pass the GNG. That's why I ended up not being able to write anything about it, though I wasn't familiar enough with Wikipedia processes at the time to actually nominate it or even tag it or anything. (Keep in mind that I was only two weeks into Wikipedia at that point.)
- Additional question from Salvio giuliano
- 15. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?
- A: Yes, I have two other accounts. User:WK-test is my testing account; I use it to test scripts and the like without having to mess up my main account. User:White King is my "travel" account. ("Writ Keeper" and "White King" are references to the same thing, if anyone's curious; they can also both be abbreviated WK, which is handy). Both alt accounts are indicated on their user page; White King also uses the same signature as Writ Keeper, plus a little extra note. Now that I think of it, though, they're not identified on Writ Keeper's user page; I should go do that. I've operated no other accounts on Wikipedia.
- Additional question from Tazerdadog
- 16. If given the mop, will you be open to recall, and if so, under what circumstances?
- A: In a word, yes. I hear that a lot of people don't like this question, since it's inherently nonbinding. But, if a group of established (for a reasonable, non-excessive value of "established") users that would be considered uninvolved ask me to resign, citing a specific admin action that I've performed, I would ask a crat to remove my tools. After a while, probably a few days, I'd allow myself to ask for them back; the crat who handles the request (ideally but not necessarily the same one) would then determine whether they've considered me to have resigned "under a cloud", and that decision will be the one that sticks. I'm not going to pretend that that's a binding promise, since apparently it can't be one. But that's what I'd do.
- Additional question from Chaser
- 17. What's the inspiration for your username?
- A: I didn't come up with it, it's just the name of a minor character from Homestuck, a webcomic I read. "White King" (as in the chess piece) is another name for the same character, hence the name of my travel account as noted above.
- Additional questions from I Jethrobot
- 18. You have correctly blocked a user for both general edit warring and violating 3RR on a given article, because they continued to revert despite several warnings. The user provides an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if you thought that I offended other editors and edit warred. I want to keep contributing." How would you handle this unblock request?
- A: Trick question! I wouldn't, because I already blocked them; uninvolved admin needed. :) In seriousness though, I'd try to get them to recognize what they did, perhaps by explaining edit-warring and 3RR in a little more depth. My intent isn't for them to put on a hair shirt and come crawling back, it's more that, if they don't understand what they did, they'll (a) continue the disruptive behavior, which is the entire thing blocks are supposed to prevent, and (b) probably be blocked again sooner rather than later. That said, I'm generally in favor of unblocks, on WP:ROPE grounds if nothing else. If they promise they won't edit-war again, and they haven't had a history of breaking such promises, that'd usually be good enough for me.
- 19. Do experienced editors deserve blocks of a different length or severity than newer editors for the same infraction (e.g. violating 3RR, repeated personal attacks, glamorous Reichstag climbing)? If so, what should be different? If not, why should they be the same?
- A: Their block lengths should be the same in my eyes. If we're serious about prevention-not-punishment, blocks should be exactly as long as is needed to prevent disruption, and I don't see any reason why sheer, uncomplicated experience should be a direct factor in that. That doesn't mean that their history doesn't play a role; it obviously does if they've made the same infraction multiple times in the past. Also, it might affect my willingness to unblock early; though my baseline is in favor of blocking, a history showing that the infraction was a one-off thing, then I'd be more inclined to unblock, and if their history shows consistent, similar problems, I'd be more hesitant to unblock.
- Additional question from IRWolfie-
- 20. When you say "global policy generally trumps local policy", can you clarify what you mean? Can you give an example with specific policies?
- A: Sorry, that was a somewhat poorly-worded reference to WP:CONLIMITED, which says that local consensus from a group of editors doesn't override the consensus of the community as a whole. I meant to say "global policy trumps local consensus", since policy represents a community-wide consensus. What I was trying to get across is that, in the event of tension between an agreement of a small group of editors and a global policy or guideline, the global one wins. Example: say there's a literature-focused WikiProject that holds that all characters in a notable book are notable themselves, no matter how minor. If someone brings that up in a deletion discussion of (to choose a book that happens to be on my desk at the moment) Miss Merle from A Gathering of Old Men, our global policy of verifiability and our global guideline of notability override the local agreement that Miss Merle is notable because the book she's in is notable. As an aside, the applicable shortcut would probably be WP:NOTINHERITED.
- Additional question from Webclient101
- 21. Hello Writ Keeper. 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, except WikiReviewBot.
- User:Sexygirl398, who has only made constructive edits.
- User:hhhsjsddff, who has not made any edits.
- User:DownwithWebclient101, who has has not made any edits.
- User:Trollolol, who has 1 vandalistic contribution
- User:WikiReviewBot, who has not made any edits.
- User:APPBLOGSTORE, who has promoted his website on his user space.
- User:FuckPaul2, who has vandalized two articles.
- User:AdminsNeedAEffingLife, who has has not made any edits.
- A:
- Not a serious violation; leave a comment as such on UAA, and politely suggest (not require) on their userpage that they change their name.
- Not a serious violation.
- Block as disruptive.
- Block as disruptive username, given the edits. Would've been flagged as "Wait until the user edits" had there been none.
- Wait until the user edits, hopefully to respond to the communication. If the editor makes several edits without acknowledging it, though, a block might have to follow, especially if they try to behave in a bot-like manner.
- Block as promotional username, assuming the website being promoted is called "AppBlogStore", or something else clearly linked to his username. If it isn't, then not a serious violation.
- Block as a vandalism-only account.
- Block as disruptive.
- Additional question from Mediran
- 22. If this RfA is successful and if the mop is yours now, what will be your first edit or what will the first thing you will do as an admin? What would it be?
General comments
- Links for Writ Keeper: Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Writ Keeper can be found here.
- Stats on the talk page. Theopolisme 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't tend to comment in RfAs any more, but I must say it is mighty impressive that you've edited your CSD log more times than all of your non-deleted mainspace contribs. No doubt some people will find that a problem, but your CSD work sure is fine. "Pepper" @ 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Support
- Support happy to be first! AutomaticStrikeout 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this user seems like they won't cause chaos and seems to make themself useful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've been waiting for this for a while. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep! I've only seen good things from Writ -- as Thine says, "seems like they won't cause chaos". <sarcasm> And that's all that matters, isn't it? </sarcasm> Theopolisme 23:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good! Michael (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; sorry I couldn't beat the people trying to beat us noms, got hung up at work a bit longer than I thought. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Looks good to me! We need all the fresh help we can get! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (edit conflict) Writ is a good all round Wikipedian and an excellent admin candidate.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Actually, when I blocked SA, you handled it very well. You were likely frustrated by your last post, but you weren't rude in the least and focused on still trying to help him. If anything, that proves to me you can stay calm under pressure. You tried to help him multiple times, kept your cool, you explained it well, you said all the things I try to say, the way I try to say them, so I'm glad to support and looking forward to working with you at WP:SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The co-nomination by The Blade of The Northern Lights is an immediate indication of trust. Knowing BNL as a Bureaucrat, if an editor that long standing and that well read & respected is convinced he will make a good admin, I have an immediate inclination to trust this editor. I agree with the nominators point, more competent technically focused Admins would be a great assistance to editors like myself working to clear all manner of procedural backlogs. The Illusive Man(Contact) 02:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per noms. Btw, I don't know complete answers to many of the questions you've been asked so far, and I've been here a while. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank, I've noticed that trend too. Some of these questions are a bit much. I'm not sure I would pass, but maybe that's the point? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I don't think I've ever interacted with Writ Keeper directly, but I've definitely seen him around, and I have been given no reason to doubt that he'll do good work with the sysop bit. Kurtis (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--thought you already were! Go Phightins! 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, so did I.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. CSD work looks good. AfD work looks good. Didn't find any copyright violations or even close paraphrasing in your content contributions. A random survey of your talk page comments shows a calm, composed editor. No reason not to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor; will be a great admin. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 04:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when hasn't s/he been an admin? Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 05:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The few interactions I've had were positive and I appreciate Writ's work at the teahouse. Should make a fine admin. GaramondLethe 05:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen Writ Keeper around, and have been impressed with his/her CSD work, policy knowledge, and temperament. No problems here. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Given the answers to the questions and their history, the candidate shows that they have a good grasp of policy knowledge and how to apply policy to actual work around the project. While the candidate's edit count is reasonably low I feel that they will make a good admin in the long run. Good luck, and I hope you get a new mop in around 7 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, its nice to have fresh blood. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions. Answers to questions suggest to me that while they are not the most experienced candidate we've had here, they will refer to guidance and ask questions before using tools in areas in which they are not familiar. More mainspace contributions would be good, but I see no reason to oppose here. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Working here for over 1 year is totally fine for adminship. Good luck--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. I've seen them around and they seem mature and reasonable, and the nominations are good. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. It Is Me Here t / c 10:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rcsprinter (converse) @ 10:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thought he'd been around much longer than that. Don't think I've had any direct interaction, but that can be a good sign, considering my areas of operation... Seen him around a lot in many places - never seen a problem. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work at the Teahouse, and has done some DR work - huge plus in my books. I'm sure you'll do fine. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Friendly, helpful, and has a level head. He'll do fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." This candidate sees his role as "trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense....". A nutshell answer to what is an admin. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will benefit the project. Legoktm (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Writ has a good head on his shoulders, makes good decisions and has been nothing short of helpful in projects I have been involved in and in helping me out on my talk page (and I'm an admin!). I think he'd respect the mop for sure! SarahStierch (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Acknowledging support of Dennis Brown, Steven Zhang, Sarah Stierch, etc. above. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He'll be great in deletion work and quite helpful and kind to the newbies. Great choice. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no concerns and a good pedigree of supporters. GiantSnowman 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice CSD log in various areas, would be a net benefit imo. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hell yes. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not only does he have clue, but I've seen him do great work at the Teahouse, interacting with new editors. That's an excellent skill to have as an admin; with that, I'm happy to support. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User has clue, Have seen their CSD work and don't recall any serious issues there, good answers to the questions, including the civility block one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pleased to support this nomination. I am particularly pleased with the answers provided to all of the questions, while being impressed by the answer to my own question; very impressed! 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah, I guess I support this editor too. WK, please have the courtesy to not do something drastic again when I'm out camping! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the candidate's maturity and readiness to discuss perceived shortcomings; their Teahouse work is a plus. Should do a good job with the tools. Miniapolis (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know I was trying to persuade you Brad. But my concerns seem to have been fully supported by the RFA in my opinion. An editor with just over a single year is simply being welcomed into a groupthink of editors that seem to care very little about how the community treats each other and seem to think this is thunderdome. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think you already had your conclusions drawn before WK answered your question, and you read it the way you wanted to. "Groupthink"--nice buzzword, though I think the list of supporters shows good and variegated company. I don't get your thunderdome reference; I'm probably too old for that. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two men enter, one man leave! Not sure how that applies to RFA, but there's your pop-culture reference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think you already had your conclusions drawn before WK answered your question, and you read it the way you wanted to. "Groupthink"--nice buzzword, though I think the list of supporters shows good and variegated company. I don't get your thunderdome reference; I'm probably too old for that. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amadscientist raises legitimate concerns, but I think WritKeeper's acknowledgement of the cesspool that is ANI is a good start in a positive direction for admins. I thin Writ will be fine as an admin. Eau(W)oo (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)User moved to oppose [1].--v/r - TP 17:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know I was trying to persuade you Brad. But my concerns seem to have been fully supported by the RFA in my opinion. An editor with just over a single year is simply being welcomed into a groupthink of editors that seem to care very little about how the community treats each other and seem to think this is thunderdome. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I see no reason not to. The opposes and neutrals are quite unconvincing to me at the moment; the only one of them that gives me any pause whatsoever is Amadscientist's, and even then barely any cause I probably would have had the same general reaction to the question in question. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user, long enough experience, good CSD log. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-rounded editor. SpencerT♦C 03:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns at all. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think that this is the proper section. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; looks a good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no particularly serious problems, and oppose #1 is completely laughable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, AdminsNeedAEffingLife (talk · contribs) should be hardblocked without talkpage or email access (extremely obvious troll); and if more than one is created, then checkuser is needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure Unlikely to break the wiki, and neither oppose is convincing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Really thoughtful answers to the questions above, including my own (unrelatedly, a humorous edit summary based on statement in #18: *gasp* a singular "they" OPPOSE OPPOSE ABANDON SHIP) I have also watched Writ's participation at The Teahouse, and know that even as an admin, he will continue to be inviting and respectful towards new users who are unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. As a side note, I think the amount of time concerns here are way off-base. Sheer "amount of time" is far less important than how that time is spent, and Writ has had a very industrious first year. That Writ is responsible is apparent, and I trust that the mop will be a good fit with this editor. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns, if he was to help good luck to him. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lacking in content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow, excellent answers to the questions. I don't have any concerns here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I do believe they should work towards greater content creation; with that said, appears to be a good candidate. Kierzek (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more. :) (with the "more content creation" bit, that is) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen 01:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)$[reply]
- Could you specify why you are supporting? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sufficient experience. i usually am less than happy about candidates with little experience in article writing, but his excellent work in advising users shows his understanding of the process. And his patience here with some over-persistent questioning is very commendable. When pressed for full explanations of what I saw as perfectly clear from his first responses, he gave excellent well-thought out further discussions of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck on your admin career. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Highly competent and respectful candidate. I can find no reason to oppose. Jschnur (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: What Jschnur said above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Distinctly unimpressed with a candidate who eschews my nomination. Writ will make an excellent admin, I knew that then and I know that now. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support is joseki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Users can help in many different ways. We should be easygoing about handing out access, and equally easygoing about revoking it. This user seems to have a pleasant disposition and be clueful. It doesn't take more than a year to demonstrate those characteristics. Jehochman Talk 11:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Polite, helpful editor, evidently understands policy, helps new users (with correct advice, from what I've seen); basically, candidate is made of CLUE. Give him a mop and let him get on with it. Yunshui 雲水 12:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Writ is a great example of everything right with Wikipedia: helpful, coherent and heck, even smart(!) His work at the Teahouse, both technical and question wise, has been fantastic. No concerns. Strong support -- Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues; I agree with the concerns expressed by SkepticalRaptor, but not sufficient for me to not support. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lots of clue, great noms, no big deal etc etc.... I don't normally !vote on RfAs which are obviously going either to succeed or fail. But there are one or two tendentious statements among the opposes and I wanted to weigh in to express my pleasure at the candidate's coolness in the face of these. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Drmies and Yunshui the user has been around since Sept 2011 and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Oppose rationales are entirely unconvincing. "S/He spends too much time helping new users", "S/He focus too much on the back end of the project" (where we expect admins to be active). No significant issues brought up. Achowat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As with the support !vote directly above, I can't see how a dedication to helping newbies at Teahouse can be considered a negative, even if it does subtract from article space work. And I continue to believe that not all admins need be outstanding content creators themselves in order to wield the mop effectively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposes are patently unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues. --Rschen7754 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I almost voted weak oppose, because of some legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist, but I respect the judgement of the nominators and I think it's OK to have admins who operate behind the scenes, keeping the machinery well-oiled. Writ Keeper seems to be very thoughtful in his approach and would undoubtedly exercise good judgment as an admin. - MrX 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that the amount of support from editors that I have such great respect for makes me feel that regardless of my concerns, writ will probably be a good admin. I still have some concerns but these are doubtless being considered by the nom. He even said as much. I may not support the editor myself, but understand fully why many feel his work justifies his nomination and support. Much of what others have asked and stated will also, likely be considered as they work in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first opposer has this on his userpage: "Things I Hate 2. Judgementality on users" Then he goes and opposes someone not based on their contributions, but what he perceives as a lack of time on Wikipedia. lol. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking of this for a couple days and I think this user would be a net benefit as an adminPumpkinSky talk 00:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That Drmies puts this forth catches my attention, so I did have a look. I like what I see, and trust this editor to use commonsense in their efforts here. — Ched : ? 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support here's a candidate who really has a good reason for getting the bit, has demonstrated knowledge of the areas for its intended use, and nothing to justify strong opposition. -- Scray (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Writ Keeper has good experience and would be a competent and helpful admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Q21. Writ Keeper failed to recognize that 398 is a birthdate (March 9, 2008) which would make this user 4. His answer flies in the face of our Wikipedia:Child_protection policy. Besides, a 4 year old is not a "Sexy girl" despite the mom's on Toddlers & Tiaras.--v/r - TP 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit at the mention of that show... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed the article mentions nothing about any of the controversies. I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit at the mention of that show... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as Mostly Harmless; which is a compliment meaning you won't break anything, so why not? QuiteUnusual TalkQu 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. Rzuwig► 21:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trusted user, no reason to think this user would abuse the bit. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here.—cyberpower OnlineTrick or Treat 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Moving from neutral: After further reviewing, I believe that despite Writ Keeper's short Wikipedia career, the user will be able to manage the tools efficiently. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to oppose.--В и к и T 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wifione Message 07:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like he'll be a good janitor. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reasons to oppose. I do like that the candidate helps out the Teahouse with new users and I am impressed by the CSD log. SassyLilNugget (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. At first, I was going to support based only on the strength of the nominators, but some appear to object to that quasi-lazy rationale. Then, I resisted supporting based on the number of contributions/length of time thing, but some don't like counting rationales. Finally, today, I read a comment Writ Keeper (gee, and I thought it was a legal reference) made at DRV, and that tipped the scales for me. Anyone who has the guts or stupidity to wade into the ArbCom debacle during his RfA deserves to become an admin. Also, for the most part I like his answers to questions (note about unblock request - a blocking admin can accept a request).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Someone we can trust with the mop. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no red flags that Writ Keeper would misuse the tools in any way. They are helpful, clueful, and will make a good addition to the clean-up crew.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Bzweebl's rationale for opposing. Admins will encounter lots of new users, so someone who helps a lot at the Teahouse will better be able to help them, and someone who uses talk pages extensively is likely to be more collaborative. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Writ's Teahouse work is extraordinary, showing not only politeness with new users, but in addition a great understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. In addition, the amount of Teahouse requests that he answers quickly show that he can swiftly respond to things. Brambleberry of RiverClanmeow 21:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I regret that I haven't crossed paths with the candidate before now. I've read all of the opposing and neutral comments here, and I poked around in the candidate's early edits and discussions, looking for the proverbial skeleton in the closet, and I didn't find one. I think the Teahouse work is a positive, not a negative. I'm not worried about length of time here, or quantity of content writing, because I can see that the candidate can take part in discussions with editors who disagree, and remain courteous and clueful. I'm satisfied that the candidate will not overreach, and I trust them with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I rarely weigh in on these but this nomination is frankly overdue. - Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Haven't had the pleasure of conversation with this editor, but based on my review of his answers above and the support of many in whom I have great trust, I believe that Writ will do quite well in this role. Always nice to have a level headed editor join the ranks of admin. I'm not the least bit worried about tenure or edit count. I believe that one can become proficient without having to pass some arbitrary length of time or activity. (Besides, as Beebs mentions below, 10k edits in a year is hardly inexperienced). Best of luck to you Writ! Vertium When all is said and done 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any problems with this candiate. --Webclient101 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems competent and unlikely to abuse the tools. Opposes mostly bring up lack of experience, not lack of clue, so I can live with that. wctaiwan (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as I believe that this editor will do a fine job with the mop in hand. I look forward to having him in the admin corps and would remind him of these instructions which are tantamount to his success...well okay, not really...just a shameless plug for recruiting him towards more active participation in patrolling at SPI.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Support - Excellent answer to Q6; you should always decide consensus based on overwhelming policy vs one small group of editors who happen to be more active in one area, article or mindset. You're trusted with your tools by the whole community, to enforce the whole editorial community's (and Wikimedia Foundation's) standards. Therefore, I'm countering Townlake's oppose. I also see a swath of support from fellow editors/admins whose judgement I trust, so I see no risk in giving you the tools. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind that you disagree with me, but "overwhelming policy" doesn't ordinarily trump consensus. The right answer would have involved some acknowledgement that in a consensus discussion, consensus is a significant factor; candidate's answer did no such thing. I'm surprised that you, being an admin, also find policy more important than consensus. Townlake (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the questions was "How do you determine consensus?", so I can't exactly say "I would use consensus to determine consensus". And yeah, policy does play a major part, as it is consensus on a community-wide scale. so arguments from policy are consensus-based. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy does play a major part, but when you have two competing policies to evaluate, you don't get to choose the one you like better. That's all I'm saying. (There are plenty of obvious cases where there's a policy argument vs. a "I wanna do what I want" argument; those aren't actually consensus arguments since the outcome is so clear.) You're a good egg and I hope you succeed as an administrator. Townlake (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I think we're in agreement on comflicting policies. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy does play a major part, but when you have two competing policies to evaluate, you don't get to choose the one you like better. That's all I'm saying. (There are plenty of obvious cases where there's a policy argument vs. a "I wanna do what I want" argument; those aren't actually consensus arguments since the outcome is so clear.) You're a good egg and I hope you succeed as an administrator. Townlake (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Townlake: Policy is consensus, and it's an overwhelming consensus. If you're drafting policy then consensus is based on a majority of logically reasoned arguments from the editorial community. However if you're resolving one specific discussion or request then you base the consensus off of the majority of arguments reasoned by policy. See the difference? — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your post is a needlessly pedantic and a bit circular; thanks for your feedback, I think we're done. Townlake (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that was unnecessarily rude. There's a distinct difference between being pedantic vs being descriptive. And there's nothing circular about my point, as my last two statements presented the reasoning behind the first (a logical syllogism). Though I must say you quite beautifully used onus probandi, ignoratio elenchi, red herring, and thought termination to prevent from actually displaying how I "find policy more important than consensus" (a completely fallaciously reasoned and contradictory statement). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your post is a needlessly pedantic and a bit circular; thanks for your feedback, I think we're done. Townlake (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the questions was "How do you determine consensus?", so I can't exactly say "I would use consensus to determine consensus". And yeah, policy does play a major part, as it is consensus on a community-wide scale. so arguments from policy are consensus-based. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind that you disagree with me, but "overwhelming policy" doesn't ordinarily trump consensus. The right answer would have involved some acknowledgement that in a consensus discussion, consensus is a significant factor; candidate's answer did no such thing. I'm surprised that you, being an admin, also find policy more important than consensus. Townlake (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —stay (sic)! 06:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm a little concerned about the answer to Q.14 and I thought offering the opportunity to demonstrate more knowledge of CSD, PROD, and AfD would have cleared this up (I was give an hard time over this very issue on my own RfA). Anyway, I see no reason not to trust Writ Keeper with the tools, and when he has been given them I hope he'll come to me or another admin for some help over some exceptions that we practice. I also hope that he will take an interest in ANI, because too many cases get archived after 24 hours without being resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC
- Support - no problems with this - Mop Please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I like WK's approach, no concerns at all. — sparklism hey! 12:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be good and stuff, sensible, clueful, and helpful such that the zombie in me thinks he has a brain well worth eating. -— Isarra ༆ 04:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like he would do a good job as an admin. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see what looks to me like useful anti-vandalism work. The concerns raised do not lead me to suspect that the candidate's use of admin tools would disbenefit the project, and the answers are genuine and indicate a trustworthy user. -- Trevj (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The Teahouse and CSD work is reason to support not oppose. If admin bit is the mop, then let's support people who work administratively and gnome-ish work. KTC (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Likely Oppose He's much of a newbie (1 year, 21 days) and not-so-low edit count (9,858 to date). I know it's risky to oppose, but we have to examine the flaws. Might change my mind because of this, but it's now on paper. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what exactly is the basis of your oppose? AutomaticStrikeout 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree. Of course we should examine flaws, but since you haven't actually identified any it is hard to comprehend why you are opposing. I don't think I have ever seen a user with over a year of experience and nearly ten thousand edits referred to as a newbie before. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to badger or anything, but you've only been around since March 2011 and have only about 1500 edits, so I am not sure why you're criticizing someone who's been around for about the same time with almost 10,000 edits a newbie...do you consider yourself a newbie? Go Phightins!
- No flaw in Writ Keeper's editing was identified. TruPepito, if you cannot bring up anything specific, I respectfully suggest you withdraw this oppose since you don't have an actual reason to oppose. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviewing bureaucrat will throw out votes that have invalid rationales before tallying, so it won't get counted anyway. No need to worry about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not worried about this RfA but about esthetics. It's sad to see hollow opposes mar the beauty of the result. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make you think that an editor a year old here in Wikipedia makes you wonder what he's doing. Like I've said, he's a year and 22 days old. He has about 8000 (no, he isn't over it) live edits and the rest are deleted. Less than half are automated. Plus, he's a deletionist (1/50/3/1 over keep, delete, speedy delete, and redirect votes respectively). He closed an AfD with Speedy Delete. Flaws are flaws, period. Plus, I may go berserk and run for admin if he gets this go signal. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And for Drmies, my name is not TruPepito, it's Pits. Yet, I'd like to see him answer Q#16 & Q#17. Plus, I'm into doubt on his answer for Q#12 and less for Q#12a for failing to give either a simple yes or no. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT please. Go Phightins! 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, fine. Peace out. I'll talk out of this, like WP:DNB for me.TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But well, as the consensus goes for >90%, I'm going to plan to also have a RfA sometime in the future but not too soon. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope people are more supportive at yours than you have been at this one. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we're not starting a vote revolution, we're just pointing out the facts for him to see. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope people are more supportive at yours than you have been at this one. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT please. Go Phightins! 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviewing bureaucrat will throw out votes that have invalid rationales before tallying, so it won't get counted anyway. No need to worry about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No flaw in Writ Keeper's editing was identified. TruPepito, if you cannot bring up anything specific, I respectfully suggest you withdraw this oppose since you don't have an actual reason to oppose. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to badger or anything, but you've only been around since March 2011 and have only about 1500 edits, so I am not sure why you're criticizing someone who's been around for about the same time with almost 10,000 edits a newbie...do you consider yourself a newbie? Go Phightins!
- I tend to agree. Of course we should examine flaws, but since you haven't actually identified any it is hard to comprehend why you are opposing. I don't think I have ever seen a user with over a year of experience and nearly ten thousand edits referred to as a newbie before. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what exactly is the basis of your oppose? AutomaticStrikeout 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this time. First answer to question I posed was "Off putting" and many might be offended by the term "weird" in the sentence when referring to a direct question to them. Social skills are important for admin and while the editor is not horrible at it, they still lack some tact in responding to direct questions. The entire first question asked by this editor was completely blown off and answered in a manner that gives me pause to support, as the nom has point blanck stated they still require help with major issues and I am not satisfied with the "Conduct patrol" comment. I may change my opinion when my follow up questions are answered but the first reply was enough to understand the nomination appears to be a "status quo" candidate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not arguing against your oppose which I respect but I had a different read. What I did like is that he wanted more than one opinion on "Civility blocks" and he understands they are less than optimal and should be a community decision, not a unilateral one. I prefer hesitation on civility blocks since there is no consensus on them, so we don't accidentally inject WP:BIAS and block due to a misinterpretation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neither for, nor against civility blocks. I am for admin realising they are still a part of this community and editors turn to them for help because Arbcom has decided the community must handle it themselves, yet admin are not the "Civilyt patrol/police"...uhm....of course not. They are THE ONLY ONES who have the ability to block in our community. Even if an RFC/U decided that a block was an appropriate action, it still requires the action of an admin. ANI is supposed to be where editors turn for non-vandalsim action. What we get is "You are on your on" many of the times and then on the flip to that we get over zealous admin who block at the drop of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The candidate has 2 errors which prevent me from supporting. First the candidate seems to not understand the notability guidelines, mainly for schools. All schools are notable. I fear the candidate may go happily delete some schools nominated at AFD. Secondly the candidate has temperament issues as highlighted by Amadscientist. Candidate shows attitude from Q9-11. Also shows attitude in answer to Q16. The candidate says "I'm not going to pretend that that's a binding promise, since apparently it can't be one. But that's what I'd do"-when he says "I'm not going to pretend" this indicates he will not be open to recall or make some highly difficult process to be desysopped. Furthermore, "But that's what I'd do" indicates the temperament/attitude I am having trouble with. I also fear with these answers, the candidate will be rude when newbies come to his page asking "why did you delete my page?" etc. Please read the notability guidelines before responding to Kudpungs' followup below Q14. Regards. Capria (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]— Capria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Legoktm (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- !Vote of sock account, now blocked. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, The nom does not have a temperment issue. Using the term "weird" in the first reply was a little disrespectful. I have a thick enough skin to deal with that, but that along with not getting a direct answer to the same question was a little off putting. To me that is simply not the best way to start off. But I am still sure when officially made an admin, Writ will do fine. While my oppose !vote stands, it is simply for reasons not listed or mentioned in the RFA.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Purely in a spirit of musing: this is kinda my point. I never would've considered the word "weird" in this context to be disrespectful in any way. I'm sorry I used it, now that I know you think so, but that's not at all what I meant. But this is why I can't give a straight answer to general civility questions; some people think that "weird" is disrespectful, and I never would've guessed that. So, if someone and come to me as an admin and said, "This other guy said a comment of mine was weird, they're disrespecting me", my immediate thought would be "No they're not", because I never would've interpreted it that way. But your standard of disrespect is different than mine. So I can't talk about the general case of incivility that should be dealt with, because that general case is insufficiently defined. That's what I was trying to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, since you wish to continue this, I can accommodate. Who exactly do you think you are? Surely not the civility police as you made that clear. So lets tear off the entire civilitiy issue and go bare knuckles. You insulted me on purpose to down grade my opinion. Frankly you do not deserve to be an admin simply because people like you. You have little, to no experiance and your first reply to me showed exactly that. Your strength comes from your associations and not from your experiance. Weird? Perhaps....
but only in your small minded little world.You could have left well enough alone, but no, you had to pretend to be the better editor....and perhaps you are in some ways....but in other ways you lack many of the needed requirements. As I have said sir.....you are a status quo nomination who simply agrees with the current group. It has not worked to improve this encyclopedia and I truly believe your nomination is a rubber stamp.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Way to teach us all a lesson about civility. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the "civility professor". If you are looking for lessons in such an RFA is not the place to look. Oddly enough I was defending Writ and said outright he does not have a temperment issue, he was just disrespectful, not a stretch by any means. Some of the above was an overreaction by both of us and these nominations do get heated, but he need not go on about his use of the term "Weird" in describing a legitimate question. He made it clear he will not answer it. The situation with his wording is not a part of the question. I would hardly go to an admin over someone even calling me weird and was not a suggestion or question in regards to his nomination. So why would I accept an apology in the manner presented above. It was hardly unambiguous and simply continued to belittle the opinion of the editor. Civility is a two way street. Don't give it...then don't expect it in return. I can strike out the stupid remark I made above. It was uncalled for even if it is exactly how I felt. I simply feel that administrators have to do more then band together to support each other. They need to support the community. If an admin can so quickly become uncivil in the first round of questions along with blowing off the question then what did you expect? Writ didn't deserve the "small minded" comment. I would see that as a personal attack and I apologise for it. But I still believe my question was blown off and an excuse made for not answering it. Look, writ is going to be an admin. My objection isn't going to stop it, but what the heck was the reasoning to belittle me further when I was attempting to defend them and explain my reasoning for being disapointed in the lack of an answer. If he thinks calling a question "weird" is not disrespectful, then I do feel justified with not supporting the nomination, even against all odds.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to teach us all a lesson about civility. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, since you wish to continue this, I can accommodate. Who exactly do you think you are? Surely not the civility police as you made that clear. So lets tear off the entire civilitiy issue and go bare knuckles. You insulted me on purpose to down grade my opinion. Frankly you do not deserve to be an admin simply because people like you. You have little, to no experiance and your first reply to me showed exactly that. Your strength comes from your associations and not from your experiance. Weird? Perhaps....
- Purely in a spirit of musing: this is kinda my point. I never would've considered the word "weird" in this context to be disrespectful in any way. I'm sorry I used it, now that I know you think so, but that's not at all what I meant. But this is why I can't give a straight answer to general civility questions; some people think that "weird" is disrespectful, and I never would've guessed that. So, if someone and come to me as an admin and said, "This other guy said a comment of mine was weird, they're disrespecting me", my immediate thought would be "No they're not", because I never would've interpreted it that way. But your standard of disrespect is different than mine. So I can't talk about the general case of incivility that should be dealt with, because that general case is insufficiently defined. That's what I was trying to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, The nom does not have a temperment issue. Using the term "weird" in the first reply was a little disrespectful. I have a thick enough skin to deal with that, but that along with not getting a direct answer to the same question was a little off putting. To me that is simply not the best way to start off. But I am still sure when officially made an admin, Writ will do fine. While my oppose !vote stands, it is simply for reasons not listed or mentioned in the RFA.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not arguing against your oppose which I respect but I had a different read. What I did like is that he wanted more than one opinion on "Civility blocks" and he understands they are less than optimal and should be a community decision, not a unilateral one. I prefer hesitation on civility blocks since there is no consensus on them, so we don't accidentally inject WP:BIAS and block due to a misinterpretation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This fellow spends most of his time in the Teahouse, where he professes to advise to help people to write articles, but he doesn't seem to have experience writing any article himself. Diesel-50 (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I've looked through Adab al-Tabib and it seems too weak. For example, some works state that the author may have been Jewish - see A History of Medicine - but this is not mentioned. As the religion of the author seems to be controversial and the article currently gives weight to a writer who pushes the Moslem faith of the author, this seems too sloppy or tendentious. As this is supposed to be the candidate's best work, it seems insufficient to grant the candidate power to adjudicate in disputes between other editors. Warden (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that admins had the power to "adjudicate in disputes" more then a regular editor. Could you please clarify to what you are referring? meshach (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, administrators have extra tools at their disposal, which gives them an advantage over ordinary users. Second, administrators are entrusted with the tools because they are considered trusted users, consequently others will look up to them, trusting them so set an example how to act properly. That's why I would like to see proof of article writing in an administrator candidate. Can the candidate exercise editorial judgement when confronted with a pile of sources that disagree, can he act neutrally and broker compromises in contentious areas? We have no proof that this one can. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the premise that one must have a near-perfect article in order to be able to fairly assess consensus in other content areas. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some further discussion of this at User_talk:Colonel_Warden#About_your_oppose. Warden (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that admins had the power to "adjudicate in disputes" more then a regular editor. Could you please clarify to what you are referring? meshach (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- Too many edits in places like Teahouse and talk page, not enough contributions to articles. However, I am impressed by your CSD log. Keep it up! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Weak candidate. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide diffs or a particular reason you feel this way? This would probably help Writ Keeper better understand a shortcoming if you think one exists. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I suppose people focus on things like deleting articles and such, but if an admin is supposed to spend some amount of time getting involved with disputes, and that admin has almost no experience in editing issues especially with controversial articles, it's hard for me to see how useful they'll be as real admins. I see that few seem to care about the need for broad background experienced admins, but I just want to make that point, as this is my first vote on admins. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably should note that in Q1, Writ expressed that the places he would intend to perform admin work would not be in area closely related to content disputes (e.g. CSD, UAA, and AIV). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't get that from my questions. What I got is that they still require assistance in this area even though they feel they have experiance in DR.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Current admins also require second opinions and validation from others. I do not believe candidates are required to be strong in every situation where the tools can be used; that the candidate knows where his limits are and when to ask advice from another admin should be looked upon favorably, particularly given that there are other administrative duties for which the candidate is well-prepared. But again, even if he was working at 30, Writ's responses suggest his goals as an admin do not really seem focused on resolving content disputes. I think this is reasonable given his editing history. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to the Wikipedia Law that requires me to defend my vote so vociferously? Do you attack the supporters with such vehemence? I don't see you doing that. In fact, there seems to be AGF for every support, even the ones that say "seems like a swell fellow", but every oppose gets the "you don't know what you're talking about, so explain yourself, because obviously you're a dick to question this swell fellow." How fair is that? I mean, the vote is a wipe out, everyone pretty much thinks that WritKeeper, despite hardly doing anything to build an article, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, supports his becoming an Admin. I don't get it. I don't get why you all think he deserves it. I made my point, yet you require a dissertation on why I think that's my point of view. I made it as succinctly as possible, thinking that WP:TLDR is a good guideline. But I'm willing to read the golden rule as to why I, as an oppose, need to justify my vote in such detail when the supports aren't required to do so. Where is it? Is it somewhere handy? Shall I genuflect before my next vote? Seriously, I can't wait to see how that works out democratically. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question: no, there is none. Without any consideration to yours or I, Jethrobot's POVs, I don't see that I, Jethrobot asked you a question. He merely stated that you may want to look at the candidates answers, then responded to what someone else said. You aren't required to defend your !vote in any way, however it is expected that opposition !votes will usually explain in more detail why they are opposing as opposed to support !votes which are simply taken to be "per nom" !votes. (This was recently discussed at WP:BN in depth). Legoktm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to the Wikipedia Law that requires me to defend my vote so vociferously? Do you attack the supporters with such vehemence? I don't see you doing that. In fact, there seems to be AGF for every support, even the ones that say "seems like a swell fellow", but every oppose gets the "you don't know what you're talking about, so explain yourself, because obviously you're a dick to question this swell fellow." How fair is that? I mean, the vote is a wipe out, everyone pretty much thinks that WritKeeper, despite hardly doing anything to build an article, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, supports his becoming an Admin. I don't get it. I don't get why you all think he deserves it. I made my point, yet you require a dissertation on why I think that's my point of view. I made it as succinctly as possible, thinking that WP:TLDR is a good guideline. But I'm willing to read the golden rule as to why I, as an oppose, need to justify my vote in such detail when the supports aren't required to do so. Where is it? Is it somewhere handy? Shall I genuflect before my next vote? Seriously, I can't wait to see how that works out democratically. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Current admins also require second opinions and validation from others. I do not believe candidates are required to be strong in every situation where the tools can be used; that the candidate knows where his limits are and when to ask advice from another admin should be looked upon favorably, particularly given that there are other administrative duties for which the candidate is well-prepared. But again, even if he was working at 30, Writ's responses suggest his goals as an admin do not really seem focused on resolving content disputes. I think this is reasonable given his editing history. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't get that from my questions. What I got is that they still require assistance in this area even though they feel they have experiance in DR.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably should note that in Q1, Writ expressed that the places he would intend to perform admin work would not be in area closely related to content disputes (e.g. CSD, UAA, and AIV). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and rather strongly. He hasn't made more than 13 edits to any one article. He has done good work in speedy deletions but the goal of Wikipedia isn't just deleting the bad stuff, its about content creation as well. An administrator needs experience in content creation to really understand how things work here, and I can't support a candidate with so few contributions. Should this not pass, I'd urge the candidate to spend less time in the Teahouse and to turn off the CSD log in Twinkle that is inflating his edit count. AniMate 18:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear AniMate, if I added correctly you had made a total of 3966 edits up until the month before your RfA passed...I'll grant you that a large majority of them were to articles, but still! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Drmies, generally I don't like replying to those badgering people they disagree with, but I didn't oppose on the basis of a total edit count. I've supported editors with far fewer edits that Writ Keeper who showed that they understood article building and content creation. I opposed because the largest numbers of edits he has made to a single article is 13. If he spent more time building and shepherding articles, I'd gladly support. AniMate 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I too dislike commenting on allegations of RfAs I don't plan to !vote in, or about badgering, or whatever else i'm about to do... but Drmies' point is actually quite insightful, and while I actually think I support AniMate's position here... in that there's quite too likemeaningful content edits... I also think this points out how insane RfA is... not just now, but always... many of the current admin core would never make it in if they ran RfA today. But you're both right, in certain aspects. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Drmies, generally I don't like replying to those badgering people they disagree with, but I didn't oppose on the basis of a total edit count. I've supported editors with far fewer edits that Writ Keeper who showed that they understood article building and content creation. I opposed because the largest numbers of edits he has made to a single article is 13. If he spent more time building and shepherding articles, I'd gladly support. AniMate 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear AniMate, if I added correctly you had made a total of 3966 edits up until the month before your RfA passed...I'll grant you that a large majority of them were to articles, but still! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lack of experience. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (Hopefully this will pass anyway.) Per the combination of short tenure and way too few article space edits. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposeWrit Keeper does not need the admin tools to do his techno magic, as he has already thoroughly proven. Promises to stay away from areas where he has no experience are better than no promises, but are neither enforceable nor, in the heat of the moment, realistic, no matter how honestly meant. And lastly, WK has limited experience in two significant aspects of admin work: content creation and dispute resolution. Keep on your current general track, write some more articles and get more visible experience in dispute resolution, then come back in 6 months or a year. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per RegentsPark and Bielle. --John (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Symbolic/Maine driver's license theorem oppose. WK is headed for promotion. Q1 starts out fine (work at UAA and AIV; has 105 edits to UAA and 47 edits to AIV; later edit filters), but then gets a small bit unfocused (help where can). I like the reserved stance. Tenure is fine. Edit count has 1100 article space edits that stuck, and that raises a concern about editing experience. The article space edit distribution is skewed from what I expect -- 14 percent article + 4 percent talk. (CSD edits would be multiplied by 3: 1 for article tag, one for user talk, and one for CSD log; successful CSD tag would delete article edit.) I don't have hard limits for edit counts, but edit counts can suggest issues. Article space tags require reading and understanding the article, but good CSD tags would not give rise to much debate. That explains Q3 revealing no significant conflict. I want to see admins have significant conflict and be on both sides: stepping and stepped. I want to see balance and exposure. High article edits also imply exposure to consensus building in difficult situations. CSD tagging skills are fine. AfD main diagonal shows accuracy, but keep votes nearly absent (the confusion matrix has errors). Not only is the candidate weak on content creation, but also primary effort is deletion (many AfD noms). Candidate is missing some valuable perspective. At User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/1#Firearm Cartridges, WK minimizes newbie Fundamental Motivation's complaint about WK's 10K character revert as "you spent just above one hour on this, not many". See also User talk:Fundamental Motivation. WK reverted FM's first eight edits ever; FM rallied to fix problems over the next few days, but FM stopped editing within a month. There were problems with FM's edits, but I wonder if a content editor might be a little more sensitive. WK's answer to my Q14 was fine; GNG is the issue for elementary schools. WK will be a fine admin, but I want to see broader exposure/experience. Content work has significant benefits. Glrx (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For those of us who don't know, what is the "Maine driver's license theorem"? Legoktm (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Q6 is wrong -- admins don't get to close consensus discussions based on which policy argument they like best. That's called "supervoting" and it's been a problem for some admins in the past. In addition, the mainspace edit activity is not exactly impressive. That said, this looks like it'll pass, and I congratulate you on being the first candidate in two months to pass RFA, but please be careful with the tools when you get started. Townlake (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lack of experience in main article space editing. Until we have specific sets of admin tools for specific jobs I can't support any candidate with the full range of admin tools / responsibilities GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been giving this candidacy a lot of thought, because I'd like to support you; however, there are some issues which prevent me from doing so. Mainly it's your lack of experience dealing with content disputes that gives me pause — trust me, when you are an admin, disputes have a way of finding you —, but I also think some of your answers are off the mark. That said, it looks like this RfA is going to pass, so I'd like to echo what Townlake said: congratulations, but please be careful. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Q10 response nudges my concerns that you spend a lot of time in social areas without having gained cue on dealing with tricky situations, something you should be comfortable with before becoming an admin. Maybe you won't be a bad admin, but I would like to see that your number to the tally would be a benefit. I don't see that, so I see no reason you should get this hat. -Eau(W)oo (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm satisfied by the quality of his CSD log. However, I've noticed a remarkable total of 4 edits to RFPP. Slightly concerned about deletionist tendencies in the AfD !votes (91% delete, and 5.5 speedy delete). I understand that this is a result of most of his contributions to AfD being his own nominations, but I'd prefer to see some participation in discussions. Mild objections about the 46 reports to AIV, but concerns about sparse participation there (none in October, 4 in September, 1 in August, 4 in July, 2 in June). No concerns about experience at UAA. Stronger concerns about a lack of content creation, and what I see as limited contribution to content. I think it's important for admins to have some experience creating content and collaborating with other editors to know what the point of Wikipedia is. Basically, although I appreciate the candidate's experience and willingness to help, I'd feel more comfortable if he had more experience. He's ready for UAA, but I feel that article work and creation is a must for admins involved in CSD, even though he has good enough experience in CSD tagging. Not enough confidence for RfPP or AIV, and adminship is a package deal, so I oppose this nomination.--Slon02 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I don't want to oppose, but I can't support you in good faith. Not that I think you'd misuse the tools for any particular reason or anything, but a dichotomy of your contributions show me something: your total number of edits are, roughly, 9,900. Of those edits, the article namespace is the third most edited namespace behind the user and user talk namespaces. Non-essential areas of Wikipedia where you have the most edits are: User:Writ Keeper/CSD log (1,300 edits), Wikipedia: Teahouse/Questions (325), Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge (100), Wikipedia talk:Teahouse (100), your own talk page (250) and User talk:Drmies (100). I think my point is these are your most frequented pages, and I think if you cut them out, a fourth of your edits no longer being there is significant, to me at least. I think if you expand your horizons beyond these few pages, you'd make a fine administrator. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as his CSD log is auto-generated by Twinkle and is mainly used for the benefit of the log-keeper to assess their own CSD tagging and improve based on it, I don't see anything wrong with continuing to update it. (No opinion on the other pages though.) Legoktm (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's something more editors should do with deletions they tag, but I think when it takes up a significant portion of their contributions (along with the other pages combined), is when it makes me reluctant. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it makes a difference, but the namespace breakdown doesn't include the 1900 deleted contribs, which, due to CSD work, are mostly edits in article namespace. I guesstimated a few weeks ago that about 27% of my contribs are in the article namespace when taking that into account. Regardless, though, it's a fair criticism, and the one thing that really gave me pause when I was thinking about running. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, and it's nothing against anything you've done, since I think you've done a good job from what I've seen. By the end, I may switch to support based on more !votes. Keep up the good job. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it makes a difference, but the namespace breakdown doesn't include the 1900 deleted contribs, which, due to CSD work, are mostly edits in article namespace. I guesstimated a few weeks ago that about 27% of my contribs are in the article namespace when taking that into account. Regardless, though, it's a fair criticism, and the one thing that really gave me pause when I was thinking about running. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's something more editors should do with deletions they tag, but I think when it takes up a significant portion of their contributions (along with the other pages combined), is when it makes me reluctant. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If contributing to Wikipedia:Teahouse—a project specifically to help retain newbies better!—isn't considered a huge positive for a candidate, I'm not sure what can be. Seriously. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's what Moe is saying, he's making a comparison to the amount of edits to those pages compared to the amount in the mainspace, saying that the candidate needs to balance xe's efforts/edits. (Please correct me if I'm wrong Moe) Legoktm (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, you could become an administrator by making lots of main namespace contributions and not editing the Teahouse project, not the other way around. I'm not saying it was a negative that he edits there, it isn't, but I stayed neutral since there was such a large fraction of his contributions to these few pages. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's what Moe is saying, he's making a comparison to the amount of edits to those pages compared to the amount in the mainspace, saying that the candidate needs to balance xe's efforts/edits. (Please correct me if I'm wrong Moe) Legoktm (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly agree with Tom Morris...if helping new editors out and retaining them so this project won't fall apart in a few years when all of our current editors get fed up with the system isn't a top priority and thus is considered "insignificant", I would like an example of something you think is significant. Go Phightins! 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quantify or guesstimate, but I think WK spends very little time on my talk page discussing the weather or the Cowboys. Go through and you'll see that he has helped out more than one person who came by my talk page to ask me something--those helpful comments are one of the reasons I think he'll make a good admin, and I'm always happy to see his responses to others' questions. Back in the good old days, Bbb used to help out a lot, but since he started running his own store he's become something of a stranger... Drmies (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually have no doubt that Writ will make a fine admin, I just don't agree with many of the first answer I recieved. That is not saying they are wrong, just that I see admin in a different manner than I think even admin see themselves.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go Phightins!: I am talking about significance in relation to being an administrator, not in relation to any other activity on Wikipedia. Is Teahouse significant? Sure, I suppose it could be. However, editors who spend all their time there are not contributing in a way that an administrator needs tools. Significant pages are administrator noticeboards, non-admin closures of XFD's or RFC's on talk pages (or at least participation in these discussions), and other pages where administrators would have to spend their time when they get the tools. The Teahouse doesn't need administrator tools, sorry. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you there...when new users have questions, they could be in relation to deleted articles they've created, abuse from other editors, reports of vandalism they don't know what to do with, etc. Not saying that the Teahouse should require admin tools, but having someone who operates there who does might be a helpful thing. Go Phightins! 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no doubt there could be use for administrator tools (almost any area of Wikipedia could benefit from someone with administrator tools being there). My neutral vote is based on my confidence in him needing administrator tools, outside of anything else. While he may be valuable in the area of CSD, he has significantly less experience in other areas where administrators need the tools. When he's thrown out to the wolves as an administrator to do tasks like protections, blocks and closing heated disputes, his work at Teahouse isn't much of relevance there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I respect your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Go Phightins! 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. It's not like I'm trying to poison the well or persuade !voters otherwise, it's just my personal set of standards at RFA that they are active in these areas. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is the only place dealing in the business of knowledge where one could get away with the quantity > quality argument. There isn't any logic being used in your arguments besides saying that he needs to work in every area of the site to necessitate the tools. This wouldn't make sense anywhere else in life... and it makes even less sense here. Why is it so hard to simply look at a candidate's actions where they actually have participated, and from there be able to judge their character and decision-making? Seriously folks... it's called manageable risk. Life is too short for this "he hasn't shown in 15,000 different ways over the last 10 years if he can be trusted" crap. Different people can help this project in different ways... not everyone needs to help it in the same 20 ways to get to doing what they actually enjoy. In other words they don't have to fit into your perfectly sized box to be able to assist this site. If we continue to fail to understand this concept, Wikipedia will slowly and surely lose any and all chances at keeping motivated editors/admins in the long run, and the entropy will reach its maximum levels with ease. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm about sick of people putting words into my mouth. I never said he needed more edits for quantities sake, I said he needed more edits outside of the six pages I linked to, which ¼ of his edit count is attributed to. I also said that he does good work in CSD and in the particular areas that he likes to works in, but those areas don't necessarily need administrative tools. I was just coming back here to change from neutral to support because of the outpouring of support other editors have shown in him enough for me to trust him. However, I will not be bullied into it when I !vote neutral of all things because he doesn't meet my typical standards. Furthermore, this discussion should have ended when Writ Keeper himself acknowledged this was something he thought might be brought up and it was something he was working on to improve, which I would have been satisfactorily changing my !vote right now. So at this time, I'll kindly ask you all to shut up and stop badgering me, because I'm not changing to support now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because that's definitely the most mature way to handle communicating with others. I don't care how you !vote, I'm simply tired of hearing these unreasonable and logically unreasoned arguments constantly being brought up at RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being active in dispute resolution, blocks and protections where the candidate may or may not have trouble (considering a lack of activity at relevant noticeboards) is not something logically unreasoned nor unreasonable. You can quit hounding those who are neutral and borderline supporting the candidate, if you want. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can gaslight and label my opinions however you see fit. But it does not change the basis of my argument. Which is that it's not necessary for an administrator to be familiar with each and every part of the site to be effective. Instead, one must only show the competence necessary to use the tools, and show the ability to comprehend and enforce whole community level policy. It's not so difficult that it requires you to be 100% knowledgeable on every aspect nor to have shown experience with every aspect. It only requires the capability of intelligence, comprehension and reasoning. - Your requirement to have an editor show that they are tested in each specific area is simply not possible (or reasonable) and therefore is illogically based. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis of your argument is illogical, considering I never said he was required to be effective in every part of the site. Provide the diff of this, and if you can't, go back to my previous suggestion. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, enough. I appreciate the efforts and best intentions on both sides, but I don't think we're going anywhere with this. Moe has a right to his opinion, and though I disagree with it, he has a right to !vote as he wishes based on it. We don't need to make a big production out of it, or at least, a bigger production than there already is. I probably should've stepped in sooner, but I wasn't even aware there still was conversation going on here; I've been trying to avoid participation in these threads after the last big one ended poorly. In my experience, once we get into who said what exactly and who is or isn't being logical, it's only downhill from there, so I think we should just leave this be. We have drama to spare right now, don't need even more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis of your argument is illogical, considering I never said he was required to be effective in every part of the site. Provide the diff of this, and if you can't, go back to my previous suggestion. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can gaslight and label my opinions however you see fit. But it does not change the basis of my argument. Which is that it's not necessary for an administrator to be familiar with each and every part of the site to be effective. Instead, one must only show the competence necessary to use the tools, and show the ability to comprehend and enforce whole community level policy. It's not so difficult that it requires you to be 100% knowledgeable on every aspect nor to have shown experience with every aspect. It only requires the capability of intelligence, comprehension and reasoning. - Your requirement to have an editor show that they are tested in each specific area is simply not possible (or reasonable) and therefore is illogically based. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being active in dispute resolution, blocks and protections where the candidate may or may not have trouble (considering a lack of activity at relevant noticeboards) is not something logically unreasoned nor unreasonable. You can quit hounding those who are neutral and borderline supporting the candidate, if you want. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because that's definitely the most mature way to handle communicating with others. I don't care how you !vote, I'm simply tired of hearing these unreasonable and logically unreasoned arguments constantly being brought up at RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm about sick of people putting words into my mouth. I never said he needed more edits for quantities sake, I said he needed more edits outside of the six pages I linked to, which ¼ of his edit count is attributed to. I also said that he does good work in CSD and in the particular areas that he likes to works in, but those areas don't necessarily need administrative tools. I was just coming back here to change from neutral to support because of the outpouring of support other editors have shown in him enough for me to trust him. However, I will not be bullied into it when I !vote neutral of all things because he doesn't meet my typical standards. Furthermore, this discussion should have ended when Writ Keeper himself acknowledged this was something he thought might be brought up and it was something he was working on to improve, which I would have been satisfactorily changing my !vote right now. So at this time, I'll kindly ask you all to shut up and stop badgering me, because I'm not changing to support now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is the only place dealing in the business of knowledge where one could get away with the quantity > quality argument. There isn't any logic being used in your arguments besides saying that he needs to work in every area of the site to necessitate the tools. This wouldn't make sense anywhere else in life... and it makes even less sense here. Why is it so hard to simply look at a candidate's actions where they actually have participated, and from there be able to judge their character and decision-making? Seriously folks... it's called manageable risk. Life is too short for this "he hasn't shown in 15,000 different ways over the last 10 years if he can be trusted" crap. Different people can help this project in different ways... not everyone needs to help it in the same 20 ways to get to doing what they actually enjoy. In other words they don't have to fit into your perfectly sized box to be able to assist this site. If we continue to fail to understand this concept, Wikipedia will slowly and surely lose any and all chances at keeping motivated editors/admins in the long run, and the entropy will reach its maximum levels with ease. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. It's not like I'm trying to poison the well or persuade !voters otherwise, it's just my personal set of standards at RFA that they are active in these areas. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you there...when new users have questions, they could be in relation to deleted articles they've created, abuse from other editors, reports of vandalism they don't know what to do with, etc. Not saying that the Teahouse should require admin tools, but having someone who operates there who does might be a helpful thing. Go Phightins! 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quantify or guesstimate, but I think WK spends very little time on my talk page discussing the weather or the Cowboys. Go through and you'll see that he has helped out more than one person who came by my talk page to ask me something--those helpful comments are one of the reasons I think he'll make a good admin, and I'm always happy to see his responses to others' questions. Back in the good old days, Bbb used to help out a lot, but since he started running his own store he's become something of a stranger... Drmies (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral(moved to support) – You seem like a good editor, but I can't support someone who has only been registered for a year. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Pure curiosity, what time length do you think would be sufficient? Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, I'm maybe thinking of 3-5 years with a consistent edit count. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that to be a bit unreasonable. I wrote a quick script with the API and found out that: Out of 1133 current admins (325 had errors due to re-naming, the old log, etc.) at the time of promotion,
only 239 had been around for 3 years, and 68 for 5 years(updated below). While the standards for adminship have definitely gone up over time, I don't think they've gone up that much. Legoktm (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- That (the no. of admins that have been around for 3 years and 5 years) accounts for 37.99% of the population, not including the errors. And you didn't mention the admin that have been around for 4 years. I'd like to know also for the other years (0-2, 5+). TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I tend to agree with Legoktm that your standard seems a bit excessive; I know this isn't statistically significant, but when I passed my RfA, I had been editing Wikipedia for less than a year and a half — and, by the way, less than a year later I was also made a functionary... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see about 2.5–3 years of editing, though I would consider supporting someone who has a very consistent edit count over 18–24 months. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I tend to agree with Legoktm that your standard seems a bit excessive; I know this isn't statistically significant, but when I passed my RfA, I had been editing Wikipedia for less than a year and a half — and, by the way, less than a year later I was also made a functionary... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That (the no. of admins that have been around for 3 years and 5 years) accounts for 37.99% of the population, not including the errors. And you didn't mention the admin that have been around for 4 years. I'd like to know also for the other years (0-2, 5+). TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that to be a bit unreasonable. I wrote a quick script with the API and found out that: Out of 1133 current admins (325 had errors due to re-naming, the old log, etc.) at the time of promotion,
- Here's some more complete data: Out of 1133 current admins (-325 errors), 286 were +sysop in <1 year, 364 were <2, 111 were <3, 60 were <4, and 68 were 4+. An important disclaimer is that I took into account the time the admin was last +sysop'd, which means if they were removed for inactivity and then given the right back, it would count the time they got it back as when they were +sysop'd. If anyone else wants this data sorted in a different way I can do so. (probably). Legoktm (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3-5 years of high edit counts is an absurd standard in my eyes. Thank you for debunking it with real data. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but a 2.5–3 year standard is in no way "absurd". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3-5 years of high edit counts is an absurd standard in my eyes. Thank you for debunking it with real data. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, I'm maybe thinking of 3-5 years with a consistent edit count. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure curiosity, what time length do you think would be sufficient? Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as his CSD log is auto-generated by Twinkle and is mainly used for the benefit of the log-keeper to assess their own CSD tagging and improve based on it, I don't see anything wrong with continuing to update it. (No opinion on the other pages though.) Legoktm (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one hand, it's absolutely absurd to see opposes for spending too much time helping new editors - probably the worst reason I've seen since my AfD was opposed because I walked away from a conflict rather than escalated it. On the other hand this CSD tagging was bad - tagging something as a hoax that was almost certainly true, this CSD tagging was bad - tagging as promotional a page that didn't promote anything (although it had a bit of a how-to to it), and every arguement they've ever made at AfD is delete, or some version thereof. I am concerned that this user would be way too fast to pull the trigger and delete articles that should be deleted (ironically enough, driving away new users and undoing all the good work at the teahouse.) WilyD 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't give an opinion on your first link (goes to a search box), but I would have deleted the second as promotional. Promo isn't always "Get our special offer now!!! Buy two, pay for three!!!!!!" stuff. "Many brands are taking advantage of this social networking tool because it gives them the opportunity to visualize their product and to promote it to a fast-growing base of users." and "is a very good tool for companies to launch photo contests that encompasses their brand’s message and vision" are promotional, That's just two bits out of the deleted article. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the second link, I would like to quote from the author's message to the deleting admin requesting a copy of the article "I understand you had a valid reason for doing so, but it was part of an assignment for a course". The copy was sent, and the author seems to have been happy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimfbleak&diff=next&oldid=513853994 Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I think you've missed a 'not' in your post. I could be wrong. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it was deleted as promotional, but the deletion was improper; I don't think the article was likely to be worth saving, but it's part of a concerning pattern of overzealousness that makes me reluctant to support the candidate (though I think not sufficiently problematic to oppose, either). WilyD 12:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the second link, I would like to quote from the author's message to the deleting admin requesting a copy of the article "I understand you had a valid reason for doing so, but it was part of an assignment for a course". The copy was sent, and the author seems to have been happy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimfbleak&diff=next&oldid=513853994 Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't give an opinion on your first link (goes to a search box), but I would have deleted the second as promotional. Promo isn't always "Get our special offer now!!! Buy two, pay for three!!!!!!" stuff. "Many brands are taking advantage of this social networking tool because it gives them the opportunity to visualize their product and to promote it to a fast-growing base of users." and "is a very good tool for companies to launch photo contests that encompasses their brand’s message and vision" are promotional, That's just two bits out of the deleted article. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I asked myself "Would I have a problem if you got the bit now", and I think the answer is no. I think you are a reasonable person who will listen to feedback if you make mistakes. That said, I don't think I can support you right now because I think you blew it on some of the username questions. Downwithwebclient101 could be a classroom account that needs guidance on setting up proper acedemic accounts. Or it could just be a regular user with a strange name. The fact that we have a user named webclient101 doesn't necessarily mean that the new account is related. Now if user:webclient101 came to me and said, "I'm pretty sure this is about me", then by all means, block it. The User:WikiReviewBot account is more of a "softblock on sight" type of thing, with a note that we don't allow accounts with bot in the name and an invitation to create a new account. We don't need to look for bot-like editing patterns, the name that implies bot is a violation in itself. You seem to be able to read policy and generally get what the idea behind it was, but I'd prefer to see a little more experience in the real-world application of it before throwing full support. I think if you do get the bit now you will operate in a cautious enough fashion to not cause serious problems, so that is why I will not oppose. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At present the opposes range from weak to ridiculous, but I'm wary of the low articlespace count (given that it's over a relatively short period of time) and especially the ratio of edits to the encyclopedia and its direct infrastructure compared to edits to the social stuff (WK has nearly half as many edits to user talk as I have, for instance, and three times as many edits to user talk as to articles). "I will avoid ANI" is also a bit of a shame: we need more clueful admins at ANI, which is supposed to be a quick way of getting admin action and not a clubhouse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think AN is where you can get a quick admin action, whereas ANI is...ANI. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the intention, and we need more admins who believe that. We need less admins (or indeed non-admins) who think ANI is a dramedy and treat it accordingly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think AN is where you can get a quick admin action, whereas ANI is...ANI. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm a bit concerned about the low activity in article creation that others have mentioned. Not enough to outright oppose, but it's still a concern.Intothatdarkness 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The opposes above are fairly weak in isolation, but many share a common theme. Candidates do not have to abide by anything said in the nomination statements or answers to questions.
I'm reasonably confident that Writ Keeper would gain non-admin experience of new areas before helping out with the tools. However, under the current RfA system there is virtually nothing that can be done if I'm wrong (in this case in relation to using the block button for content-related problems). I normally oppose candidates on this basis, but am neutral in this instance because of how well suited Writ Keeper is for the tasks listed in question one, and because of the Writ Keeper's clear statement that "I have no desire to go near ANI".
Give candidates the option to say what they have no desire to ever do, and to be held to such statements, and non-supports on these grounds would largely disappear. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While this may be true, even I, as the second opposer, would not support such a proposal. Nominators may eventually become comfortable in areas they may not be when intitially made an admin. We have to leave room for growth. I may not support Writ (even now) but he/she has to be given room to grow or change as they naturally would. W can't force them in a direction we, as editors, may want.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking from my personal experience, when I became an admin I figured I'd mostly delete stuff and patrol UAA, maybe moonlight over at AIV and RfPP every so often. About a month in, I started getting into handling AE threads, and eventually I got to dealing with really contentious RfCs. A lot of admins end up doing what they thought they would, but everyone tries different things upon becoming an admin and some end up going completely different directions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While this may be true, even I, as the second opposer, would not support such a proposal. Nominators may eventually become comfortable in areas they may not be when intitially made an admin. We have to leave room for growth. I may not support Writ (even now) but he/she has to be given room to grow or change as they naturally would. W can't force them in a direction we, as editors, may want.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (85/37/6); ended 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. WormTT(talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: thank you for your kind words, I accept QuiteUnusual TalkQu 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. 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
rulespolicy 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.
- 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
- 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 recognize 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)[reply]
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Additional additional note. Following the helpful comments raised here I have reviewed my whole 20K edit history and believe I have cleaned out the 5 / 6 articles where a paraphrasing problem remained as well as one where I identified problems not of my making. They may not be perfect and I will look at them again but hopefully the key issues are resolved. I know it is not part of this RfA but if anyone finds any further problems please do drop me a note so I can look at them or add a note here. Thanks to everyone who has helped on this QuiteUnusual TalkQu 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- User:Sexygirl398, who has no edits listed
- User:2c948s39d938m, who has 3 edits to a BLP
- User:PiliforDirector, who has promoted a "Palifor Foundation"
- User:Troll429384, who has 1 vandalistic contribution
- User:MyAngryRobot, who has 7 edits to various articles
- User:CorenIncDavid, who has promoted a "Coren Inc."
- User:John Smith Artist, who has just cited his blog, called "John Smith Artist"
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
- Edit stats are on the talk page. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 12:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- In before.. oh. Nominator Support. WormTT(talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Clearly not a danger to the project. Support, and good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Some of these answers are deeply troubling... Courcelles 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support checkuser on a medium-sized project a good sign. --Rschen7754 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to do this, but the close paraphrasing / plagiarism issue and lack of forthrightness in response gives me pause. --Rschen7754 10:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite unusual indeed. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reconsidering. T. Canens (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support checkuser on a medium-sized project a good sign. --Rschen7754 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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. Trijnsteltalk 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I resisted the temptation to say that his username proved he wasn't Tom Jones... Peridon (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No you didn't ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I resisted the temptation to say that his username proved he wasn't Tom Jones... Peridon (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Stephen 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The image of a trusted wiki editor. Juliancolton (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite an unusual RfA... Zac (talk · contribs) 01:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, everyone made the joke before me! 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The close paraphrasing pointed out below is a serious issue, and that's obviously something QuiteUnusual must avoid in the future. However, xe is a clueful and reasonable editor with an overall good understanding of policy and has responded to opposition with the diligence expected of a serious adminship candidate. The fact that xe is trusted on a sister project is a big plus. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Michael (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- No problems with this one. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- As it happens, I was standing at the time - but I take your point. WormTT(talk) 06:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Long editing history with no dead bodies and no trace of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor. Everything looks great. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support. Looks good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks to be a good candidate, no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any problems. Deb (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or their position.MONGO 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don't see a problem thus far. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trusted nom.—cyberpower OfflineTrick or Treat 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although he needs to brush up on citing/copyright issues. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)
- I think we use an overly strict application of what constitutes 'close paraphrasing' or correct paraphrasing. If it were so clear, then WP:PARAPHRASE would probably be a guideline or a policy, and not an essay. Fair use doctrine provides some guidance for situations such as these. I still think that the examples below fall into a gray area, but what matters of course is the community's consensus. I'm just suggesting that it is not a black and white issue as some have portrayed it. – MrX 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once you deal with real copyright violations as an editor and an administrator you get a new appreciation for the scope of the problem and the work done by the volunteers who clean it up. What we do not need is admins who are not clear on what is and what isn't a copyvio, or what is or isn't too close for comfort. I hope (haven't checked below today) that QU is addressing this somewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be assured that I am cross with myself for making these mistakes and I am addressing it. And I will address it in full by reviewing my whole edit history so it will take some time (progress log here for anyone who wants to watch this over the coming weeks). I am committed to a better encyclopaedia over any other concern and I am therefore genuinely grateful for those who pointed out my errors. Having found at least one problem that I didn't create, and looking at the difficulty of fixing it, I can better appreciate the concerns raised. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once you deal with real copyright violations as an editor and an administrator you get a new appreciation for the scope of the problem and the work done by the volunteers who clean it up. What we do not need is admins who are not clear on what is and what isn't a copyvio, or what is or isn't too close for comfort. I hope (haven't checked below today) that QU is addressing this somewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we use an overly strict application of what constitutes 'close paraphrasing' or correct paraphrasing. If it were so clear, then WP:PARAPHRASE would probably be a guideline or a policy, and not an essay. Fair use doctrine provides some guidance for situations such as these. I still think that the examples below fall into a gray area, but what matters of course is the community's consensus. I'm just suggesting that it is not a black and white issue as some have portrayed it. – MrX 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)
- 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)[reply]
- Support. Generally good contributions. A little shaky on the copyright issue, but not enough to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose. Good candidate. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The close paraphrasing issues have been acknowledged, and there seems no reason to believe that the candidate would not be less vigilant in future with regard to his own or others' contributions. Work in other areas (e.g. AfD, user talk) reflects understanding of policies, indiciating that the candidate would probably not stray into areas other than those specified without having a good understanding of them. -- Trevj (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Plenty of clue, and if nothing else the manner of this editor's dealing with the concerns about copyright expressed here is persuasive. RfA is never the most stress-free environment but this editor can respond without badgering, take feedback, modify their position and demonstrate exemplary calmness, intelligence and flexibility. I sometimes think RfA doesn't work too badly as a crucible; only when you heat a sample can you see whether it cracks, melts or moulds. This sample is holding up to the heat well. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.(s)he has good contributions and for a long time he has been in Wikipedia Greatuser (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a he, as per Worm That Turned's nom for QuiteUnusual. 15:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; with a admonition to go help at SCV for a while. More familiarity with copyright work can only improve what little weakness there may be there. — Coren (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User might wish to work on copyright a bit and get a better understanding, but where he cited everything, and it is so rooted in fact it does not discourage me from supporting. It certainly wasn't good, but it wasn't in the least malicious. NativeForeigner Talk 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I took a look at WP:Plagiarism and found that it spans the continuum from "Copying from an unacknowledged source" to "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution". Neither is a concern here. WP:Close paraphrasing might or might not be an issue for someone who was going to focus on copyright, but I can't see it being a bar to adminship. The answers to the questions are thoughtful and display more than enough clue. QU's handling of the issues raised here has been exemplary. This one is an easy call. GaramondLethe 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Support - we need some QuiteUnusual admins - variety is the spice of life.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pretty much per Coren. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. QU's handling of Oppose #1 shows clue and outweighs any other concerns I have. Would make a positive addition. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --LemonTwinkle 04:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Whilst one shouldn't place too much store in advanced permissions on other projects it does add weight. (indeed didn't we add +sysop to someone with very little tenure here but who required the bit for cross project work? - was probably a year or so ago). I note the opposes; there seems to be a valid concern over close paraphrasing but I still think this is an area that is not, and never will be, fully ironed out - and not just on Wikipedia. Bottom line is - abuse/misuse of the tools is minimal, and likely clueful use of them is high. Pedro : Chat 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He does seem proficient and trustworthy in the areas of adminship that he wishes to focus on, and his good standing as a sysop at Wikibooks is a further assurance that he will not misuse tools or trust here. I also believe that, as a result of this Rfa, he will be acutely aware of close paraphrasing concerns going forward, and so I cannot see myself opposing on those grounds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support . Although the edit count distribution and the few personal messages at first gave me pause, I'm happy to take his work on Wikibooks - a Wikimedia project - into consideration. He doesn't check all the boxes on my criteria either, but again, quite unusually, I feel I need to make an exception because I have rarely seen such excellent answers to the many questions, and they clearly demonstrate to me that this is an editor who can be trusted with the tools. While some opposers raise some interesting points, any bright line for copyvio/plagiarism is the subject for another venue, and the concerns expressed do not reduce my trust. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with choice to support, but the "bright line" for copyright violations is at Wikipedia:Copyright violations - in short, we don't accept them, and this is a legal constraint. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Per the user's answers to the questions and the extensive discussion here. The editor appears to be cautious enough to be trusted with the tools and he listens to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Been on the fence about this one for a while, but I think that this candidate will be a net positive, provided he be mindful of copyvios. Trusilver 15:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - User has good understanding of polices. I see no problems. Webclient101 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there's any reason to expect the candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems sensible, a sort that would use the tools well. Attribution issues are a more concerning, but shouldn't have much bearing on its work as an admin. The willingness to fix that also bodes well for dealing well with issues that may come up in other areas, and for admins issues always do. -— Isarra ༆ 01:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers and attitude. Ticks my most important boxes of trustworthiness and competence. The close-paraphrasing issue is not too concerning, admins cannot be experts in absolutely everything (I've heard they're human). Jschnur (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Contributed well to the encyclopedic efforts. Paraphrasing being a point of contention the only thing I can add; “…is the highest form of flattery” (sic Intentional ). ShoesssS Talk 17:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it flattery when the person being plagerized isn't even mentioned?```Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a Colloquialism based on Charles Caleb Colton pharse that; “'Imitation is the highest form of flattery”…see that I am guilty too. ShoesssS Talk 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it flattery when the person being plagerized isn't even mentioned?```Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User understand's most things! GOOD LUCK! (: --VJ.West (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have admittedly done no research on the candidate, only the oppose reasons below, and have found that they suck. Support to balance out the idiocy going on below. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I've seen his work around here and there, and he'll be a great admin; no concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—while the paraphrasing is a concern, I feel that QuiteUnusual has and will continue to learn from the concern it has raised. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 06:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I don't agree with oppose #2.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The paraphrase concerns that led to many opposes are valid, but I don't feel that they outweigh the numerous qualities that QuiteUnusual would bring to the adminship role. A reasonable amount of article experience, some solid contributions in UAA and AIV where QU plans to volunteer as an admin, and experience as an admin on a sister project, those allow me to overlook the other concerns. -- Atama頭 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think you have a sufficient handle on the site. I'm happy you intend to work on the backlogs at UAA. All of your answers to Q16 were excellent, except that "CorenIncDavid" should not receive a block. This falls under the "Mark at Alcoa" Exception, which was a precedent created approx. two years ago for username allowance. It's been codified for awhile now at WP:ISU, bullet point three. Continue your good work, and as always, re-review policies, guidelines, and consensus to stay afresh. If no one has pointed it out yet, Wikipedia:Plagiarism (a guideline) is a good article. NTox · talk 01:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The only area of concern for me was the close paraphrasing, and I'm confident that of all the future mistakes this user will make, close paraphrasing will not be one of them. Not after this experience. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe QU will not closely paraphrase again, and so denying him sysop rights on those grounds would be punitive. David1217 What I've done 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe that this entire process is too much like the litmus testing that a Supreme Court Justice must endure about hypotheticals and what one might do in some extremely specific circumstances. Rather, I'd prefer to support this nomination based on historical activity and my expectation that an admin will act accordingly appropriate when given the mop. Vertium When all is said and done 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support is justified in this case as I am certain that the genuine concerns relating to close paraphrasing will not re-occur. Lessons learned, he should be effective as an Admin. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to the questions. ☮Soap☮ 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason not to. It is experienced and active, and is already administrator (and checkuser) in another project. Érico Wouters msg 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close paraphrasing issues can be fixed with on the job (OJT) training.--v/r - TP 15:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a level-headed person with a good record and obvious respect for the Five Pillars, particularly civility. Strong commitment to the project. Unusually good understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses, frank admission of limitations rather than pretending to be an expert in everything, and clear intention to work only in the area of their strengths. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- 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)[reply]- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Going to point out a similar RFA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab. --Rschen7754 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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. WormTT(talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Incorrect. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Malleus is right. Plagiarism exists independently of the copyright status of the source. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the RFA I linked to above is a bit misunderstood. The two primary editors behind this were Ottava Rima and Peter Damian, both indefblocked years ago. Several concerns were brought up about Dave's writing, specifically original research accusations, etc. Plagiarism was more of a poisoning of the waters thing that Ottava threw out there, to see if the accusation would stick; it's the equivalent to "And hopefully you aren't beating your wife." As a fellow roads editor, I investigated and found many of these claims to be false. I don't see bad article writing as a problem. I see the type of close paraphrasing above as a problem, as plagiarism. The way I understand it, it needs to be in quotes for it to be kosher; of course, that's awful writing style, but it's legal that way. --Rschen7754 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus is right. Plagiarism exists independently of the copyright status of the source. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I had a few DYKs (slightly over a dozen at the time) but no GAs at all. GiantSnowman 11:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I'll take that as a compliment, Mark. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I had a few DYKs (slightly over a dozen at the time) but no GAs at all. GiantSnowman 11:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Plagarism: "The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."[2] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Hi, regarding your comment on why hadn't I tried to fix the problems identified. While I understood the points being made and could see the problem, I wanted to do some further background reading of the relevant links provided in WP (e.g., all the useful links provided from Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE) first. I also didn't want to give the impression that I was editing the articles to hide the problem from anyone else commenting at this RfA. This is not an attempt to get you to change your mind, just to reassure you that I've now looked at the article with the biggest problems and reworked it - it isn't perfect, but clearly it wasn't acceptable to leave it in its current form. I want to thank you and everyone else who has raised this concern here; it was definitely in need of addressing and (although I don't do much large scale content contribution) will certainly help me personally in the future. I will look at the rest of my contributions over the coming days to clear up anything else. Best, QuiteUnusual TalkQu 08:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plagarism: "The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."[2] 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- No worries. And thank you for expressing the compliment. My apologies for not discerning that/understanding. - jc37 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Oppose Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Plagiarism. And edit counts are not relevant. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Oppose this time, per EauOo above. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmph. I hate to do this, but the plagiarism issue concerns me, and we can't have a CCI on an admin.
Also, the fact that it took a question to get the candidate to directly address the issue also concerns me.--Rschen7754 10:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Hi, just regarding it taking a question to get me to address the issue - the first oppose noting this concern was raised just after midnight my time on 18 October, when I was in bed. The question was asked at 4 o'clock in the morning when I was still in bed. When I had woken up and logged on, I answered it immediately, at 7 o'clock that morning. So, I think it is a little unfair to imply I was avoiding the issue as being asleep between midnight and 7 in the morning seems reasonable. Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, striking that part. --Rschen7754 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, just regarding it taking a question to get me to address the issue - the first oppose noting this concern was raised just after midnight my time on 18 October, when I was in bed. The question was asked at 4 o'clock in the morning when I was still in bed. When I had woken up and logged on, I answered it immediately, at 7 o'clock that morning. So, I think it is a little unfair to imply I was avoiding the issue as being asleep between midnight and 7 in the morning seems reasonable. Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose When there's plagiarism, there's trouble. And when it comes to the Philippines, I support the actions. Please comment on this question: "What is CCI?" At least he's a admin and a bureaucrat in Wikibooks, which is not much of a consolation prize. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 12:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – you want to work at UAA but your answer to 13a especially leaves me thinking that you would not do a good job of it. I disagree that it would minimise the risk of disruption to contact WP:RFO without blocking. Notice that, if their username really is that offensive, you can block them, thus preveting them from going on to vandalize any number of articles, and then per RD2 immediately RevDel their username out of the block log entry, pending OS. Now, if I am right in believing (a) that someone's creating such an account name is itself evidence that they will go on to try to cause disruption, and (b) that more people read the sorts of high-profile articles likely to be targeted by trolls than the number who read the block log, then letting this person edit just because someone might glimpse something offensive on Special:Log is a bizarre strategy. It Is Me Here t / c 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback, it's a fair point. But really I stopped by to thank you for not saying it would be a quite unusual strategy - it's surprising how quickly that joke has worn thin! Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think the answer to Q#13a was sufficiently deficient to draw an oppose !vote, though I agree that It Is Me Here makes a good point. The aspect of that question which I had hoped to see highlighted, particularly regarding the expressed desire to assist at wp:uaa, was to ensure that you check to see if a report was filed at UAA; obviously these would require suppression as well. Within the past week a BOT report sat stale while UAA accumulated a backlog and it's presence necessitated the suppression of all subsequent reports until such time as it had been removed. So I was wanting to see the issue of avoiding further suppression addressed. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback, it's a fair point. But really I stopped by to thank you for not saying it would be a quite unusual strategy - it's surprising how quickly that joke has worn thin! Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Intothatdarkness 14:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and neutral !votes typically require more explanation, since these two sections are designed to be discussion-based to help the candidate understand why someone is not supporting them. If you could, that would probably help QuiteUnusual. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to disagree with the perpetual badgering that goes on in these threads, and the concurrent assumption that people who don't write extensive support or oppose essays are too lazy to research votes. Short version: I share the concerns others have expressed regarding close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not badgering you, not asking for an essay nor did I call you lazy. I said it might help QuiteUnusual for you to write more than your signature. Your short version would have sufficed, rather than your assumptions. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to disagree with the perpetual badgering that goes on in these threads, and the concurrent assumption that people who don't write extensive support or oppose essays are too lazy to research votes. Short version: I share the concerns others have expressed regarding close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and neutral !votes typically require more explanation, since these two sections are designed to be discussion-based to help the candidate understand why someone is not supporting them. If you could, that would probably help QuiteUnusual. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per plagiarism concerns. --John (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Goodvac, Malleus, John et al...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Both Dennis and Ryan make good points, however I have to agree that the concern with close paraphrasing (something even Jimbo Wales has spoken to directly) is enough of a concern to oppose this candidate at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In light of copyright/paraphrasing issues I cannot support. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a curious number of supports above that have point-blank said there are no concerns with this candidate, and more that offer no rationale or joke rationales for supporting. I wouldn't bother to oppose here, but the close paraphrasing thing does at least merit consideration, and many supports seem to be entirely ignoring it. In my opinion, not every possible fact needs to be included in Wikipedia; if the options are to violate copyright or omit a trivial fact, omission may be the better part of valor. (Worth noting: This RFA was 25-0 before goodvac's oppose. So a majority of new voters are still supporting despite the close paraphrase issue.) Townlake (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. His judgement in general seems below par relative to what I expect from admins. He seems to have very little admin-related experience outside of straight vandal reverting (per answers to Q6 & 7). Most his edits for the past year are semi-automated vandalism reverts and AWB-made style tweaks. I had difficulty finding any substantive content contribution of his in 2012. Also QU says here that we hardly need more admins anyway, and that other "thankless and unrecognized" tasks like adding references and so forth are much more important; yet he chose to spend most of his time on Wikipedia doing hardly any of those. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was this, this, this, this, this and this I was referring to when I talked of "thankless and unrecognised" tasks. There are all from a couple of week period around the time I made the comment. I stand by what I said that they are thankless and unrecognised. People may view them as trivial work, not worthy of note. I think though that outside of the FAs, GAs, etc., there is a whole stack of ugly, messy articles that need these small improvements if Wikipedia is to be of value to the fullest possible audience. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 13:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good that you did a few non-automated wording tweaks and ref formatting in April, but that's not what most editors would normally call substantive content contributions. Ok, maybe I'm a lazy meanie and didn't spot right away the hard work you must have put into that high-school infobox. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, to clarify - I wasn't trying to justify that I was a "substantive content" contributor; I know I'm not. Nor am I trying to persuade you to change your view of me in this RfA. Rather, I was just responding to your point that I didn't seem to do any of the "thankless" tasks I thought needed doing. I fully accept they are pretty trivial, but your comment made it sound like I had said earlier in the year that I felt this work needed doing, but didn't bother doing it myself. I don't like people who complain about something but don't try and fix it themselves and it sounded a little like I was being accused of that myself. So I just wanted to explain what I meant by a "thankless" task and pointing to a few I did. Maybe I'm over sensitive! Hope that makes sense, best - QuiteUnusual TalkQu 13:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good that you did a few non-automated wording tweaks and ref formatting in April, but that's not what most editors would normally call substantive content contributions. Ok, maybe I'm a lazy meanie and didn't spot right away the hard work you must have put into that high-school infobox. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was this, this, this, this, this and this I was referring to when I talked of "thankless and unrecognised" tasks. There are all from a couple of week period around the time I made the comment. I stand by what I said that they are thankless and unrecognised. People may view them as trivial work, not worthy of note. I think though that outside of the FAs, GAs, etc., there is a whole stack of ugly, messy articles that need these small improvements if Wikipedia is to be of value to the fullest possible audience. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 13:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I looked through the candidate's contributions for June. They seemed to be mostly mechanical patrolling and gnoming. That's useful work done well but the only time I notice him breaking out of this rut is for a porn bio. I'd like to see more content creation and participation in discussions. Warden (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One time where he did attempt to clean-up an article in a slightly more substantial way was back in March [3]. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I wanted to support but the paraphrasing issues make me unable to do so. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- Moved from support per plagiarism issues. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, but close paraphrasing and plagiarism are major problems on Wikipedia (and arguably more difficult to fix than the BLP problems - or at least more time-consuming). We can't have authority figures with those kinds of contributions in their history. I know there's an admin shortage, but an admin is, in many ways, a role model, and we shouldn't do anything to suggest that the writing practices detailed above are acceptable. Zagalejo^^^ 02:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose due to the answer to my question 15. I've been thinking about this a bit and think I'm going to have to oppose. Ideally I'd like to ask another question and see the response but I can't think of a way to ask it without giving the answer away hence the 'weak'. I have two concerns with their answer to Q15. Firstly I think there's very few occasions where something can't be rewritten but as the candidate gives a reasonable example with a good explanation I'm not too concerned about that. The second concern is their lack of mention of quoting the source. If it is necessary to use the same phrase then I'd like to see it as a fair use quote. This may well be what they mean by what they say in their answer but it's unclear. Dpmuk (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I didn't consider the point re. fair use quoting (had I answered 15 sometime later, having re-read the relevant guidance then I might have done, but that would be cheating!). But I didn't, so your contention re. my weakness there is correct. Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 19:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Do some work eliminating the paraphrasing, spend a few months editing without repeating the same mistakes, and I'll be happy to support. AniMate 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with regret I am familiar with the candidate's work on WB, which is outstanding. However, the points raised by others convince me that he has a bit more work to do before he is ready to be an admin here. No doubt I shall vote support next time.--Collingwood (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too much paraphrasing Puffin Let's talk! 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I landed in this column, I was in the edit window for the support column for about 10 minutes, but I just couldn't come up with a reason that would justify me supporting. You are definitely a trusted user on a sister project, that's not under dispute and no one is taking anything away from that, but this is another project altogether, with differences in policy and community standards. Now, I don't see any of the opposers alleging that you've copy-pasted dozens of articles directly from the sources, however there has been close paraphrasing issues, and n terms of legal liability, it's still an issue; one I just can't overlook I'm afraid. I don't doubt that wrongdoing was never intended, but demonstrating the ability to write content without close paraphrasing is important, as it may aid in detecting close paraphrasing or the use of copyrighted content in newly created articles, when patrolling CSD. Sorry. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - close paraphrasing issues and the impression I get that the candidate still doesn't quite get it. If you're going to be trusted with all the tools, you need to understand content creation and how NOT to do it, as well as how to do it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this time, mostly per Ealdgyth and others - might be willing to support in a few months once paraphrasing issues have been completely addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per any problem connected with 'close wording', 'plagiarism' etc. Hestiaea (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - First off, I thank the candidate for working hard at Wikipedia and for being willing to run the Rfa gamut. But as it stands, I cannot support a candidate with the type of issues this one has, largely the close wording objected to by multiple opposers. That and minor civility concerns give me pause. I feel the candidate needs to think things over and if still interested in using the admin tools, to try again next year. Jusdafax 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose The oppose reasoning mentioned above by various editors does carry weight for me. I'm sure that QuiteUnusual will take the opposes into consideration and reapply in three months or so... There's no harm in proving to the community that you can be trusted to follow our copyright issues to the tee. As said by Jusdafax, your contributions to our project are quite sincere and I too thank you for that. Will await your subsequent RfA. Wifione Message 07:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the plagiarism concerns. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposeI prefer to see more content creation, showing the candidate knows how to use sources rather than copy them. Vandal-hunting is much easier than content creation, and while necessary, is not a sign that speaks "potential admin" to me. Bielle (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Q6, sorry. but unilateral unblocks are pretty much a universally bad idea. Courcelles 17:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that, and agree with you completely. My concerns about this candidate are substantially reinforced. Jusdafax 17:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- 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)[reply]
- [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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Neutral. I really wanted to support this RfA, but the paraphrasing pointed out in the oppose section is too close for comfort. I have no doubt that QU added that content in the best of faith, and I don't think they are bright-line violations. But I can't put myself in the support column nonetheless. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Good candidate, but I have concerns about lopsided editing history; an admin, I feel, should have more experience with mainspace content. Miniapolis (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Rzuwig► 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per SomeGuy1221. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors