Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- 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 an old revision of this page, as edited by Texcarson (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 1 July 2009 (→Current nominations for adminship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
↓↓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. |
The admin election voting period has started, and will close on October 31 at 23:59 UTC. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Texcarson | 1 | 9 | 0 | 10 | Unsuccessful | 17:26, 1 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mikaey | 66 | 6 | 1 | 92 | Successful | 06:08, 8 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arbiteroftruth | 13 | 22 | 8 | 37 | Unsuccessful | 01:45, 7 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mlaffs | 73 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 21:14, 1 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Texcarson | 1 | 9 | 0 | 10 | Unsuccessful | 17:26, 1 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mikaey | 66 | 6 | 1 | 92 | Successful | 06:08, 8 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arbiteroftruth | 13 | 22 | 8 | 37 | Unsuccessful | 01:45, 7 July 2009 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mlaffs | 73 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 21:14, 1 July 2009 | 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 21:17:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final tally: (1/9/0); closed per WP:SNOW by Juliancolton at 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Texcarson (talk · contribs) – I have been contributing here for 3 years and some months, 4 years on the italian wikipedia, and I think I've learned quite a bit in that time. Probably the biggest area where I've been active is in writing new pages and fixing some pages which existed already -- I've written a number of pages which are fairly short, but informative and interesting. I can help the community by deleting pages which are accumulated on the backlog, and can also check images which don't comply with the current guidelines. With time i can also learn a few tricks to improve my skills as administrator. There are 1500 or so admins, but the wiki needs far more.
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, i accept. Texcarson (talk) 15:58, 1 July 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: deleting pages which are accumulated on the backlog, and can also check images which don't comply with the current guidelines
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Probably Raphael Sbarge, and Antonio Raposo Tavares. Original creations which were improved as time passed.
- 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: Not many conflicts, i actually never talked much with people, however i keep a cool head while in boiling situations.
General comments
- Links for Texcarson: Texcarson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Texcarson can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Texcarson before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support I don't have a problem with you becoming an admin, if you're already one over at the Italian WP. iMatthew talk at 16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
- Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
- Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
- Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
- My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, switch to strong oppose based on the vandalism that led to the blocking. Clear cut lack of understanding indicated by inappropriate CSD tagging. This is particularly troubling and less than 500 edits ago. There's more. Dlohcierekim 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Your rollback request was declined a few hours ago. SUL (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. You have a nice balance of contributions, which is good, and you've been here for a few years, which is good. However, you have a history of blocks: 1 2, especially one from February, which is very concerning. Keep contributing and you should be ready in under a year, assuming you get the blocks behind you. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I appreciate that this user seems to have been a productive editor the last month or so, but with the exception of some minor edits there hasn't been a lot to show for since February, when the candidate apparently had a bad reaction to some of his uploads being tagged for fair-use issues. The manner in which the candidate responded to that issue was absolutely unacceptable and, even were he not blocked at the time, is enough to show that this user has yet to demonstrate the maturity or temperament required of an administrator. Shereth 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Now just isn't the right time for you I'm afraid. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, per vandalism history, block log, above diffs, and a stroll through the candidates talk page contributions. Recommend a solid year and ~5000 article-building edits before even contemplating another RfA run. Tan | 39 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Rollback request denied a few hours ago, the diffs, past vandalism all too much for me to support.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per this and this. Jafeluv (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose per recent vandalism. Aditya α ß 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (66/6/1); ended 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination
Mikaey (talk · contribs) – It's been almost 4 months now since my last RfA, and I think I've learned quite a bit in that time. Probably the biggest area where I've been active is in programming -- I've written a number of programs that are designed to help out the Wiki in one way or another. For instance, you may know me from my bots, ListasBot and DefaultsortBot. ListasBot has helped to bring Category:Biography articles without listas parameter down from the biggest backlog on WP:BACKLOG (at ~334,000 pages) to a "mere" 48,000 pages. I've also just recently written AarghBot, which is compiling a list of cut-and-paste moves (WP:New histmerge list) -- a project which uncovered far more cut-and-paste moves than I would have thought when I started. I also wrote WikiBiff, a program aimed towards people like myself, who want to know as soon as I have new messages or someone changes a page I've been watching.
Why am I running for adminship again? There's a couple of reasons:
- First, I created quite a backlog with WP:New histmerge list. 14,500 pages and counting. I'd like to jump in and help get that list cleaned up. I'm sure Anthony Appleyard would appreciate it.
- Second, I'd like to get back into vandal whacking. I actually had fun patrolling the wiki and keeping it clean. However, I can remember several incidents where, especially in the wee hours of the morning, when I would report a user to AIV, then sit and revert that user's changes for another 10-20 minutes before an admin came along.
- I'd also do some new pages patrolling and work in CSD. I say "some" because I'll admit that I'm not the most experienced person in that area. I have the idea down, and most of the time, the pages I tag are deleted for the reasons that I specify, but on occasion, they are deleted for reasons other than what I tagged for, and sometimes the CSD is refused altogether. My plan in that area would be to keep "new pages patrolling" and "work in CSD" separate for a while until I get more experience with it -- e.g., I would look at pages that other people had tagged for speedy deletion, and only delete those pages if I agreed with the criteria for which they tagged it. Also, I would not delete pages which I myself had tagged for speedy deletion.
So, with that, I present myself here for my second request for adminship. Matt (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ...is it possible to refuse a self-nomination? Matt (talk) 06:29, 1 July 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: See my statement above.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'd probably say that ListasBot is my best contribution. I've gotten a couple of barnstars for the work that bot has done, and I'm sure that WikiProject Biography (especially people like JimCubb) are grateful for bringing WP's biggest backlog down to less than 1/6 of what it was before. My bots in general are a testament to my cooperation with other users, as several of the tasks that I have received approval for are the result of suggestions from other users.
- 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 have. I deal better with situations where I can take a moment to compose my thoughts, look at the situation from both points of view, and figure out what the best course of action is; and the fact that this is a wiki affords me exactly that. If anything, I tend to play it conservatively in situations where I could end up pissing someone off (and I'm constantly afraid of that happening). As an example, back in May, I got into an argument with another user, shortly after DefaultsortBot went into operation, because the user felt that the bot was creating more work for users (such as himself) when the bot was fed incorrect data to begin with. Although the accusation aggravated me, I stayed calm, put the bot's operation on hold, and developed a rationale that showed that the bot wasn't actually creating any more work than what already needed to be done. Other users also stepped into the situation and put their two cents in, which I was extremely grateful for, but at the same time, I didn't go out and solicit their input -- it just so happened that because I gave the situation some time to cool down, other people noticed what was going on and stepped in to help.
- Very optional question from decltype
- 4. You seem rather humble about your knowledge in various areas. I see that you self-identify as an "intermediate" C++ programmer. If you have the time, feel free to examine this program. Is it well-formed? What, if anything, does it print?
- A: Holy hell, that code is a mess. I think I'd have to say that no, it's not well-formed. Let's see here...
- The program doesn't do anything, because main() is an empty function.
- main should be either be declared void, or explicitly return a value.
- C::buf -- Arrays can't have variables/function returns as their sizes, because the compiler needs to know at compile-time how big the array should be, and that won't be known at compile time. Alternatively, C::buf could be redeclared as char *, and have memory allocated to it by the constructor.
- Constructors don't return values, so there's going to be no version of f() that will match for "f( T() )". "f( T )" would be better, but f needs to be declared inside of struct C in order for it to work.
- It's not always a good idea to use the compiler built-in macros (e.g., __cplusplus) for array sizes. Since a program is only supposed to check whether or not the macro has been declared, its value could be unpredictable.
- I've never been a big fan of using cin/cout. Beginner's stuff.
- I could go on, but looking at that code makes my head hurt.
- A: Holy hell, that code is a mess. I think I'd have to say that no, it's not well-formed. Let's see here...
- Which compiler do you use? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim. Nominally 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- I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to send it over to RFAR, because I don't think you could show that all other alternatives to settling the dispute have been exhausted. I think ArbCom will probably reject it on that basis. Had the case not been sent over to RFAR, I would probably be poking and prodding the user ignoring me to try and get him to agree to mediation. However, since it HAS been sent over to RFAR, I would respect that admin's decision (admins wheel warring over users edit warring = not good), and let that play out as far as it goes. I probably would submit a statement to RFAR to the effect of "I was asked to mediate in this dispute, but user X has been ignoring me". It's probably not a good idea to try to continue mediation while ArbCom is deciding on a case, since anything ArbCom decides will overrule the results of your mediation, so I would keep communication between myself and the involved users to a minimum during that process. Once ArbCom had rejected the case, I would probably give a stern warning to both users, telling them how closely they dodged the bullet (try to put the fear of God into them, if you will), and try to get them back to the mediation table. Had that still failed, some form of mediation may still be possible with just the one user; however, I would probably start up a discussion at WP:AN over what to do with both of them, especially the user ignoring me.
- 6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- A- I like Wikipedia mostly the way it is. There's not a whole lot I would change. I would probably change something trivial -- e.g., make the Vector skin the default (although I don't remember it being that screwed up the last time I looked at it... :-\)
- 7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- A- There's very few circumstances where direction from ArbCom is required to indef block a user. "Persistent vandalism" is probably the reason that I would use most, but community ban, positive SPI, and violations of the username policy would also be some other valid reasons to indef block a user.
- 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- Well, as with ANY AfD, you have to look at the merit of the arguments, not just the number of them. Are the arguments along the lines of "I went and looked at every book I could find at the library that covered pirates between 1500 and 1700, and I couldn't find any mention of this pirate", or is it along the lines of "I LOVE this guy! Don't delete the article!"? Obviously, arguments of the latter type are going to hold less weight, and are more likely to be sockpuppets/meatpuppets. The process remains the same with a no consensus/delete decision, since "no consensus" defaults to "keep".
- 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- It depends on the outcome. There's not really a minimum needed for speedy keep/speedy close decisions, as long as it's valid under those criteria. For keep/no consensus/delete, I still don't have a firm number, but I like to be sure that the AfD has received enough attention to get an unbiased set of opinions. Generally, the cutoff (again, this is not a firm number) is somewhere around 5-6 valid arguments.
- 10.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
- A- I'm assuming here that we're talking about an article nominated under A7 or A9, since it probably wouldn't be worth one's time to look for sources on articles nominated under any other criteria (so in that respect, yes, it does make a difference which criteria the article meets). If it were me personally, my tendency would probably be to delete the article on sight. A7/A9 doesn't require backup with verifiable information from reliable sources, it only requires that some assertion of notability be made. I don't have the time (and I don't think many admins do, either) to go and research every little garage band that creates an article about themselves on Wikipedia to try and prove their notability. If we did, CAT:SD would be overflowing with backlogs. However, if the user asks why their article was deleted, I'm not entirely opposed to restoring and possibly userifying the page so that they can rectify that problem.
- 11. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
- A- There's not very many, but there are some. For instance, known long-term vandals (e.g., Grawp) should be blocked without warning. Users whose usernames are a violation of the username policy would be another. Users who are creating attack pages, posting legal threats, or violating 3RR might be blocked without warning or with only one warning.
- Optional questions from KillerChihuahua
- 12. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
- A: When there's consensus to do so, or to revert vandalism that occurred immediately before the protection was put in place. Full protection is generally put in place a) for pages where vandalism or malformed edits could affect large numbers of users (such as anything in the MediaWiki namespace, or high visibility templates such as {{ambox}}), or b) on high-visibility pages, where large numbers of anonymous and registered users are edit warring on the page, and it would be counter-productive to try and block the individual users involved. Overall, full protection is used to protect the integrity and reputation of the wiki.
- 13. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?
- A: I think that, regardless of the fact that the Keeps are trying to assert notability for two events, the person is really still only notable for the one event -- the fact that they appeared on Letterman was probably only because of the one event. Therefore, my close would probably be to merge it into an article that talks about the event.
- Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
- 14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion or exclusion of content on Wikipedia? Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with? (To be clear what I am looking for here is not a regurgitation of policy, nor am I looking any specific answer. What I am looking for is an insight to the way you think in general, and specifically what you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of the content it covers.)
- A: When I'm trying to decide whether or not something is notable, there's a couple of questions that I ask myself that help me determine notability of a particular subject. These questions don't override the actual notability criteria, of course, but they generally help me get on the right track: a) Has the subject of the article done something to ensure that it will be remembered by the masses, long after it is gone, and b) Would I expect to see an article about the subject in a paper encyclopedia? In an ideal Wikipedia, I think most of the content should be able to answer "yes" to both of these questions. As for whether or not there's any guidelines that I disagree with, no, not particularly, but I think that it tends to be applied rather loosely sometimes -- for example, I don't think that many of the Country X-Country Y relations series of articles (where Country X and Country Y have had no notable interactions) should stick around. (The question confused me a little bit, I hope the answer was along the lines of what you were looking for.)
- 14a. Sorry about not being clear... your answer was mostly along the lines of what I was looking for, but I would like a little more insight. When I said "Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with?" what I was referring to was the specific notability guidelines (SNG) such as WP:FILM, WP:BIO, WP:CORP etc., or more precisely individual elements of those guidelines. (Bilateral relations is a propose SNG, not an actual SNG at this time.)
- Thus, I will ask the following followup question. Historical, WP:ATHLETE is the most disputed SNG. Some feel it unfairly allows all professional athletes in regardless of actual importance to their sport, while others feel it makes it too difficult for amateur athletes to gain admittance. Do you think ATHLETE is fair (either in an absolute sense or in relation to other biographical SNGs)? Why or why not?
- A: It's a good general guideline, but at the same time, it's a Catch-22. The way it's written now, it gives the go-ahead have an article about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever sat on the sidelines of an Oakland Raiders game. I don't like it personally, for that reason. However, if you rewrite the criteria to be more specific, then you start running into instruction creep. I would like to see the criteria improved upon (for example, "athletes are notable if they have actively participated at a professional level for at least one season (or one year, for sports that do not have seasons), or are otherwise notable under any other notability criteria"), but as I'm far from being a sports buff, I won't claim to be the expert on the subject.
Optional questions from Goodmorningworld, but refrain from answering at your peril.
- 15. You are the author of ListasBot, a program that… lists articles lacking … Listas parameters… … … sorry, I dozed off … … whatever that is? When can we expect ChicasBot, a Bot that lists articles lacking nicely turned out chicas?
- A: Well, it's quite simple, really -- all we'd have to do is cross-reference Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people with Category:Women under 25, and...wait, we don't have Category:Women under 25??? Well, until someone creates that category and populates it, I suggest a nice Maxim as a substitute.
- 16. It totally burns me up that in the recent RfA, closed as unsuccessful, by user:Timmeh, no one thought to intone the magic line, at some appropriate point, We're going to need another Timmeh!!! And thus one of the rare opportunities in Wikipedia for mindless, berzerk hilarity was squandered. How do you propose to improve our efficiency in this regard?
- A: MORE TIMMEH'S!!!
- Questions from Tony1
- 17. I'm concerned about Ottava's Oppose comments concerning (1) your concentration on bots rather than manual editing; and (2) your knowledge of WP's policies. WP:CIVILITY is now the subject of a poll/discussion (see talk page); briefly, do you think the policy needs to be changed? What is your opinion of the WP:BAG approval process?
- A: There's not a whole lot that I can say about WP:CIVILITY, I'm happy with it pretty much the way it is. I'd agree that it's probably underenforced, but my personal thought is that a little conflict now and then is a good thing, and I would rather that the policy were underenforced than overenforced. As for the bot approval process, I'm happy with the way it's written, but from personal experience, I can say that I wish more people participated in it -- I think that's the major thing it's lacking.
- 18. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical comments, please: any suggestions for improvement, warnings of pitfalls?)
- A: It's a good idea in theory, but the problem that I see with it is that people who are in an aggravated conflict with each other are generally not going to be receptive to the process, while people who are in a non-aggravated conflict will generally resolve their differences by other means. Therefore, I think the process would see minimal usage.
- 19. Are you willing to disclose your age, or at least your age-group?
- A: I don't have a problem disclosing my age, but I do want to make it known that I am against the devaluing of admin candidates because of their age. I agree with the notion that people can be more (or less) mature than their age would indicate, and that age should not be a basis for determining a candidate's suitability for adminship. Having said that, I'm 27, and I have a wife and kid.
- Additional optional questions from Groomtech
- 20. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
- A: I think I'll decline to answer this question.
- Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
- 21a. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?
- A. The short answer here is, "when properly applied". Each essay is going to have different weight when used in an XFD discussion. For example, I wouldn't expect WP:SNOW to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion that has been up for 4 hours and has 5 "delete" !votes to it (or, any discussion where a "keep" or "merge" vote is presented). On the other hand, it would be more valid in a discussion that has been up for 3 days and has 30 "delete" !votes and no "keep" or "merge" votes. WP:ATA, while not a catch-all, is a good list of arguments that one can expect will be given less weight when used in deletion discussions. WP:OUTCOMES, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion, because it's merely a record of precedent, and since consensus can change, it's not going to be a guarantee that all future discussions are going to end the same way.
- 21b. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?
- A. This sounds like classic WP:Pokémon test to me, and the answer would be, as a general rule, "no". In the end, without Wikipedia, there would be no WikiProjects; but on the other hand, if the WikiProjects went away one day, Wikipedia would still be around. I cite WP:Pokémon test because there was a point in time where WikiProject Pokemon tried to do just that -- they tried to assert that all pokemons were notable (despite that the notability guidelines ultimately decided they weren't), and because of that, it affected the fate of other articles on the project that were outside the scope of just WikiProject Pokemon ("if we can have an article on every insignificant pokemon out there, then why not this?"). In my opinion, if a WikiProject wants to adopt a policy that conflicts with community policies, they can try to initiate a discussion to have the community policy changed, but they should not enforce that policy until it has gained wide community consensus, especially from members of the community outside of the WikiProject in question.
- 21c. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?
- A. In short, if they had been warned, provided no explanation, and refused to stop and/or provide an explanation for his actions, and there's no consensus beforehand to stop these bots, then yes, I would block the user. The experience of the user would play a part in how long I warned them before blocking, and how long of a block I would issue. For example, a user with no (or very few) other edits to their name would probably be blocked with only one warning, and I would issue an indefinite block for being a disruption-only account. As for more well known and experienced editors, given the circumstances (user is not responding to messages on their talk page asking for explanation, and instead continues their behavior), you have to consider the possibility that their account has been compromised, and I would have to block for that reason (I may not warn in that sort of instance, but rather I would post a question to their talk page asking them to explain their actions, and then block after not receiving an answer). As for the gray area in between, it depends on the person, but in most instances I would handle it in much the same way as vandalism, and issue the full set of warnings before temporarily blocking for disruption.
General comments
- Links for Mikaey: Mikaey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Mikaey can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mikaey before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support; seen his work, should do fine as an admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Candidate seems to have worked to address concerns raised at the previous RFA. While I think it's still a bit soon for the second RFA, I will not oppose it for those reasons. The candidate has shown that he is able to both reflect on criticism and work on issues that were raised, both skills invaluable to an admin. While I still have my concerns about this user's knowledge (especially when it comes to speedy deletion), I think overall it will be to our benefit to make him an admin. One can learn on "the job" after all. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's hard to figure out a scenario where Mikaey would be able to build great bots, yet can't be trusted with the mop. tedder (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support, seen them around, they do plenty of good work; They're polite, helpful, run a nice bot, do better work in CSD then they make out. I trust them to use the bit properly, and put it to it's best uses - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You do have a lot of automated edits (over 50%), but that's no reason not to support. Your bots are a valuable contribution to the project, and someone has to take care of the history merge backlog! I have no doubt that you'll learn the areas you're less familiar with "on the job". Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, per the mature and sensible behaviour exhibited at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3 where the user dealt very responsibly with concerns about his bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never encountered this user, but nothing to suggest he won't use the tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deo Volente.— Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Giants27 (c|s) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bonne chance! Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has shown he's quite good at things outside vandalism reverting, I'm especially impressed with the bots. Good work! LittleMountain5 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly talk 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-He looks great to me, barring that I'm missing something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you missing anything. =)America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues. Good luck as an admin! America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Best of luck. JJ (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like what I see here. You have improved from your last request, and your work with coding looks spectacular. You will be a great addition to the admin team. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite not liking the answer to question 10. Little expectation would abuse the tools. Saw no evidence of potential abuse. Dlohcierekim 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to strong per Damian and Malleous. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Here to help, clueful, trustworthy. No major concerns. Peter Damian's laughable "have something unpleasant" comment is truly that of an editor whose obsession is damaging him more than Wikipedia, and who has blown this whole process out of all proportion to reality. Pedro : Chat 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Tiptoety talk 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Peter Damian. ;-) Never run across him before, but I see nothing in the first RfA to cause concerns; good, clueful policy statements; and a general feeling that this editor would be a good guy to sit down over a beer with and chat about programming. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a great user and valuable contributor. Please do ignore Peter Damian. --Aqwis (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good Contributor and the user has improved since last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate is quite helpful and productive and he seems to have a clue. His article-building experience is light, but he's cautious and unlikely to be a risk. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extremely good answers, without necessarily saying I would have answered the same way. I hope he won't be so cautious as to delay too much his helping out where an admin is needed, using his very good understand of the basic rules. DGG (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has shown sufficient dedication to the project and has given satisfactory answers to the questions posed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good constructive editor. Has created some useful additions to Wikipedia. -- Marek.69 talk 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. Timmeh 03:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KillerChihuahua?!? 05:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has done good work with the bots, though doesn't always take good advice given by multiple people which would allow for easier access and tracking by admins seeking to do the work. However, I don't think the tools would be abused, and the advice not taken is not something which violates any guideline or policy, just a difference of opinion in the best method. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - won't abuse the tools. I particularly like the list of history merge candidates. Graham87 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. The error rate is a bit high on your CSD work, but good work with the many G12's, so I believe the concerns from the previous RfA have been remedied. A10 is a little bit off in my opinion, otherwise good replies to many questions. Thus weak support. decltype (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) P.S I'm afraid I can't give you any bonus points for Q4, per my talk :)[reply]
- Support - I was neutral last time as although I got a good impression of you I was not convinced you were experienced enough for adminship at that time. I think three to six months is a good time between RfAs and I am happy to see you back here again. I am impressed by your bot work and WikiBliff, the latter I may try out some time. I have looked at how you operate your bots and I have not noticed anything particularly wrong. Your page move fixing work and Wikipedia:New histmerge list is also good. I have also scanned your speedy deletions and they seem okay. Overall, I think you pass my criteria fine. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues here. A great candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Editor answered questions well, and seems to do useful work. --Kateshortforbob 13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Glad to see you back at the RFA Mikaey, I supported last time, and I see no reason not to this time. Mikaey has a calm temperament and supreme understanding of policy, no reason not to support, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per nom, and previous interactions with user. Nothing obviously wrong with answers to questions. J.delanoygabsadds 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support More than happy with his work (and I think you should thank your parents for giving you such a great name!) ;) iMatthew talk at 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User's bots are valuable contribution to this project, and help clean up backlogs. Also appreciate answers to questions, and reasonable caution shown. --StaniStani 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mikaey#Support, i.e. my opinion has not changed for the worse. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As usual, the above people have already said what I would like to say. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per his snazzy user page. Seriously, though, after reviewing his contribs and reading through all the !votes on this RfA, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would make a fine admin. -t'shaelchat 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Able to handle the role. MBisanz talk 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be a quality candidate, unlikely to break the wiki. GlassCobra 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Law type! snype? 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User has a clue, and won't break the wiki. Complete gain by having him as an admin. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Aitias // discussion 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just don't delete the main page please =)--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But... but... that's the best part! –Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree. --candle•wicke 01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nother support from S Marshall. We've got a good crop of candidates at the moment, I think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Middling support. The oppose points are not too compelling and we frankly will need a lot more editors doing uncontentious maintenance editing for those like myself who make easily fixable mistakes in speling and otherwise. I'm not wowwed but neither am I highly concerned therefore support for trusting you with the tools. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Oppose points too nitpicky, I would have been denied adminship with those kinda scruples Shii (tock) 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the only opposes are because of your "monstrous robots" and your personal views on our civility policy then I have no hesitation to support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no concerns. Wizardman 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF. Yeah, we need more skillful bot operators with the admin bit since many people seem to miss an uncivil banned user who has a talent on programming bots. Although I find your answers to Tony1 are a bit unsatisfactory, I will assume good faith on your dedication to the community.--Caspian blue 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I'd like to see more content writing, but I can't see a reason to oppose. — Σxplicit 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per answer to Q11. Nakon 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen him around, he does good work. Also, seems like a reasonable and polite person. And, very good answers to all the questions. Will make a great admin. LK (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Benjeboi and for having a bot with a cool sounding name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should do well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will be a net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Sorry, but you seem mainly to be involved in the sort of highly automated editing where you will never need the extra tools. I am also not entirely happy with the tenor of your responses to people complaining about defaultsortbot [1], (since I think that it is important to understand that absolute error rates should be low for bots, not just relative error rates) but its nothing that I would oppose for, of itself. I wasn't able to see any article contributions in your last 2000 edits, but maybe I've missed something. Have you edited enough articles to have bashed heads with a stubborn (non-vandal) user and know how to handle it? Overall, I'm not seeing that the experience problems from the last
AFDRFA have been resolved. You seem like a good and valuable editor, but not one who needs to be an admin at this point. Best wishes, AKAF (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose 'AarghBot' is a very appropriate name. These monstrous robots are a nightmare and anyone who uses them should have something unpleasant done to them (like fail an RfA, say). Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::Struck by bibliomaniac15, see here for rationale. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Malleus struck out Biblio's strikethrough. For discussion, please see the talk page to this RfA. NW (Talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I wanted to support last time, but I thought that you needed more time to show that you could handle adminship. Instead of working on articles, dealing with topics, etc, you continued your same pattern. Adminship requires a strong understanding of all policies and guidelines, and the knowledge of how to apply them. I feel that you have devoted your time to pushing buttons and lack the experience required to deal with situations that will arise as an admin. Sorry, but your prospects have seriously diminished in my eyes because of a lack of trying to improve in areas that were obvious weaknesses before. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, because of the lack of insight demonstrated in the answer to Q17. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Ottava and Malleus. Tony (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. As per my unwritten conditions. Less than 4 months since his last failed RFA, issues brought up there still unresolved. Also,candidate is self nominated, unwritten condition, candidate should have a long term User who is prepared to put his name on the line and nominate.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- If it helps, I would have been happy to nominate him. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that helps. I had the thought that someone would commit. To my way of thinking if a candidate has a few small issues, if they are supported by an experienced nominator then it becomes easier for me to ignore those issues in the knowledge that they have a friend who will help them grow into the job. As this looks to be passing,best of luck to Mikaey, and take your time. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- If it helps, I would have been happy to nominate him. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral IMO administrators' signatures should match their usernames. Aditya α ß 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does this affect his ability to do a good job as an admin?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be a personal preference. Note this is not an oppose, though. iMatthew talk at 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of automated edits, especially with the bots and I am not sure you have proven you need the tools. I can easily be persuaded otherwise.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I think automated edits are a good thing. The vast majority of our articles require some sort of maintenance work, and what better way to efficiently and accurately preform said maintenance than with automated scripts? And FWIW, Mikaey's bots have made a major dent on WP:BACKLOG. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be much less effective without Twinkle. More time to think through what I need to do and less time clicking and typing (and in my case, retyping). Dlohcierekim 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does this affect his ability to do a good job as an admin?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:02, 2 July 2009 (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.
Bureaucrat note: User is now known as "Kiteinthewind"
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page)
(13/22/8); Scheduled to end 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. –xenotalk 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs) – I have pleasure in presenting this candidate for the position of administrator. Arbiteroftruth recently came to my talkpage to ask my opinion whether they should run for adminship, so I conducted pretty much the same review that I would any candidate I was not especially familiar with; I was so impressed with what I found that not only did I agree that he should make the request, being that I would support such a candidature, but offered to nominate.
Arbiteroftruth has made just over 10,000 edits (including 1,220+ deleted contributions), but most noteworthy is that he has edited every month since April 2004 and just over half of these edits are to article space. The other 49% are pretty spread over the rest of wiki space, so he likely has a very good understanding of most aspects of the project. I have in the recent past interacted with Arbiteroftruth with regard to one particular sockmaster/vandal, and I have been very impressed with his handling of the situation as regards his calmness and the wisdom (and respect) within his comments and actions. As may be evidenced by his meagre collection of Barnstars, Arbiteroftruth is not someone who would seek the office of administrator for whatever "kudos" might accrue but as a means to better contribute toward the growth of the encyclopedia, and has demonstrated the commitment and trustworthiness expected of the position. I trust that others will also recognise the candidate as a worthy addition to the sysop ranks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept this nomination, and thank the nominator for everything.Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Acceptance withdrawn, per discussion User talk:LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to, as I have done before, patrol pages that are targets for vandals, and repair them as quickly as possible. That was my intention when I nominated myself for adminship a few years ago [see discussion]. Being a less experienced user back then, I was persuaded by others to garner more experience before trying again, and I obliged, and I have since become a much more experienced editor than I was back then.
- Wikipedia is becoming a much popular place than it was when I first joined. What was once a place that I have to explain to others became a place where everyone now recognize and rely on day in and day out. As that is the case, the reliability of Wikipedia is now a much higher issue than it was before. We might not be our intention for Wikipedia to be a place of reference to the world, but the reality is that we are becoming such a place. It is because of this that I have become more involved in anti-vandalism activities than I was before, knowing that someone, somewhere is using an article here as a source for an academic paper, or something more substantial. If I have the honor of being an administrator, I will be a force of good and truth here, and help to revert as much vandalism as I can, in addition to help deleting articles that are obviously created for vandalism, and serve no other purpose.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions to Wikipedia would be, I honestly believe, my contributions to Singaporean Arts and Entertainment articles, especially articles related to Singaporean television programs. Although I am not Singaporean, nor do I live in Singapore, I have been working hard at improving the article quality of these pages, and protecting them from persistent vandalism. What began as minor editing after watching a Singaporean TV show on the internet two years ago eventually turned into a determined endeavor to protect these pages from otherwise undetected vandalism, as well as improving the page's layout, content, and grammatical usage. The other contributions that I would consider to be the better ones would include my work on translating articles from the Chinese Wikipedia into this Wikipedia, and vice versa.
- 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: Last year, I was locked in a conflict over the deletion of Xidan, a district in Beijing that someone believed was not notable, even after I presented evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I did not deal with it with the normal diplomacy that I normally accord to such arguments, and I was blocked for such behavior. The fact that some real-life issues have affected me did not help either. From that incident, I have learned that I must, as I have before, not let real life issues or unreasonable argument to negatively affect my otherwise professional work here on Wikipedia. Just like my real-life line of work as a journalist, editing Wikipedia should be regarded as a professional endeavor, even if we are only editing it during our spare time. Ever since that incident, I have been very careful to be cordial and professional, even as I deal with vandals that have revealed my personal information to the world at large, and threaten my privacy.
- Additional optional questions from The ed17
- 4. Have you significantly contributed to a current Good, A-class or Featured article? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A: My efforts thus far have mostly been directed towards creating new articles, and improve the quality of existing articles that are otherwise not GA or FA articles/candidates, in addition to making sure that vandalism on these otherwise lesser-known pages are reverted as soon as possible. I have not directed as much effort to editing the mentioned categories of articles as I do to other articles, but I have been planning on directing more energy towards those articles. I understand that my educational background, which is more Liberal Arts-oriented, might not allow me to otherwise contribute significantly to certain GA or FA articles, especially in very specialized areas such as Engineering, Law, and Science, but I am willing to help, at least in an auxiliary manner.
- Additional question from User:Wizardman
- 5. When should no consensus closures on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why? (Note that I'm looking for your personal opinion - anyone can recite a policy statement)
- A. On this particular area, I am personally in favor of taking a case-by-case approach to each situation. I don't take a specific, hard position on the deletionist/inclusionist debate: I can be in both camps at different times. When looking at such discussions, I will also take a look at the article, and determine if the discussion was influenced by certain emotional factors (such as this discussion that I started years ago.) On that particular discussion, I would have leaned towards deleting the page, as the person was a college student who did not have any significant achievements in her field of study, and that the page was created by her husband, who also advocated strongly for keeping the page. On other discussions, if the page can be salvaged, and turned into an article with substance and depth, I would have leaned towards keeping the page.
- Additional optional questions from kotra
- 6. What is your opinion on citing one's sources? When is it essential, and when is it not? If you could, please relate your answer to articles you have created in the past, like Hato no kyojitsu and Seletar Robbery.
- A: In principle, I believe the citing of sources is essential, especially given our relatively newfound status as a go-to source for information. That said, when I translate articles (such as the one on Hato no kyojitsu), I work under the premise of getting it down first, and harness the power of the Wikipedia community as a whole to find the source. Now, in regards to Seletar Robbery, I (correctly or not) worked under the premise of common knowledge: the show was referenced by a very popular TV show in 2007, which was seen by about 1/4th of the Singaporean nation. In that sense, information that can be considered to be common knowledge does not need to be cited (just like how we don't cite Barack Obama as the US President). I hope that provides a comprehensive answer, and if you want me to elaborate, please don't hesitate to let me know.
- 6a. Thank you for your answer to Q6. As a follow-up question, did you translate Hato no kyojitsu from another language Wikipedia? If so, what is your view on attributing such articles to their original source? I don't wish to trap you in a "wrong" answer, so this page might inform your answer.
- A: With that article, I translated it from Chinese Wikipedia. I believe that attribution is important, but instead of providing a more visible and obvious attribution, I simply inserted an interwiki link to its counterparts at the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia. I have always provided such interwiki links when translating, so that the translations can be scrutinized if there are suspicions. When the page that I am translating also provides links, I will also include the links, and then rewrite certain portions to make sure that the idea gets across the language barrier. In short, the attribution is there, but perhaps not in as visible and obvious a manner as some would otherwise like, and of course, I will address this issue in future edits.
- Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
- 7a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
- A. If the question means a contribution to development of policy, I have to say that my contribution to that area is minimal, due to my efforts in concentrating on the enforcement of policy, such as vandalism/account abuse, and my efforts in improving Wikipedia articles that are lesser known.
- 7b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
- A. I would change our present policies on Autoconfirming users. I have seen many instances where the Autoconfirming mechanism was gamed by vandals, who will quickly reach the autoconfirming threshold by making test edits to their userpage and talkpages. The rather defeats the original purpose of autoconfirmation.
- 7c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?
- A. Throughout my time here on Wikipedia, I have changed my views on essays, from, at first, a mere statement of opinions, to one that essays are the beginnings of a well-formed policy. I believe that these essays can be a valuable guidance in XFD debates, especially on the policies that have been listed in the question. However, we have to look at each essay on a case-by-case basis: some essays can be very useful, while others can be a bit light on quantity or quality. The last thing we want to do in utilizing essays in XFD discussions is to dismiss it all or trust it all. We must look at each essay, and see whether the case applies.
- 7d. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?
- A. I believe Wikiprojects, as a gathering place for people who want to edit on the same topics, should follow the same policies as the rest of Wikipedia. Having different policies for different Wikiprojects is very confusing for Wikipedians, not to mention the additional burden that it would place on the users and admins alike. On that note, I would say that simplicity is always beauty, and that different rules should be avoided, if at all possible, whenever possible.
- 7e. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?
- A. The nominee will answer this question in 24 hours. The nominee is going to bed at this time.
- 7f. What is your reaction to someone who thinks that your username may indicate an unwillingness to reassess your positions, be flexible, or admit mistake?
- A. My reaction would be that first glance almost never gives a true picture of the user's real personality and mode of operation, and I would respectfully tell these users that if they have concerns about my way of conducting business here on Wikipedia, they should not hesitate in telling me, or ask me questions. On a personal note, I would like to add that throughout my time here on Wikipedia, I have been very receptive to other ideas, and suggestions, and that I have constantly reassessed my positions, and admitted mistakes where they happened.
- Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
- 8a. How tolerant are you in blocking and unblocking? If an editor who is indef blocked for vandalism and generic disruption comes back 4 months later, requesting unblock, admitting the misdeeds and promising not to recur, would you consider unblocking?
- A: I strongly believe that blocking is an "educational" measure that is used for reflection, rather than being a punishment. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, afterall. As for the hypothetical situation, I will look at the editor's vandalism history, as well as its severity. My natural instinct tends to tell me that 4 months might not be enough time for an indef'ed user to reform him/herself. The sincerity of the unblock request will also play a role in my decision. If I do decide to unblock, I will monitor the user's activities, to see if the user is truly reformed. If it is a sockpuppeteer that is asking to be unblocked, I will reject it. Sockpuppets are way to disruptive to Wikipedia, and I cannot, in good conscience, let a sockpuppeteer back in.
- Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
- 8b. You have not been a very active user and your activity level has often slipped. Also, most of the articles you've contributed to are Start-class. Do you intend to increase your activity level in the near-future? Also, have you any goal set in mind of promoting any article to GA/FA? This might sound a bit confusing; I know.
- A: I do intend to increase my activity level in the future, and get more involved in projects. My fluctuation of activities are mainly based on school, vacation, and work commitments. With that said, however, I do edit Wikipedia at least 10 times a day whenever I am not on Wikibreak (I had a 17-day gap in editing this past May, but that is due to an unannounced vacation: I did not want to attract vandals into action, and target these pages that I have been monitoring). As far as goals in FA/GA is concerned, I want to become more involved in Journalism topics, as I am a journalism student, and trained in this field. Having access to professional textbooks in these areas are also beneficial for me in this endeavor. I will begin to devote more time to areas related to US Journalism.
- Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
- 8c. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?
- A: It means that we want to create and foster a freer environment for users to edit this project, in the true spirit of Open Source projects. We don't want bureaucracy, but we don't want absolute chaos either: an "ordered chaos", perhaps, where we work under guidelines, but we can be otherwise free.
- Additional optional questions from Pmlinediter
- 8d. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
- A: Ban is instituted by the community, ArbCom, or Jimbo Wales, and blocks are cases where the user might be allowed to return to Wikipedia. Of course, if no one is willing to unblock a user, than the user is effectively banned. Being banned involves something more serious than those that will get someone blocked, such as repetitive violation of policies, sockpuppets (big no-no), and outing.
General comments
- Links for Arbiteroftruth: Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Arbiteroftruth can be found here.
- Links for Kiteinthewind: Kiteinthewind (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Kiteinthewind can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Arbiteroftruth before commenting.
Discussion
- Regarding the reference to an earlier RfA - this remained untranscluded, there were no !votes/comments, and was subsequentley deleted. This therefore is the "first" RfA for Arbiteroftruth proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just confirming for transparency that it was an untranscluded self-nom prepared in Jan '06 that received no outside commentary whatsoever and was deleted in Aug '08. –xenotalk 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing stats posted at the talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully suggest the candidate avoids replying to every oppose vote; while I don't mind good-faith discussion, it does come across as a bit desperate, for lack of a better word. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't as if it is going to make much difference, is it? If the questioning of opposes leads to considered responses then a purpose is served - and hopefully a better understanding obtained. Anyhoo, this is a real person who is being faulted; I think they should respond as they see fit. Wisdom can wait awhile. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- The diffs from Julian are concerning, but the answer to my Q was great, so I'll take a shot on ya. Wizardman 03:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator. I see no indication from the opposes that trust is an issue, and that is the basis upon which the tools are supposed to be granted, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a pretty good editor, and the slap in the face from all of the opposes is harsh. iMatthew talk at 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once upon a time I offered to nominate this user (though I did have some reservations), so without looking too deeply into the opposes I would like to offer at the very least moral support because there's been quite a pile-on here. –xenotalk 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, I liked the answers you gave to the questions. The diffs from Julian are indeed concerning, but support per why the hell not?. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least moral support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate does have a couple of barnstars, no memorable negative interactions with me, and is an article creator. The block for incivility is of course a concern, although it was last year. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportWhy the heck not? I've had little experiances with him, but none of the told me that this editor would not make a great admin.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a project editor since 2004 with over 10,000 edits, I suspect that this candidate is able to comprehend policies. The diffs from Julian don’t particularly concern me – two isolated comments out of 10,000+ edits is hardly a reason for disqualification, and the notability of Pornsak Prajakwit is not difficult to confirm (though I assume there is more coverage in the Chinese-language media than the English-language media). I have no qualms offering my support. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good contributor to the project with good answers to the questions. I understand the concern surrounding the diffs provided by Julian, it could have been handled much better than getting drawn into an edit war with sockpuppets, but I believe Arbiteroftruth had good intent with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Mistakes can be part of the learning process and I don't see any reason to believe that this style of editing has occurred since. If this RfA doesn't succeed I hope that you'll come back and have another go at some point in the future after having taken to heart some of the advice and comments given. Camw (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is an editor of 5 years experience and a pretty clean nose - there's nothing in the opposes that makes me think the world will stop turning if the candidate was an admin. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - for once I will support. No reason why someone who has been around for that long and suffered everything Wikipedia has to give, should not be given a reward of sorts. Not that I would call it a reward but there is no accounting for taste. Good luck. Teh block for incivility is an added bonus in my book. Peter Damian (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A long time wikipedia editor with a reasonably clean record. Excellent answers to questions. So he's got a bad AIV report or two and had an edit warring experience with an editor who turned out to be a sock - a moment of frustration that I can well understand. Nobody's perfect and, IMO, he'll make a fine admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I've been dithering on the sidelines for this and wouldn't normally support someone whose been blocked less than 12 months ago, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan gives some context - I'm less concerned about incivility from a writer protecting an article than I might be in other circumstances. Oh and I take the name change as a sign of being willing to respond appropriately to criticism ϢereSpielChequers 10:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - I get the sense from Julian's diffs that this candidate has a rather poor understanding of what constitutes vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reporting a problematic editor in the wrong forum and using Twinkle to revert the additions of a banned sockpuppeteer seem to me like rather poor grounds for opposition of this candidacy, especially when the candidate is willing to explain their actions.Synchronism (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted, but not going to sway me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise Synchronism (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted, but not going to sway me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reporting a problematic editor in the wrong forum and using Twinkle to revert the additions of a banned sockpuppeteer seem to me like rather poor grounds for opposition of this candidacy, especially when the candidate is willing to explain their actions.Synchronism (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The diffs provided by Julian only constituted a portion of that incident. The user we saw in those diffs (GeniusAcameldeSatosta) was later proven to be a sock of User:Syjytg, who engaged in tendentious editing, and was blocked for a period of time for his actions on the article questioned. He used the sock to evade the blocks that was in place, and continued to revert the article without consensus. In the interest of completeness and openness, I am providing the links to the said SPI page [2]. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the answers to my two questions did not fill me with confidence that the candidate will adequately enforce WP:Verifiability and WP:Copyrights as an administrator. Contrary to the candidate's statements, both articles I mentioned contain unsourced statements that are not general knowledge, and interlanguage links do not count as attribution (by that logic, George W. Bush incorporates content from over 100 different Wikipedias). I can certainly see the candidate is a good editor who is committed and beneficial to the project, but these two policies, particularly verifiability, are becoming increasingly crucial as time goes on, and I expect administrators to understand and enforce them. -kotra (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched from neutral. Sorry, but Kotra's concerns, coupled with my previous comments, lead me to oppose. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns about policy and guideline knowledge (or lack thereof). I suggest becoming very familiar with all the major policies on the site (they can all be found here), as well as the main guidelines on the site (listed here). Then come back in a few months. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. In my experience with this candidate, I consistently got the impression he/she has an extremely poor sense of what does and does not constitute vandalism. Dealt with attitudes like this from the candidate more than once. Tan | 39 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident that you have cited happened almost one year ago, and the issue was over socks of this user. If memory serves me correct, I was responding to Tan's decision after duck tests have clearly indicated that the account in question at that debate was a ColourWolf sock. I do admit that the situation can be handled better, but I would like to point out that a lot has happened since that time, and I have worked hard at becoming more nuanced, measured, and mature since that time, and my contribs stand as testament to that. Also, I would like to contest the claim by Tanthalas39 that I engaged with him in an immature manner more than once: that incident, if memory serves me correctly, was the only time I interacted with him in such a manner. I would also like to invite Tanthalas39 to look at my recent edits from these 9-10 months, and make a decision based on that. Such is the change in my philosophy and MO over this period of time that I believe it is rather unfair for me to be judged by actions committed almost a year ago. I would hope that this user makes a more current decision about my actions and demeanors.
- From what I'm seeing, not much has changed - it's pretty well-known that responding to virtually every oppose is a Bad Idea in RfA. You first defend your action by still insisting that you were somehow correct, and that this was a valid AIV report. If you want to contest the claim that this happened more than once, fine - I have no inclination to go slogging back through diffs. You win; I can only prove it happened once. Why on earth would I limit my decision based on your last 9-10 months of work? I judge RfA candidates on their entire body of work, especially issues like this that aren't easily solved by reading an appropriate policy or guideline. I think it's completely fair for you to be judged by actions committed almost a year ago; especially given your response to it right here. Strong oppose stands. Tan | 39 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident that you have cited happened almost one year ago, and the issue was over socks of this user. If memory serves me correct, I was responding to Tan's decision after duck tests have clearly indicated that the account in question at that debate was a ColourWolf sock. I do admit that the situation can be handled better, but I would like to point out that a lot has happened since that time, and I have worked hard at becoming more nuanced, measured, and mature since that time, and my contribs stand as testament to that. Also, I would like to contest the claim by Tanthalas39 that I engaged with him in an immature manner more than once: that incident, if memory serves me correctly, was the only time I interacted with him in such a manner. I would also like to invite Tanthalas39 to look at my recent edits from these 9-10 months, and make a decision based on that. Such is the change in my philosophy and MO over this period of time that I believe it is rather unfair for me to be judged by actions committed almost a year ago. I would hope that this user makes a more current decision about my actions and demeanors.
- Oppose While Arbiteroftruth has done some excellent work for the project, the issues brought up above are troubling. I am concerned with Arbiteroftruth's level of maturity and civility, traits a sysop must have. Additionally, issues with understanding of Wikipedia policy are certainly not for the better. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 06:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakoppose. On the limited available evidence, I am not convinced that adminship is appropriate for you right now. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Likewise, I would like to direct you to the discussion area, for my full explanation of the incidents that other editors have raised. I put them there out of caution, so that no one would see it as tampering debate. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now regular oppose due to excessive badgering of opposers. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, I would like to direct you to the discussion area, for my full explanation of the incidents that other editors have raised. I put them there out of caution, so that no one would see it as tampering debate. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Julian's diffs which show a clear inability of understanding policy. I can't support someone who edit wars. Pmlineditor 08:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to direct you to my explanation for the incidents Julian covered. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, checking. Pmlineditor 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I retain my opinion but might change it if the answers to my questions are satisfactory. Pmlineditor 08:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm remaining opposed in spite of fair enough answers due to the concerns raised by several users. However, I strongly recommend coming back for another RfA after some time. Regards, Pmlineditor 09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- OK, checking. Pmlineditor 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to direct you to my explanation for the incidents Julian covered. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per edit warring on another user's talk page to restore an SPI notice, plus the edit warring at Flaming Butterfly and Housewives' Holiday, plus questionable understanding of the difference between content dispute and vandalism. I can't support an admin candidate who seems to prefer reverting and using warning templates to discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to direct you to my explanation of the issues raised by other editors. I believe it is only fair for my side of the story to be told, before making such decisions. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I did read them before making up my mind, though. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to direct you to my explanation of the issues raised by other editors. I believe it is only fair for my side of the story to be told, before making such decisions. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per comments above; equally the username itself seems fairly dogmatic. Minkythecat (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to direct you to my answer to Question 7f, as well as evidences that I have presented to the issues that have been raised. I picked my username after a conversation that I had with someone close to my life. He told me that I should always stand up for the truth, and never lie, and that I should always be able to judge truth from lies. That's the reason behind the name. I did not create the name with a purpose to "arbitrate what is true and what is not". Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Minkeythecat: FWIW: Not to badger you, actually I don't know which way I am leaning at the moment so I may end up agreeing with your ultimate position, but initially, I too was struck by the name the same way you were, but the nominee's answer + WP:AGF have laid at least my concern on that point to rest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, concerns about temperament, might be a good idea to come back after a significant period of additional experience. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per the rather numerous concerns currently raised on this RfA. More experience is needed for the community to trust you here. Sorry. UntilItSleeps Public PC 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have anything to add, I just get the sense that the candidate thinks that we're all a little sleepy and we'll wake up any day now and realize our mistake. I don't think that's going to happen in this RFA, but I do see support for a future RFA ... as long as you pay attention to what's being said in this one. Btw, there's nothing wrong with your username, exactly, but be aware that asserting ownership of the "truth" on Wikipedia ... even in that mild form ... is like waving a cape in front of a bull, and there's a lot of bull around here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above
, and per lack of understanding about personal information evidenced here.→ ROUX ₪ 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Well, to be fair, that user was a sock of Colourwolf, who has been mercilessly plaguing Arbiter for about a year now. See my talk page and related ANI thread. Tan | 39 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it was Arbiteroftruth's personal information being released, my point remains. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were my personal information. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Please be more clear with edit summaries in the future. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were my personal information. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it was Arbiteroftruth's personal information being released, my point remains. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, that user was a sock of Colourwolf, who has been mercilessly plaguing Arbiter for about a year now. See my talk page and related ANI thread. Tan | 39 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for having an incredibly inappropriate username for an administrator. Really. All this nonsense about temperment and editwarring is rather silly in light of such a prima facie demonstration of poor judgement in a) picking such a username, and b) not changing it yet. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see anything wrong with it, to be honest. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't either. When I saw this name, I thought of a character in Halo. I don't think that he had "poor judgment" in choosing his name, and I also believe that virtually forcing him to choose his name is a little out there. Is anyone actually offended by Arbiter's choice of username? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong with the name, it doesn't violate WP:UN, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that Jclemens means that "Arbiteroftruth" implies some sort of official position, and that such a username may not be wise combined with being an administrator. Acalamari 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much it. User:Theonewhowillbanyou might be a fine username too, but completely and totally inappropriate for anyone who holds any position of power or authority--or even position (like Wikipedia administrator) which might seem to have either, but really has none. No one who's in a position to decide content disputes--or remotely looks like they might be in such a position--should have a name like Arbiteroftruth. Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is a bad idea? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that Jclemens means that "Arbiteroftruth" implies some sort of official position, and that such a username may not be wise combined with being an administrator. Acalamari 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong with the name, it doesn't violate WP:UN, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't either. When I saw this name, I thought of a character in Halo. I don't think that he had "poor judgment" in choosing his name, and I also believe that virtually forcing him to choose his name is a little out there. Is anyone actually offended by Arbiter's choice of username? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see anything wrong with it, to be honest. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per what appears to be excessive badgering of opposes. The candidate's attitude convinces me he's not ready. Firestorm Talk 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion remember, not a vote, the candidate is welcome to take part in the discussion SpitfireTally-ho! 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the candidates attitude, including the badgering of the opposers. Also, just to reinforce, this block in September 2008, which was not to long ago, for incivility.[3] Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, has been blocked for "Incivility, disruptive editing". Sandstein 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a plus mark in my book. Shows that they've actually been in the trenches, not just talked about it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I can accept a distant block, and I can accept early examples of poor judgement. But I cannot accept an inability to properly creare a simple aricle only seven months ago, and I cannot see adequate evidence that this editor properly understands what is and is not vandalism. And a reply to almost every oppose !vote is neither a positive nor an expected contribution from the applicant. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on the grounds of the username, which I consider unacceptable for an administrator. That the username has not been changed indicates to me that the user lacks sufficient judgement and clue to be an effective and responsible administrator. Nick (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, he has now changed his username. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much as I hate to agree with Tan, I'm afraid that on this occasion I have to. RfA is a showcase, a popularity contest, and how you present yourself here does make a difference. I haven't bothered to count exactly how many oppose votes you've responded to; I stopped counting when I reached too many. The impression that gives is that you are unwilling to listen, and my reaction to that is that I am unwilling to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- You're clearly a dedicated, experienced, and productive Wikipedian, and I think you'll make a reasonable sysop. That said, I do have some concerns; your civility block was a year ago, so I'm not too concerned about that in itself. However, on investigating your talk page, I discovered this. One could claim you were simply reverting unproductive edits, but it's still a bit too close to edit warring for my liking. I also found this questionable AIV report. Further, the creation of this article—with no indication of notability, and no formatting whatsoever—is worrying. As a result I'm a bit concerned with how you'll handle certain situations. Still, I'm open to being convinced to the contrary. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page on Pornsak Prajakwit, he is a known Singaporean entertainer, working for that nation's television channel ([4]), and I was going to expand on it. However, before I did, University exams came, and I had to dedicate my time to final preparations for exams. By the time it was all over, the page was deleted. As for the editing on Flaming Butterfly, It was an effort on my part to improve the page, as it was in a rather "dilapidated" condition beforehand (untranslated Chinese words took up most of the contents, or what little there was), and the effort was met with a reverting of edits without explanation by the other side. It is also worth noting that the other user was known for tendentious editing on NBA articles before that incident. As for the AIV report, I wish the wording could have been a bit less accusatory, but at the time, I was dealing with these two tendentious users who have the same MO. Both the users ignored repeated pleas by me to talk about the style and formatting of the pages in question for both cases. All my edits in these two cases were edits that dealt mainly with correcting styles and formatting without taking away or changing the information in those articles, and edit summaries on both.
- Neutral You've done great work, but there are too many concerns for me to support. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I believe you are a very dedicated editor, but your signature seems particularly menacing. I understand your username and have no problems with that, it's the "Plead Your Case" part that can come across as rather intimidating. However, that's not enough for me to oppose you. Jozal (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral- per the reasons above. I can't oppose, for you are definitely a dedicated and diligent editor, but per the reasons above, I am reluctant to support. I wish you well in your future Wikiediting! --Airplaneman (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral because I've no wish to pile on. I want to add that before your next RFA, you may want to give thought to asking for a username change, because "Arbiteroftruth" is a little too likely to get people's backs up when performing key administrative functions such as dispute resolution.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world would his username "get up people's backs"? It's just a name that I assume he thinks sounds cool, and I severely doubt that anyone has/is/would be offended by it. A name is not normally a statement of someone's beliefs; you see those in what they say. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "ArbiterofTruth", as a name, arrogates authority and judgment to the bearer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say in my userpage that I do not consider myself to be infallible, and that I am prone to mistakes... Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to you, and I realise you think it's trivial, but I do think the issue is swaying people's votes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say in my userpage that I do not consider myself to be infallible, and that I am prone to mistakes... Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "ArbiterofTruth", as a name, arrogates authority and judgment to the bearer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world would his username "get up people's backs"? It's just a name that I assume he thinks sounds cool, and I severely doubt that anyone has/is/would be offended by it. A name is not normally a statement of someone's beliefs; you see those in what they say. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning to oppose based on name alone, per S. Marshall. If nothing else, think of the public repercussions: political storm on a BLP or a sensitive COI issue involving users new to wikipedia. An admin named Arbiteroftruth protects a version of the article to prevent ongoing disruption or blocks one of the SPAs. Someone else starts talking about NPOV or suggests dispute be taken to arbitration....think of how that will play in the press. Martinp (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and "plead your case" as the user talk page link doesn't exactly help. Martinp (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral There are too many concerns for me to support, but I could support you in a future RfA in time (that is if you address the concerns). hmwithτ 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral To many strong points have been drawn up in the oppose section for me to support, whilst many of the opposing points are admittedly weak, there are some strong ones, and so I feel I cannot support, I hope that if this RfA fails you reapply in the future, after, as hmwith has said, you address the concerns, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem with your username, and I don't have a problem with your block (because it was so long ago). I do have a problem with the little edit war you had, however. I still would like to encourage you to run later on, and I urge you to keep up the good work. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
(talk page) (73/3/1) Closed 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) by Avi (talk)
Nomination
Mlaffs (talk · contribs) – When I had my first encounter with Mlaffs, I was struck by two things: his honesty and his intelligence. A few days ago, I granted him the new autoreviewer userright after finding his name on the JVbot Whitelist. He quickly responded to me and notified me that he might not be qualified for the tool because he believed the high number of redirects he has created might have given me a false positive (although in his gnome work he has created well over the 75 articles required for the tool). Frankly, this impressed me. While many editors on Wikipedia only looking for status would have quietly kept the tool enabled on their accounts, Mlaffs took the chance that he would not get the “shiny new hardware” and told the truth.
Looking further into Mlaffs’s edits, I found a patient and hardworking “gnome-like” editor with over 68,000 well spent edits over a period of 19 months (or one year and seven months). If he is granted the tools, they will be used to aid in Mlaffs’s excellent gnome work. As I am sure everyone knows, the delete button can come in handy when dealing with disambiguation pages, moves, and redirects. In his contributions to discussions, one can see that Mlaffs is a thorough and effective communicator with insightful and polite responses. Although he primarily does gnomish work, he has not neglected the content building aspect of the encyclopedia either, and has a live featured list nomination. Wikipedia needs more administrators that are honestly here to help the project grow, and because of this, Mlaffs would be a great addition to the team. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with humility, and a small amount of fear. I'd been thinking about this possibility for a while, and had started a somewhat stillborn editor review based on another administrator's advice, in order to get some feedback on my work here. However, I didn't look at this as imminent at all, thinking that I'd have to be a self-nom if I was ever going to go ahead with it. I was honestly shocked when Malinaccier offered to nominate me. I'm grateful for the trust placed in me by even making the nomination, and I'd take it as a responsibility to be worthy of that trust were I to be successful. Mlaffs (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'd prefer to start by outlining what I wouldn't intend to take part in. I wouldn't be closing deletion debates, nor would I be issuing blocks. I wouldn't be stepping into any areas where I haven't built a lot of experience already as an editor. In the short- and medium-term, I'd want to use the tools for the sort of gnomish tasks that got me thinking about them in the first place. For example, radio stations change call signs a lot, which result in page moves, new disambiguations, undoing disambiguations, and the like. Deletions are often necessary as part of that process, and so I'd probably be on the lookout for G6 speedy deletion requests, particularly where they're in support of a subject area with which I'm familiar. I've also found myself getting a bit interested in categorization lately, and so I might want to dip a toe into C2 speedy requests as well or category renames resulting from CfD. Long-term, I suspect my administrative work would develop the same way my editing patterns have — I run into something that seems interesting, learn about it, ask questions, and then dig in. I'd probably also be watching for more simple and mundane areas where there are regularly backlogs, to see if there's a load that I can lift from other admins who can (and might want to) add value on the complex stuff. I certainly wouldn't be the most active admin out of the box. Ultimately, I guess I look at it like I look at living in my condo building — it's not that I think my life is incomplete unless I own a wrench and a screwdriver, but there are times when it's easier to do things myself rather than calling the super or hiring a handyman, and I may even find that I start to like home improvement and want to do it more regularly. Of course, that's just a handy analogy — IRL, I always call the super or hire a handyman.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: As Malinaccier notes above, I'm a gnome, and so my best contributions are decidedly gnome-like. I tend to look for a task or project and then work the heck out of it. The project I'm most proud of took place through last summer, where I cleaned up incoming links to almost every single disambiguation page that included radio or television call signs. This involved several thousand edits to get the links correct, with only about a hundred at the end that I wasn't able to solve and had to tag accordingly. Another big project was doing a station by station run through the FCC's radio station database to develop a list of our gaps in coverage (building and maintaining that list accounts for what looks like an inordinately large number of edits in Userspace — it's a sub-page). That work led to dozens of page moves to get articles named correctly, and adding project tags to numerous talk pages that hadn't yet been identified. It was the page move piece of that work that got me thinking about an RfA in the first place. Most recently, I’ve nominated List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons for featured list consideration. I didn’t create the article, but I did make a lot of enhancements to it based upon what I saw in similar articles that were already featured lists. I took it to the project talk page first to solicit feedback, followed by a peer review. While I can understand that there might be a skeptical belief otherwise, I didn’t do this because I wanted to have a gold star to burnish my record; it was really all about stretching my wings a bit and wanting to experience the process of focused collaboration and receiving critical feedback. The fact that the FL discussion is ongoing while this RfA is starting is completely a weird coincidence.
- 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 I can honestly say that the vast majority of my interactions with other editors have been positive, or at least no worse than neutral. That being said, I was involved with the date delinking arbitration case. I wasn’t an involved party per se, but I was certainly an interested one. I have absolutely no opinion about date autoformatting, nor am I particularly wedded to most date links themselves. However, I did take part in a couple of AN/ANI threads about the process piece of this — the manner in which the mass delinking effort was effected — and so I provided a small amount of evidence to the Arbcom case from that perspective. There was a lot of emotion associated with that whole episode, and I preferred to refrain from commenting unless I thought it would add value. However, when I did, I'd like to hope that I was a voice of moderation, and that I made my points calmly and rationally. It should also go without saying that, were I to be successful in this candidacy, I wouldn't go within a hundred kilometres of the ongoing discussions and work in that area in an administrative capacity. All that being said, there's little here that's stressful, at least not in the big picture. I do big thinking involving big risks all day long at work. This is where I come to do bite-sized, repetitive tasks to wind down at night or while I'm watching a ball game on the weekends, so I'm simply not prepared to let stress mess with that. Deep breaths, and all that.
- Optional question from Keepscases
- 4. What celebrity do you think would be the best spokesperson for Wikipedia? Why?
- A: Nice question - I love stuff that makes my brain work. You know, there are a few different ways I could go with this. My first thought was Steve Jobs — a key figure in the technology world, along with the cool factor of the products that Apple creates. And really, if Wikipedia isn’t a perfect example of “Think Different”, I don’t know what is. My second thought was Wile E. Coyote — can’t you just see him inserting POV comments into the Lever, Jet engine, and Trinitrotoluene articles? There’s always Alyssa Milano — it’s tough to go wrong with a beautiful spokesmodel, and if you follow her Twitter feed at all, you get the sense that there’s a little more depth there than the stereotypical Hollywood starlet.
- Eventually, I have to settle on Cecil Adams, the author of the syndicated The Straight Dope column and email newsletter. It’s all about answering the unanswerable, and debunking the bunk. The books are a fun read, and very informative. The ad campaign practically writes itself — “When I want the straight dope, I go to Wikpedia!”.
- Additional optional questions from Steve Crossin
- 5. As an administrator, do you feel it's more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines, or to use your administrative judgment to implement a better solution. Basically what I'm asking is, if general policies and guidelines would provide a solution that you could solve better by using common sense and your judgment as an admin, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.
- A.
Going to need to sleep on this one if you don't mind. I'll return to it tomorrow; just didn't want you to think I was ignoring it.So, I suppose "yes" wouldn't be a satisfactory answer, would it? No, I didn't think so. It's my honest answer, though. I think it's important to enforce the letter of the law, I think it's important to enforce the spirit of the law, and I think it's important to use judgment and common sense to arrive at a better result. You can't really do all three at once, so when one of those becomes more important than the others is very situational. Particularly while I'm getting my feet wet, I expect that I'd be enforcing letter far more often. As I start to understand certain policies better and act in enforcement of them, I may well find that I'll be enforcing spirit more often. If I get really good at this, I may well find situations where I feel my judgment ends up getting to the best solution. Honestly though, I don't know yet. The most important thing is getting to the right solution, and I'd like to hope that policy will usually lead to that. I can say this though — I think that ignore all rules is a useful policy. I think it also needs to be applied very carefully in cases of administrative action. However, I believe that careful application of it can justify enforcing spirit over letter, and can justify common sense over both. Most importantly, while I'd always need to be accountable for my actions, that would never be more true than when deviating from the letter of the law. Acting on my judgment when it's not directly in line with written policy and then dropping out of sight isn't good — if I can't stick around to explain or defend my actions, I'd be better off letting someone else act instead.
- A.
- 6. On a daily basis, regardless of where you do janitor work, administrators will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form or another. For this reason, it is best if administrators have past experience in dispute resolution, or can at least demonstrate how you, as an administrator, would have the skills and experience required to solve these disputes. For example, provide a situation where there was a conflict that you were involved that you managed to arrive to an amicable resoltuion, or a situation where you helped to resolve a dispute between two or more editors.
- A. I’ve thought back, and I honestly can’t think of a situation on Wikipedia where I’ve been involved in resolving a dispute between multiple editors. Similarly, in terms of resolving an on-Wiki conflict, I can only remember doing so if you look at AfD as being conflict, and the resolution of that conflict be turning another editor around on their opinion through strength of argument. I was involved in one of those situations earlier today. That seems a pretty broad interpretation, though.
- So, I’d have to look at real life for examples. On three separate occasions, I’ve sat on the boards of non-profit organizations. The most recent of these was a nearly three-year term as president of an organization. Chairing board meetings of a non-profit, particularly one where the board is entirely comprised of volunteers, are often primarily an exercise in dispute resolution. It’s rather amazing how heated debate can get among people who are all ostensibly working toward the same goal. Good thing that never happens here, eh?
- Similarly, in my work life, I manage a team of eight. It’s often a high-pressure environment, with deadlines that are driven by the need to meet legal or regulatory requirements. We’re reliant on many internal partners to provide feedback on and contribute to the work we create, and require that feedback/contribution within timelines that they’re often not prepared or willing to meet. I’ve spent more time than I care to remember talking one of my staff down from the ledge as a result of a confrontation with one of these partners, or trying to get multiple partners to sit down and hammer out disagreements over content in a way that’s going to get the result I need.
- My style in these situations is to give each party in turn the chance to outline their concerns, without interruption. I’ll then attempt to summarize each party’s position in my own words, identify areas where common ground already exists, and understand the core concerns underlying their positions. From there, it’s usually about trying to find the tactful way to help show people where they’re being unreasonable, framing the discussion either in what’s important to the business or in how giving ground will benefit them.
- I suspect that many parts of this approach won’t work in an environment such as this one, and that I’d need to be prepared to adapt my approach depending on the situation. That’s a challenge I find intriguing.
- Additional question from User:Wizardman
- 7. When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why?
- A. I'm not sure whether you're looking for a policy-based answer or my opinion. I'm assuming it's the former, so I'll say that the effect of an AfD that's closed as “no consensus” is ordinarily that the article is kept, although without prejudice to a later nomination should there be a desire to gauge whether or not the community’s opinion has changed. As far as I understand policy, the limited situation where a “no consensus” might result in an article being deleted is where the article is about a living person who is relatively unknown and not a public figure, and where that person has requested that the article be deleted. In case I was wrong and you were looking for my opinion, for what it's worth, this seems a reasonable exception to me.
- Questions from Tony1
- 8. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?
- A: The notion I like; I'm worried about how the notion would translate into practice. In theory, I think having a forum for editors who believe that they've been treated in some way unfairly by an admin is a good idea. It certainly appears that you have good intentions in proposing this method, and it seems to be well-considered. In practice, I wonder about the crossover between this process and RfC Admin. Are they intended to co-exist? Can they? When should an editor avail themself of one versus the other? I wonder about the amount of process and bureaucracy that are built into this to arrive at results that are essentially opinion/advice, without any intent or ability to be binding on either the editor or the admin. Naturally, I worry about the possibility — strike that, the likelihood — that this will be a magnet for drama. In fact, to the extent that I've followed the development of this process at all, the drama is unfortunately the one thing that's stood out, which I think is really unfortunate. I'm not saying that's a reason not to introduce this, but it's certainly something that would need careful management should this eventually become live.
- Rejoinder: A good, considered answer. If you don't mind, I'll contact you at a later stage for feedback on the talk page there. Tony (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A: The notion I like; I'm worried about how the notion would translate into practice. In theory, I think having a forum for editors who believe that they've been treated in some way unfairly by an admin is a good idea. It certainly appears that you have good intentions in proposing this method, and it seems to be well-considered. In practice, I wonder about the crossover between this process and RfC Admin. Are they intended to co-exist? Can they? When should an editor avail themself of one versus the other? I wonder about the amount of process and bureaucracy that are built into this to arrive at results that are essentially opinion/advice, without any intent or ability to be binding on either the editor or the admin. Naturally, I worry about the possibility — strike that, the likelihood — that this will be a magnet for drama. In fact, to the extent that I've followed the development of this process at all, the drama is unfortunately the one thing that's stood out, which I think is really unfortunate. I'm not saying that's a reason not to introduce this, but it's certainly something that would need careful management should this eventually become live.
- Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
- 9a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
- A. I’ve gone through the policies, and I honestly can’t remember editing any of those pages or being involved with any of their associated talk pages. Not quite the same thing, but I was once involved in a discussion at WP:MOSNUM, around conversions for weights and measures. I've also been involved in what seems like a monthly debate on the talk page at WP:ATHLETE — the guideline that nobody likes but on which nobody can agree how it should be changed.
- 9b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
- A. Honestly, to the extent that I've examined any of it critically, I think most of the written policy is reasonably sound. So, I have to hope that you’ll pardon my selection — it’s not exactly sexy, but it does stick in my craw a bit. Given the power to change one policy, I’d choose Wikipedia:Naming conventions. What I would change is the section of the policy that says Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. First of all, while I’ll willingly confess that I don’t know the history of the decision, why is there a specific exception for iPod and eBay, particularly for the article names themselves and when beginning a sentence? If you’re going to have a policy, have a policy. Second, there’s a difference between trademarks for brands of products and actual company names, but this policy doesn’t distinguish. As an example, I’d offer the article Telus. It’s not just that the company spells the name TELUS in their advertising and communications with customers — more importantly, TELUS Corporation is their legal name, as reflected in their continuous disclosure documents filed with the securities regulatory authorities, their incorporating documents, etc. I’m a very strong believer in style, but if we’re creating an encyclopedia here, we also have an obligation to reflect reality.
- Oh, and not a policy change, but I'd also change the portion of the manual of style that deals with the treatment of em-dashes. I'll obviously abide by the guideline in article space but, as you'll see from my responses here, I'm exercising a small amount of rebellion. Sorry, Tony1.
- 9c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
- A. Pardon my boldness, but I'm going to assume that what you're really asking me is not as much do they as should they. I mean, in practice, they clearly do have weight, to varying degrees. As to whether or not they should, yes, I think so. WP:SNOW, applied properly, is simply paying respect to common sense — when the outcome is clear and overwhelming, we don’t necessarily need process for process’ sake. Of course, before invoking it, it's important to make sure that what looks like snow isn't really confetti. WP:OUTCOMES and WP:ATA are useful reading before bringing something to XFD or before commenting in a discussion there. They can also provide a useful reference within the discussion, although shouldn’t be the sole argument cited by a participant. For example, it's not good to simply point to WP:OUTCOMES and say that fully-licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable. If you know the context, it's useful to mention why that's true; similarly, if you don't know the context, it's equally useful to outline why you believe that's a good idea. It’s also important to remember that, to the extent that either essay reflects consensus, it is possible for consensus to change — hopefully the essays will change in response, but that’s not guaranteed.
- 9d. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?
- A. No.
- Oh, wait, you'd probably like that expanded on a bit, wouldn't you? Using FooSport in your examples is a great choice. I think if WikiProject FooSport wants to establish their own minimum standards for what competitors they think are notable, that's great — it allows their members to focus on creating, expanding, and maintaining the articles that they think are the highest value to their project and, presumably, to Wikipedia overall. However, that doesn't mean that they can impose those standards on the rest of the community, particularly if those standards are more inclusive than the community's. So, no, based on my current reading of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE, the FooSport project can't decide that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable. It's certainly possible for some of them to be notable, though. Similarly, if the FooSport project wants to decide that they're not going to create any FooSport stub bios, that's great. However, if someone else wants to come along and create one or more FooSport stub bios, and the subjects of those bios satisfy WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, the FooSport project can't just start unilaterally redirecting those articles to the team roster list.
- All that being said, if WikiProject FooSport can get enough movement on WP:ATHLETE to have their standards recognized as consensus within the community, more power to them. I've said more than once that WP:ATHLETE is a bit of a third rail around here.
- Optional questions from KillerChihuahua
- 10. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
- A: To my understanding, there are two primary situations: 1) when the edit is clearly uncontroversial, or 2) when consensus for the edit has been established on the article's talk page or at another appropriate forum.
- 11. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?
- A: Based on the available facts, and assuming that the related notable individual was not involved with the one event (I don't see any indication here that they are), I believe that I would close this as "Delete". I don't think that one appearance on Letterman is necessarily evidence that the subject doesn't intend to remain low profile. There's obviously no prejudice against recreating the article if there ends up being persistent coverage of the event in reliable sources.
- If the related notable individual was involved with the event, I believe that I'd close this as "Delete", but recommend merging the appropriate content to the article of the notable individual and adding a redirect from the subject of the deleted article.
- Those comments notwithstanding, please consider this my pinkie swear that, as much as I have no intention to close deletion debates any time in the foreseeable future, I'd be that much less likely to close a discussion with this set of facts. Heck, I probably wouldn't even be commenting in a discussion like this.
- Additional optional questions from Groomtech
- 12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
- A: Rights? Sure, and many of them have lefts too — probably a lot slower typing otherwise… sorry, couldn't resist. It's an interesting question, and one I’ll admit I’d never thought about before I started seeing it in these discussions. I guess I’d start by saying that my gut says that Wikipedians do have rights. They have the right not to be abused, attacked, or harassed. They have the right to be treated with fairness by their peers, particularly by their peers who have been granted extra tools or responsibilities through discussion or election. They have the right to be accurately credited for their contributions. They have the right to appeal a block or a ban, as well as either of those restrictions or any others placed on them by the Arbitration Committee. All that being said, my head says that the one right Wikipedians don’t have is the right to edit. They can be restricted, blocked, or banned. Heck, the Foundation could just turn off the power on the servers and keep all of us from editing. As a result, all of the other rights mentioned above aren’t absolute. They're more like 'fundamental privileges', so to speak. As for what I'd do to uphold them, I suspect that would be a by-product of using the tools properly rather than a result of any active consideration on my part. I don't go through my work or home life looking to make sure I'm actively upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms either, but I'm pretty sure I'm not infringing anybody's rights either simply by acting like a responsible human being.
General comments
- Links for Mlaffs: Mlaffs (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Mlaffs can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mlaffs before commenting.
Discussion
- Edit count posted to talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. As nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate's CSD work is good. He works as a copyeditor during the day, which is probably why he doesn't come home at night and copyedit featured articles on Wikipedia. AFAIK, he has just the one (hopefully) featured list, but I'll let him slide </humor> based on the quality of what I've seen of his 48,000 non-deleted articlespace edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well qualified. Tan | 39 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I very much like what I see. No concerns noted at all from a brief review. ~ mazca talk 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see anything that would make me oppose. Good luck! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Mlaffs would make an excellent admin. He has already shown that he can do quality work with other users and admin. I see no concerns. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not a name I knew, but a perusal of his contributions and his answers above show a hardworking behind-the-scenes editor with a sensible approach to adminship; the tools will be of use, and used sensibly, I'm sure. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to, as far as I can see. — Aitias // discussion 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user. -download ׀ sign! 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; seem them around, should do fine as an admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- --Giants27 (c|s) 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Does good work building the encyclopedia and doesn't seem to be too involved in the drama. We need more administrators (and editors) like that. Jafeluv (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for goodness sake David, you're saying that at every RFA. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Dlohcierekim 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Was on my old shortlist for a while, great user. Wizardman 00:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I actually just discovered Mlaffs a couple days ago and was planning on nominating him myself, pending the conclusion of my own RFA and a more in-depth review of his contribs. It seems Malinaccier beat me to the punch. Mlaffs will make an excellent admin. Timmeh 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Malinaccier and feel that giving the user tools will only benefit the project and see no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here, net positive. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 02:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Uh... yep! -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Exploding Boy (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JPG-GR (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen Mlaffs around and have never seen anything which causes concern. I don't see anything which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. This is a clueful editor who would make a great admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hard-working, thoughtful, and drama-free. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Triplestop (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keepscases (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—I'm impressed with his technical queries at the full-date unlinking bot RFC, which show a valuable skill-base along with his gnoming and copy-editing interests. Good answers above thus far. Tony (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He seemed very knowledgeable in my only main encounter with him: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCTJ. Tavix | Talk 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced. Solid contributor. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't find any concerns. Mm40 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per nom, no issues I can see. SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good candidate. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, purely to counteract David Fuchs' "weak oppose". Adminship is not reserved for prolific audited content contributors.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support as I've worked closely with the candidate on structural and other issues over many months and feel strongly that he'll wield the mop well. - Dravecky (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather you be open and honest about your wiki-beliefs than try to appease me or everyone else. And you were. The fact you've had experience in real life in dispute resolutuion, so that's a bonus, but you seem to be a fine Wikipedian and I have no hesitation in supporting you. Best of luck. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not even vaguely likely to abuse the extra "tools" through abuse or more aptly misuse. Clearly competent. A pleasure to support. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- God Bless the Gnomes. Excellent, quiet contrib history. Certainly highly qualified to continue on your trek of improving Wikipedia one byt at a time with a few extra buttons. Keeper | 76 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is poised/competent, around for the long term. Royalbroil 04:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Malaffs' answers and contributions mark him as a reasonable contributor who knows what to do with the tools, but more importantly, they show a reasonable attitude towards editing that shows they know when to stop using the tools as well. That's wonderful. NW (Talk) 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hmph, I thought he was one. MBisanz talk 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good, balanced answers.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost a strong support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as this candidate has several good things going, including having never been blocked, making strong arguments rather than just votes in such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Girls in Training, being an article creator per User:Mlaffs#Articles_I.27ve_started, and for receiving User:Mlaffs/Awards. So, with at least four distinctive positives that demonstrate recognition by fellow editors, persuasive arguing skills, and evidence of being here to indeed contribute to our compendium of knowledge, I feel reasonably good about this candidate. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely. You do a lot of good gnome work here and nothing in your contribution record gives me any hint that you'd misuse the tools. ThemFromSpace 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like you'll be a great admin. MacMedtalkstalk 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Clueful, and has a sense of light-hearted humor too! KillerChihuahua?!? 10:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good luck! One two three... 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no one could do it better (Mjal (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Support. No reason to oppose; many to support. --Vassyana (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers to questions and a willingness to venture closs to the third rail ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions & good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing holds me back from supporting this candidate. iMatthew talk at 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, decent editor. --Aqwis (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Peter Damian. Erik9 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely ridiculous opposes, though maybe that should be left unsaid. Aditya α ß 08:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd normally be neutral (or oppose) on lack of audited content, but in the absence of anything else, I think you're worth a shot with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although article-writing is not all that strong, the candidate clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, along with sound judgment, good disposition, and understanding of policy, to be an effective admin. JGHowes talk 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor, very encouraging candidate for adminship. Already does good work for Wikipedia, shows a convincing motive for wanting the mop, and has thoughtful answers to the problems. The right stuff! Gray62 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- support Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No concerns to warrant opposing. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unexpected support. I am normally skeptical of would-be admins whose only or primary encyclopedic contributions are vast numbers of gnome-like edits. However, your answers to questions and your clarity on what you would want to achieve with the bit makes me support. Martinp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. Looks fine to me. — Σxplicit 06:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good editor, will probably be a responsible admin. --~ Knowzilla (Talk) 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Support for "very low" edit counts and experience :P -- Tinu Cherian - 11:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good! LittleMountain5 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have Fun :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Indenting and striking duplicate !vote. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great responses to the questions, and with less than 9 hours left in the RfA no opposes have shown up that would make me worry. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acalamari 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Malinaccier. AdjustShift (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose per lack of significant audited content contributions (more info) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, just realized I don't really know what that means. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check his more info link. It basically means GAs, featured content, etc. Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I don't have any of that stuff. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, just realized I don't really know what that means. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of significant audited content contributions Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hooray for creative rationales! (X! · talk) · @970 · 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the commenter's stated intentions it might be uncharitable to fault their imagination. Skomorokh 01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hooray for creative rationales! (X! · talk) · @970 · 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Gnomes with tools are too great a risk, sorry. All admins must have either content or dispute resolution experience. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving tools useful to gnomes to gnomes is a greater boon than the risk. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I have to admit that if you do not make List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons up to WP:FL nomination[5], I would've definitely landed to Oppose for your non-inline sourcing to your 4 created list articles and lack of article building.[6] Although I am impressed by your 68,058 edits by hand, clueful answers and civil attitude, I believe admins exist to help editors build articles, so they need to fully acknowledge and experience our core content policy WP:V. I do not require FA/GA/ or even DYK to candidates, and I've appreciated WikiGnomes and fairies and elves, but except the list that could be a FL, I can not be convinced about your content building. I think your candidateship would be successful, so I raise my small concern.--Caspian blue 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. But I think sometimes we have to make exceptions. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (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 m:Steward requests/Permissions.
- 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.
- ^ 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