Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RegentsPark

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nichalp (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 28 January 2009 (→Oppose: reply to Ottava). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RegentsPark

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (41/3/3); Scheduled to end 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) – I bumped into RegentsPark in May last year during an acrimonious debate on the Burma/Myanmar naming debate. What struck me about RP, was that he maintained his calm and composure during the entire incident when temperatures headed northward all around. He is familiar with article writing standards, something critical to this project, although I have been prodding him to get at least one article featured as he writes pretty well. RegentsPark is well versed in policy and editing standards, takes part regularly in policy debates, understands the notability criteria exceedingly well (as evidenced from his participation in several contentiousness AFDs). He also participates in the RFA process, knowing fully well what is expected of adminship. While he does express concerns about what specific admin tasks he would like to take part in, I personally think that question is immaterial. The project stands to gain more from his experience and mature all-round thinking as compared to working on a specific admin-task. Regents Park has my full trust to make well thought of decisions as an admin. I wish him all the very best. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I’ll probably focus on WP:AFD and the parts of WP:RM where admin help is required since I have a bit of experience in these areas and have some sense of how to evaluate deletion and move requests. I’ll also start looking into helping out at 3 RR violations. By nature, I like to know what I’m getting into before jumping in but, once I’m comfortable, I swim like a fish. So, if I’m confirmed as an admin, I’ll slowly, but surely, start showing up everywhere.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Amongst the many things I do on wikipedia, I enjoy giving third opinions because they are a way to dispassionately look at an editing dispute and to give an opinion where I don’t have a personal (mental) stake. It amazes me that, in most cases, editors politely accept the opinion and move on and has lead me to believe that most regular wikipedians are open to discussion and to be reasonable for the good of the encyclopedia. Amongst article contributions, I was impressed with the stellar job that we collectively did on the 2008 Mumbai attacks where several editors, including myself, updated the article based on the news we were monitoring (I had a personal stake, my sister lives in Bombay not far from where the attacks took place) while others checked references and facts as they were added. I’ve worked on many other articles but the one I like the best is probably the most trivial, Charles J. Knapp. Trolling for stuff to do, I stumbled on this brief account of a 19th century US representative from New York and decided to update his biography. In the process of searching the archives of the New York Times, I discovered a lost town (Pepacton NY), a century old bank failure (the failure of the Binghampton Trust Company), and a criminal indictment of Mr. Knapp (some things never change in New York!) and left the article looking like this. For me, this ability to provide good information at the margins of knowledge is one of the strengths of wikipedia. The history of the United States or the campaign of Barack Obama are well covered elsewhere (if much harder to retrieve) but this succinct snapshot of Mr. Knapp and the failure of The Binghampton Trust Company exists only on 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: I think that the Burma/Myanmar naming debate that Nichalp mentions above is a good example of how I handle conflict situations. Nichalp conducted a straw poll on whether the article on Burma should be titled Burma or Myanmar. The straw poll was inconclusive in number but Nichalp decided that the case for Myanmar was stronger and moved the article. Naturally, all hell broke loose! As a strong proponent of the Burma title, my first reaction was ‘who the heck does he think he is?’ But, instead of immediately joining the angry protests, I researched his contributions, saw his prodigious record on wikipedia, and concluded that his actions were in good faith and that he had a point (we were swimming in the same shade of gray, but on opposite sides of the dividing line). So, I acknowledged that and questioned the process rather than the person or the rationale, not giving up until the action was reversed. I was still fairly new on wikipedia and, even in retrospect, I think I handled the situation well by not letting my judgement get carried away by my emotions. I believe that the vast majority of regular wikipedians are here to improve the encyclopedia and are willing to engage in reasonable dialogue as long as no one dumps on them, and that by acknowledging that their motivation is the same as mine (better articles), most conflicts can be resolved amicably. (The initial straw poll, Nichalp’s move, and the ensuing brouhaha - yes, Nazis entered the picture! - is here. The discussion on ANI is here.)

Additional question from Keepscases:

4. Please explain the "Department of WTF" section of your user page.
A: (WTF stands for 'Who that fellow', I think. Or was it World Transport Federation?) I don't remember how I got to that link but I kept it as a salutary example of how the best intentions can unravel on wikipedia. Wikipedia thrives on openness and cooperative editing, and secrecy and ownership is not likely to contribute to a happy ending.


Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- My understanding of the way this question has been set up is that the two involved editors are at odds with each other, not with the encyclopedia. GIven that, if the possibility of resolving the situation existed and I felt that it was worthwhile to continue to approach the user who was ignoring me, I would attempt to contact that user after first explaining my reasons to the blocking admin (as well as to the user who wasn't ignoring me). Assuming that I was able to engage the user and I felt there was meaningful new information to present at RFAR, I would not hesitate to submit a comment or statement of some sort. Finally, if arbcom rejected the case, and the users continued to be blocked but were both in communication with me, I would try to get them unblocked, first through the blocking admin, and then, if that didn't work, by involving other admins. I would do my best not to unblock them myself.
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A- A magic wand that would wish away vandals! Seriously though, more money for the foundation so that they can get better servers and a hassle free way of making some long term and reliable contributors into admins.
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- I wouldn't without taking the matter to AN or ANI first. I'm not sure what would warrant an indef block (except, perhaps, harassment or stalking or that sort of thing).
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- I think (I hope!) I would look at the quality of of the opinions rather than at the number of votes. Two 'delete' votes with strong reasons and more than two 'keep' (or no consensus) with very weak reasons should count as a delete (cēterīs paribus). If the differences were grayer, but there were good reasons to suspect socks, I might relist the AfD or close as no consensus. It depends.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A- This is a difficult question to answer (without an ‘it depends’). The main consideration in closing an AfD should be the strength of the arguments presented and so, in the trivial case, one good argument should be enough to close an AfD. However, in practice, I’d like to see more to make sure that some important consideration hasn’t been overlooked - especially if that opinion is ‘delete’. I’m not sure I can give a minimum number (‘it depends’ on the arguments, the type of article, BLP considerations, etc.) and can’t really comment on RfDs or CfDs because I have no experience in those areas.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A- As someone who is probably considerably older than the average editor on this site, I’ve gone through my fair shares of ups and downs in life and in work so I’m not worried about being stressed out. I won’t say I have a thick skin, I don’t, but I’ve learned how to deal with others in a way that doesn’t kill me. Somehow, I don’t see myself in the role of ‘dazed and confused’ but if I do find myself headed in that direction, it’s either a wikibreak or time to move on!
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A ‘Want’ is too strong a word! I think I can do more to help the project and so am requesting access to the tools available to an admin. With or without these tools, I’m sure I’ll continue to enjoy my experience here.

Q's from flaminglawyer

12. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. A block is a physical (well virtually physical) restriction on the editing ability of a user while a ban is a prohibition against editing (either a total prohibition or a restricted one) directed against a user. A block says "you CAN not edit" while a ban says "you MAY not edit this article/subject/entire wikipedia". Of course, a ban may be enforced by a block. Sort of, if I may use an imperfect example, being banned versus being thrown into jail under the apartheid SA regime. (This would have been a lot easier if I hadn't been banned from copy pasting!)
13. Upon what circumstances would you close an AFD as "no consensus?"
A. I'm not sure of this, or even if this is clear, but, if the notability of the subject of an article was unclear but it was not clearly non-notable, I would consider closing it as 'no consensus', especially if the article was non-trivial in length.

Optional question from Gazimoff

14. What are your thoughts on the proposal to implement Flagged Revisions? Are you for or against such a proposal?
A. The billion dollar question! I wish I could cut through the pros and cons of Flagged Revisions and and give a definitive answer, but I can't. On the one hand, credibility is the achilles heel of wikipedia and it is certainly not helped when a Kennedy is declared prematurely dead (or a Gandhi renamed Tom Goetz [1]). Flagged Revisions may help control this problem. But, I worry that, with Flagged Revisions, we’ll throw the baby out with the bath water. Wikipedia lives by its pool of editors and I worry that this pool would decrease when new editors fail to see their edit instantly made available to the world. Is it at all possible to keep the encyclopedia ‘current’ if every edit made by a ‘non-trusted’ user has to be reviewed by a trusted one? What about articles that rarely get edited? I think that on the whole wikipedia gets it right and, where it doesn’t, too often the problem is with established editors where the credibility issues are not obvious and flagged revisions won't make them go away (and might even exacerbate these problems). But, along with the negative publicity angle, I do see that every consumer who searches for Buckingham Palace and reads 'POOPOO IS COOL'[2] or 'A special girl livess theree :) called mee !!'[3] is potentially a lost consumer of wikipedia. So, let's say I'm ambivalent leaning uneasy about flagged revisions.

Question from seresin

15.I'm sure it's just me, but I'm having a hard time understanding some of your responses. So: Would you please re-answer the question about the WTF section on your userpage? Do you truly not find anything other than harassment/stalking to be grounds for an indefinite block? In your response to #13 above, and the subsequent clarification below, you only address notability as possible grounds for deletion. Articles are often sent to AfD for reasons other than notability. In a wider sense, when is a 'no consensus' closure of an XfD the correct one? Finally, you mention below that opinions should be "properly cited and referenced", and you also link to "WP:RS". Do you believe reliable sources, in the Wikipedia-context, are required for arguments in meta-debates? If you were merely addressing that the arguments need to be based in policy, what are your views on consensus (not numbers) necessarily being based on existing policy? Thanks for your time.
A. Most likely, it's not you but rather the quality of my answers. I'll try to explain things differently with the caveat that, since I am not an administrator and have obviously not used the tools, my answers are by necessity theoretical. (Also, you'll have to bear with me because this may take a while.)
1. Department of WTF. The explanation is fairly straightforward. Somewhere, probably while kibitzing on some WP page (since I can't find any candidate edits around the time I added this to my user page), I came across this link to a user talk page. If I remember correctly, it was presented as an example of how things can go wrong even with the best of intentions. So, I started to read it and was fascinated by the time I got to the end. Here, starting with the welcome message and ending with an block, on one user talk page, was a classical tragedy and morality play rolled into one. Complete with well-meaning editors (including several administrators) who go well beyond the extra mile to help this user. In the end, everything unravels as it must in good theater. You can't make this up. So I kept the link as a way of reminding myself that secrecy and ownership are bad things for wikipedia and that not every editor, however well meaning, can be brought into the fold. (Of course, since I barely visit my own user page, I forgot it was there until keepscases brought it up but, on rereading it, and perhaps I am the only one who does so, I still find it fascinating.)
2. Obviously, clear keep and delete XfD decisions are relatively easy to spot and the more interesting question is what I would do at the margins (this is re q. 13). I chose to focus on notability because I think that 'no consensus' decisions are the most likely where notability is unclear and also because that is the area that (I think!) I understand the best. General notability is almost exclusively defined by the quality of sourcing (see WP:GNG) and so a keep/delete debate wrt notability will likely need to make some reference to sources (hence the link to WP:RS). This may be as unsatisfying as my answer in q. 13 above but, philosophically, if, during the AfD debate, no clear grounds to keep the article emerged and weak grounds to delete the article emerged I would (other things being equal) probably close the discussion as 'no consensus' in the hope that someone would come along and build the article to the point where notability is clearer. There are obviously hundreds of exceptions (the other things being equal part) ranging from the amount of usable material in the article to BLP issues to developing news stories and I'm not sure I can be more precise than this, but, hopefully, my answer gives you some sense of where I lie on the include/delete spectrum.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • The answer to number 13 is particularly disturbing. Shouldn't closing an AFD as "no consensus" involve looking at the arguments presented in the AFD?—Kww(talk) 15:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I should have been clearer. The notability or non-notability would naturally depend on the nature of the arguments presented. I believe that the opinions of others, properly cited and referenced, carry as much weight, if not more, than mine (also properly grounded in WP:RS) do. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support
  1. Looks good enough for me :D Good luck, Garden :  Chat  21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice sig............. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Have you sunk that low, Garden? (I liked your WBOSITG sig the best...) flaminglawyer 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, what happened? LittleMountain5 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the Pedro Sig Cabal™!!! Run away in fear!!!!! SoWhy 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enthusiastic support. RegentsPark is intelligent, calm, fair, and efficient. What more can one ask for? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beat the nom Yes, looks solid, and Pedro's neutral reason although reasonable, isn't big enough for a neutral or oppose. --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Best I can determine, a reasonable and knowledgeable editor who calms disputes, makes sensible arguments, and builds the 'pedia. While I would prefer more tool related work, I do not see it as essential given the candidate's other qualifications and experience. While we can quibble over the precise meaning of the acronym in question (I think we get the drift), I accept Regents's explanation that he keeps it around as a sort of cautionary tale. My feeling is adminship will easily be a net positive for the candidate with little potential for abuse through personality flaws or misuse through a lack of understanding. Should do fine and probably does not need to be reminded, "when in doubt, don't-- ask instead." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to strong support Answers to my questions reinforced my perception of a reasonable editor not likely to oppose misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Looks good. Edit count and experience a bit shy of today's standards - but aren't we always saying those standards are BS anyways. Tan | 39 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Could do with more, and name seems familiar positive. Majorly talk 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Number nine... number nine... number nine... Anyway, support. I forget which user, but I've seen one user say that "we need admins like a fish needs water," and it seems to me that RP could be a good choice. --Dylan620 Hark unto me 00:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and beat the nom support, too. :-) --Dylan620 Hark unto me 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My support is implied :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see no problems. :) LittleMountain5 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Absolutely. I see no reason not to trust RP with the tools. Xclamation point 01:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support...for now - I thought you were already an admin. I'll keep an eye on this RfA, hopefully nothing bad jumps out... — Realist2 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support-I can find no reason why not to support so I will support.-Kieran4 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Comes across as thoughtful and careful. Good record as an established editor. I am certain that he will not misuse the tools and will take care to use them appropriately when he needs to. --NrDg 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seen him around, does good work. I trust this user with sysop tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Knowledgeable and trusted. utcursch | talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support User has been around since July 2007 and over 4000 edits after checking track find no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Looks fine. I share some (most) of Pedro's concerns, but not enough to not support a good candidate. Your answer to question #1 above about your approach to new areas is evident in your editing habits, and I don't see that suddenly changing when delving into admin areas. Hence, support. Keeper | 76 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Responsible, trustworthy editor unlikely to abuse the tools. Adminship is not particle physics and the candidate knows enough to know what he does not yet know (if that makes sense). I have every confidence the candidate will be a superb admin. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have no direct experience with the editor myself, but his work seems good and conflict handling is clueful. FlyingToaster 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I see nothing to raise my suspicions. Looks to be an excellent editor... give him the mop. Trusilver 07:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support responsible editor, understands wikipedia quite well. 118.95.99.72 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies but IP's do not have sufferage. Please sign in to your account. Vote indented. Pedro :  Chat  11:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support RegentsPark's name has appeared often on my watchlist and I have always found his article contributions and talk page discussions to be knowledgeable, and fair. I have also seen him participate in several (otherwise) contentious debates, and be a voice of reason and calm; giving informed opinion based on subject knowledge, wikipedia policies and common sense. Most impressively, I have seen him put in the time and effort to research and learn more about the discussed subject, in order to better understand the other participants' POVs. I trust his judgment and I think the qualities he has displayed will serve him and wikipedia well in areas of adminship he plans to work in. Abecedare (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -–Capricorn42 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No problems. America69 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Making my RfA !voting debut here, BTW :) I first became aware of RegentsPark through his work at WP:3O. This guy has a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and is experienced at conflict resolution (or at the very least sticking his oar in where its actually wanted). Give him the mop and bucket, and it's unlikely there be any complaints. Bettia (rawr!) 15:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Completely agree with flagged revs answer, we have to up our cred, but could lose out on the anon IPs that are so important here. Couldn't have worded it better myself. --Terrillja talk 17:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I have seen this editor exercise good judgment in difficult situations and believe in his willingness and ability to become a excellent admin. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support - I did not like the answer to question 13 very much, however, the answers to the other questions show an understanding of the policies that administrators use most often. You definitely will use the tools appropriately, and be civil about the situation, however, I would have liked to have seen a better answer to the 13th question. Razorflame 17:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: Cool and intelligent. --—KnowledgeHegemony talk 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I've seen him around, and I think he'll do fine the the tools. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Good judgment, has clue. — neuro(talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support An intelligent being with solid judgment. This is what I perceive of RP from the past contributions. --GPPande 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Good faith support due to no memorable negative interactions. Meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having barnstars and for having never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't know him too well, but looking through his contribs & history, he seems trustworthy enough for me. hmwithτ 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. All my encounters (primarily but not exclusively on WP:3O-related matters) with RegentsPark reinforce my perception that this nominee will be a great asset to the admin corps. — Athaenara ✉ 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. No problems, good judgement. rspεεr (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support for helping with the Salak drama. miranda 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom and per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Samir 01:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support: Seen him around for a long time. Is a level headed and good contributor. I can care whether he really needs the buttons , ALL I care is that I trust him with the tools -- Tinu Cherian - 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support per, WP:USERWOULDBEOVERALLBETTERWITHTHETOOLS. Wizardman 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I'm not going to even look at the questions or other comments in this case because I know he is an outstanding candidate, and I personally wish to thank the nominator for bringing this RFA forward. On more than one occasion, the candidate has tried to diffuse conflict in problem areas, without resorting to calls for blocks (as blocks were not necessary). Additionally, when use of tools become absolutely necessary, he will use them so that they benefit for this project - I trust him. Strong support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A weak answer to question 13. However the answers to questions 8 & 9 are reasonable. The deciding factor is that RegentsPark has a good track record of consensus-building. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, opposes are not convincing, and no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I don't see anything in which this user would need admin tools to work in the areas that he wants, unless he is suggesting that he wants to close deletion pages and we already have plenty of admin there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything. We have administrators working on every administrative function on the project. I'm sure you can post the data by which you have arbitrarily come to the conclusion that we have enough in any specific area? I'd be interested in reading it. Trusilver 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we already have plenty of highly qualified people in an area, why do we need an unqualified member in the area? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have seen lots of admins/b'crats retiring from time to time. So the more trusted people with the tools.., the merrier... -- Tinu Cherian - 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And why not? There's no quota restrictions, and two, being "unqualified" is a temporary stage. We all began our Wiki careers as an unqualified person. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose With so few edits to AFD, I feel this candidate needs more experience in this area to properly get a feel for that area. As it stands now this candidate has no use for the tools, in my view. ArcAngel (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What about edit wars and concomitant 3RR violations? Doesn't he need admin tools for curbing them and proceeding with dispute resolution? Warring parties don't take kindly to dispute resolution by laypersons (non-admins). He's superb, by the way, at mediation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate said nothing about 3RR vio's - I went with what he said in his nomination, that being to work initially in AFD and then SLOWLY work his way to other areas. I simply don't feel the candidate is ready to have the mop yet. ArcAngel (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've misquoted him slightly. He said in answer to question 1, "I'll start looking into helping out at 3RR violations," and only later, when talking more generally, does he say, "I'll slowly, but surely, start showing up everywhere." He can't very well do much with 3RR violations before he becomes an admin. The "oppose," of course, is your prerogative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Have to oppose per the WTF section and little to no AFD experience. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So a mere acronym would make RP unsuited for adminship? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Not sure here. You want to work at AFD but have less than 50 deleted edits, a handful of AFD noms and basically no CSD requests (well, one - a blatant one). I'm also a little confused as to the WTF link on your user page and I don't feel your reply to the question was adequate - surely you know what WTF is short for? I think you're pulling the wool over my eyes there, and I don't like that. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His comments in AFD discussions and his answer to question 9 show that he understands AFD. Anyway, "the WTF link" refers to a talk page archive of an indefblocked user [4], so I don't think you have to worry about his userpage casting uncivil aspersions on an editor in good standing :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral After looking through your interactions with others involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject India, I must say I am very impressed with your demeanor and even temperament. However, you have admitted to not being currently involved in some administration areas, so I'm not entirely convinced as to why you're asking for the tools. You've had very little activity in admin friendly areas, as mentioned by Pedro above. I think you're trustworthy, but if you had no interest in administration areas before applying, why are you here? Hence for now, I must remain neutral. --Chasingsol(talk) 11:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll answer this one for now. Being an admin does not mean that you *need* to use the tools overzealously. There are several admins who use the tools as and when appropriate rather than hang around in AFDs, patrolling new pages and so on. Since RP excels in the sangfroid department, it would serve the project better if he uses his admin tools for vandal reverts (like he currently does), protecting and unprotecting disputed pages and blocking disruptive editors. Admins of such calibre who can serve under editorial stress are rare. We (the community) need to recognise potential candidates and give them the mop rather than thrusting commitments of clearing IFD or CFD backlogs. Not everyone can be a jack of all trades. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral RegentsPark is a good editor and I do think we can trust him, so I don't want to oppose, but I can't support either. The answer to Q7 is the most distressing thing for me. There are plenty of instances where it's appropriate to indefblock a user, and an administrator has to be ready, willing, and able to "pull the trigger" when necessary. In addition, the weird "WTF" thing from his userpage gives me pause, and for someone planning on working at AfD, his answers to the AfD-related questions were unimpressive. A quality editor with admin-potential, but I don't think you're quite ready. But as this RfA apears likely to be successful, I wish you good luck! :-) faithless (speak) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RegentsPark&oldid=266946800"