Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ev

Ev

Voice your opinion (talk page) (36/1/0); Scheduled to end 2:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ev (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, let me present Ev (previously Evv). He's been actively editing since June 2006, and (for some reason) his interests are chiefly focused on areas of conflict, especially the ever-contentious Kosovo and Shatt al-Arab. I have always been impressed with his politeness and level-headedness, and I'm sure he has an excellent grasp of the policies. Visitors at WP:ANI may recall him for edit-warring reports and thoughtful comments. Ev is probably not a FA writer, but whenever there's a fire, I think he's a water rather than fuel (well, he occassionally gets carried away, see [1], bbut he's at least honest enough to admit his mistakes; at least he's trying to reason the pov-pushers). If adminship is just an issue of trust and experience, I fully trust Ev. I hope you will also. Duja► 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. - Ev 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate statement
Let me start by thanking Duja for his trust and for making me realize that with just a few occasional "administrative" contributions I would also be helping the project.

I'm Argentine, currently living in Buenos Aires. (My delay in accepting this nomination was due to an unplanned last-minute trip to visit my parents for Mother's Day, which was last sunday).

As Duja mentions, I've been mainly interested in areas of conflict. At the beginning of my involvement in the Spanish Wikipedia, before knowing much about policies :-), I had a long discussion on a naming issue with an editor that relied on raw Google hits to back his position. After being astounded at how difficult it could be to reach agreement on such a simple case, I wondered how Wikipedia would handle editing on really controversial topics. As I once commented in my talk page (diff.), what made me pay attention to the Kosovo articles was mere curiosity in how Wikipedia handles editing on such highly emotional topics. It's interest in Wikipedia's editing processes more than interest in Kosovo itself.

I feel a certain attachment to what I write, and although I welcome reasonable, well-informed editors improving, correcting and even deleting my contributions, I soon came to realize that I don't want to see those contributions edited mercilessly by just about any person with access to a computer. So, I mostly gave up on content, and focused my contributions on minor details, mainly article naming and reflecting common English usage.

Often, while reading a book, I find myself opening a related Wikipedia article to expand something. But, after previewing the changes, so far I have managed to resist the temptation to click on the "save page" button.

I do commit mistakes, quite often, and I'm willing to recognize them, and correct them. I'm deeply aware that I could always be wrong: I'm always open to be persuaded by reasonable arguments.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As my limited number of edits per day attest, I intend to do very little admin work, mainly by occasionally lending a hand in two areas: page moves and encouraging talk page discussions instead of continual reverts.

This minor involvement in admin tasks would imply that in every case I would be able to devote the time required to do a thorough job, discussing the issues at lenght when necessary and explaining our policies in detail.

Allow me to expand on the manner and guiding principles by which I would approach these interventions.

Page moves & article naming (requested moves):

As my active involvement in Wikipedia is basically restricted to a few naming issues, this is the area in which I have more experience and the natural field for my potential role as an administrator.

Besides reverting some improper page moves myself instead of requesting those actions as uncontroversial move proposals (diff. diff. diff.), and keeping an eye on that section, I intend to close some move request discussions. (I'm already recusing myself from many of those related to Kosovo and a certain waterway on the Iran-Iraq border :-)

I'm confident in having a clear understanding of our current general naming conventions policy and the associated guidelines related to the specific cases in which I have been involved so far -including the often-controversial one on using English (diff.)-, understanding both the conventions themselves and the manner in which they relate with our core policies of neutral point of view (diff. diff.), verifiability and no original research (see the N. von Renys RM including sections 4, 5 & 7 of the talk page).

I'm well aware of the specific context for which these policies and guidelines are intended, and in whose light should be interpreted: the creation of objective, unbiased encyclopedic articles written in the English language.

I see consensus-building as a process that takes place within the framework of our current policies & guidelines, to reach a certain degree of agreement on how those policies & guidelines apply to a specific case; and not as a vote on whether to follow policy or blatantly ignore it's core principles, it's very spirit.

Thus, in cases similar to the long Shatt al-Arab ordeal (1st RM & 2nd RM), in which literally all policy- & guidelines-based arguments clearly indicated one option, I would not have hesitated to close the discussion in accordance to policy, even if the "vote tally" were to show a 100 to 1 majority of WP:ILIKEIT policy-contradicting arguments in favour of the other option.

Upon gauging the existance of consensus on how our policies & guidelines apply to a specific article, I intend to always give a clear explanation of my closing of the discussion (and a detailed one in acrimonious cases). — Of course, I would always welcome a review of my actions, and would never overturn the closing of another admin without having discussed the issue with him first (I expect that other admins would extend the same courtesy to me :-).

Encouraging talk page discussions instead of continual reverts (dispute resolution):

Having being involved in Balkans-related articles, in the long Shatt al-Arab ordeal (30 March - 23 June 2007) and in my fair share of revert-warring, as well as having passively watched other disputes unfold, I know first hand the detrimental effects disruptive behaviour has on the editing environment and ultimately to the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Much of my own revert-warring had nothing to do with a "need to correct the article right now", but with frustration at the lack of constructive, rational, reasonable dialogue (or, just as often, the total absence of any dialogue at all)... in short, the frustration of feeling like talking to a wall. I often felt that revert-warring was the simplest, less time-consuming way to eventually force the other party to engage in a constructive talk page discussion.

Well, in very much the same manner in which it's often said that former poachers make the best park rangers (and I happen to have an acquaintance that fills this description literally :-), I hope to put my experience in this area to good use by playing the role of the neutral third party, explaining to both sides the need to dialogue and, when required, how our policies apply to the case. And doing so with the enormous help of having the possibility of making polite but very credible references to our protection & blocking policies.

My main focus would be to help editors that engage in constructive dialogue & attempt to reason with the other party deal with disruptive & tendentious editors who simply revert without discussing the issue (diff.) or that just won't listen to reasons (link).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As a quick glimpse at my contributions shows, most of my edits are marked as minor, and for good reason: I have added almost no content to the encyclopedia (see the reasons in my opening statement). My involvement with Wikipedia is basically restricted to some naming issues (requested moves), trying to make articles comply with our current naming conventions and simply collaborating in generating consensus. Examples:

Kilián Ignác Dientzenhofer → Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer (link)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab (1st RM 2nd RM 3rd time lucky)

Kosova Handball Federation → Kosovo Handball Federation (link)

Green Party of Kosova → Green Party of Kosovo (link)

Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica Genocide (link) -opposed-

Prager Groschen → Prague groschen (link link)

Kraków grosh → Kraków grosz (link)

Juraj Julije Klović → Giulio Clovio (link)

Juraj Dalmatinac → Giorgio da Sebenico (link & link)

Ivan Duknović → Giovanni Dalmata (link)

Nike → Nike (disambiguation) (link) -opposed- Because valid concerns of wikilink maintenance were raised during the discussion, I have been doing the necessary disambiguations ever since: diff.

Uşak carpet → Ushak carpet (link)

Estonian Liberation War → Estonian War of Independence (link)

Mikołaj of Ryńsk → Nicholas von Renys (link and see sections 4, 5 & 7 of the talk page).

Hala Ludowa → Centennial Hall (link)

Grand Duchy of Poznań → Grand Duchy of Posen (link)

Beli Drim → White Drin (diff.)

Shtime → Štimlje (link)

Suharekë → Suva Reka (link)

From time to time I have also tried to lend a hand in trying to soften some of the discussion related to the former Yugoslavia (mainly Kosovo). To get an idea, see my talk page, the Kosovo archives (link link link diff. link) and some general diffs (diff. diff. ; and this discussion finally leading to this long explanation).

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: Although I'm not sure if using the word "conflict" would be appropriate to describe any particular instance, being active in articles about Kosovo naturally implies taking part in heated discussions. Basically, it means having to deal with editors who simply disregard our policies and unilaterally edit articles to reflect The Truth — editors with whom reasoning is virtually impossible — editors apparently unable to distinguish between an encyclopedic article written in accordance to our policies and an opinion piece intended to "correct the biased perceptions" propagated by [name an enemy here]. — In short, disruptive & tendentious editing.

Once an uncompromising editor decides that he's not willing to follow our policies, there's no longer a common ground, a shared editorial framework in which to have a productive discussion on how best to present a topic. This just eliminates any possibility of agreement, and transforms our normal dispute resolution process in an arduous and extremely time- & energy-consuming ordeal. As I mentioned before, attempting to dialogue with such editors feels like talking to a wall.

(To avoid any misinterpretation I must clarify that I know perfectly well the difference between a normal -and perhaps quite emphatic- disagreement among reasonable editors willing to work and dialogue within the framework of our polices, and total deafness to arguments, explanations and reason).

In these circumstances, I have often resorted to revert-warring. Sometimes to force the other party to engage in the talk page discussion, sometimes just considering edit-warring the simplest, most time-effective way of dealing with someone with whom discussion appeared to be pointless.

I must confess that after seeing too many uncompromising editors following the same pattern, upon seeing that kind of edits being made I often assumed the worst (not bad faith, but that the editor would be as uncompromising as the others) and just reverted on sight, without any attempt to discuss, for the simple reason that I didn't want to waste time arguing at the talk page to no avail.

Having said that, I usually tried to explain those reverts in my edit summaries, and while reverting I have often tried to resolve the issue discussing in talk pages. The following discussions took place during or immediately after a revert war: link link link link link link link link link link link link. Check the related article histories to see the many reverts themselves.

Although I try to justify some of those instances based on the above description of the editing environment (and the troll in me has actually enjoyed some of them :-), with the pass of time I have understood just how disruptive such behaviour is; behaviour for which I apologize.

I made two reverts at Shatt al-Arab a few days ago, but I did so to restore a very-hard-to-archieve consensus and my very clearly explained edits, after an editor's unexplained, blind reverts (four days afterwards, he has yet to make any comment at the talk page). Moreover, fearing that the reverts would continue, at the same time of doing a second and final one (01:07 UTC) I asked for help from a third party.

I do believe that administrators should be held to a higher standard. I intend to abide by one, and expect to be held accountable for any inappropriate behaviour: revert-warring is an issue for which I would be open to recall without imposing any restriction at all, after a simple pro forma request.

Nevertheless, except for those cases described above in which I restricted myself to revert, I believe that my record shows that I have always been willing to dialogue, and to go to significant lenghts & detail to solve editorial disagreements by discussing the issues.

Stress:

I can only think of three occasions in which I have experienced anger or stress in Wikipedia:

• Anger when facing what I percieved as an unilateral action to present other editors with a fait accompli. I vented at the talk page (diff. diff.), later regretted my choice of words. As usual, regretting having done something tends to be the best way of avoiding doing it again.
• Real stress (disillusionment) at some moments during the Shatt al-Arab ordeal (1st RM 2nd RM 3rd time lucky), not derived from the eternal talk page discussion, but from what I percieved as administrators blocking consensus-building by treating the move requests as simple polls decided on vote-tallies. I ended up venting in a silly rant at AN , taking a short wiki-break & with another silly rant at AN/I.
• I took a preventive wiki-break after this surreal edit-war & discussion.

I've found that checking Wikipedia fewer times per day, delaying answers and edits to the following day -after a good night of sleep- and taking short wiki-breaks can do wonders. Especially when combined with an adequate amount of drinks ;-)

4. If promoted, would you be open to recall, and why?

A: Yes, I would. I believe that accountability is paramount, and -as long as we don't find saints willing to run for office- the best form to expect a reasonable, responsible, proper conduct from those in whose hands we entrust functions that can be abused. As I see it, this is important primarily to avoid the disruptions to the editing environment that would derive from a perception of unfairness, arbitrariness and, worse, immunity.

I have not given much thought to the details of the circumstances under which I would agree to such a request, but, if promoted, any restrictions would gradually decrease according to the time elapsed since this discussion or the last re-confirmation. Once a year has passed after the last "vote of confidence" I would impose no restrictions at all.

Optional question from User:Piotrus

5: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I would. I addressed the issue in the fourth question (which I took the liberty to add to the standard three optional ones - diff.). In the answer to the third question I also mentioned that "revert-warring is an issue for which I would be open to recall without imposing any restriction at all, after a simple pro forma request." — Feel free to ask any follow-ups or for further details :-) Best regards, Ev 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Ev's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Ev: Ev (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Talk Page now contains information on edits this user has made. Rudget _{Contributions} 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

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

• Talk Page now contains information on edits this user has made. Rudget _{Contributions} 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. I guess I'll start the bidding then...answers look good, in absence of evidence to the contrary (a quick check of the contribs didn't throw up anything), looks like a support. Daniel 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - I think he would make a good candidate. Based on what I viewed in his edits he seems to have a strong understanding of wikipedia rules and regulations. businessman332211 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Having a quick look, can't find anything to oppose with and the answers are truly excellent. Rudget _{Contributions} 09:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Ditto. Nothing terribly wrong from what I saw. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Probably not going to be the most active of admins, but that in no way prevents you from having the tools. I'd have liked a lot more experience in traditional admin areas, but as per your excellent statement above you clearly wish to focus in one area, and the tools will help you. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - Doubt you would abuse the tools, nice answers to questions. Tiddly-Tom 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Very weak support - a disappointingly low Wikipedia-space edit count is countered by good answers to the questions given and an otherwise spotless set of contribs. Lradrama 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
8. (Forgotten) nominator support. While this is not a vote, some reaffirmation won't hurt :-). Duja► 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support It is very unlikely that this user will abuse admin tools. An excellent editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I greatly appreciate the candidate's excellent, honest answers to the questions. Good luck!  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Seems like a good user. Acalamari 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, as from whom I've seen above in his answers as an honest user, who admits mistakes, and is trying to fix up WP. Bearian 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Neutral arbitrator working towards settlement of conflicts. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I appreciate the user's honesty. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Support Although I would've preferred a higher involvement in admin-oriented areas, I recall seeing some good work from Ev. Dealing with disputes and requested moves seem fair enough reasons to promote a user who's unlikely to abuse the tools. Húsönd 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Good user. I would like to see Ev be an administrator. NHRHS2010 talk 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support east.718 at 06:02, 10/25/2007
18. Support Definitely no probs with this editor! Phgao 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - excellent answers of questions showing good policy knowledge - I think you'll be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - although lower number of edits, excellent, thoughtful answers to the questions. Jauerback 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: a calm and useful editor with a good understanding of policy in his areas of interest, which extend far beyond Kossovo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - evidence of 'pedia building and diplomacy a plus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I've always greatly appreciated his dedication in taking such ungrateful work as mediating in ultraconflictual areas such as the Balkans. Ev is the sort of admins wikipedia desperately needs: not scared away by hot polemics, but instead always there with the bucket.--Aldux 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I'm not sure if concentrating exclusively on article naming issues is a very helthy choice in the long run, but unfortunately these debates are sometimes necessary, and where I've seen Ev involved in those he's shown good sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support good answers, I hope to see you more active in the project. Carlosguitar 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Good answers, and he can be trusted! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support I see nothing but good here. Pig^man 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Per answer to question 1, regarding encouraging more talk page discussion. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
32. Support per contrib check and answers to questions. K. Scott Bailey 06:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Jmlk17 07:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I think the project could use more people who are competent and dedicated towards conflict resolution. This in and of itself warrants my support!Balloonman 00:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Supportgood answers and a quick browse through the contribs turns up nothing troubling --Pumpmeup 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support naming disputes in Eastern Europe are a minefield and this editor seems to have done a good job in navigating it. Buena suerte. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Great Track and great work in the Balkans in particular and eastern Europe where he has done tight rope walking well.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support K. Scott Bailey 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, you seem to have already supported - see #32... WjBscribe 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - number edits to mainspace is more than 10 times larger than edits to the project namespace. With such a discrepancy, I believe that the candidate has not endeavoured enough into Wikipedia policy and process discussions. Are why you Elloh Engee 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked... — Scientizzle 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

☻Who is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpravetz (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Are why you Elloh Engee has been indef blocked because it impersonates User:Ryulong. Pronounce "Are why you Elloh Engee", and you will see how it impersonates Ryulong. I also put a strike through the indented oppose to prevent confusion. NHRHS2010 talk 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose, admits to committing mistakes often. Unreliable. Ricardo Lagos Perez 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo Lagos Perez has been indef. blocked for persistent editing abuse.--Aldux 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose, low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, low level of real text contrbution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)