Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/78.26

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 103.6.159.90 (talk) at 18:20, 16 December 2015 (→‎Questions for the candidate: fixed numbering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

78.26

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/0/0); Scheduled to end 14:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

78.26 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to present 78.26! 78.26 is a hard working editor who's been around a while, focussed primarily in the article space, working away to make our broader music articles better. He has over a hundred music articles, which from a spot check appear to be well written. On top of that, 78.26 spends time helping out at Articles for Creation, leading to a healthy looking CSD log, and good work at AIV and UAA. As I'm sure you know, we can always do with more help in places like that!

More importantly, I believe his interactions show him to have the right temperament to be an admin. He doesn't get hot under the collar, is willing to discuss and collaborate. He's helpful to new users and talks a lot of sense when he's in the meta areas of the encyclopedia. Really, that's what I want to see in an administrator, and I'm proud to nominate him to be an administrator. WormTT(talk) 12:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Mr. Stradivarius

It gives me great pleasure to present to you the second numerical RfA candidate this week: 78.26. I have seen 78.26 in many places around the project, and I had always assumed that his username was the start of an IP address. But on checking his user page, I find that it is actually a reference to the speed of phonograph records. Who knew?

78.26 is no stranger to writing content, and can often be seen contributing to articles on music and musicians. He got Elmo Tanner to GA status, and he has created an impressive 133 articles, 37 of which have been featured at DYK. (He has 44 DYKs in total.) As seems to be a trend with recent candidates, he is also a frequent participant at AfC, with 2,403 edits using the AfC tool.

As he says on his user page, 78.26 takes part in a wide variety of wiki-tasks. He is a recent-changes patroller of the old school, doing all his work with Twinkle (he has amassed 8,672 edits using the tool). Perhaps as a result, his edit summaries are often more informative than those who patrol with Huggle and other similar tools. He has a very respectable CSD log; it has 254 entries, despite only stretching back to February. And while he says below that he won't be closing AfD discussions as an admin, he has participated in 224 of them, and his AfD comments show that he knows the notability guidelines well and that he is good at explaining his decisions. I wouldn't have any concerns at all about him branching out into this area should he choose to.

When I have seen him 78.26's comments around Wikipedia I have always found him to be knowledgeable and considerate. This impression has been strengthened after looking through his talk page archives. I see an editor who is willing to go the extra mile to help new editors and to explain his actions when people have questions. I think this will stand him in very good stead should he be given the admin tools. I have every confidence that 78.26 will make a great admin, and I hope that other editors will agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I was bored in primary school. What I did with my free time was read the encyclopedia, all volumes, cover to cover. Mind you, this was a 26-volume encyclopedia for beginning readers, but then I moved on to World Book. No, I didn't read it cover-to-cover, but I read a lot of interesting articles and learned enough that I barely had to study up through the end of high-school. (College, however, was a reality check!...) Volunteering at Wikipedia has been a joy and a blessing. I get to feed the inner information junkie, and actually research and write things that (some) people actually read. Plus sometimes I get to work with other interesting, diverse individuals whose experiences are often vastly different than my own, who often are smarter and wiser than I will ever be. I'd like to state a few things not found in the standard three questions, but which are almost certainly pertinent. I have never edited at Wikipedia under any account other than this one. Yes, I made a handful (fewer than 20) of edits as an IP before I fell in love with this place. They were not vandalism. Yes, I have made a few accidental edits while logged out, but I did not request them to be revdeleted. No, I don't think I could point anyone to them even if I tried. Yes, I realize my user name is a bit... unusual. Yes, I realize it might not be optimal to a new user I'm trying to help. Yes, I also realize it could be disruptive to the broader community to change it at this late date. If the community comes to a consensus that I should change my user name if I become an admin, I will abide by that consensus without reservation. I am grateful to my nominators for the trust placed in me, and those who encouraged me to run. I am therefore humbly asking that this community, based on my tenure and edit history, likewise place trust that I won't break the place, and grant me extra tools that I may serve it better. I accept the nomination. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am asking for the ability to block those editors who are intentionally and repeatedly disrupting the encyclopedia. My work in this regard would take two forms: those I notice while on watchlist and recent-changes patrol, and also to help out at WP:AIV. Usually at AIV requests are handled in a timely manner, but there is the rare occasion when there doesn't seem to be anybody at the wheel, and I have spent 10 minutes, 20 minutes, an hour reverting the same persistent vandal. I am requesting the ability to handle it myself, so I can move on to more "productive" tasks in these instances. I believe I would also be an asset revdeleting personal attacks and gross BLP violations. I think I could assist with WP:UAA and WP:RPP. Regarding XfD, I plan on continuing to nominate and letting others delete regarding notability, hoaxes, copyright and most forms of promotion. I do plan on deleting those I find at new page patrol that are attack pages or blatant advertising. I'm also willing to delete pages that others have nominated, if I concur with the findings. Although I'm not currently qualified to do this, I would like to learn how to properly merge articles. Places where I don't plan on helping is at drama-boards such as WP:ANI, nor particularly closing AfD debates (I'd rather place a !vote). I'll be of no help at WP:SPI, sorry.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I tend to write articles about obscure musical topics which don't lend themselves to FAs or even GAs. I've had the most fun rescuing the Chapel Records article. It is of particular interest to me, and had long been on my watchlist. The AfD nomination was a good one, the article was in sad shape. I had been planning on re-writing it for some time, and when the AfD caused me to get off my duff and actually do the work, I ended learning several things about the topic that I had been wondering about for some time. Collaborating with others to bring Elmo Tanner to GA status was also incredibly rewarding. Another instance was reaching out to an editor at WP:AfC whose article was disapproved. It was in a topic on which I had some expertise, and we worked together to bring it to the mainspace. Now he is a more productive editor than I am, and has written numerous fantastic articles.
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: As much as I care about this encyclopedia, it is still an unpaid hobby, so I don't think I'm going to let this raise my blood pressure much. I have been mildly annoyed, perhaps. As stated previously, I tend to work in obscure areas which don't lend themselves to drama, and I choose to not participate at the drama-boards. This does not mean I am unaware of them. I do read them on occasion to keep myself informed with current issues, and I have even picked up ideas that have made me a better editor.
I am not bothered by those who disagree with me. If I only associate with those who think exactly as I do, how will I learn, or see new perspectives? I believe strongly in WP:AGF, on this site and in life-in-general. What has caused me the most stress? Probably my own careless mistakes. Like creating an article about a band that already existed, because I didn't pay enough attention to the band's name.
So far I haven't provided any diff's or links, which is what several of you are probably looking for, so you can see how I react. The one situation where I was heavily involved is the following, which involved issues of COI, block evasion, and intentional misleading, if not outright lies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Records, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheiron_Records.
Additional question from Ritchie333
4. An IP adds an infobox to Buckingham Palace as their first edit. Two minutes later, an established editor with 5 confirmed contributions to WP:FAC reverts this edit with a summary "no consensus". The IP adds the infobox back with the edit summary "looks better". The established editor reverts "no consensus, go away". The IP re-reverts with a summary "pls leave my edits alone you bully", which is reverted by the same editor with the summary "you wouldn't know a FA if it came up and gave you a haircut, now piss off". Immediately after this, you stumble on the article history - what do you do?
A: Is crawling into a closet, closing the door, and quietly weeping an acceptable course of action? First, I would check the article's talkpage to see if consensus regarding infoboxes has been reached for this article. Since Buckingham Palace is an FA already, it seems highly likely that a consensus has already been reached regarding an infobox for this article. Indeed it has. So the established editor is correct in his position. But what are my goals here. First, the last thing I want to happen is to see anyone blocked over this, because both editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia. My goals are to make the IP editor feel welcome, and to make the established editor feel appreciated, while ending disruption. So then I check to see if the IP editor is truly new. Using a template is not particularly indicative of a brand-new user. If the IP appears to be truly new, I would point the new user to Wikipedia:Consensus, invite them to create an account and offer my assistance in trying to explain difficult concepts. Then I would ask the established user to tone it down, and maybe ask the established editor to assist with helping the IP understand the reasons behind the consensus. (I wouldn't hold my breath, frankly). Then see what happens. If the IP editor seems to have been around awhile, I would check to see if they and the established editor have "history," if only to try to gain some context regarding the unsavory edit summaries. I would then remind both editors that they are approaching 3RR, and ask that a civil discussion resume on the BP talk page. If the edit warring were to continue, I would try to dump it in Ritchie333's lap as punishment for asking me an infobox question at my RfA. If he were not available, and I were the last admin left on earth, I would temporarily full-protect the article and again request it be resolved on the talk page. Many scenarios could play out from there, but I hope I've given insight as to my thought process. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Reyk
5 Suppose that one day you decide to run for adminship. An editor asks a completely inane question. How do you respond?
A: Yagga foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. Seriously, usually the editor will have a good reason for asking a question, and I'll try to discern what they are trying to ask, or directly request clarification. If I think it is a dumb question, I'll do my best to give the best answer I can while not revealing my personal opinion regarding the question. If I think it is a question intended to trip me up, I will likewise do my best, while admitting my limitations. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Rubbish computer
6. You go onto AIV. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. How would you respond to each of these?

User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago)

User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A:
Additional question from Rubbish computer
7. You go onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you respond to each of these?

A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 14 users, most of them substantially experienced.

Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A:
Additional question from 103.6.159.90
8. A new user has just moved his user talk page which consisted of some warnings into the article namespace, and replaced its contents with an article about his own non-notable band, with no claim of significance. It is promptly tagged for A7 deletion, and a CSD notice is posted onto his user talk page. As an admin, what do you do?
A: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.90 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support let me be first to wholeheartedly support this candidate. 78.26 has been a hardworking editor who has shown a real need for the tools for some time -- samtar whisper 14:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support It's time! Liz Read! Talk! 15:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I haven't had too many interactions with 78.26, but I've seen them around. For all other matters, I don't have any concerns at this time. Mkdwtalk 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obvious support as nominator. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Another excellent candidate. The nominators have spelled out 78.26's qualifications well. I have also been impressed by their calm and courtesy in interactions with other editors, and their obvious love of Wikipedia. They clearly understand what admin tasks they are ready to do right away and where they need more experience. I trust them with the tools and think they will be a good addition to the admin corps. BTW, since they asked, I have no problem with their user name. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a most generous candidate who gave me an opera house, a precious one in 2013 already! I liked every encounter with the recognizable user name, - please don't change! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jianhui67 T★C 15:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Prolific, kind andhas shown ability to help out with the less savoury stuff without loosing their cool. BTW, I like the user name. It is clearly the wrong format for an IP and if you occasionnally get mistaken for one, so much the better. It will help you relate to them. Also, I find username changes dreadfully confusing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, obviously. sst✈(discuss) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Another very good candidate. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as co-nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems fine from here. Collect (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Based on the nominating statements and the analysis at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_1#78.26 I am happy to support this candidate. HighInBC 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Appears thoroughly suitable in key areas. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've seen this editor's good work on quite a few page histories. Also has done good work at noticeboards. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no issues. When the co-nominator is Mr. Stradivarius and the nominator is WTT, I need not to do any "research", I trust the candidate almost blindly. Jim Carter 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Long-term contributor with solid content contributions & helpful demeanour; no red flags I could see. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support. Good all-rounder, has worked with established writers without fuss, over 85% of AfDs called correctly yet giving a good argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempa when things didn't quite go his way, excellent answer to Q4, knows what a "78" is and likes Calvin and Hobbes. I don't think I could ask for anything more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/78.26&oldid=695525282"