Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
Undid revision 366211557 by Computer97 (talk); user deleted a link to an RfA, presumably by accident |
→Current nominations for adminship: Adding mine |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<!--<center>{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</center>--> |
<!--<center>{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</center>--> |
||
----<!-- please leave this horizontal rule --> |
----<!-- please leave this horizontal rule --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeffrey Mall 2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TFOWR}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TFOWR}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 13:51, 6 June 2010
↓↓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. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jeffrey Mall 2 | 27 | 19 | 7 | 59 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
TFOWR | 106 | 5 | 1 | 95 | Successful | 16:13, 11 June 2010 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jeffrey Mall 2 | 27 | 19 | 7 | 59 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
TFOWR | 106 | 5 | 1 | 95 | Successful | 16:13, 11 June 2010 | 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. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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 | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
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). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] 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] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
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.[4] 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".[5] 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.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 02:45:47, 16 May 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.
Jeffrey Mall 2
Final (27/19/6); closed at 17:00, 7th June 2010 (UTC) by ϢereSpielChequers
Nomination
Jeffrey Mall (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my great pleasure to nominate Jeffrey Mall for the mop. This is not Jeffrey's first run, he ran last November but failed to get consensus. At the time I was only a weak support myself as I had concerns that he was still quite a new editor. Fortunately he has decided to stay with us, and I think has continued to develop as a Wikipedian. As it is now over six months since his first run and over a year since he started editing, I would like to submit him for your reconsideration.
Jeffrey was already a useful vandal fighter when he first ran. He has since developed in a couple of directions, as a gnome wikifying and improving articles, and as a new page patroller. His edits are largely in article space or user talkspace, indicative I think of the sort of useful, communicative and uncontroversial admin that I believe Jeffrey Mall is now more than ready to become. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you WereSpielChequers. I accept. :-) Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:48, 6 June 2010 (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: Since my last RfA, I've gotten into CSD a bit more, so I'd like to spend some time over at CAT:CSD, particularly in the G10 and G3 departments, as I see both candidate types regularly, sitting around, waiting to be deleted and I believe I may be able to help out with the CSD backlog in that respect, although I intend to work primarily with vandalism and attack pages I'll also help out with other CSD types if an extra admin is needed.
- Anti-vandalism
- Although I tend to perform less anti-vandalism rounds nowadays than I did 6 or so months ago, I'm still interested in helping out over at AIV and with anti-vandalism in general, I tend to hang out at AIV
sometimes, well actually, fairly regularly watching reports being dealt with or even dealing with some reports myself! (To the best of my ability without access to the block tool, that is) If I'm not there to report a user or IP who's been regularly vandalizing I'll be responding to reports already there, watching reports being dealt with or removing users or IPs who've been blocked when the helperbots are down.
- General maintenance
- And last but not least I'd like to help clear the Temporary Wikipedia userpages backlog and assist in granting the rollback tool to users who've shown knowledge of Wikipedia's vandalism policy and some good experience dealing with vandalism in the past. I may also venture out into RfPP somewhere along the lines but I won't go jumping in at the deep end here, although I'll tread softly at RfPP to begin with, I'll still be protecting pages I may stumble across that have evidence of relatively recent and excessive disruption.
- Short but sweet answer
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: In my opinion, my best contributions to Wikipedia would have to be my work Wikifying lonely articles in need of attention. A few months ago I completed one of the biggest Wikification and cleanup projects I've been involved in so far during my time here on Wikipedia: Acoustic resonance spectroscopy, an article I found difficult to understand and whose subject I had no prior knowledge of whatsoever, the article had a very confusing footnote format but, in the end, I managed to cleanup, Wikify and perform some slight copyediting to the page to finally produce this which I was quite happy with. If you'd like to see more examples of my work with Wikiproject Wikify, I maintain a sporadically updated list of articles I've worked on, whose end results I personally, am most proud of. I'm also quite proud of a list that I created not too long ago where I did some fairly strenuous source gathering and formatting. As I don't like to and am not very good at (In my opinion) writing content, the only serious content creation work I do on Wikipedia involves lists as they don't require a whole lot of writing yet still contribute content-wise to the 'pedia's ever growing index.
- 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: The only real conflict I've been in would be this one which is barely a conflict in itself. The basic structure of it was that I'd moved a recently created page on a footballer named Iro Curmi (footballer born 1963) away from disambiguation in its title as there was no other footballer with the same name (or so I thought), I had run some searches but from what I found, I thought that multiple documents were all referring to the same Iro Curmi, so I moved the page, however it turned out that there were indeed two footballers with the name "Iro Curmi" so the page was moved back, over redirect, to its original title, I'd already discussed this with the page's author and we agreed that the redirect (left behind after my page move) was no longer needed and as there wasn't a page on the second "Iro Curmi" a dab page would be fairly pointless as one of the two links that would appear on it would be red, as such I requested the redirect be deleted per R3 as an implausible typo, a CSD, admittedly, with a hint of IAR as it's not totally implausible but would prevent any future confusion from readers if it were to be deleted now, if I were an admin at the time I would have simply suppressed the redirect during the move but the admin who dealt with the CSD in the end disagreed with my rationale for deletion and so declined the speedy deletion. I dealt with this conflict the same way I've dealt with every other minor conflict over editing I've experienced on the 'pedia, through discussion with the parties involved, although the redirect wasn't deleted in the end, I'm happy to have been able to walk away from the conflict knowing I'd gotten somewhere at least, even if it wasn't the way I'd originally wanted to go with the page.
- Additional optional question from Tommy2010
- 4. What is the most powerful administrative tool in your opinion? Why do you believe this and how should you go about using it?
- A: In my opinion the most powerful tool is either page protection or Special:Block. Page protection if applied ro restrict editing and page moves by anyone except sysops will limit the number of people able to edit or move the page from potentially millions of users (anonymous or otherwise) to around 1,800 administrators on the english Wikipedia, if not page protection then it would probably have to be the access to the block form as blocking whole ranges incorrectly can have detrimental effects. I can't ever see myself blocking ranges to be honest with you, as I lack the technical knowledge to do so and as such will be leaving this to the admins willing to make these difficult blocks. As for page protection I can't see myself protecting pages with the sysop-only settings any time soon, these protection settings are typically only used for edit-warring and high visibility pages and templates, as I don't participate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and tend to avoid areas where content disputes are active as much as possible, I can only see myself using the sysop-only protection settings for the latter case and not anytime soon.
- Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee
- 5. So, what's your take on BLP policy? (Someone had to ask)
- A: The BLP policy is a very good, solid, policy in my opinion. I was just one of the many, many editors who voiced their opinions and commented on the proposals not too long ago at RfC in regards to unreferenced BLPs, and was one of those who supported User:David Gerard's views (among others) who proposed a type of "sticky prod", as it were, for newly created unreferenced BLPs. I'd say we're handling BLPs and enforcing the BLP policy nowadays much better than we were last year. In the 6 or 7 months that have passed since my first RfA I've found myself in areas where the BLP policy had to be enforced and found myself taking action against edits which potentially violated the biographies of living persons policy. I hope that sharing my opinion of the policy here and the diffs I've supplied will give a little more insight into my level of understanding of the BLP policy which I believe was one of, if not, the primary concern at my first RfA.
- Additional optional question from Tommy2010
- 6. You are patrolling the recent changes and you see a brawl break out between another administrator and a new user over an article they are both working on. The administrator, in your opinion, is being blatantly rude, unhelpful and overall biting to the point where you feel a block is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Do you block the sysop in this situation? Why or why not?
- A: No. I tend to avoid directly getting involved in controversial situations such as this, even if I felt the admin required blocking,
I wouldn't be the one to block themSee the summary for Q12, if I were to block the admin in question directly, I think things could easily get much worse as I've seen all too well what a controversial admin action such as this can accomplish and it's not pretty. I may simply talk to the admin either by email or on their talk page and tell them that the way they're acting is totally unacceptable but it really depends on the circumstances, if I feel the need to, I'll make a post at ANI to discuss the issue with others and that way we can work out the appropriate action to take against said admin (if any).
- A: No. I tend to avoid directly getting involved in controversial situations such as this, even if I felt the admin required blocking,
- Additional questions from Suomi Finland
- 7. There was an election for new checkusers and oversighters. The ballot was secret, unlike this RFA. One checkuser was elected. The others failed to be elected. Some people want to appoint some of them anyway. Others say that changing the rules of the election after an election is not good. There have been other suggestions, like temporary appointment and a new election. What is your opinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Checkuser_and_oversighter_selection
- A: I can see how changing the "rules" soon after an election took place could be seen as controversial, but if the current election process isn't working then something has to be done about it, although having said that, there is a possibility that the reason the election process no longer works is that users' expectations and standards of and for the granting of users access to the restricted checkuser and oversight interfaces have risen over time as both checkusers and oversights are not only trusted and expected to use the checkuser and oversight tools within policy but have access to information from the database that shouldn't be publicly accessable and as such requires a very secure account and a very trustworthy individual to handle such tools, therefore it would be necessary to place users interested in having access to these restricted interfaces under intense scrutiny in order to make sure that the user will indeed use the checkuser or oversight tools within policy and will never abuse either of them.
- 8. If someone wrote a valid, constructive comment, but this was removed by someone citing "disruptive" even though it was a calmly written, seemingly valid comment, would you block that person that removed the comment? Is it vandalism? Or should one just accept the fact that comments were removed? What if someone removed "support" votes in someone else's RFA and you were an admin?
- A: No. Simply removing a comment doesn't justify a block especially if a sensible rationale of any kind is supplied in the edit summary. Good faith should always be assumed and as such I wouldn't even revert the edit, I would however leave a note on the user's talk page requesting clarification of the removal of the comment. I would do the same for any type of !vote in an RfA, this changes however, if the user or IP who removed the comment has been actively vandalizing and just decided to randomly remove the comment citing "disruptive" in an attempt to cause disruption.
- Additional question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
- 9. This is as follow up to Q6 above. Would your actions in that scenario if the party behaving unacceptably was an established, respected editor but not an administrator and would it change again if they were relatively new with only a few edits?
- A. As an established editor I would have expected them to already be aware of our behavioural guidelines and policies, specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, depending on the severity of the user's actions, a block may be needed in order to prevent any further damage, which, depending on the user's history with us (including their block log) would hopefully only span a few hours, if I were to indeed need to do this, I would however, also request a review of the block at ANI.
- Additional question from Mkativerata
- 10. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion nominations? [1] [2]
- A. Both have been tagged as A7 articles yet neither of them could be appropriately deleted per A7 of the criteria as they both claim some degree of significance in one way or another, I would have declined both of them, if push came to shove either article could at any time be either proposed for deletion or be brought in for discussion, having said that, nowadays #1 would have to be BLP prodded if sources couldn't be found.
- Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee
- 11. Can I ask for a bit of clarification on Q8? It sounds like you're saying that if one editor removes another editor's "valid, constructive comment", from a Talk page or RfA, then that should not be reverted. If that's what you're saying, then I'd find that rather strange - it's always seemed to me that refactoring someone else's comments in any way, unless it is to counter a clear breach of the rules, is very much a no-no and should be reverted. (I have, in fact, myself reverted a number of such removals, and have issued {{Uw-tpv1}} warnings). Any further comments would be appreciated.
- A: Removal of constructive, valid comments can be reverted of course, the above example is just a bit of insight into what I would do personally, it's just that nowadays I'd rather talk about it beforehand so as to avoid unnecessarily reverting a valid edit.
- Aditional optional question from White Shadows stood on the edge
- 12. This is a follow-up from Q6 and Q9. If say HJ Mitchell is the admin who is biteing and attacking a newbie and if he could be blocked in a non-contraversial stance if he was a regular rollbacker, you'd you block him? You earlier said that you would bring the case up to ANI. If that is the case then if I were the one biteing and attacking, would I get the same "trial by jury" as HJ would or would you block me on the spot for WP:NPA's and violation of WP:Bite?
- A: A block of any established editor will always have some degree of controversy surrounding it, though it really depends on the severity of the particular case, I'd only block you or any other established editor if I thought it was 100% necessary, a single, one-off personal attack against a new editor does not automatically warrant a block however, but a good talking to, yes, recurring personal attacks at any particular editor over a period of time is another story however, as blocking wasn't implimented to punish users but to protect the encyclopedia and its editors. As stated above I would still request a review of the block to see where others stand on the situation however.
- I'm sorry for draging this out but you seem to have dodged my question a bit so I'll re-word it for you :) If HJ has been rude and attacking for not one instance but enough to warant a block based solely off of policy would you block him? Now If I (a non-admin) were to do the same thing as HJ, what if anything would you do diffrently than your handleing of HJ? (If you'd like we can move this to your or my talk page)--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In summary for those who may have been a bit confused by the follow-ups and more follow-ups and unofficial questions in various places regarding the subject:
- Admin makes a personal attack or chomps on a newbie (One-off), I discuss with the admin.
- Admin makes a recurred personal attack against a particular editor after discussion, a report is filed at ANI.
- Admin ceases to stop attacking a particular editor and appears to be determined to continue on with the personal attacks and incivility regardless of discussion or filed ANI report or both, this would probably be one of if not the only time I'd be willing to block an admin on the spot for personal attacks, a block review would be requested at ANI.
- In summary for those who may have been a bit confused by the follow-ups and more follow-ups and unofficial questions in various places regarding the subject:
- I'm sorry for draging this out but you seem to have dodged my question a bit so I'll re-word it for you :) If HJ has been rude and attacking for not one instance but enough to warant a block based solely off of policy would you block him? Now If I (a non-admin) were to do the same thing as HJ, what if anything would you do diffrently than your handleing of HJ? (If you'd like we can move this to your or my talk page)--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A: A block of any established editor will always have some degree of controversy surrounding it, though it really depends on the severity of the particular case, I'd only block you or any other established editor if I thought it was 100% necessary, a single, one-off personal attack against a new editor does not automatically warrant a block however, but a good talking to, yes, recurring personal attacks at any particular editor over a period of time is another story however, as blocking wasn't implimented to punish users but to protect the encyclopedia and its editors. As stated above I would still request a review of the block to see where others stand on the situation however.
- Established editor makes a personal attack or chomps on a newbie (One-off), I discuss with the user.
- Established editor makes a recurred personal attack against a particular editor after discussion, a report is filed at ANI.
- Established editor ceases to stop attacking a particular editor and appears to be determined to continue on with the personal attacks and incivility regardless of discussion or filed ANI report or both, the established editor is blocked.
- It's the same for either party but depends entirely upon the circumstances what action is required on the spot, in the case of either block, a review is requested at ANI. I didn't want to block another admin myself especially if not backed by community consensus (as stated above) due to the potential for a lot of nastiness, however, as the blocking of an admin in any case or any established editor appears to be an inevitable spark for controversy I withdraw my initial response in that I wouldn't block another administrator. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Mr. R00t Leave me a Message
- 13. This is a question to attempt to clear something up for most people who are !vote-ing 'oppose'. Okay, I think I've figured this out by your answers. You think that all wikipedians should not be banned even though they are clearly biting other new/IP users. Do you not believe that a user who is clearly abusing others should be banned? I am not sure if I have your answers correct but that is how it is coming across.
- A. I believe that people in general, not just on Wikipedia, deserve second chances, that's just the way I feel. Stepping over the line is something that we all do at one point or another and I think for the most part it should be noted, addressed and then disregarded in that if a user makes a single, BITEy comment towards an individual it doesn't automatically warrant a block, but recurring attemps to attack individuals either newbies or established editors by anyone is totally unacceptable, a blatant violation of policy and should be dealt with accordingly depending on the individual case. Hope this has given a little more clarification to my stance on the matter.
Optional Question from Keegan
- Q. I'm seriously confused on your thought process between action, answering, and opposition, so let me ask you this:
- What, in plain terms, does administrating the English Wikipedia mean to you?
- Please write off the cuff if you choose to answer, I'll know a canned response if I see one ;) Again, this is optional, and no one should oppose if you do not answer it. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A. It means I'll be able to do, more than I currently do to support the project, the above areas I mentioned in my answer to Q1 are areas I have a genuine interest in working in but currently have limited, or even no access to, due to being unable to access certain, restricted features of the software. As I'm very much into the maintenance side of Wikipedia, I'd love to be able to contribute to these specific areas, but, if it is determined that just too many users would feel uncomfortable with me having access to the tools, I can just continue to do, what I've been doing during my time here on Wikipedia. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 11:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Rohedin
- Q. Do you agree that administrators should be nominated because of experience and not of account age? Rohedin TALK 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- Links for Jeffrey Mall: Jeffrey Mall (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Jeffrey Mall can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Support
- As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Checks out alright with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my good interactions with the nominee on some lower profile articles. Lambanog (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support -
seems fine to me.Did seem fine until you answered questions 6 and 9. Under your policy, which is somewhat awry, I would be blocked but an admin in the same situation wouldn't. :( However, I'm not opposing, because otherwise, you're a good editor, and you may well not have worded what you meant very well. I don't want to see your RfA be ruined when it was going so well, and let's face it guys - he won't make the same error of judgement again... (fingers crossed anyway) Orphan Wiki 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Support Been around for 12 months and his interest around the admin related areas gives me no choice but to support. Excellent candidate. Minimac (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support did so last time and will do so again! Airplaneman ✈ 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Giving Jeffrey a mop seemed like a good idea to me at first glance. I then read through his first Rfa, which confirms that he took some good advice, including work on speedy deletes, and is ready. Best wishes! Jusdafax 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Never heard of temporary wikipedian userpages, after clicking on the link in his past Rfa, I was genuinley amazed to find such a backlog. Acather96 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as someone who was neutral last time, I am more than happy to support you this time :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(moved to oppose per Q6 and Q9)[reply]
- Support. This editor appears willing to engage on their user talk calmly and directly. Having addressed what seemed to be the major reasoning for the opposes in the previous RfA, along with my observation of Jeffrey's clueful contribution, point to a major net positive. Tiderolls 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems that I see. Hi878 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. Immunize (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have genuinely improved since the last RfA. ceranthor 18:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what i've seen, its a yes. Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weaksupport – Giving Jeffrey the mop is not a bad idea. He's been very helpful around Wikipedia.However, I am worried about his answers to questions 6 and 9, as the oppose below have mentioned. Just because someone is an admin does not give them immunity from blocks. If an editor is being disruptive, they should be blocked, regardless of whether or not they are an admin. If they try to unblock themselves, they will be desysopped by ArbCom (Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) is a prime example). If he corrects his answers to these questions, I may change to a normal support, but currently, I have to unfortunately only weak support.Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Support User has a clue about not blocking other administrators. It's unfortunate that the initial opposers have seen that as a double-standard, but I believe I understand it for what it is: a strong preference for drama-avoidance. Blocking another administrator is a guaranteed drama magnet, especially in the circumstances posed in the questions he answered. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comming from an admin, that statement holds zero value to me and a lot of other people here. A mop is a mop, not a shield.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how that was particularly called for. Feel free to scrutinize my block log seeing how many more established editors I've blocked than administrators. Blocking is overused to handle disputes, including incivility, in my book, and I like the candidate's answers. We don't need more admins willing to be egalitarian in their blocking, we need more admins willing to avoid blocking non-vandals unless absolutely necessary. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comming from an admin, that statement holds zero value to me and a lot of other people here. A mop is a mop, not a shield.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jclemens above. The user simply wants to exhibit caution, as to not create a fiasco when blocking admins. Especially as an admin hopeful, with little "real" experience blocking, exhibiting caution in this situation is one of the best things Jeffrey could do. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mreow. #10 is somewhat concerning, and I'll think about it, but I'm still leaning towards net positive. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Answers are fine with me. I didn't mean to cause a scene by my question, and it is indeed a difficult situation. We all don't wanna piss anyone off, but a hypothetical situation can very well happen, I think you're a fine candidate that would exercise great care when using the administrative tools as well as someone who would think about the consequences if such a situation were to occur. In Q10, the 2nd CSD should be deleted under G10. – Tommy2010!message 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't see what all the fuss is about. I have read his answers and I can see no reason to oppose his promotion. MtD (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Same reason as with MtD. IronBreww (chat) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support His answers seem fine to me also. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even after my above question I do still believe that he should get the mop. Good answers to other questions. Not into making choices but who can blame him. Support Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Also, I like his thoughtful and organized approach to the RfA responses, and the rewording of a questioned response to make sure he was communicating clearly. That kind of attention to clarity is a valuable quality for an admin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Have no problems at all with this editor and seen some really good work from them. Has earned the community's trust. -- Ϫ 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support, sufficient clue for me. I see questions 6 and 10 as traps. Q6 and its follow-up cascade actually describes a very difficult situation for a new admin, and I can understand the candidate's gut feeling to back off from such a case as soon as possible, for instance by reporting it to AN/I. Jumping into a new field of admin tasks and performing one of the most controversial actions possible without prior wide consultation is seldom a good idea. Q10 asks primarily about the A7 criterion. That the second example should be deleted per G10 is actually a new question, hidden in the somewhat murky wording. My support is only weak because (1) he walked into two traps at once, previous attendance of RfA discussions could have avoided that, and (2) I have trouble following his arguments in many of the answers and believe as admin he should be able to explain things much more to the point -- the latter concern is of course a personal feeling, and if I am the only one having that problem then it is my fault, not his. --Pgallert (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Q12 has clarified things to my satisfaction. I'm convinced this candidate will do a lot of good things with the tools, and if, as a new admin, he's not comfortable diving right in to controversial actions, then I think that is understandable - in fact, I think it's quite wise for new admins to start off cautiously. (And I don't think it's fair to judge a candidate on one, ostensibly hypothetical, issue - one that has only recently arisen in RfA land) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good involvement in WP:AIV, WP:HELPDESK, WP:UAA, WP:AN/I & WP:RPP. Vipinhari || talk 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
OpposeStrongest possible oppose. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick from the answers to Q6 and 9, but you seem to think admins are exempt from policies or are exempt from being blocked for violations thereof. Also, admisnhip is about making tough decisions- if it wasn't, we'd have bots that do more than just clerk AIV and RfPP. Wishing to be an uncontroversial admin is commendable, but I worry that you wouldn't be comfortable having to make potentially controversial decisions and I have concerns over how you would deal with the inevitable screams of admin abuse that follow any controversial decision. I can't support an admin who won't make a judgement call when it might be controversial- that why we have admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've upped to "strongest possible" oppose per the answer to Q10- that second example should be deleted as a G10, regardless of whether it meets A7 or not. I would be deeply uncomfortable with having an admin who doesn't recognise that unsourced, potentially libellous information about living people needs to be deleted on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (for now) Q6 and Q9 seem to tell me that you belive in double standards here. You litteraly said that If say HJ here got into a big fight with an Ip or a newbie, you'd not block him since he is an admin but you would block oh say me since I am an established editor but not an admin. Until you clarify your answer a bit more and tell us that you're admin related actions would not be influenced by another person's "user rights", I'm going to have to oppose this RFA.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if that's the impression I gave off but no one is exempt from policy and I never said admins were either. Not too long ago we lost several admins including this one due to apparent disputes in which one admin blocked another who then unblocked themself and blocked another, this is exactly the scenario I'm talking about and would like to prevent from happening again in the future to the best of my ability, I'm all for having an admin blocked if it's called for under the circumstances but I'd rather discuss it beforehand instead of blocking an admin on the spot (technically could be classed as a cool down block) as it can be lifted by the blocked user as they're an administrator themself and especially if said block is not backed by community consensus as this is where thinks can go nastily wrong, however inappropriate or against policy this may be you have to take into consideration that it is indeed technically possible in that the software will allow you to do it. I'm presuming the bit that grabbed attention was this: As an established editor I would have expected them to already be aware of our behavioural guidelines and policies, specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, this was added to my answer to Q9 specifically because it was noted that User:HJ Mitchell was talking specifically about an established editor and yet I've seen editors who've been here years and not known of some policies, editorial and behavioural guidelines such as these, this wasn't added to my answer to Q6 because it would be obvious that I (as well as everyone else) would expect an admin to be aware of such well known policies and behavioural guidelines as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I don't believe in double standards and I by no means believe admins are exempt from policy, it's unfortunate however, that my phrasing on Q6 was off and I hope this expansion would have cleared up some of the confusion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that explanation. I'm not quite satisfied, though and would appreciate it if you could elaborate further. So, if you saw me do something for which you would block a non-admin (White Shadows, for instance), would you block me. Also, I have the technical ability to unblock myself (technically, I could block myself!) but I'm not allowed to and there are messages to that effect on all the relevant special pages, so if I did, I'd probably be desysopped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the same concerns as HJ here. I'm not totally ready to support and I'll be awaiting your reply to HJ. Thanks.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have moved to strongest possible oppose I'll still expand upon my expansion to Q9 per request. You may have been blocked depending on community consensus determined by an uninvolved admin at ANI, if I felt that you needed to be blocked under the circumstances I would !vote in favour of blocking you and share my opinion on the noticeboard but I wouldn't be the one to block you as I would now be involved. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for makeing that clear. I'm going to hold off from moveing back to support or neutral for now though and see if anything else comes up. (sorry for being so rough on you) Right now I'm looking towards Support or at least neutral :) Thanks for makeing yourself clear :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the same concerns as HJ here. I'm not totally ready to support and I'll be awaiting your reply to HJ. Thanks.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that explanation. I'm not quite satisfied, though and would appreciate it if you could elaborate further. So, if you saw me do something for which you would block a non-admin (White Shadows, for instance), would you block me. Also, I have the technical ability to unblock myself (technically, I could block myself!) but I'm not allowed to and there are messages to that effect on all the relevant special pages, so if I did, I'd probably be desysopped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if that's the impression I gave off but no one is exempt from policy and I never said admins were either. Not too long ago we lost several admins including this one due to apparent disputes in which one admin blocked another who then unblocked themself and blocked another, this is exactly the scenario I'm talking about and would like to prevent from happening again in the future to the best of my ability, I'm all for having an admin blocked if it's called for under the circumstances but I'd rather discuss it beforehand instead of blocking an admin on the spot (technically could be classed as a cool down block) as it can be lifted by the blocked user as they're an administrator themself and especially if said block is not backed by community consensus as this is where thinks can go nastily wrong, however inappropriate or against policy this may be you have to take into consideration that it is indeed technically possible in that the software will allow you to do it. I'm presuming the bit that grabbed attention was this: As an established editor I would have expected them to already be aware of our behavioural guidelines and policies, specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, this was added to my answer to Q9 specifically because it was noted that User:HJ Mitchell was talking specifically about an established editor and yet I've seen editors who've been here years and not known of some policies, editorial and behavioural guidelines such as these, this wasn't added to my answer to Q6 because it would be obvious that I (as well as everyone else) would expect an admin to be aware of such well known policies and behavioural guidelines as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I don't believe in double standards and I by no means believe admins are exempt from policy, it's unfortunate however, that my phrasing on Q6 was off and I hope this expansion would have cleared up some of the confusion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm sorry, I was actually going to support, but your answers to questions 6 and 9 are more than worrying! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per answers 6 & 9. If the admin was annoying the newbie, I'll say yes because admins should not annoy newbies, and that the admin should be blocked and de-sysoped. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the two above me. To be an admin, ya gotta step be willing to step in the shit sometimes. Don't get me started with AfD and DRV closes, and that's the least controversial. Still controversial, though. I should add that "established editors" are often following IAR, as it were, and tend to lose some of the more current clue. But that's just imo. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Hell, a semi-protect can cause controversy![reply]
- Oppose per questions 6 and 9. Administrators shouldn't be blocked, but experienced editors should be? Admins are by definition experienced. "one rule for thee, another for me" is not how I expect an admin to behave, and if you refuse to undertake actions because "they might be controversial" you're not needing the tools. Oy vey, the number of emails OTRS gets about blocks and deletions (and that's just OTRS) shows that almost anything can be controversial. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I kinda feel for you on questions 6 and 9 - that's one of those where there's no good answer. If you say yes, then you're not supporting your fellow admin and if you say no or "let's discuss it", then it's a double standard. Your answer of "I'm not going to be the one to make the block" is probably what most admins feel, if we're honest. But your answer to #10 really bothers me. That second one obviously cannot be allowed to stay like that. It needs to immediately be deleted or sourced - not hang around waiting for a prod. BLP is a fundamental policy and a firm understanding of it is the most important job for an admin. --B (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose my apologies for the pile on but your answers to Q6 and Q9 and the follow up do not convince me that you are ready for the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry but to Q's 6 and 9, my take is the admin should never be on that side of the fence and blocked immediately. As per RP459, hate to add to the pile but not yet Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. As noted above, per the responses to 6, 9, and 10. --PinkBull 01:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A number of the answers aren't great, but #10 is particularly worrisome. BLPs with unsourced potentially libelous material need to be deleted immediately and handled more aggressively than A7s.--Terrillja talk 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the answers to questions. I believe you are well-intended and wish to help the project, however, I can't support someone who would keep the Teo Eff article (example 2 at question 10) which contains very serious - potentially defamatory - completely unsourced claims that named and presumably living persons are gang members who murdered numerous innocent persons. I think the candidate needs to go back to the basics, particularly with regard to WP:V and WP:BLP, before being granted the administrator tools. I'm glad you've made a clarification, but I'm honestly not convinced re the whole special treatment for admins answers. Sarah 06:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above. Answers to 6, 9 and 10 appear worrisome. —Dark 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with regret, per Sarah- Q10 is a softball for you to show what you know on, and I'm afraid you blew it. Example 1 should be instantly BLP Prodded, and 2 should be an instant delete under G10. We do not let "X and Y are murderers" sit around for however long hoping someone drives by and sources it- it goes, instantly. Courcelles (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with regret, as per Courcelles. While I don't have a problem with declining the speedy for Example 1, Example 2 is clearly a BLP-insta-delete. I look forward to supporting next time around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further clarify that I don't mind the answers to the blocking questions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (moved from support) per Q6, Q9, Q10, et al. Sorry, but I was hoping for less sloppy work than that out of you. —fetch·comms 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose answer to Q6 honestly is not acceptable. An admin and a non-admin editor have exactly same rights, and a private email discussion with another admin is the worst way to lead a dispute to a resolution, above all when there'is an evident deprecable behaviour. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tough one for me. A lot of these questions are really tough, and taken individually I don't see how this candidate's views would be problematic. I don't expect a new admin to be able to sort through the stickiest stuff right out of the gate, and this candidate seems willing to tread carefully at first. Taken as a whole, the responses strike me as written by someone who's unwilling to take any position on a debate. Being able to see all sides of an issue can be cultivated into admin skills, but I need to know that an admin can move past that and determine which viewpoint most reflects consensus. I don't think this candidate is quite ready to do that, but I strongly believe this will change. Please try again if this attempt is unsuccessful.--~TPW 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Re the mistake regarding the second speedy example, which shows a dangerous level of lack of care; it might be a trick question, but it's not a particularly difficult one. (As an aside, caution regarding civility blocks seems to me a reasonable response.) Espresso Addict (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Waiting for more answersdefinitely leaning towards support, excellent answers to the questions– Tommy2010!message 18:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears from Q's 6 and 9 that you see Admins as warranting special treatment compared to an established editor. I note that blocks were held as options in both cases, hence my neutral for now, but in the case of the established editor (who "should know the policies") the block seemed to be higher up on the list of options than for the admin, who is certainly expected to know the policies as well. ArakunemTalk 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Question 10 is a problem if the BLP/G10 issue isn't picked up here and I've opposed other candidates because of this question. Parking here while I consider further because I want to take time to think and consider the bigger picture before opposing over one question. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment while I ponder answers to questions. I generally see a pretty good candidate, but I also see some timidity where I think a bit more decisiveness might be more appropriate. However, having said that, I can't help thinking some of the questions arising in RfAs at the moment are aimed at one rather specific problem, and it's perhaps a bit unfair to try to focus candidates on that one issue. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Changing to support -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning towards support - Can't give full support due to Q6 and Q9. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Neutral leaning to support: Answer to Questions 6 and 9 are making me think no, however your strong work toward making the Wiki a better place is making me think yes. Pilif12p : Yo 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Per Philif12p and oppose reasons. BejinhanTalk 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but leaning support. I’m less concerned about the Q6 and Q9 answers than I am the Q10 answer. Q6 and Q9 are minefields – the tension between the unwritten rule that you don’t block sysops, and the written rule that everyone is treated the same makes for hard to answer questions. I slightly more concerned at the miss for the second Q10 CSD. On one hand it is a serious miss for the project if it isn’t deleted. However, in practice, the declination would delay the deletion by literally minutes, until someone else alerted a different sysop, and it would be a good learning experience. So missing this isn’t enough to cause me to oppose, but it leads me to think a little more time spent o policies would be worthwhile. Looks like ti could be a close call; I won’t be unhappy if the supports win, I see evidence that Jeffrey intends to tread carefully, so will probably turn into a fine sysop.SPhilbrickT 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the delay would be considerably longer than just a few minutes- just yesterday I came across an article that had been tagged with a BLP PROD and had sat there for 10 days that served no purpose but to tell the reader that the subject was a transvestite (amongst other, similar claims). While both the creation and the tagging were in good faith, it needed to be deleted instantly and admins need to be on the ball when it comes to that kind of thing, which is the reason I'm opposing so vehemently, much as it pains me to do so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral A good candidate, good intentions but answers to Q6, Q9 and Q12 are a bit of concern and the "totally unacceptable" part is something I'd hope you wouldn't go saying around to an admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (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.
TFOWR
Final (106/5/4); Closed as successful by xeno at 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
TFOWR (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to present TFOWR (talk · contribs) for your consideration for the role of administrator. TFOWR has clocked up almost 15,000 edits in nearly 2 and a half years on the project and has recently returned from wikibreak. Since his return, I've been consistently impressed with what I've seen, which has included many level headed, civil and clueful comments on ANI, Talk:Main Page and many other fora. Since I got my own mop a month ago, I've valued his input at RfPP, where he makes useful suggestions to save time for admins and he even took on a mediation role in a very heated discussion between several editors. All things considered, I think TFOWR would be a great asset to the admin corps. I sincerely hope the community agrees with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominations
Co-nom from Llywrch: Is it too late to co-nominate TFOWR? -- llywrch (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom from Fences and Windows: TFOWR (formerly known as This Flag Once Was Red) is fine admin material. He's sensible and a calming influence (recently herding cats at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid), he is familar with AN/I, AIV, RfPP, SPI, etc. and would make good use of the tools. He had three separate editors last month (including myself) ask him why he wasn't an admin, and now he's run out excuses not to stand. Fences&Windows 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, HJ Mitchell, llywrch and Fences&Windows. I'm surprised and flattered that you believe I'd be a good candidate for the mop. I accept, subject to serving at the community's pleasure (based on this process). As noted on my talk page, I always welcome advice and criticism - here or elsewhere. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:21, 4 June 2010 (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: In the immediate term: WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:SPI, WP:WQA (and WP:DR in general), WP:ITN, WP:OTD and the various XfDs. In the longer term I'll go wherever there's a need (I tend to follow WP:ANI fairly closely and frequently end up in "new areas" as a result).
- RFPP and AIV are areas where I've been active for what feels like forever. I'm a Talk:Main Page regular and see ITN and OTD as consensus-driven processs where I could help out. WQA - and the community's policies on civility in general - is an area I find fascinating: I feel it's one area where our current policies are stretched to near breaking-point (long-term editors are dragged over the coals, new editors can't decipher the seemingly baroque rules that appear to vary from one editor to the next). XfDs I've been involved with as a !voter, and is another consensus-driven process I feel I could help with more. I've been involved with SPI through dealing with long-term sock-puppetry, and I'd like to be in a position to deal with obvious cases (subject to being non-involved, etc) as I feel the community's response to some long-term abuse can be very slow and ineffectual.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Managing disagreements or disputes.
- I'm pretty proud of some of the things I've done at WP:ANI or as a result of ANI. A recent example is Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, where I've been one of a small group of regular editors countering a twin-pronged WP:POV flood. A less recent example consisted of working at ANI with another non-admin to broker peace between two new editors, both of whom have gone on to be constructive, productive editors.
- I believe that disagreements can be good - they can lead to new understanding. An example of this, and one I'm personally proud of, is Catfish John: I encountered this article at an AfD, where I !voted delete. Another editor !voted keep, and the pair of us worked on the article until I was proud to change my !vote to keep.
- 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: Conflict? Yes, I believe that conflict is inevitable over time (and, as mentioned above, I feel it can even be useful). Stress? Yes. Stress is harder to deal with, and - in my opinion - leads to conflict becoming disruptive, rather than potentially useful.
- The most stressful event I was involved with was a long-running dispute centring around articles in the International Baccalaureate area ("IB"). An editor emerged who was determined to promote The Truth about IB (indeed, they were involved in a website called just that). Inevitably editors who disagree with The Truth were dismissed as partisan. This affected several good, neutral editors. It resulted in several, including me, posting to ANI. Eventually it resulted in me walking away, leaving good editors to cope on their own. Eventually it led to blocks and sock puppetry. Eventually the problem went away.
- This issue took far to long to resolve. It was stressful for many people, myself included. I don't believe I handled it as well as I could have done, in that I believe I could have helped resolve it sooner and better, and I could - should - have remained actively involved. While accepting my failings here, I also believe that this is an issue the community needs to address: how do we deal effectively with determined proponents of The Truth?
- I've edited in some nationalist areas, so I've worked with partisan editors, and consider that to be stressful work. Fortunately I don't think anyone has ever believed that I'm partisan (at least, if they have they've subsequently seen me disagreeing with "the other side", and accept that I try to be neutral). Two sets of partisan editors seem to me to be easier to deal with than one determined Truth warrior.
- Finally, this is probably a good point to mention that I haz been blocked! I was blocked for edit warring with an IP controlled by an indefinitely-blocked editor (since community banned). Good block, no complaints, but I mention this because it highlights the difficulties involved in dealing with long-term abuse. Recently, I've seen many editors question the value of community bans. From my perspective, community bans are better than indefinite blocks when it comes to responding to long-term abuse: WP:3RR allows us to revert banned users; no such exemption exists for users who are merely indefinitely blocked. I'm am not saying that community bans are a panacea... they're not. But they help editors dealing with long-term abuse to avoid being blocked and the stress that that causes :-)
- There are numerous other conflicts I've not mentioned - some I've handled well, others... not so well.. Dig through my contributions and you'll find them. I'm happy to comment on any of them.
- Additional optional question from Jclemens
- 4. What are your best content contributions? What have you done that has demonstrated your personal involvement in developing the content involved in building an encyclopedia?
- A:Lots of gnomish and elvish edits (it was an anally retentive desire to fix that prompted my initial registration). Vandal fighting. However, and Immunize picks up on this below, I'm not a big content creator. I could point you at, say, a good article - but even there my role in bringing it up to FA was relatively minor.
- Picking up on Immunize's concern about vandalism: I'm not sure why my anti-vandal count seems to have gone down. Possibly it's because I'm not jumping straight to a warning (a lot of my recent WP:AGF reverts I would probably have labelled a Level 1 warning in the past). I'll explain this further in my answers below.
- Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
- 5. What is your take on when IAR should be used?
- A: Just as we should boldly improve and maintain articles, we should also boldly improve and maintain the encyclopaedia. "Ignore all rules" sounds like Freedom's call ringing from the barricades, and that can trip up new editors (and for that reason and others I prefer the less loaded term "common sense"), but I don't believe it gives us carte blanche to trample over the other four of the five pillars. In general, I'd like to see IAR used only when supported by clear consensus.
- 6. What is the most time- effective way to deal with vandals and their vandalism?
- A: I've been through several approaches, and I suppose I'm still tinkering with my approach. Currently I revert, assuming good faith for anything other than obvious vandalism (e.g. repeated characters: test edit. "I pooped!": obvious vandalism). For an AGF revert I won't warn the editor, or post to their talk page - most times test edits aren't repeated, but warning an editor that you've removed their "vandalism" can antagonise them, prompting them to repeat. I'll keep their contributions open, however, even if I don't warn them.
- Beyond that, it's the usual 1,2,3,4 or 4im dance. I'm quite prepared to start someone on a level 2 or 3 warning, depending on the nature of the vandalism, though in practice I suspect I'm fairly conservative when it comes to warnings - I'm happy to revert several edits while waiting for a vandal to be blocked.
- My approach is pretty fluid: obviously it changes from vandal to vandal, but I adapt in general, too. Recently I've started using Twinkle (most of my contributions have been manual - I can't tell you what a difference Twinkle makes, and I wished I followed everyone's advice much sooner...) and that's made a difference: it's much easier to hit "rollack (AGF)" than hit "undo" and then paste in an AGF message, so I suspect I'm warning editors less now.
- Vandalism, to be honest, is annoying but easy to fix if we all play our part. Once a vandal is blocked that tends to be it. It's the longer-term problems that really concern me: long-term sock puppetry that other editors need to spend considerable time cleaning up after. The sock puppeteers I've dealt with all seem to walk a line between useful and useless editing - in many ways it would be better if all their edits were useless, and we could simply revert them all.
- Additional optional questions from Tommy2010
- 7. Was the stress you stated in Q3 related to you being inactive from November 2009 through March 2010?
- A: No, not really. I was away from home for what was supposed to be only a few days, but it turned into a few weeks. When I came back I had a lot on in real life and one thing led to another... before I knew it it was one major holiday followed by another. I did edit a few times. I say "not really" because the inactivity here certainly helped reduce my wikistress levels.
- 8.
If so,what specifically could you do differently now as an editor and as a sysop, which arguably could be more stressful?- A: I've struck part of your question - I hope that's OK, and as always do please revert me if you feel it's inappropriate.
- Seek help! One thing I've found in my time here is that a problem shared is a problem halved. The areas I intend to work on if I'm granted the mop are going to be areas where there's already an active community - of admins and non-admins - who are friendly and happy to help.
- The areas I work on as an editor (particularly on talk pages) tend to be the areas where I'm likely to continue encountering stress. These are areas where we tend to "recruit" superb long-term editors, so I tend to believe that the rewards make up for the stress. The long-term solution to stress is to have many, many good editors, and promoting this is one reason I edit in stressful areas! TFOWRidle vapourings 10:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Leaky Caldron
- 9. Do you believe that WP:Civility and the associated blocking policy applies to all contributors equally? Can you state your view on editors who are frequently disruptive but regarded by many as “a net benefit”, the sanctions bar therefore being set higher (or not applied at all)?
- A: Does it currently apply to all contributors equally? No.
- Should it, and can it, apply to all contributors equally? I don't know.
- "Civility" is relative: for example, I'd expect any posting to an IP's talk page to be civil, polite, free from bad language. We want to welcome and encourage editors. But the level of civility I expect between established editors is more liberal: we curse, we bicker, we complain.
- Our policies and our practices are quite different. We either need to make clear that we treat editors differently - that established editors are expected to tolerate a certain amount of incivility - or we need to change the way we handle incivility. I don't think we have a clear idea yet where we want to go with this.
- For "net-benefit disruptive editors", I'm obviously not going to comment on individual editors but the issue itself, and issues like this, should be discussed and for that reason I'm reluctant to support blocks or topic bans. As a long-term solution, we need to engage with these issues instead of banishing them from ANI/AN. At the same time, the editors concerned need to recognise that there is a very real concern in the community that they are being disruptive. "I'll carry on regardless until it goes to ArbCom" isn't a productive philosophy, and we can't be expected to agree to this suicide pact. I have a general aversion to blocks, article protection and topic bans, while recognising that all three are appropriate at times. In this case my aversion results in reluctant opposition to sanctions; my patience, like the community's, is wearing thin.
- TFOWRidle vapourings 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I do not intend to block any editor where there is an established community consensus to oppose blocks. (I believe consensus is as important - if not more so - as any other core policy). I may, at my discretion, argue for or otherwise support a block - or other sanctions - and attempt to shift the community consensus. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Aleksa Lukic
- 10. Inactivity for a period of 5 months ?!
- 2009/11 − 0
- 2009/12 — 0
- 2010/01 — 0
- 2010/02 — 0
- 2010/03 — 0
- Could you explain me this, please? Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Sure, though I thought I'd given my reasons in the answer to question 7, above. Basically real-life commitments. It's entirely likely that similar commitments are going to recur, and that I take wikibreaks in the future (though not for that long, I'd hope). I'm not able to make any promises about when and for how long I will be on- or off-line. I do now have a way of remaining online when away from regular networks, which may alleviate some concerns. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional optional questions from Shirik
- 11. Can you elaborate on your experience at WP:SPI? What is a case you contributed to that you think is particularly notable?
- A. I encountered a sock puppeteer at this article and after a brief and unsuccessful attempt to engage the then-current sock, ended up at ANI and eventually SSP (as it then was). This SSP report highlights what another editor has hinted is my obsession with this sock. Through this episode I've become a semi-regular at what is now SPI, and my fascination with socks has spread to other long-term sockers, and a general interest in the limitations of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. This case is notable to me, but perhaps not to editors outside the sock's areas of interest (Scotland and Scottish pop music): it's notable to me because it shows how my approach to dealing with socks has changed from a whack-every-new-sock approach to a more tolerant approach (when I returned from my wikibreak I removed most of the sock's targets from my watchlist, and was semi-content to see if the sock had become a positive contributor while I'd been away. Sadly, they hadn't, and were blocked). I've run the gamut with this sock: from edit warring with them (which lead to my block) through to arguing (successfully!) for a community ban. I'd like to think that the sock master could still become a productive editor; that's maybe naive but continuing to play whack-a-sock isn't tenable in the long-term, for me or for us as a community.
- 12. In your own words, what is WP:DUCK? What are some criteria you would use for judgement against this standard?
- A. I've made at least one mistake with WP:DUCK (I can't recall with who, or where), so I'm aware of my own limitations, and of the risks involved with applying the DUCK-test. I believe DUCK should be no more than a suspicion - it should not be used in isolation for determining sock-puppetry. That said, the areas I look at with possible socks are:
- Username (assuming the editor is registered) - is there a strong similarity with previous socks?
- IP address (assuming anon) - is the ISP the same?
- Contributions
- Are edits to the same or similar articles?
- Are edits similar or identical to previous sock edits?
- Are there other similarities between two sets of edits, for example the same mis-spellings or poor grammar?
- I believe that if the majority of these criteria are met, then DUCK passes as far as reporting to SPI is concerned. I'd be hesitant to block solely on DUCK, however.
- TFOWRidle vapourings 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I've made at least one mistake with WP:DUCK (I can't recall with who, or where), so I'm aware of my own limitations, and of the risks involved with applying the DUCK-test. I believe DUCK should be no more than a suspicion - it should not be used in isolation for determining sock-puppetry. That said, the areas I look at with possible socks are:
General comments
- Links for TFOWR: TFOWR (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for TFOWR can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
- Edit stats are on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- First! -wiooiw (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As nom! :) Took me long enough to bully him into it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I saw this being prepared, so had time to do my research in advance... User seems level headed and knowledgeable. His contributions show a very positive approach to Wikipedia, and enough good experience in Admin-relevant areas to be ready. Answers to the questions are thoughtful, and demonstrate understanding of Admin responsibilities. Acknowledges that his block for edit warring was "good" - but IMHO it is mitigated to a large degree by the circumstances. I have every confidence this candidate would be an asset as an admin, and no concerns about granting him access to the tools. - Begoon (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from the land of enchantment - Excellent choice for the mop. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep! Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns mature and respected editor, answers to questions were well though out and I was very happy to see you explain your blocks in detail. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Only 2 articles created, and little evidence of recent vandalism-fighting (over the past several hundred contribs), however, there is currently nothing that concerns me. Immunize (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Admin-by-proxy. Might as well let him press the buttons himself. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TNXMan 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this user's sense of being at ease enjoyable and would like to see that in more sysops. The edit summaries.. I think you can tone down a bit in my opinion, but not enough to oppose. Tommy2010message 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit summaries are one area I need to watch: it's too easy to move from a friendly conversation with "silly" edit summaries to reverting an editor and maintaining the same low standard of edit summary. Thanks for the comment; I'll try and learn from this. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I should really learn to pay attention to the userrights summary in PopUps to save myself the "I thought they were one already" comments. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely no concerns, here. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Genuinely expected this. Wonderful candidate. ceranthor 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems clueful enough. —fetch·comms 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support . Of course - plenty of clue. Will be an asset. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The most level headed editor I have ever come across. If he doesn't make a good admin I'll eat my bunnet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some minor maturity concerns but overall a good candidate. Best of luck. f o x 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cliche "You mean he isn't one already?" Support. Seems to do a fine job. Shimeru (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen this editor around and have no concerns. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this editor at ANI, and hve been impressed. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a good candidate, I am encouraged by my encounters with the candidate, they seem to genuinely be friendly and seeking to help the project and its users in a wide range of ways. I am sure they will take on any criticism, including the current oppose, and learn from mistakes. All the best, --Taelus (Talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few reasons why I have been hesitant to support here. First, my first impression of this candidate, when he responded to an ANI post of mine, was that he lacked clue. Second, I have an aversion to non-admins hanging around ANI. Third, the candidate seems to be more interested in the back rooms of the project that building an encyclopaedia. But from what I see here those concerns - which amount to mere first impressions and my own prejudices - can be cast aside and my support is none the weaker because of them.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I handled that incident as well as I could; in my defence (and you pick up on this with your comment about non-admins in ANI) there are obvious limits to a non-admin's possible responses in a situation like that. Often I'll comment (at ANI) because it seems no one else is; fortunately, this time someone else was prepared to - and they had the tools, too. Thanks for your comments; this is something else I can learn from. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very easy decision. Thanks for all your hard work, TFOW Tiderolls 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - on top of the candidate's substantial efforts, I liked the candid self-assessment in the answer to Q3. Best wishes for a fine adminship. Jusdafax 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn! I watchlisted this and was online for most of yesterday, and still missed this being transcluded! Support, of course. Even the answers to the questions are excellent. The only thing lacking is that I would like to know what colour the flag is now. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When looking for the definition of "clueful", I found "full with adhesive"; when I corrected my tyop, I found "tfowr", so I deleted it as G1; when I reviewed the situation, I found some unfathomable equation: net+ – B.hotep •talk• 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I have no concerns with TFOWR. The answers to the questions above satisfy me. A net positive to the project. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize the name, and I think this user should be given the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen the name around a lot. I believe he'd make an excellent admin. Homework2 TalkWhat I do! 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns since I've seen you everywhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The concerns raised below don't trouble me at all; I think he'll be a great admin. Hi878 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely, he's everywhere! ArakunemTalk 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! 7 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as co-nom Mkativerata makes an interesting point above about non-Admins on WP:AN/I. There is no reason I can think of that a non-Admin shouldn't post there, & there are times I think a non-Admin's point of view -- not the Wikipedia jargon sense of the word, but the general one -- should be heard; the board gets insular at some points. (On the other hand, some non-Admins who post there shouldn't, & not only do they end up hurting themselves but making it difficult for non-Admins to effectively post there.) Yet it shows his potential ability as an Admin that TFOWR has been posting there for a long time, & because of his level-headedness & confidence many of us Admins thought he was already one of us. -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate, only concern is the recent inactivity. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point: I had a five month, unscheduled wikibreak. It was unplanned, and much longer than I initially thought it would be, and was mostly unrelated to Wikipedia itself (real life commitments, with a sprinkling of wikistress). However - I would recommend a wikibreak to anyone. I came back refreshed, and I'd certainly want to warn everyone that I intend to have more wikibreaks in the future! Though not nearly as long... TFOWRidle vapourings 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Friendly and helpful. Lova Falk talk 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Aiken ♫ 12:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No concerns about edit summaries or block (see Oppose #1), bonus points for moderating IP disputes. Caution on biting new users. We need more admins like this candidate. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without a doubt. An excellent Wikipedian, and would sure be an excellent sysop. WackyWace talk to me, people 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Horologium (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with multi-coloured flags. All good as far as I can see. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't know the user, but it sounds like his is eager for an admin job! --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good Good. — JoJo • Talk • 18:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Airplaneman ✈ 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. For an example of TFOWR doing useful work in an area relevant to adminship, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nimbley6/Archive and search for his name. This is an SPI where I worked briefly myself, and I notice that TFOWR seems to have good judgment and makes proper summaries when submitting new complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indeed, very helpful and level-headed, no problems with having the tools. As for the edit summaries, I don't see any real problem there, and TFOWR has already stated an intention to tone them down when appropriate. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup - excellent work on the Nimbley front and pretty level-headed all round. Ben MacDui 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great candidate, has an excellent attitude - no worries at all -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answers to subsequent questions show practicality and pragmatism, which strengthens my support -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Qualified, no concerns, etc. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- contra Minimac (I don't like it when people give spurious oppose reasons) Shii (tock) 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's inappropriate to use the reasoning from opposes as supports and vice versa. I thought this precedent was clear to all by now. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one in the "you mean he isn't already?" camp. Calm, competent, clueful. My only slight misgiving is the in-jokey nature of TFOWR's user page, which wouldn't typically fill me with confidence, but I don't think that's an indicator of any bad habits in this case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Give another user the janitors mop... Just use non-toxic sprays :) Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sure. Why not?--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers, great track record, no noticeable concerns. Give the guy a mop and put him work! PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Excellence candidate; I've been waiting for this RfA for quite a while. Well written answers to the questions above. Keep up the good work TFOWR! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have had no dealings with this editor, but I also have no issues, good answers, and good community support. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User is ready for the mop. Traxs7 05:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen him around and he's an excellent user who deserves the mop. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Is probably familiar with admin 'processes' if he helps out at ANIAcather96 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good involvement in WP:AN/I, WP:HELPDESK, WP:AIV, WP:RPP & WP:AN. Vipinhari || talk 08:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - appears more than capable. Orphan Wiki 10:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's refreshing to see such openness and honesty in the questioning, especially in mentioning a block history. To me this demonstrates above-average gorm. --Alan (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My contact with TFOWR has been positive, and I do believe he would make a good admin and passes my RfA criteria. I have reviewed some of his contributions and the issues raised by the opposition, and they do not concern me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Plenty of good work, questions answered well; while a little more article creation wouldn't go amiss, I see no reason to oppose. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – the edit summaries are not a reason to oppose for me, and VernoWhitney brings up a good point. Pepper∙piggle 00:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems capable and serious...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' - looking around I have found nothing that concerns me or leads me to believe they will be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak/Strong Support - very clueful answers. However, would like to see participating in more DR areas. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This human will not misuse the tools. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready to go as far as I'm concerned. BencherliteTalk 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can live with occasional uncivil edit summaries. Even admins were once human. As long as they can see they were uncivil. Fainites barleyscribs 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions. --JN466 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I didn't agree with him on everything, but I think he would make a good admin. I saw several cases where he was very civil when I have seen other admins get rude under the similar circumstances. He seems to be able to keep his head on and not act like a member of the Wikipedia NVKD. My thumbs up.--Panzertank (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Positives far outweigh any concerns. —DoRD (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as co-nom. Fences&Windows 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The candidate presented good answers to the questions and seems to have a level-headed, consensus-driven approach. The candidate's talk page also reveals that the candidate interacts well with other users. I'm happy to support. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent answers to the questions, with a realistic view of civility issues, good understanding of Wikipedia, good editing history (the short block from over a year-and-a-half ago is not a concern, we all make mistakes.), and the diffs provided by the first oppose below are obviously of comments that were made and received in good humor - and humor is valuable commodity around here. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems FinalRapture - † ☪ 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everyone else is supporting. I just want to fit in. SwarmTalk 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Along with all the rest.
- Support I see no problems here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- –BuickCenturyDriver 10:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen you around on various noticeboards; you've given the impression of a clueful and thoughtful editor who's here for the right reasons. Support. EyeSerenetalk 11:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support while only asking, please do what you can, as an admin, to show others how helpful civility can be. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: clearly sound policy knowledge; the willingness to respond to situations on their merits rather than applying a cookie-cutter approach strikes me as a net positive (though, as others have said, maximum civility behooves everyone). As for the edit summaries, on the whole I thought they were pretty funny. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am impressed with his calm and rational approach-assets which are certainly needed at Wikipedia. He is also intelligent, polite, informed, with a fine sense of humour. I think he's excellent administrator material. He definitely gets my vote.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Support. Rohedin TALK 17:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after reading this Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F. Wikipedia needs more admins with as much common sense as this user. Good luck! :) Cannonbolt2 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good history, good answers to problematic questions, and I am delighted to expect that TFOWR will be bringing a lot of civility to processes which frequently lack it. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but if I see much more hectoring of opposers I will be joining them. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See my earlier comments under "neutral". Richwales (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support The candidate has two article creations and three redirects. ("That don't impress me much"). However, his body of work on ANI and exemplary work helping newcomers convinces me to vote in favor.--Hokeman (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- let me be the one hundredth. Appears to be flying through, user is level headed and will I am sure take his time and develop into a fine administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good user who would be perfect for the job. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have come across TFOWR numerous times, and have found a reliable, thoughtful, constructive editor. A very good potential admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seen plenty of good stuff from him and nothing bad. A sensible and productive contributor who will do well with the tools. ~ mazca talk 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support solid user, minor imperfections are not sufficient to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good stuff, and I am sure they will keep it up. Avicennasis @ 16:00, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Yes he seems trusted, but I'm concerned of his edit summary usage, especially on talk pages, like this (Probably) and maybe this one too, which demonstrates how to bite a newcomer. All the excessive punctuation in this edit is unnecessary too. Also by the fact that he was blocked for edit warring (Only for 3 hours though) shows that he isn't calm enough. Minimac (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I think those edit summaries are attempts at humour, but it doesn't work so well on the internet! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) It should probably be noted that the biting via the edit summary referred to above was immediately followed up by an informative message on the newcomer's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first summary was obviously meant to be a joke, as was the third, & the second doesn't appear very bitey to me. (Well, the editor did need to learn about talk pages.) The fact TFOWR followed that edit with an explanation about talk pages to that editor is what one should do. (And what I should do more often.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely; the first and third were obviously meant to be funny, I think that the second was, also, and the fact that it was followed by an explanation makes me think that these aren't worth worrying about. Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The third diff was a conversation I had with him. I can't speak for everyone, but I thought thought it was quite humorous. Jack forbes (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely; the first and third were obviously meant to be funny, I think that the second was, also, and the fact that it was followed by an explanation makes me think that these aren't worth worrying about. Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimac, you also mentioned me being blocked - that's a fair point: it was a block for edit-warring, too, which is precisely what I wouldn't want to see on an RfA. I believe it highlights an important issue, however: there is a general belief that long-term abuse can be dealt with by reverting and ignoring the editors concerned. I don't feel this is correct. WP:3RR does not give us the right to revert a blocked - even an indefinitely blocked - editor, for example (and it for this reason that I was blocked). That's no excuse for me not knowing policy, and it's no excuse for me being blocked. It is something, however, that we need to consider if we're to deal with the challenge of long-term abuse. In an answer above, I've commented on my use of edit summaries. Thanks for raising that here, too. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be worth mentioning that many current admins have produced edit summaries far more bitey and rash than this. And probably most of them weren't even intended to be so. Condemning people for the occasional out-of-the-norm edit summary is very picky. There are also some current admins with a block or two or three on their blocklist also... People learn from their mistakes and move on. Orphan Wiki 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, leaning to NeutralMoving to Neutral. Per Mini's and TFOWR's above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm going to try to review some more past edits to solidify my vote one way or the other. First starters, perhaps TFOWR can explain his close-to-solitary !vote (under the name This flag once was red) delete/merge at this AfD, when the majority were voting speedy keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I remember it as a "solidarity" !vote - for the record, I'd !vote delete under similar circumstances today (this was the Eurovision 2010 article, created just after Eurovision 2009, and with little or no reliable content). The one thing I would do differently is re-opening the AfD after a non-admin close; looking back that was a perfectly reasonable close. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your response. I'm not sure what a "solidarity" !vote is, but what I meant to indicate was that the !vote was 21 keep (including 15 speedy, snow, or warp 10 keep), and 3 delete (including your !vote and that of the nom). And that it was closed by another editor as a snow. My observation was that over 60% of those responding to the AfD saw it as a speedy or snow keep, but your judgment was contrary.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, you wrote "solitary" and I read "solidarity" - there's probably a deep lesson there about me needing to read better. I appreciate you taking the time to gently nudge me towards a proper reading of your comment! If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this over at WT:RFA/TFOWR because my answer is long and rambling... TFOWRidle vapourings 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your response. I'm not sure what a "solidarity" !vote is, but what I meant to indicate was that the !vote was 21 keep (including 15 speedy, snow, or warp 10 keep), and 3 delete (including your !vote and that of the nom). And that it was closed by another editor as a snow. My observation was that over 60% of those responding to the AfD saw it as a speedy or snow keep, but your judgment was contrary.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I remember it as a "solidarity" !vote - for the record, I'd !vote delete under similar circumstances today (this was the Eurovision 2010 article, created just after Eurovision 2009, and with little or no reliable content). The one thing I would do differently is re-opening the AfD after a non-admin close; looking back that was a perfectly reasonable close. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try to review some more past edits to solidify my vote one way or the other. First starters, perhaps TFOWR can explain his close-to-solitary !vote (under the name This flag once was red) delete/merge at this AfD, when the majority were voting speedy keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (a gesture, in view of the overwhelming support to date). The answer to my Q9 is not persuasive. The existing policy is clear, “.. editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment...” It does not contain any twin-track approach when dealing with editors of differing experience, quality of contribution or popularity. It only encourages tolerance to account for different cultural standards.
The second part of your answer is as inconclusive as it is indecisive. I don’t think that the implementation of the policy as it currently stands - and that is all you as an admin. need to be concerned about - is difficult to uphold. It is favouritism, cabals and deliberate policy avoidance by certain Admins. that has resulted in a de facto twin-track approach for certain “gifted” editors. Your answer prevaricates – perhaps hoping to be seen as acceptable by all. I cannot support a candidate who is not fully committed to working within existing policy. Leaky Caldron 15:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Apologies; the answer was a little vague. I've added a clarification - I don't believe it'll sway your !vote, however. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Okay, one last little notavote before I blow this joint. A couple of his comments on AN/I makes me concerned about his knowledge of the basics. Proposed semi- to full protection(!!) on an article that was being vandalised by a static IP here. This was two weeks ago. He seems under the impression that page bans need be voluntary here in a situation with consensus of disruption on an article page (whether there's an ARBCOM decision or not) one can be topic banned. It was obvious that User:Onefortyone would not agree to a ban yet TFOWR didn't seem to comprehend that. Auntie E. (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on that second diff (the one about page bans), I think from the context, TFOWR meant "abide by" rather than "voluntarily agree to"- after all, bans only work if the banned party adheres to it and a page/topic ban is usually an alternative to blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not sure why I didn't argue immediately for a block. I was involved at that point, and I tend to trust RFPP to "do the right thing" (I'd argue for a block at RFPP, rather than protection).
- Re: OneFortyOne: they had two clear choices - voluntarily agree to abide by a topic ban, or be indefinitely blocked. I wanted to make sure OneFortyOne was aware that that was their choice: ban or block. In this case, no ban was enforced and no block was forthcoming. I regard that as regrettable; my explanation to OneFortyOne is one I'd stand by. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per comment above by Leaky Caldron. Mo ainm~Talk 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The five month break is too recent for my tastes. I generally like to see candidates active for 4-6 months before running.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral for now - although TFOWR seems to be a good editor in many respects, there are a few nagging concerns stopping me from supporting. This help desk response suggests that there may be an over reliance on user talkpage templates. Although I'll give TFOWR the benefit of the doubt that the advice was general and they didn't know which "relatively inexperienced editor" was being discussed, it's a bit worrying that when asked which warning template would be most appropriate to put on the talkpage of someone who is editing in good faith, TFOWR's answer is to recommend a combination of Twinkle and Friendly. I would rather see a potential administrator taking the time to talk to inexperienced users (and advising others to do so). I'm also concerned with the apparent lack of content contributions. Despite regular assertions at RFA that administrators don't need to have content experience to effectively use the admin tools, I do think that it's important to have put a significant amount of effort into getting an article towards FA standard. It is, after all, why we're here and not only does it help reinforce (in one's mind) a number of important policies and guidelines, but it creates more empathy towards content creators. Other than that, there is a slightly uncomfortable feeling reading the talkpage threads that led up to this RFA, a sense of TFOWR being coerced against their humble protestations by their many fans to submit to RFA. Also (and this is not a deal breaker), the overuse of <small> tags gets annoying while trying to read through contributions. Are we not supposed to read those bits? Sitting on the fence for now, but will look into it further.--BelovedFreak 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TWOFR's help desk response was not only to use Twinkle and Friendly, but s/he added: "Ideally, I'd follow it up with a short message about the article they were editing, what was good about their edits, and what could be improved." Lova Falk talk 10:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, definitely. To be honest, Twinkle and Friendly are both quite new to me, I'm enjoying the ease with which I can do certain tasks now, and I'm perhaps a little overly enthusiastic in promoting Twinkle and Friendly. However, Friendly - in particular - is no substitute for a personal message. The small tags are for comments that are less relevant. You can ignore them if you want ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 10:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TWOFR's help desk response was not only to use Twinkle and Friendly, but s/he added: "Ideally, I'd follow it up with a short message about the article they were editing, what was good about their edits, and what could be improved." Lova Falk talk 10:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning to oppose A generally good editor, like many others here on WP, and I appreciate the rvv work, but nothing really long-term stellar at all to deserve adminship other than just the prestige. The recent extended break should in fact resets a warm up period and perhaps this nomination could wait longer for the candidate to prove himself. User:Immunize 'weak support' reasons above is also a concern I have. Answer to Q1 seems like a vast amount of responsibility claiming to be taken on and we know that many an admin simply do not dedicate themselves to even a few areas after the novelty wears off. I want to see a pattern of exceptional contributions, not just someone with lots of time on their hands making tiny bot-like edits (w/r to socks that User:Nimbley6 provides extensive love and care) which does not need admin permissions. Some problematic recent edit summaries Also candidate is an idiot, Won't someone block this evil editor?, and subsequent excuses that humor does not go well on the internet is ridiculous. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to "Also candidate is an idiot, and I should know..." and " remove whitespace, post image removal by the evil CommonsDelinker. Won't someone block this evil editor? ;-)"? The first I make no apologies for: !voters can examine the discussion in question and decide whether humour is appropriate in that instance (I intend to keep my talk page a humour-friendly zone, and to continue making self-deprecating comments). The second - fair point: the edit summary should have stopped after "...post image removal". For the record, I am aware that CommonsDelinker is a bot, and I have no intention of blocking CommonsDelinker. Finally, I don't think I've ever justified my edit summaries using humour as an excuse - there's a real concern expressed here about my use of edit summaries, and it's one I intend to take on board (in article space - I fully intend to continue using humorous edit summaries in userspace, where appropriate). TFOWRidle vapourings 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Would support if not for some concerns about somewhat uncivil edit summaries mentioned above. --PinkBull 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm sorry, I really wanted to support you but this edit summary so close to your RfA is way out of line and not needed.FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I know badgering is uncool, but... that edit summary you highlight was part of tongue-in-cheek banter as we
persuadedpestered TFOWR into standing at RfA. I strongly doubt that anyone involved in that thread batted an eyelid at that edit summary, so nobody else should either. Fences&Windows 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Indeed, it was part of a light-hearted conversation between myself, TFOWR and another editor, User:Courcelles, the "victim" of the "attack" (who is up in the support section). I can assure you it was meant as tongue-in-cheek. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I jumped to conclusions there, whoops. FinalRapture - † ☪ 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it was part of a light-hearted conversation between myself, TFOWR and another editor, User:Courcelles, the "victim" of the "attack" (who is up in the support section). I can assure you it was meant as tongue-in-cheek. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, though leaning to support:My main concern here is that I feel incivility, toward any editor, even in jest, should be avoided. It's easy to misinterpret subtleties in written communication (we've probably all heard / read about this w/r/t e-mail vs. in-person communication), and we need to be careful not to accidentally hurt or offend others via a flippant comment that could easily be misunderstood. Established editors should try to set an example of courteous interaction for others to look up to and follow. The idea that "established editors are expected to tolerate a certain amount of incivility" rings true to me only in the sense that we should be slow to take offence and careful not to respond in kind even if we think another editor is being uncivil — an application of Postel's Law (be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept). Aside from this one issue, TFOWR seems to me to be a good candidate, and a satisfactory clarification from him on this one issue will probably convince me to change my vote. Richwales (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I think this is partly in reference to this? I agree ("incivility, toward any editor, even in jest, should be avoided"), while acknowledging that I am fairly tolerant of incivility from others and that I need to improve how I interact with friends (our comments are highly visible, to editors who may not be aware of the context or cultural references). I'd like to continue being tolerant, but I do acknowledge that many, many editors see and use my talk page and that they have every right to expect a civil and collegial environment. Slightly off-topic, but I expect admins to set a higher standard of behaviour; what that means to me, in this context, is that my userpage and talkpage customs should be adapted if I'm granted the mop. They both need to be more open and welcoming, and the talkpage in particular needs to actively promote civility (rather than advocating the anarchic do-and-say-as-you-wish approach that it currently promotes). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we need to limit our carefulness to cross-cultural situations. I had a run-in a couple of years ago with an extremely contentious editor (who, amongst other things, defied at least one consensus he disagreed with by saying "consensus can't override policy") — my attempts to convince him to moderate his rhetoric led him at one point to accuse me of personal attacks and threaten to report me for incivility. This sort of thing is probably part of the reason why editors are urged to be very sparing with the use of terms like "vandalism", "wikilawyering", or "POV pushing", even when terms like these really do apply to a situation. I, for one, have come to use terms like "vandalism" and "rvv" very rarely — if indeed at all — in edit summaries for this reason. But enough of me; this discussion is about you, after all. Thanks for your clarification; I'm happier now, and I'll go ahead and change my "neutral" to "support". Best of success with your new responsibilities. Richwales (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is partly in reference to this? I agree ("incivility, toward any editor, even in jest, should be avoided"), while acknowledging that I am fairly tolerant of incivility from others and that I need to improve how I interact with friends (our comments are highly visible, to editors who may not be aware of the context or cultural references). I'd like to continue being tolerant, but I do acknowledge that many, many editors see and use my talk page and that they have every right to expect a civil and collegial environment. Slightly off-topic, but I expect admins to set a higher standard of behaviour; what that means to me, in this context, is that my userpage and talkpage customs should be adapted if I'm granted the mop. They both need to be more open and welcoming, and the talkpage in particular needs to actively promote civility (rather than advocating the anarchic do-and-say-as-you-wish approach that it currently promotes). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Neutral, from Oppose, given candidate's responses.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (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.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for 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 initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ 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.