The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) removing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tivedshambo as successful (56/1/1) |
→Current nominations for bureaucratship: nominate Alphachimp |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
==Current nominations for bureaucratship== |
==Current nominations for bureaucratship== |
||
<!-- Place new nominations for bureaucratship right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. --> |
<!-- Place new nominations for bureaucratship right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. --> |
||
== Alphachimp ==<br /> |
|||
<center>{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</center> |
|||
I nominate Admin/SySoP Alphachimp for bureaucratship. In review of his contributions, I think he would make a great addition to the bureaucracy. --'''[[User:Twaz|<font color="#000088">In<font color="#220066">vi<font color="#550044">si<font color="#770022">b<font color="#aa0000">l</font>e</font>Di</font>plo</font>mat</font><sub>6</sub><sup>6</sup><sub>6</sub>''']] 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Related requests== |
==Related requests== |
Revision as of 17:19, 14 March 2008
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clpo13 | 13 | 13 | 10 | 50 | Unsuccessful | 06:39, 14 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Doug | 82 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 18:53, 13 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
DeadEyeArrow | 81 | 7 | 0 | 92 | Successful | 13:31, 20 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Tanthalas39 | 49 | 23 | 5 | 68 | Unsuccessful | 01:11, 18 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hurricanehink | 92 | 2 | 2 | 98 | Successful | 21:33, 17 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hersfold | 75 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | 21:12, 17 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scott5114 | 61 | 0 | 3 | 100 | Successful | 10:17, 8 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clpo13 | 13 | 13 | 10 | 50 | Unsuccessful | 06:39, 14 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Doug | 82 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 18:53, 13 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
DeadEyeArrow | 81 | 7 | 0 | 92 | Successful | 13:31, 20 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Tanthalas39 | 49 | 23 | 5 | 68 | Unsuccessful | 01:11, 18 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hurricanehink | 92 | 2 | 2 | 98 | Successful | 21:33, 17 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Hersfold | 75 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | 21:12, 17 March 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scott5114 | 61 | 0 | 3 | 100 | Successful | 10:17, 8 March 2008 | 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 | % | ||||
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] 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 08:34:38, 6 June 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.
Clpo13
Final (13/13/10); Closed as withdrawn by clpo13(talk) at 11:31, 19 March 2008
Clpo13 (talk · contribs) - Clpo13 caught my eye with their impressive ability to interact with other users. Clpo13 has a natural ability in balancing tough decisions with professional interaction with the user(s) in question. Clpo 13 has done wikipedia a service with their prompt and skilful manner in fighting vandalism, and has added value to the wiki project through their nature gift of authorship. This gift is demonstrated daily through the many articles Clpo 13 admiralty works on. It is without question that Clpo 13 will be an asset as a wiki admin. I am proud and honoured to nominate Clpo 13 as an admin. Thright (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accepted. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I hereby withdraw my request for adminship. I feel that a little more time and experience would do me a lot of good and I'll certainly consider re-applying in a few months. Thanks all for your support and/or advice on how I can improve. --19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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: I plan mostly on combating vandalism as I have done in the past, with the addition of deleting pages tagged for speedy deletion, and blocking users who have been reported as vandals at WP:AIV. I already patrol the recent changes page and would continue to do so as an admin. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: While I'd like to say that the pages I've created are my best contributions (especially Charles Xavier Larrabee and Burlington-Edison High School), I really think that the best thing anyone can do for Wikipedia is to improve it and keep it free of incorrect information and vandalism. A lot of people look to Wikipedia as a source of information, which makes it especially important to make sure that information isn't blatantly incorrect. As long as I'm an editor, that will be what I focus on the most. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I've been in a number of conflicts, especially as a newer user. These conflicts did cause me stress, but I often dealt with it by backing off from the conflict for a day or two, usually when suggested by another user. My past conduct regarding conflicts was certainly less than stellar, but I think I've learned not to stoke the coals, as it were. It's much better to back off and follow dispute guidelines than get too personally involved in a heated argument, and I'll try my hardest to stick to that idea in future conflicts. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. What are your (general) thoughts on the quality-control areas of the project space; GA(N/R), PR, and FA(C/R)? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Good Article, Peer Review, and Featured Article, right? I'm fairly unacquainted with all of that, but overall I think it's a great idea. Not only should every article have its facts straight, it should be written well, too. After all, this is an encyclopedia we're running, not an amateur collection of facts. Stylistic standards, professional writing, and good images lend to the credibility of articles. Hopefully that answers your question. --clpo13(talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4a Follow-up question: Are you familiar with any controversies surrounding these areas?Balloonman (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I've encountered at least one user who feels that it's unimportant to have an article meet certain stylistic standards and that an article that meets GA or FA criteria isn't necessarily a good or well-written article. I disagree, since GA and FA criteria require accurate and neutral information, but I can see how there'd be some disagreement over those standards. --clpo13(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Pedro
- 5. Under what cicumstances should an admin indefinately block an IP address?
- A. Because IP addresses are not guaranteed to be forever linked to one person, I don't think an IP address should ever be indefinitely blocked. Even static IP addresses can change users over time. However, should it be determined that an IP address corresponds to a single user and will not change, then an indefinite block would be permissible. --clpo13(talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Mallargy is the former Irish tennis champion. More soon.
- A. I would remove the CSD tag, as the article does say why the subject is significant or important (he is a former tennis champion). Speedy deletion under A7 requires there be no indication why the subject is important or significant. The real issues with this article are notability and verifiability. I would tag the article requesting reliable sources and then ask the creator to provide references. --clpo13(talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional questions from Malinaccier Public (talk)
- 7. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
- A. First, check to see if the report is valid. If it's not simple vandalism (i.e. it's a content dispute), I'd remove the report and notify the reporter that they made an invalid report and why. If the report is valid, I'd check the user's contributions to see if they've vandalized past a final warning or if they have a long-term pattern of vandalism and blocking that would indicate they would probably vandalize in the future. Finally, I'd check the WHOIS to see if it's a shared IP address (such as one used by a school) or not, and then use the proper blocking template as my reason for blocking. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. A user comes to you requesting a block to help enforce their wikibreak. What is your response? Where should you direct them?
- A. To the WikiBreak Enforcer, with a message that self-requested blocks cannot be honored. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. Will you become involved in Admin Coaching if this RFA passes?
- 10. What is your opinion on WP:AOR? Will you add yourself to this? Why or why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier Public (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I'd never even heard of that before. Seems like a good idea, and I think I will add myself to it. Re-confirming an admin shows that the community (or at least their peers) feel that they're doing a good enough job as an admin to continue being one. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Keepscases
- 11. Your user page states that you are a skeptic. Do you think this will hinder expected assumptions of good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I'd certainly try not to let my skepticism interfere with my work. I can only see it being a problem in very controversial areas where other editors may hold very strong beliefs that aren't necessarily backed up by sources, and even then, I would fall back on Wikipedia polices instead of my own personal beliefs when dealing with the issue. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from GtstrickyTalk or C
- 12 As an admin, if this was to grow into an edit war with a 3rr violation by DreamGuy, what steps would you take to resolve the situation?
- A: I would first refrain from editing the page and request that DreamGuy do the same, while notifying him on his talk page that he violated WP:3RR. I would then ask that he participate in the discussion on the talk page to help reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. If this fails, I would then follow the other steps in dispute resolution, including getting outside opinions. Because I would be involved in the dispute, I would not block DreamGuy unless his edits became increasingly disruptive. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Tiptoety talk
- 13. When should WP:IAR be used? Should it be used in XfD's, if yes, when?
- A: WP:IAR definitely should not be used as a free pass for an editor to violate rules he or she doesn't like. Ideally, it should only be invoked when a particular guideline or policy gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia. In other words, the edits themselves should be considered as productive or harmful. Edits should be judged on their own merit, i.e is it productive or harmful? As for its use in XfDs, I think it should be allowed to be used. If someone can show how an article improves Wikipedia even if it breaks the rules, that should be a valid argument. After all, things are deleted or not deleted based on consensus, not because they break the rules. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 14. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
Questions from Majorly:
- 15. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?
- 16. Why are bananas yellow?
- 17. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.
- 18. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.
General comments
- See Clpo13's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Clpo13: Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Clpo13 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nomThright (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see some more activity in those Q4 areas (from everyone!), but yeah, no big deal and all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good answers to the questions. Not likely to misuse the tools is enough. I eschew copyright issues and AFD. There is plenty for an admin to do outside those areas, and candidate has no interest in those areas. Dlohcierekim 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd personally like to see some more contributions to the Wikipedia space, but otherwise meets all of my standards. Nice answer to question 6! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have seen this editor doing good work on Wiki for months and I believe he would use the tools wisely. Jack1956 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. The articles mentioned in his Q2 answer are satisfactory examples of main space editing. Addhoc (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per convincing user page of worthwhile intentions and contributions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support editing seems ok, I place more weight on those than answers to questions. should be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- No real problems, could do with the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 100% Support User has a great understanding, as seen above, and will make a great admin, maybe even a 'crat one day. Dustitalk to me 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I think Clpo13 shows good judgement, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-19 11:58
Oppose
- Oppose Lack of Wikipedia space edits, user seems unfamiliar with to much. Q4 answer is clueless.--Dacium (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to Q4 is 100% correct, in my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the answer to Q4 have to do with adminship? People don't need to be familiar of all aspects of Wikipedia, now do they? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to Q4 is 100% correct, in my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry I do actually like this user but the lack of mainspace edits worries me. Clock up some more and I will probably support, good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Seems like a decent editor, but his answers leave alot to be desired. Once he builds some more experience I am sure he will be a good admin. -Djsasso (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak, Weak Oppose. Most of what I see, I like. Good on mainspace contributions (which I personally think is very important), highly active editor, doesn't use Twinkle too much, uses edit summaries, communicates with other editors. The only problem is the little experience in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia Talk isn't doing so hot, either). I think some more work in those two areas would help you get a better feel of the inner workings of Wikipedia. Do some more work in admin-like areas and I'll most definitely support. Useight (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for Useight - You mentioned Twinkle. I'm an avid user and I've seen this mentioned a lot around AFD discussions, and it appears that general consensus is that use of Twinkle is somehow undesirable. Could you please explain to me why use of Twinkle is a negative attribute that is looked down upon in AFD discussions? scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of bots can be a negative if the candidate relies upon the bot too much to do his/her thinking. If two candidates go for RfA, and one has used a bot for 5K edits and all/most of his/her edits and the other has only edited 3000 times, the person who did their edits manually edits will get more attention and have their edits respected more. Using bots and templates does not show the RfA reviewers what/how a candidate thinks---it only shows that they can use a bot. Over use, followed by an early RfA can also be seen as a means of building up edits to meet some 'requirement' for adminship. Notice, I say overuse of bots/templates---bots and templates are crucial to the success of Wikipedia, but over-reliance on them can be a detriment to an RfA.Balloonman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm not impressed by an editor who used a script to get most of their edits done. I'm not sure how Twinkle would be a factor at AFD, but at RFA, I think it shows that the editor doesn't do their own work or decision making. It doesn't show judgement. Manual edits are looked upon as "higher quality" than just clicking buttons in Twinkle (or any other script, like AWB). Of course, I am kind of biased in this facet, because I like to brag that all of my 7500 edits were completely manual. I've never used Twinkle, AWB, Popups, or anything else. I just do my own work and like to see other editors (particularly those at RFA) do the same. Useight (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a heavy Twinkle user, I take exception to these bogus assumptions that people who use scripts place less thought/effort into their work as those who do not. Using a script to nominate an article for deletion, as opposed to manually doing it, doesn't undermine or have any bearing on the reasoning or the rationale. And I suppose WP:AIV reports filed with Twinkle are less legitimate than those that aren't? What about requests for page protection? Sorry, can't get on board with that. Besides, there are tons of editors who simply go through discussions (AFD or RFA) with the infamous and highly perfunctory "per nom" without any real deliberation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I was very careful to say that it can be seen as a crutch... despite my strong oppose below, Clpo13 is a prime example of a person who clearly shows that he uses the tool in a meaningful well thought out manner.Balloonman (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just my personal opinion regarding using scripts all the time. Of course, as you mention above, using scripts is on the same plane as "per nom" all the time. And easy on the "less legitimate" than manual edits. I'm sure you've noticed that people who use Twinkle on every edit have a harder time passing RFA. I don't automatically oppose just because they use Twinkle, but I'm not impressed if they use Twinkle (or anything else) for a vast, vast majority of their edits. Useight (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my point was that they aren't exactly on the same plane. When I make my nominations or reports, I'm not simply going through the motions, as many others are not as well. I think what I'm trying to convey is this: Using Twinkle or popups etc..etc..can be mechanical and used inappropriately - "trigger happy" and thoughtless in a manner of speaking. However, as balloonman pointed out above, editors can use them quite effectively - at a level which is even more productive, efficient and constructive than an editor who relies on manual edits 100%. Don't get me wrong though, an editor who only uses scripts for editing at the expense of talking, article building, and comments at admin-related areas, is in desperate need of a revamping of their approach to editing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree with that completely. Scripts can definitely help, but they shouldn't comprise all of the edits. I originally pointed out that I like that the user doesn't rely on Twinkle "too much". We both think Clop13 is doing a good job; I think we're arguing about a point which we agree on. Twinkle (and other scripts are good), just don't overuse them. Useight (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my point was that they aren't exactly on the same plane. When I make my nominations or reports, I'm not simply going through the motions, as many others are not as well. I think what I'm trying to convey is this: Using Twinkle or popups etc..etc..can be mechanical and used inappropriately - "trigger happy" and thoughtless in a manner of speaking. However, as balloonman pointed out above, editors can use them quite effectively - at a level which is even more productive, efficient and constructive than an editor who relies on manual edits 100%. Don't get me wrong though, an editor who only uses scripts for editing at the expense of talking, article building, and comments at admin-related areas, is in desperate need of a revamping of their approach to editing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just my personal opinion regarding using scripts all the time. Of course, as you mention above, using scripts is on the same plane as "per nom" all the time. And easy on the "less legitimate" than manual edits. I'm sure you've noticed that people who use Twinkle on every edit have a harder time passing RFA. I don't automatically oppose just because they use Twinkle, but I'm not impressed if they use Twinkle (or anything else) for a vast, vast majority of their edits. Useight (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I was very careful to say that it can be seen as a crutch... despite my strong oppose below, Clpo13 is a prime example of a person who clearly shows that he uses the tool in a meaningful well thought out manner.Balloonman (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a heavy Twinkle user, I take exception to these bogus assumptions that people who use scripts place less thought/effort into their work as those who do not. Using a script to nominate an article for deletion, as opposed to manually doing it, doesn't undermine or have any bearing on the reasoning or the rationale. And I suppose WP:AIV reports filed with Twinkle are less legitimate than those that aren't? What about requests for page protection? Sorry, can't get on board with that. Besides, there are tons of editors who simply go through discussions (AFD or RFA) with the infamous and highly perfunctory "per nom" without any real deliberation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm not impressed by an editor who used a script to get most of their edits done. I'm not sure how Twinkle would be a factor at AFD, but at RFA, I think it shows that the editor doesn't do their own work or decision making. It doesn't show judgement. Manual edits are looked upon as "higher quality" than just clicking buttons in Twinkle (or any other script, like AWB). Of course, I am kind of biased in this facet, because I like to brag that all of my 7500 edits were completely manual. I've never used Twinkle, AWB, Popups, or anything else. I just do my own work and like to see other editors (particularly those at RFA) do the same. Useight (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of bots can be a negative if the candidate relies upon the bot too much to do his/her thinking. If two candidates go for RfA, and one has used a bot for 5K edits and all/most of his/her edits and the other has only edited 3000 times, the person who did their edits manually edits will get more attention and have their edits respected more. Using bots and templates does not show the RfA reviewers what/how a candidate thinks---it only shows that they can use a bot. Over use, followed by an early RfA can also be seen as a means of building up edits to meet some 'requirement' for adminship. Notice, I say overuse of bots/templates---bots and templates are crucial to the success of Wikipedia, but over-reliance on them can be a detriment to an RfA.Balloonman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Just not enough overall experience yet. Jmlk17 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - After oscillating for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not satisfied with both the mainspace, or the wikispace contributions as a whole. I'm sorry. However, I think that in 8-10 weeks you should be ready. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose More project space edits equals more experience which may lead to my support in a future Rfa. ArcAngel (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose I've given this a lot of thought, for some reason this was one of the hardest !votes I've ever made. I really wanted to support, but decided to change my !vote to oppose. First, I have some minor problems with some of his answers. For example, question 12, he writes, because he is involved with the dispute he "would not block DreamGuy unless his edits became increasingly disruptive." Even then an admin should not block somebody with whom they are involved in a dispute-this is a general principle that admins should adhere to. Admins should, like everybody else, report it an let an independent third party make that judgment. But in this case it is even more profound based upon their longstanding feuds. Question 9 implies that he recognizes that he might not be ready.
- But my my opposition comes from other places. I've read perhaps 1000 of his edits particularly those on various talk pages. While reading them, clear questions of civility kept coming to mind---nothing overly blatant, but questionable. Of course these were reinforced by the candidates own words, on March 14 he wrote, I admit that some of my comments could be construed as insulting. Or in November when he wrote, Now, I will not deny that certain editors (myself included) involved the various dispute resolution processes are guilty of the very things DreamGuy is accused of. The case may very well be one of the pot (or pots) calling the kettle black. Or last July when he wrote, I honestly don't know what your problem is, but apparently, discussing calmly and rationally isn't one of your strong points. Now, I should point out these comments were made about the same person he was asked about in question 12---he has a very long dispute with said editor, which makes it even more important that he refer the issue to a third party admin---even if it obvious that a block is warranted.
- Finally, I think I know why Clpo13's activity almost disappeared after last August. In July and August he was involved with at least two ANI cases that didn't go quite his way (again dealing with the same person from question 12.) In fact, he was chided for one on his talk page, but his last contribution to the first was, pff, why did I ever expect help from the admins? {...} I said I apologized for my original comment. I know I was out of line, and I can understand the response. {...} But hey, this is Wikipedia; I should have known better than to expect real help. We are done here. Now, if he had maintained his level of involvement with the community since making these comments, I might be able to ignore them, but his eradic editing behavior since that post makes it hard to do so.Balloonman (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, that's certainly not a high point in my time at Wikipedia. To be perfectly honest, I took a on/off wiki-break following those events. I was getting needlessly upset and figured it would be best to avoid Wikipedia for a while. In case there's any confusion, I didn't leave because I felt things weren't going my way. I left because I realized that I was getting angry enough to say stupid things that I'd later regret. A cool-down was certainly in order, and I guess I came back a little wary of possible conflicts. At any rate, I take full responsibility for my civility problems then. --clpo13(talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, I also appreciate your honesty and integrity when you recognize these issues. But I'd rather see more proof that they are behind you (especially, when I see current discussions that are bordering on civility issues.) I do have to say, that I absolutely loved this edit summary of yours!Balloonman (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, that's certainly not a high point in my time at Wikipedia. To be perfectly honest, I took a on/off wiki-break following those events. I was getting needlessly upset and figured it would be best to avoid Wikipedia for a while. In case there's any confusion, I didn't leave because I felt things weren't going my way. I left because I realized that I was getting angry enough to say stupid things that I'd later regret. A cool-down was certainly in order, and I guess I came back a little wary of possible conflicts. At any rate, I take full responsibility for my civility problems then. --clpo13(talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Diff's provide by Balloonman are worrisome, and not becoming of a administrator, that coupled with lack of project space contributions makes me change my !vote to oppose. Tiptoety talk 05:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Balloonman; lack of experience; and poor answer to question 4. The candidate shows potential and may be a fine admin one day. Right now Clpo13 needs more time and experience. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose while I agree that there is a lot of potential here, a bit more experience and more time since the issues Balloonman pointed out are needed. Shell babelfish 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I feel that the user needs some more mainspace edits and gain some more experience. He seems to have the qualities necessary for an admin, so he should consider reapplying in the future once he gains more experience. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The diffs provided by Balloonman would give me cause for concern about this editor where he to be give adminship. BigDunc (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral – Personally, I do not view this editor as any type of threat to misuse the tools. However, I would like to see more involvement in such areas as copyright violations and Afd to gain a little more experience in policy issues, before moving to Support. Good luck to you. Shoessss | Chat 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm not sure how to take the answer to the 5th question. Clpo13 states that IP addresses could change over a period so they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked, unless it's determined it's attached to one user. But Clpo13 also stated that ones that are "attached to one user" (aka static) can change. So it seems like a contradiction to me. Metros (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may clarify, I meant that even static IP addresses can change users over time, since a person could move, change computers, or somehow modify their Internet connection to assign them a different IP address. If it was possible to determine that an address could never change, then I would support a block. But since that's either extremely rare or impossible, it seems safer not to indef block IPs at all. I wanted to be concise in my original answer, but it came out a bit muddled. --clpo13(talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A little inexperienced, sporadic editing patterns (with that archive having only 12 threads, but spanning a 7 month period) - however, you do appear to be pretty good, so I'll go neutral. Rudget. 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Leaning towards...I'm not sure, however, I want to wait until all of the questions have been answered. I'm a little concerned by the relatively thin wikispace contributions - although, I see some great potential here. I like that the candidate is hanging out at WP:ANI. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Changed to weak oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neutral Awaiting all questions to be answered. Leaning towards support at this moment. Dustitalk to me 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neutral I have some concerns, but right now I can go either way. I'll look a lot closer at this candidate tonite or tomorrow.Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)After spending 3+ hours reading his posts, I have to oppose.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neutral - Hmm.. this is a hard one. While Clpo13 has made great contributions to ANI, i do not see much other project space contributions outside of that, coupled spotty activity which really adds up to no more than 4 months or so makes me neutral right now. Please someone change my mind. Tiptoety talk 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Changed to oppose. Tiptoety talk 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Sorry, but I would like to see a little more experience in admin-related areas, especially those in the projectspace. Probably admin coaching would be a very good experience for you, and after a few months of hard work I will definitely support. Malinaccier (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I like the answers to the questions and I don't see anything to worry about in the contribution history. But there's just not much contribution history there, and a large part of what there is consists of semi-automated twinkle edits. (Not twinkle-bashing in the least here.) I'd love to support in a few months after more experience.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Good user, as per the support votes, but there are concerns according to the oppose votes. But I can't decide whether to support or oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Requests for Adminship are at their core, a request for wikipedia project members to opine on a given candidate's appropriateness vis-a-vis the sysop tools, aka the mop-and-flamethrower. Overall this user has been a valuable contributor to the project. However, sysop's need to demonstrate the ability to handle difficulties with aplomb, as they are given the ability to control others' access to wikipedia through blocks. The fact that this user has been involved in disputes recently is not the issue for me; editing long enough in wikipedia will bring anyone into one conflict or another. My concern is with how the conflict has been handled. One can transmit the same information as is found in this edit, for example, without making it an overt attack (try saying "I have had a difficult time trying to reach a consensus with User X in the past" instead). Or the edit summary here is not necessary either. It must be noted that this editor has demonstrated civility as well during this conflict, as per here. While any and every one of us has had, and will have, bad days (whether we are editors, sysops, bcrats, or ArbCom -- we are all human) and any one of those can be understood, their presence, in combination with other concerns such as a relatively low number of edits throughout all the spaces of the project, prevent me from being able to support at this time, and the user's overall behavior, humanity included, do not lead me to oppose at this time, thus, the neutral opinion. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per aboves. SpencerT♦C 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral While I'm leaning towards support, I'm concerned about civility issues; administrators should always be kind. The edit count thing is minor, though also could be improved. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - close to supporting, may need a bit more experience. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (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.
Doug
Final (82/0/0); ended at 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) by Kingturtle
Doug (talk · contribs) - I first got to know Doug at WikiProject European history when he invited me to take part in the ongoing project overhaul. In the context of overhauling the project, I observed Doug to be very enthusiastic and thoughtful in his ideas and comments.
Since then I have seen him, well, pretty much everywhere. Purely by coincidence I've seen Doug welcoming users, cleaniing up vandalism, doing WikiProject tasks, mediating, and flagging for speedy deletion. He's already exposed to administrative forums, as he reports to AIV and has tried his hand at non-admin closures at MfD. His edits span an impressive range across the namespaces.
All of my interactions with Doug have shown him to be intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable, and level-headed editor. He appears to have a solid grasp of Wikipedia policy and process, and I believe that he is dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. I am confident that Doug would make exemplary use of the tools and be a great boon to Wikipedia as an admin. - Revolving Bugbear 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by John Carter - Doug has often had the occasionally unpleasant task of having to work with me, generally in matters relating to the proposed deletion of portals and WikiProjects, although also in the establishment and re-establishment of a few other portals and projects and certain copyright issues. In every instance I can remember, he has demonstrated a remarkable grasp of the issues, policies and guidelines invovled, often better than my own.
He has substantial knowledge of the legal profession, being an attorney, and seems to have a grasp of copyright violation issues that is among the best I have ever seen, and I've worked with copyright and trademark attorneys. He has also already, as a non-admin, closed several MfD debates, and functioned as an effective mediator in several matters.
I have absolutely no reservations about this individual's being very well qualified for adminship, or that as an admin he would be a significant contributor in several areas which can always deserve additional attention from administrators. In effect, he is, so far as I can see, already filling several functions which admins are supposed to be involved in, and has done well in them. I cannot see how he would ever be likely to use the tools in any but the thoughtful, reasonable way he has used in every interaction I have seen him in to date, and believe that the project would benefit very much from his having the tools he has generally already demonstrated knowing how to use. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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: I take part in broad variety of things as an editor and I would continue to do so as an admin, but I would emphasize copyright problems, suspected copyright violations, possibly unfree images, simply because these are some of the places I have the most to add; as well as as various deletion processes, especially speedy deletion. Of course I'd be able to close more debates than I do now, but I participate in so many that I don't consider closing debates a significant portion of the work. My main focus will continue to be finding articles that can be salvaged from deletion through an appropriate application of sofixit; however, my work will be much more useful if I can delete those that cannot reasonably be saved rather than just leaving them there as I sift. I would also try to work on some of the DailyDeletionCategories such as Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons from time to time and maybe WP:SPLICE, once I learn how.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contribution to Wikipedia is Decker Brothers, not because of the article - to which I believe I contributed not a single edit, and which still needs a lot of work - but because of this and the diffs which immediately follow, together with discussion at User talk:Eliwhale, in which I found the article by randomly looking at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, researched the article very briefly and determined it was salvageable as it likely met WP:N, welcomed the newbie creator and contacted the deleting admin and convinced him to undelete, at which point other editors stepped in to do much of the hands on helping. I am hopeful that this editor will stay with us in the long term.
- Other good contributions include every Welcome message I've ever sent, several of which have resulted in thank you's on my user talk page - if the user talk page is blank, a welcome message will be issued, no matter what ({{Welcome-anon-vandal}} is great), although the most blatant IP vandal may get a warning too. And of course there is my participation in various aspects of dispute resolution, some of which are noted here, but much of which just happens on the fly.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have never been in an editing conflict with another user; I normally don't get stressed over editing or over other users. If I disagree with another user I will say so, but I won't fight over good faith editing - I credit my lack of disputes to a two-part philosophy: 1) Generally, 1RR (vandalism, spam, etc. excepted of course), and 2) If one takes a strong position against violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, but is willing to admit that there is not always agreement where the line is, articles and processes will improve.
- I do frequently get into heated debates with other editors on talk pages, particularly in project space, - especially when I believe newbies are being bitten or when sofixit applies in a deletion discussion; and parties in dispute resolutions sometimes give me grief - but I just take a break from dispute resolution for a few days before taking on another case, or I get involved in another dispute resolution process for my next one, so I don't lose focus.
Optional questions from Keepscases
- 4. Please write a haiku about your Wikipedia experiences.
- A.
- a free encyclopedia
- clients wait
- bills sit unopened
- 5. The "rules" for a haiku specify lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables, and yet yours appears to be 8/3/5. Should this be construed as "outside-the-box" thinking, indifference to standards, ignorance of tradition, or something else? How do you feel this relates to your performance as an editor and perhaps administrator of Wikipedia?
- A. 5/7/5 on is a Japanese traditional form, this is the English Wikipedia, so I don't feel constrained by the ancient traditional "rules" intended for another time and language and many traditional Japanese haiku do not translate to 5/7/5. The spirit of the haiku is intended. The spirit of Wikipedia is intended. If anyone doesn't like it, he or she is free to change it.
Optional question from Espresso Addict
- 6. What article work are you most proud of?
- A. There is no one article, I haven't written a full length article from scratch, but here you can see work I've done, including some stubs I've written. I've searched out references for other articles such as books by Edgar Rice Burroughs (beyond the ones I've written stubs for), made a lot of technical corrections when references don't say what they are purported to say, and done a fair amount of copyediting and clean up work. I've reworked Moka Express (and would love to discuss on the talk page if, as your name suggests, that's an area of interest), and re-written some portions (fairly minor) of Joan of Arc and Penobscot Expedition. I have a few tiny stubs in userpace that I hope to bring to life eventually, they are listed at User:Doug/WIP.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Privatemusings
- 7. I've offered my support regardless, but wondered if you've thought at all about future accountability, and wondered if you might consider taking a look at ideas like these; User:Lar/Accountability - thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Sorry to take so long responding, yes I've seen this before. Way too complicated IMHO. If either of my co-nominators ever told me I needed to hang it up, I would do so immediately. If anyone who supports me in this process or is otherwise well respected in the community ever tells me to hang it up, I'd either ask around and see if others agreed or simply resign without asking. There is no magic number, it wouldn't take a vote, a reconfirmation, or anything else that bureaucratic.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Majorly:
- 8. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?
- A: Sorry, I'm not very good at math. I'm so glad we don't count votes.
- 9. Why are bananas yellow?
- A. Yum!
- 10. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.
- A. Hah! thought you could catch me didn't you.
- 11. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.
- A. Homo sapiens because they can write encyclopedias. See attached for details.
General comments
- See Doug's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Doug before commenting.
Discussion
- Could you give me an estimate of how many of your user talk edits (1333) are warnings/notices? Kimu 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 70% are welcome messages and the remainder are probably roughly evenly split between warnings and actual custom messages to users, including editors I'm involved in various work with; though it may be that there are somewhat more of those than there are warnings - Probably 1/3 or more of the welcome messages are {{welcome-anon-vandal}}.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support per Revolving Bugbear. Oh, and John Carter. :) - Revolving Bugbear 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John Carter (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Trust the nominators, and we need more image/copyvio admins. Malinaccier (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support already doing great work in needed areas. The tools would make him even better. Cheers GtstrickyTalk or C 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice work, great editor. Per Malinaccier, it's a breath of fresh air to see a candidate participating in WP:MFD, WP:TFD (not that it's particularly rare) and interested in image/copyvio work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute strongest support ever +1. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Doug came to my attention through his eloquent and diplomatic non-admin close of the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination) MfD. The text of his comment there suggests he will be able to communicate well in admin discussions. His contributions seem good and the areas in which he intends to work as an admin appear useful: images and copyvios. Anyone who looks at Category:Administrative backlog and take note of the image and copyright issues will understand the significance. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have worked with him, deserves the mop and I should have co-nomed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix-wiki (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2008
- Support But needs more experience on RfC for featured user-warning templates created by a SPA with a COI who adds EL. Or equivalent college courses.--12 Noon 2¢ 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good interactions with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose. He clearly does not know how to write a suitable Haiku. :) seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Since he looks trusted, along with his edit summary usage, his expereince etc. etc. etc. etc. Seems we need more image copyvio admins these days anyway... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. I'd like to not that sometimes, when 5/7/5 haiku is translated from its original Japanese, it will sometimes, in English, turn out not to be 5/7/5. SpencerT♦C 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No red flags.--SJP (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should make for a good admin. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as all my interactions with this user have been positive. · AndonicO Hail! 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems ok by me! :) ArcAngel (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, seems to be a capable, intelligent and well-spoken editor who treats others well. No problems here. Good answers to questions and solid nominators. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no concerns here! krimpet✽ 03:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Net benefit for the project. :) GlassCobra 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because of the haiku. And because Doug appears to be a strong admin candidate. But mainly the haiku :-) -FrankTobia (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per riana. Seek your mop and role, build bridges and new friendships, do good on wiki. Privatemusings (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well-rounded and responsible editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen him around. MBisanz talk 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Solid contributions across a range of areas, and I love the haiku in the Wikipedian spirit. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Just solid enough, couldn't hurt, will only help improve wikipedia.--Dacium (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Doug's edits seem very much aimed at improving Wikipedia. Looks like he'd make a great admin. --clpo13(talk) 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- —Dark (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite clearly an excellent editor. Rudget. 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support the ansers thing user has given clearly indicates he will make a great admin! Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent I love the Haiku, trustworthy user too, even meets my standards stew! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per haiku. MrPrada (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answer to Q4. What can I say, I'm a sucker for catchy slogans. ➪HiDrNick! 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Love the Haiku. Dustitalk to me 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think the "haiku" and why he wrote it says it all. :) --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doug not only contributes but also keeps a cool head and does not edit Wikipedia to vent spleen. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent answeres to questions, (loved the haiku), and will be a great asset with images and copvio. Good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good solid work in xFD. Knows his stuff. Interacts very well with others. Would make a fine admin. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per NiciVampireHeart.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to be able to communicate; has a good grasp on policy. Carom (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Communication skills and working on a project sold me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - iMatthew 2008 11:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - jc37 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent candidate with great communication skills and fine project work. He's trusted and respected by others. Doug should prove an above-par admin. Majoreditor (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support VanTucky 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user, will be a good admin. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user, shows no indications that he will abuse the tools, very active, so I'll support. Kimu 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support A well qualified editor who should have become an Admin long ago. --Sharkface217 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support jj137 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking at user's contributions, interactions with other editors, and participation in dispute resolutions among other things, I am reasonably comfortable with this user's judgment and trust that he will use the M&F™ properly. -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This editor seems like an upstanding kinda person and I doubt they would abuse the tools. I say, "Let's just give it to em! Good luck Canyouhearmenow 13:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; see my concerns being addressed below. Relata refero (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I like the fact that this editor has already been exposed to a lot of the things that Sysops generally would do, and as such I think he would be a great Sysop. --Mifter (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Support Anyone opposing Doug should be slapped with a fishThright (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Encountered Doug many times before. He'll be fine. Acalamari 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Always has been calm and a pleasure to work with. Never given me any idea he'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good luck! Midorihana~iidesune? 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, should have been an admin a long time ago. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the haiku ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sometimes, I learn more about someone from a shared failure than a smooth success. Doug volunteered to help mediate an issue, if there is such a thing as mediation from a cabal that may or may not exist. It was a tense situation, but Doug impressed me with both with his sincerity at trying to find a solution, and his sadness that mediation was not successful. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Must, must, must! :) It's a weird feeling seeing people who practically live on your watchlist and realizing they're not admins yet. The system is flawed, I tell you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I'm not overly familiar with this user, but I've seen him around the site and he seems to deserve the mop. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Doug is a thoroughly refreshing candidate, and I think he'll be a great administrator. AGK § 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that you need it support. Go pay your bills. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought you were already an admin support - we can always use more levelheaded and thoughtful admins. Shell babelfish 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on
our need for more lawyersthe candidate's excellent overall record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Support Seems an excellent candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support trustworthy and experienced editor. Will make a very good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent candidate indeed.. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User who is helpful and is what we need in a janitor ;) Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good candidate. While good manners cost nothing, they are truly invaluable here. Keep up the good work. WilliamH (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought you were already an admin. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good candidate. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers to questions 8 through 11. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The abuse of the haiku is cause for support. SilkTork *YES! 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No red flags. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) The haiku made me laugh XD[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
(Changed to support, see above.) I see work with the Agriculture Wikiproject, and am impressed with the anecdote he mentions about saving the Decker Brothers article. That being said, I would like a little more information about actual article-writing before I support a candidate. Also about disputes: admins frequently find themselves in the middle of content disputes; the candidate may not have participated himself - and his rules for himself are a good thing - but if he has no experience of mediating in one or calming one down either, I think we don't have enough information. [Note: I wish to stress that this !vote is open to alteration if more information is forthcoming. Relata refero (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, my piped links above and on my user page using the word "here" may have been a little ambiguous; did you notice User:Doug/DR and User:Doug/Contributions?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, you might want to make that clearer. Still not happy about the article contributions, but the second point has been addressed here, where you took an initiative to cool down a situation you were partially responsible for. Am moving to support on that basis, but please consider writing a little more! Relata refero (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, my piped links above and on my user page using the word "here" may have been a little ambiguous; did you notice User:Doug/DR and User:Doug/Contributions?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (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.
DeadEyeArrow
Final (81/7/0); ended 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
DeadEyeArrow (talk · contribs) - I have the pleasure of nominating User:DeadEyeArrow for the keys to the janitorial cupboard. DeadEyeArrow joined us in July 2005, and, if you count these things, has made well over 10,000 edits. These include starting some 28 articles, sorting out the 'pedia's tangled redirects and a lot of anti-vandalism work. DeadEyeArrow is very good at the latter job in particular, reverting, warning and reporting correctly and with patience.
DeadEyeArrow knows when to take things "higher" for more discussion, discussing and helping with subjects on the Administrators' Noticeboard, seeking page protection and contributing to Long Term Abuse reports. In deletion debates, DeadEyeArrow shows a grasp of Wikipedia policy, actually reads the articles before contributing and offers tips on improvements and on where the author went wrong. A look at DeadEyeArrow's speedy deletion nominations shows that his red links stay red - always a confidence booster. What else? Well, DeadEyeArrow has been given two Defender of the Wiki, three RickK and one original barnstar by appreciative editors, is civil, easy to talk to, learns quickly, and has email enabled. I believe that the tools will be well used and used well by this editor in the many janitorial and anti-vandalism jobs DeadEyeArrow already does. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Rudget - A keen editor with an enthusiastic desire to help en.wp, I am very pleased to co-nominate DeadEyeArrow for the job which has been knocking at his door for a few months now. A user with plenty of experience and a good sense of humour that is so needed nowadays, DEA is always willing to help out where needed, with his contributions going to a diverse number of areas. His "anti-vandalism" which has become so common nowadays in RFAs, is outstanding, but this is only a partial reason why I wished to (co)nominate him - the mainspace work which he has conducted is extremely encouraging and he works with the interests of Wikipedia at heart creating redirects, making constructive and influential comments at various XFDs, working with articles and buidling them up from stub to B-class, being open to questions which may be difficult to ask on en.wp, getting involved with community consensus on talk pages of articles and (as Redvers says above) seeking page protection etc. showing a comprehensive understanding of policy, where it is appropriate to do so. Going back to vandal work, he has over 300 reports to AIV, helps out with pages needing translation and good contributions to other noticeboards. I am confident that DeadEyeArrow will become an excellent administrator and will go on to achieve more than that is possible, (if you're wondering why I haven't done any diffs it's due to the fact that all these qualities can be seen in the candidate's latest edits). Rudget. 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Absolutely. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I mostly look to continue my anti-vandal work, xfds, and on the various noticeboards. As well as RPP which sometimes seems to be unwatched in the wee hours of the day. I'm not above the more menial tasks of a Wikipedian and going out of my way to help others out. And I like to be engaged in the community.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Well it's obvious that my best contributions so far have been my efforts fighting vandalism. Particularly when I search on the net whether someone's changes were copyvios or factually incorrect and checking if additions are hoaxes or not. I remember one user who had change the name of a voice actor on cartoon articles and I spent about an hour checking if it was true. In the end that user was using a few IPs to propagate the name changes which were obviously false. I also feel my mainspace contributions have been good as well. And don't forget, my WP:WHOCARES shortcut is the second most used shortcut for that section. (that was a joke)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I haven't really been in many heated arguments with users, I feel I keep a cool head and don't let things get personal. I used to get stressed when fighting vandalism when I started out, but I've mellowed out a lot and haven't had much stress from the wiki since.
Optional questions from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
- 4. i Can you foresee yourself patrolling WP:AN3 any time in the near future?
- A: Interestingly, I haven't had to use AN3 yet, but as an admin I would absolutely include it in my duties.
- 5. Can you foresee yourself blocking anyone for "edit warring" or otherwise intervening in content disputes between established editors?
- A: I do see myself blocking someone for edit warring when it's clear (a violation of 3RR). If it's not so clear like only 1 or 2 reverts over multiple pages or a slow edit war I would likely first implore them to discuss on a talk page if they haven't already. I feel one of the best indications of an edit war is when the only discussing takes place in the edit summaries. As well, I would intervene if I feel there's been incivility on either part of the editors or if there's a possible compromise that's been overlooked.
- 6 Since you have expressed an interest in this area, would you like to add your opinion regarding this "decision" by User:Master of Puppets? What, if anything, was wrong with this "decision"? In what way are User:Dbachmann and User:Camptown bound by the decision? If it helps, you can view Dbachmann's own response to the decision, at User_talk:Dbachmann#2RR.
- A: I read the comments on 3rr and on their various talk pages. It surprises me that one couldn't actually send a message to the other first and the templating by Camptown is clear abf. Two experienced editors such as themselves should know better. As for MoP's decision, though very bold (especially considering there wasn't an actual 3rr vio), I don't feel it was specifically a violation of anything. I see it as a sort of softly imposed cool down, which I think these two users could use. If Dab is really has issue he could take it to ANI but I feel he should try to discuss the original issue with Camptown first. They still haven't even tried to come to an agreement. If they can come to one, I'm sure MoP would lift their 2rr.
- 7 It is likely that there could be some reservations about your potential involvement in 3RR and content disputes, because of your comparative lack of article building history (for instance see Dbachmann's comment regarding this to Master of Puppets). How would you address such concerns if they were raised?
- A: I am unsure specifically how I would respond to such a hypothetical at the moment. I feel article building isn't the only factor in such dispute resolutions and I would like my previous actions in such areas to be taken into account. I must say that I don't intend to bold my way into complex disputes on my first day.
Optional question from Keepscases
- 8. Please review the RuPaul article and suggest an improvement or two.
- A. Well, it obviously needs numerous references. The note section being trivial in nature needs to be incorporated into the article. As well it has a good deal of proseline.
Optional question from Juliancolton
- 9. You've made nearly 500 edits today alone. Do you think there is a point when a user makes too many edits?
- A. As long as they are still constructive I feel there isn't a point (besides physical fatigue) when they've made too many edits.
Optional question from SlimVirgin:
- 10. Hi DeadEye, it's hard to tell just by looking through your contribs, but I was wondering whether there are any content contributions you can point to. I know you've focused on vandalism, and there's nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you've added any material too it would be helpful to point us in the direction of it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A:Well, it isn't my strongest point, as others have pointed out. But besides the articles on my user page the article I've worked on the most is Månegarm. It was a collaborative effort with user Hole in the Wall.
- It's not much just from a stub to a start. Note, I've recently added references to that page. Also I helped on the article on Dreamer (Livin' Joy song). When I saw how awful it was when created, someone had to fix it:
- Recently I've added references here too. Other than that my content contributions are minimal, things like adding that Alicia Masters created Captain America's memorial. Which I guess is really crufty, least it was refed right. I believe I failed writing class every year I was in HS, so my writing isn't the best, I try to keep it to simple things. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Tiptoety talk
- 11. When would you full protect an article on the mainpage, and why? When would you semi protect an article on the mainpage, and why? Tiptoety talk 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: As a rule more patience should be taken before enacting any protection to an article on the mainpage. Full protection would only be required in a more extreme case of edit warring. Though first I'd point out to the users that they're warring over a highly visible page and they should seek discussion outside of the edit summary. Semi-protection would be for vandalism but similarly to what I said above, it'd have to be more than the usual case of vandalism. It would have to appear like a concerted effort to deface an article. The FA would be exempt from full and even more patience before semi. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Jon513
- 12. Earlier today (07:06, March 19, 2008) you requested (deleted edit) Joey pangallo for deletion as an A7 (non-notable bio). After looking at the article I think that a G10 (attack page) would have been more appropriate. When an article can be speedied for several reasons which reason do you choose? and why?
- A: Well I don't really have a method of choosing which CSD presides over another. It's really whatever just hits me first. Though if it's an obvious attack I'll usually put it over the others. I don't really remember what that page was, and I can't see it, so I don't know why I didn't in that particular case. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See DeadEyeArrow's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for DeadEyeArrow: DeadEyeArrow (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DeadEyeArrow before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Beat both the noms Strong Support --The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support thought you were an Admin.great track and has been here sinse July 2005 and great vandal fighter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the great noms. Rudget. 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked through edits and found no redflags I had actually noticed this user's high number of edits earlier and asked about seeking RfA. Has been making a lot of edits in admin related areas. Gives knowledgeable and helpful answers. I found no declined AIV reports or CSD requests. Is open to discussion and apologizes for the inevitable automation assisted errors in tagging. I'm afraid Maxim's neutral rationale does not carry a lot of strength with me. Nominee could reduce edits by 3/4 and still do a tremendous amount of work, true. On the other hand, we should harness that energy and enthusiasm while it lasts and trust the nominee to know their limits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues here. :) ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Nothing more needs to be said about this candidate other than Great job. Shoessss | Chat 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like a great candidate. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: He's a dedicated anti-vandal, and i believe he will use his new tools to continue the fight. Good luck! TheProf | Talk 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dustitalk to me 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support —DerHexer (Talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Trust the nominators, trust the user, and I know that they will make a good admin. Works for me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Truth be told, I ran across the user yesterday and was planning on asking him about a nomination in the near future. This is definitely one time that I'm glad I was beaten to the punch. --jonny-mt 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - your nominator sayz you haz only 10,000 edits, I don't like liars :p ...--Cometstyles 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to oppose, oppose in the oppose section. Otherwise your opposition could be counted as support. Smartguy777 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support I've been impressed with my limited interaction with DEA and I respect the nominators opinionBalloonman (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Not too shabby. Quality editor to say the least. I would have liked to see heftier participation beyond WP:AIV, but going through the contributions, there seems to be no issues. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've encountered DEA several times while he goes about his work of clearing vandalism from articles. He displays a good knowledge of policy and I am confident he will make good use of the tools. Gwernol 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good RC patroller. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Professional, no nonsense. Good luck. -- Iterator12n Talk 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good balance between article creation and vandalism fighting. Seems professional, civil, and overall a good editor. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - your answer to Q6 is best described as 'wrong', and you are lacking in meaningful article edits. However, fortuitously adminship is no big deal, and you are an excellent vandal fighter, with more than enough experience of process. Addhoc (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good to me! Smartguy777 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support, definitely. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - in our few encounters, he has seemed like a good editor, and his history supports the idea that he will use the tools wisely - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Was wondering when this one was going to come along. :) GlassCobra 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Maxim(talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. Kukini háblame aquí 20:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All I know is that I constantly see the message "reverting to last version by User:DeadEyeArrow" when I go patrolling. Trust user with the tools. Xymmax (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problem here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I think that this user is long over-due to become an admin and therefore I strongly support :). Thanks,--Mifter (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, constantly popping up on my watchlist as they bash vandals. No reason to think they would abuse the tools. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any red flags that come up lookingat his contributions. Should be a fantastic administrator. Valtoras (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can't find anything I'd outright disagree with. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Going to be a great help. Jmlk17 06:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I Support DeadEyeArrow! This guy rocks. He's always two steps ahead of me. Granted, I'm new. But, still. He's even friendly, which is a big plus for an Admin/SySoP. I see his reverts all the time. --InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Might as well to help him with vandel fighting more. Still not sure he contributes to wikipedia as a whole, but with that many edits he is clearly on the right side and things can only get better.--Dacium (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia needs vandal fighters like this one! Best of luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A pleasure to support. I have seen the candidate been consistently helpful, and per. pleasent previous interaction. Pedro : Chat 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A strong editor. MrPrada (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work with fighting vandalism. I'm sure you'll do fine as an administrator! SchfiftyThree 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My metasense ain't tingling. Kimu 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great user with great nominators. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 01:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent if somewhat hyper-specialized contributor. The AIV reports of his I've handled have been solid. His 'health' is his own business. Kuru talk 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Would have been happier with some article content but thoughtful in AfD, so ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nothing wrong with a specialized contributor. Better to spend time excelling in a single area than spreading oneself too thin trying to do everything. I think DEA would make a very good admin. --clpo13(talk) 06:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Tough guy on vandals. Mop needed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Hillock65 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gets what I do and why I do it; I like him. Just kidding, great contributor, devoted to the project. Of course, I'd advise spending maybe a little less time on Wikipedia; it may help you hold on to your sanity for a bit longer. :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user's strength in character will benefit all of Wikipedia. --Sharkface217 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While the preponderance of edits are vandal-related (templates and corrections) I have seen enough actual true interactions with other editors and comments on articles that lead me to be reasonably comfortable with this user's understanding of wiki policies and guidelines and appropriateness of behavior to other editors, and thus agree that this user should be shown the community's trust with the tools. -- Avi (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've surfed through his contributions, and I've seen him on my watchlist from time to time. Never an unproductive edit. (I also stole my userpage header from him :)) —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As strong as possible; nothing more is to be said. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yes. Neıl ☎ 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- He could warrant the tools, I've seen he's been doing a lot of good work on RC patrol today. AndreNatas (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He can clearly use the tools, there's no indication that he would misuse the tools in any way. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would've also liked to see more encyclopedia-building edits, but overall a pretty damn good editor. This editor has an impressive vandal-fighting history, and we need more admins like that, in my opinion. Also has good track records with civility, helpfulness, and judgment, and we definitely need more admins like that. Enigma msg! 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good. Great answers. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We need more vandal fighters with this power so the serious writers can get work done. I'm shocked this user is not already an admin. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heard a lot about this user, who I can trust with the admin tools. NHRHS2010 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After looking through your contribs and usertalk pages, you seem to have a good clue level that will make good use of the extra buttons. Two good nominators adding in means I have no problem supporting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1300 edits yesterday??? Dedicated to removing vandalism I would therefore conclude. But DeadEyeArrow clearly is not one-dimensional and has contributed well to other areas such as WP:AN and WP:XfD. It may be considered by some that he needs some more experience at article writing, but to me he appears competent in the mainspace. I am quite sure that he will be careful with the tools and it is a pleasure to support. EJF (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seen user around and happy to give support. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support doing an excellent job in a number of areas, shows understanding of mainspace so I don't think the lack of loads of contributions there will be any kind of a detriment. Shell babelfish 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good. Great anti-vandal work. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though I am not 100% satisfied with the answer to my question (When deleting candidates for speedy deletion I generally check for attack pages first, as I feel they are the most important to delete. That is why I think any page that can be tagged as attack should be even if there are other csd reason.) Jon513 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good candidate, but consider that Wikibreaks are for your benefit should you need to take one. We are building an encyclopedia based on quality, not stamina. ;) WilliamH (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Wikipedia needs more anti vandal admins! The Helpful One (Review) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - iMatthew 2008 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good anti-vandal person. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid editor, very eager to help the project. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking good here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YAY Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Moral Oppose - While I appreciate that DeadEyeArrow has plenty of strengths as a user, his long experience at fighting vandals does not make up for his lack of content contribution. Here's why. This is an encyclopedia, not an online Multiplayer where the good guys get to zap some bad guys and get rewarded with "promotion". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a hierarchical MP-gaming stroke social networking site. I'm being a little frivolous and unfair, I admit it, so I'll give a decent reason for an oppose. What the answer to question 6 missed and what no-one among the support votes pointed out is that the long community vote which gave sysops the right to block for 3RR a few years ago did not give sysops the right to preside over other users (admins or not) like little emperors anytime they chose. I may venture to say that that comment could make half the supports begin wikilawyering at me ... well, don't bother. ;) An open-ended expansionist philosophy of admin powers is enough to get my oppose, wikilawyering aside. Moreover, the user has ambition to intervene in content disputes and patrol 3RR, and despite very little experience with article building, has strong opinions about how such things ought to work out. I get the feeling it's a lot easier to parrot pontifications about how people ought to act in a content dispute than actually learn how these work, and this from what I can see is what DeadEyeArrow is doing. The user has little experience with article building, so I've gotta wonder where DeadEyeArrow gets the belief that he has more knowledge about these situations than an experienced admin article builder like Dbachmann? "Another content-shy self-righteous intervenionist mandarin with blocking powers" is what I might be tempted to predict were I in a worse mood ... but even the hint of this is not what this encyclopedia needs just now. To DeadEyeArrow, 45 supports to 0 opposes suggest you have more good qualities than bad, so my oppose is no more than a little balancing. You're already pretty much guaranteed to go through, so good luck and I hope you prove me to be a pessimist. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Isn't this the exact reason why he should be made an Admin? His zeal is a specialized area. Your incenuation that any 12yr old with a dial up connection and a thirst for controlling others seems a bit vague. Plus, I think people should be promoted to develop their skillsets, not skipped over because the opportunity hasn't presented itself. DEA has contributed significantly in many aspects of Wikipedia. While your argument for a centrist hegemony for Admins/SySopS has a strong point of contention raised within the notion that promotions should not support people who make minimal contributions, I think every SySoP has an area they admittedly could be stronger in. Further more, Admins aren't promoted because they're perfect, or contain within their knowledge every possible script, template, policy, and programming language. Admins are promoted because they have spent the time in the trenches to prove to the community that they hold a vested interest in the encylopedic quality of Wikipedia. Whether this is through means of fighting vandalism, reverting pages, welcoming new users and teaching them the ropes, or editing/creating articles, candidates qualifications are reviewed for their applicability of the tools they will be entrusted with. Having said that, I believe DEA will contribute significantly to the many roles he has already learned within Wiki, if promoted to Admin; and continue to grow his skillset in an effort to further improve the encylopedic quality, whether through his traditional means of fighting vandals or through newly discovered interests in article submission and creation. --InvisibleDiplomat666 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy has rollback, what else does he need to be a good vandal-zapper? Plenty of other RfA alumni to do the blocking atm. Certainly not worth the risk that'll come from the guy taking an interest in blundering into content disputes and in lording it over content contributors, as in the Master of Puppets Dbachmann situation. I think in fairness to me I offered a full explanation above. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Isn't this the exact reason why he should be made an Admin? His zeal is a specialized area. Your incenuation that any 12yr old with a dial up connection and a thirst for controlling others seems a bit vague. Plus, I think people should be promoted to develop their skillsets, not skipped over because the opportunity hasn't presented itself. DEA has contributed significantly in many aspects of Wikipedia. While your argument for a centrist hegemony for Admins/SySopS has a strong point of contention raised within the notion that promotions should not support people who make minimal contributions, I think every SySoP has an area they admittedly could be stronger in. Further more, Admins aren't promoted because they're perfect, or contain within their knowledge every possible script, template, policy, and programming language. Admins are promoted because they have spent the time in the trenches to prove to the community that they hold a vested interest in the encylopedic quality of Wikipedia. Whether this is through means of fighting vandalism, reverting pages, welcoming new users and teaching them the ropes, or editing/creating articles, candidates qualifications are reviewed for their applicability of the tools they will be entrusted with. Having said that, I believe DEA will contribute significantly to the many roles he has already learned within Wiki, if promoted to Admin; and continue to grow his skillset in an effort to further improve the encylopedic quality, whether through his traditional means of fighting vandals or through newly discovered interests in article submission and creation. --InvisibleDiplomat666 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Too much emphasis on policing and vandal-fighting and too little on creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack such reasons. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions about 3RR suggests that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a srong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. --Irpen 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. An excellent vandal-fighter, and very possibly someone who will not abuse the tools; but I believe that demonstrating an ability to understand the problems that crop up in article-writing is essential for someone with the mop. The answer to the question about Dbachmann illustrates that, to my mind. Relata refero (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Same reasons as Relata refero and Irpen. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per the above concerns. I'm sure he's a nice guy but we've had too many problems with admins who have little or no experience of what it's like to edit content interfering in areas they don't understand. --Folantin (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is a collaborative work, and the best way to develop collaborative skills is to work together with other editors to build an article (or a template, portal, policy, etc.). I am not seeing a lot of collaborative work. Excellent vandal fighting, yes. But the answers to the questions indicate a desire to change focus from generalised vandal-fighting (which largely involves non-content editors) to behavioural management of content editors. This is a far more delicate area than meets the eye, and really does need greater understanding of the different perspective of a content editor. Best of luck to you, regardless. Risker (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Like to see more than just recent changes patrol work, while it is helpful it does not need the knowledge of all of the policies and guidelines. I would like to see a bit more article work, and just a tiny bit more project space contributions than just AIV. (yes I know, this is a rather hypocritical comment.) I am sure this RfA will pass, and wish you the best of luck with the tools. Tiptoety talk 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Dunno. He has done some article work, but it's just some stubs about an album of a band that he created a year ago. The article with most edits is date-rape drug. I prefer to see more quality contributions. Also, I ran a javascript tool that seems to show you edit at all times of the day. It's not exactly healthy and I have concerns whether any human will have sufficiently good judgement to edit during an all-nighter or even 24 hours straight. Maxim(talk) 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: switched to support
- I don't mean to pester you but I've never encountered this neutral before, what's the link for the Javascript tool? Rudget. 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my monobook.js, User:ais523/editcount.js. After you've installed it and purged your cache (btw, I suggest Firefox for this]], go over to Special:Contributions/Foo and click day/time. For yours, I can clearly see a time where you don't edit at all, would that be presumably sleep and school? Maxim(talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern for my long vandal fighting sprints. I generally work on a 28-hour day, I'm not in school right now and my job is rather flexible. But when I do feel fatigued I just stick with reverting simple silly vandalism and only obvious CSDs. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I wasn't married... didn't have kids... and had a flexible job, that 28 hour day sounds perfect for me!Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to edit even longer. But now i have a (respectable) job. :( SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have a heart attack DEA. Well documented in online submersion. As for the flex sched, mine consists of heavy smoking and occassionally making 20/hr walking around. I make 50k a year sitting on the porch ;-) Gotta love working women and stay at home men! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaz (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to edit even longer. But now i have a (respectable) job. :( SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I wasn't married... didn't have kids... and had a flexible job, that 28 hour day sounds perfect for me!Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern for my long vandal fighting sprints. I generally work on a 28-hour day, I'm not in school right now and my job is rather flexible. But when I do feel fatigued I just stick with reverting simple silly vandalism and only obvious CSDs. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my monobook.js, User:ais523/editcount.js. After you've installed it and purged your cache (btw, I suggest Firefox for this]], go over to Special:Contributions/Foo and click day/time. For yours, I can clearly see a time where you don't edit at all, would that be presumably sleep and school? Maxim(talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to pester you but I've never encountered this neutral before, what's the link for the Javascript tool? Rudget. 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Tanthalas39
Final (49/23/5); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 01:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) - Very recently, I joined the coaching project as an admin willing to coach other editors. I couldn't have been more fortunate with the editor that I ended up being paired with. Please, allow me to introduce to you, User:Tanthalas39, AKA Dan. At the onset of the coaching, I told Dan that I was looking at a June or July RfA. Then a May RfA. As we proceeded through the coaching process, the date kept moving earlier and earlier based on the clue that this editor has. Based on Dan's contributions and his willingness to delve into unfamiliar areas with grace and thoughtfulness, I'm completely convinced that there is no need for further coaching. He's ready, right now (and was probably ready before signing up for coaching). Tanthalas is more than qualified to be an admin based on our coaching page. To talk about his contributions a bit: he has made several reports to AIV, he has begat several articles (I'm sure he'll include them in the answer to Question 2). His contribs to deletion discussions are sound and policy based. More recently, he has added his thoughts in RfAs and ANI. Looking at his contribs, I can't find any evidence of incivility nor lack of knowledge. He is one of the most well-rounded non-admin editors that I've had the good fortune to come across. Seriously, I've clicked on virtually every single contrib of Dan's and I can't find a single reason not to allow him to continue to build this crazy little encyclopedia with the admin tools. I'm convinced he will be a net positive to our community and will only help us, not hinder, by giving him extra buttons. I'm pleased to present to you, esteemed community, Tanthalas39 - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I accept this nomination. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to use the administrator tools in the article deletion arena (AfD, PROD, CSD) and occasionally in page protection. As I often have bits and pieces of time during the day to vandal fight, I would be able to put the tools to use there to block chronic vandals. I watchlist WP:AN and WP:ANI, and although I don't feel I would step into each and every problem that comes up, if it is one that I am comfortable and experienced with, I will. Otherwise, there's typically other administrators with different areas of expertise that can cover. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Article writing is definitely what I like most about my Wikipedia time, although I find myself doing other things more often because of the time demands of quality article expansion. I belong to four Wikiprojects, and am most active in the WP:AZ project - I have made significant contributions to Homolovi Ruins State Park, Oracle State Park, Bonytail chub, and Tarantula hawk, among others. I also significantly expanded Landing at Kip's Bay to contribute to the American Revolutionary War Task Force, a project I have plans to contribute more to soon. Also, Tahquitz. As one could observe, I especially enjoy stub expansion. My editing style tends to be rather compressed - I use "show preview" extensively, so my mainspace edits are fewer and larger. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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: Of course I have been in "conflicts", although I don't think I have ever been stressed over it. There are several ways of dealing with conflicts, depending on the context and nature of the problem. Talk page discussions are obviously always best, compared to a short, snarky edit summary comment. Sometimes a civil yet firm hand is required, other times if you just wait a few hours and let things cool off, things work out much better than escalation. I have not been in any sort of content argument yet, as I tend to edit more history or fact oriented articles with little to no POV. However, I do participate in 3O, and if I had an issue I couldn't work out on an article talk page, that would be the first place I would go. I always keep in mind that Wikipedia is never complete, and it won't kill me for information in an article to not adhere to my desires while a conflict is being worked out elsewhere. It really seems that most heated arguments start with people that need instant gratification on their POV of where the article should go. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Yngvarr:
- 4. What action would you take for an AFD which has delete comments which vastly outnumber those for keep, yet no policies or guidelines are cited for either case?
- First of all, thank you for some extra questions, Yngvarr. This is pretty straightforward for me as a non-admin, in that I always strive to not let prior opinion have undue weight in my own decision (a viewpoint I hope some editors practice in this RfA!). See my AfD edit here as a good example of my "reversing" a trend vote. As an administrator, I would first of all make sure I had ample time to address the issue - without more context, it sounds like some looking-into is called for. Did anyone mention anything, some clues to notability or applicable policy that I can look up? If not, then without clear-cut policy, I would really like to see more input. Perhaps a relisting with a note asking users to cite relevant Wikipedia policies. I do consider myself as leaning towards the deletionist side of things, but always under the umbrella context of Wikipedia policy. Borderline cases are one thing; this one seems to be a case of no one taking the AfD seriously. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. While reviewing AIV, you've noticed that a reported user (not IP) has several final warnings, but each occurring several days apart, and the editor has ceased their current behavior. What would you do?
I've seen a lot of situations like this. There's no way I would block this user at the moment; anonymous editing of Wikipedia is a fundamental piece of the "editable by everyone" doctrine and unduly punishing this user for the past transgressions of others is inappropriate. The question above is a tad unclear - was there very recent vandalism that caused the report? Then an appropriate warning is probably due. Did someone report the user for something that happened days ago ("ceased their current behavior")? Then my action would be to do nothing. Most of these "problem IPs" are from schools or community access points, and I am always loath to restrict a potentially helpful student or citizen because of the past vandal issues. Unless the vandalism is problematic at this moment - no block is warranted.I just answered that question while thinking that the user in question WAS an IP. Is reading questions properly a prerequisite for adminship? I left my answer there in case anyone was curious to how I would answer it for an anonymous user. In the interest of getting answers up on the board, I am going to post the rest of these now, standby for an answer to this one. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- In this case, more context might be necessary - if they have ceased their current behavior, why is there an issue? What exactly were they "final warned" for? Has someone reported them for further vandalism / policy transgressions / etc? If they truly have 'ceased their current behavior', I would probably just keep a close eye on the user for a day or two. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. With that context, it seems clear that this falls under the "vandal-only account" category, and a block is warranted under this, with a watchlist to see if the user wants to contest the block. I've seen different timelines from different administrators, with some going directly to an indefinite block for especially egregious vandalism, to a one-week just to staunch the current problem. I think at first I would err on the side of caution and block for a week or two, but it seems one would soon enough get a good sense of what constitutes a "vandal account" and take appropriate action. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. An edit war erupts between a registered user and an IP editor. Both parties are heated and borderline civil. What steps would you take when neither party is willing to concede?
- While it is tempting to give more consideration to the registered user, I would really have to treat both cases with equal weight. Registering as a user is not required to participate in the Wikipedia project. I would first step in as an "official" 3O, not using administrator status but hoping that a third opinion itself will sway things one way or the other. I participate in 3O myself from time to time, and understand how valuable it can be. If that doesn't work, well, is the dispute about policy? Perhaps a policy talk page discussion, which would certainly draw other experienced users, might be appropriate; there might be a noticeboard that works well, too. All other things exhausted, I would turn the editors to the Mediation Cabal. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Nice but well meant Questions from Pedro : Chat 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Under what circumstance would you apply WP:IAR to a Speedy Deletion?
- A. Definitely not nice, as you said, but a fair question and it gives me the opportunity to relay some thoughts on Wikipedia policy. Occasionally, some users like to cite Wikipedia policy and interpret it literally. While this is usually a fair practice, sometimes it skews things to obeying "the letter of the law" and not the spirit. Like I mentioned in the AfD I posted in Question 4, I prefer to look into the article and determine if notability is possible. Not to quote the WP:IAR interpretation page, but does the addition improve Wikipedia? Is it possible for the article subject to be notable and encyclopedic? With cleanup and expansion, does the article have a chance to meet Wikipedia policy?
- Sitting here pondering this question, it occurs to me that a lot of WP:CSD is short and probably purposefully ambiguous anyways, so you can almost re-create that acronym to "Interpret All Rules". For example, a {{db-context}} tag is added to a short page about a potentially notable subject. Does the speedy tag meet the applicable criterion, "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article."? Possibly, maybe probably. However, if I can see where the creator of the article is going with it, and I feel that good faith is applicable, then I might remove the speedy tag and add a note to the article talk page and user talk page that the article is lacking X, Y and Z and it needs to be added ASAP. For more insight into my speedy deletion thought process, see Assignment #4 on my coaching page. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. What are your personal standards for granting rollback to an editor?
- A. Good question. I was granted rollback rights back in January. The editor would have to show that they are there to build up Wikipedia, not to bring down other users. There is a fundamental difference there that exists, I think. Most vandal-fighters fall into the first category; a small minority simply like to show ownership of articles and/or are power-hungry. I think a five- or ten-minute glance through the editor's contributions would show this rather definitively - are warnings (and associated levels) given responsibly? Is there any hint of malice, sarcasm, or other uncivil behavior? Does the editor show sufficient experience? I don't think I'm an edit-counter; I prefer to look directly through contributions themselves to get a feel for content and texture. In a more subjective frame, does the editor enjoy giving warnings and reverting edits that they feel aren't contributive? If I feel the editor is motivated by clean articles and not by trout-slapping other editors, I would grant rollback rights. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. A brand new account creates a particularly nasty attack page, filled with homophobic abuse, that you speedily delete. The account then vandalises your user page with more homophobic abuse. These are the accounts only edits. Do you block? If so for how long?
- A. Yes, I would block, and indefinitely. This is pretty clear-cut to me, and certainly not out of any state of offense or retaliation. The account is plain and simply a vandal-only account with no apparent redeeming qualities. The user can always contest the block in the unlikely scenario they feel the block was unjustified. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Balloonman regarding this question, I would defer to other administrators if there was personal malice or COI or some other shred of reason for the vandalism - does this user personally know me? Could I possibly be blocking them for non-policy reasons? However, I really don't think in this case that I would need to get other administrators involved, although I could be wrong, I suppose. If that's the case, I still don't think that shows a lack of policy knowledge on my part, and I really don't think that any other administrator would view what I did as out of line or inappropriate. As I said, the user can always contest the block if he/she feels that I did it in a retaliatory sense. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Yes, I would block, and indefinitely. This is pretty clear-cut to me, and certainly not out of any state of offense or retaliation. The account is plain and simply a vandal-only account with no apparent redeeming qualities. The user can always contest the block in the unlikely scenario they feel the block was unjustified. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions from EJF Being neither inclusionist nor deletionist, I will not oppose due to your answers. However, they may strengthen my support. EJF (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- 10. Do you believe notability should become policy?
- A. Thanks for your interest in my RfD, EJF. No, I do not believe notability should become policy. There's just no real way to make it work; notability is inherently too foggy of an area to paint lines on - and to be honest, I think it works fine the way it is, now. The discourse created by guidelines, rather than rules, keeps a balance to Wikipedia that I hold as crucial. The balance of inclusionists and deletionists discipline and channel the direction of Wikipedia articles. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 11. Similar to Q4 In an AfD, those that support keeping an article claim that it meets verifiability despite only primary sources. Those supporting deletion claim the article fails the notability guideline, as it does not have any significant secondary sources. The "deletes" outnumber the "keeps" by 3:1. What would you do?
- A. Some of these questions are hard, as almost every individual issue on Wikipedia has its own nuances and I find it almost impossible to give categorical answers. However, in the spirit of the RfA, I'll give it a shot.
- Off the top of my head, I would probably close this as a delete, while weighing the robustness of the deletion votes. From WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". I am a huge advocate of the "verifiability, not truth" doctrine, and if there are no third-party sources that can be found and cited, I'm afraid the article should be deleted. I'm not even certain that the notability arguments are applicable - if it fails WP:V, then notability is moot. However, that all being said, I'm the sort of person that would aggressively go look for a significant third-party citation. If I found one, I would participate in and post my finding in the discussion itself, rather than trying to use it to arbitrate. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Keepscases
- 12. How good are you at the running man dance?
- A. Good enough to prove I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions from user:Jay*Jay
- Background: I have read this RfA as it currently stands, and there are two things that concern me that don't seem to have been covered. I am asking these questions to provide Tanthalas39 with the opportunity to address them before I decide whether to offer support, or to oppose, this nomination. I recognise that these are difficult, and possibly confronting questions, and assure you I mean no offence. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 13. In an answer further down this page, you stated that "I did my first edit as Tanthalas39 over two years ago". It is the as Tanthalas39 that concerns me. Would you please clarify whether you have edited under any other user name? Noting that there are certain circumstances when alternate accounts are permitted, and that abandoning an account for a fresh start is also permitted, are you able to guarantee that you have not violated WP:SOCK?
- Thank you for your interest, Jay. No, I have no other usernames at all. I suppose I could have stated that a bit better. I also suppose I might have had an anonymous edit or two prior to creating this account, but I do not recall any. Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've ALL had anonymous edits or two... particularly when we thought we were logged in, but had timed out or weren't logged in.Balloonman (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your interest, Jay. No, I have no other usernames at all. I suppose I could have stated that a bit better. I also suppose I might have had an anonymous edit or two prior to creating this account, but I do not recall any. Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 14. My other concern relates to this contribution to the recent WP:AN discussion that resulted in a topic ban being imposed. In that contribution, you wrote that It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. Looking at the posts made at the time of your comment, they include:
- Jehochman (an admin): The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances
- east.718 (an admin, and Whig's former mentor): I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect. ... The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat.
- Raymond Arrit (an admin and scientist): I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process).
- The post specifically refers to having read the diffs provided, but much other evidence was mentioned, including links to two recent RfC's and the mentorship agreements. I would like you to comment on your action here, and particularly to consider (a) whether you believe you sufficiently informed yourself about the wider picture to justify the post you made; and (b) whether comments about "ganging up" were appropriate in light of the contributions noted above. Feel free to address any aspect of the situation you deem appropriate, but FYI it is your judgment in making the contribution that concerns me.
- Of course. While I feel the point I was making in this contribution was valid, in retrospect I might have waded into waters over my head and I tried to back out of it with as little notice as possible. I did research the problem, and I did look at the diffs provided. I was not supporting this user in any way (I said so twice), I was merely trying to keep things on a policy-based decision platform. You mention Jehochman and Raymond Arrit, but not the eighteen other users that were involved in the discussion. I also notice you omit my last phrase in the quote you provided, which was "There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Wikipedia policy.". Furthermore, I never once said that there wasn't a valid policy-based reasons for sanctions. I just didn't want things to go overboard, as they sometimes do.
- I realize that this part of Wikipedia is sensitive and subject to hot opinions, vandalism, etc. I wasn't in any way trying to comment on content. I am sorry if you took offense or somehow didn't like my comments (which I felt were civil, non-inflammatory, and merely a reminder). Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Tanthalas39's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Tanthalas39: Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39 before commenting.
Discussion
- Comment from nominator. I hope I'm not stepping out of line here, and forgive me with a thwack, Tanthalas, if I am. This RfA is here because I pushed it to be here, not Tanthalas. Dan is far from being "power hungry". In the course of our admin coaching (which I hope has been read by supporters and opposers), it became obvious early on that Dan had, as balloonman calls them, the "soft skills" necessary to be an admin. The opposes that are turning up here for "lack of time here" are my fault, not Dan's as I prodded him to do this now instead of May/June as originally planned at the onset of coaching. When someone "gets it", they "get it". Why prolong the inevitable with busywork? He gets it. Additionally, I'll add some perspective as to why I, IMHO, found Dan ready now based on both my own experience at RfA and my prior nom. 1/ I joined in earnest in Aug 07, by January I had no FA or GA experience, I had about 3K edits, mostly copyediting and disambiguation cleanup. Not a single AIV report (still don't). No RFPP experience. Some mild vandy-patrol/userwarning. I went through coaching (JodyB) and I sailed through RfAin Jan 08 (with 2 good noms). In Feb, I nommed Alex.muller, who had about 3500 edits, and 2.5 months experience at the time. No admin coaching, but excellent contribs. I just asked him on his talk, he accepted, he passed with minimal drama. Based on this and several high quality self noms with comparable experience and dedication as Tanthalas, I did not foresee this type of opposition. I see him to be a high quality editor, a primarily content type contributor, (and as correctly pointed out below, edits in "large chunks", see Landing at Kip's Bay which skews the numbers. He has loads of WP:CLUE, a solid desire to build an encyclopedia, and I feel really responsible that he is getting treated this way. Why haven't more questions been asked of him above? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expected some experience oppositions, as I discussed with Balloonman on his page. Also, I don't want to get defensive; if people think I'm not ready, then okay, I can still work on Wikipedia in the meantime. However, I don't think some people are researching this enough. Where are the myriad of questions that "borderline" candidates get? Why is no one commenting on the robust coaching page? I want to respect the communities opinion, and I will. But pseudo-accusations of sockpuppetry? I can't even comment on this. Claims of not being versed in Wiki policy? Give me a chance to show you! Ask me a question or five! Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Keeper,
- It seems as if the bar is ever being pushed lower due to the oft cited refrain of "adminship is no big deal." Candidates who are passing today would never have stood a chance a year ago because the bar is being lowered. Where do we draw the line? Is 2.5 months enough time? What about a month of solid edits? A week? A day? Why even bother having a review to begin with?
- As for asking questions, if the candidate hasn't shown he is qualified with his work history and background, then questions are not going to change a thing. The questions are useful in tilting the balance or querying qualified candidates. If somebody lacks the requisite the experience/background, why bother? Because the nominator or candidate begs for questions?
- Again, I personally like Tan, and in a few months I would be happy to support him (assuming he doesn't mess up) but right now, I cannot. Balloonman (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to question 9 is an example of why I would be reluctant to grant somebody with limited experience the tools. Once the admin becomes the target of the attack, the admin should defer to other admins to step in. Yes, a block is probably justified, but in order to avoid the appearance of inpropreity, the admin should take the case to ANI and let somebody else make that determination.Balloonman (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks balloonman for your thoughts. I think we'll have to agree to disagree about "qualifications" for adminship, and I have no expectation that anyone would change their opinion, you included. You've made a good faith case based on your own criteria for adminship, and I have absolutely no problem with that or you. My observations of recent RfA activity tell me exactly the opposite, however. "Qualifications" for adminship are most certainly raising, not lowering. Questions never used to be asked. The first admins were appointed. The first bureaucrats self nommed, got 15 "supports", no questions, and then were promoted. To be honest, I'm not a fan of WP:DEAL either. I agree that is a dated appeal that is no longer applicable even though the god-king uttered it. It is a big deal in many people's eyes (if it weren't, we wouldn't have RfA. At the same time, the "critera for adminship" have skyrocketed, out of proportion to the "magnitude of the tools", IMO. It wasn't that long ago that 3mo/3K was sufficient, (I know of at least 3 that passed within the last month at that level), but now they are being speedy closed as WP:SNOW?. All I've appealed to, for Tan's sake, is a fair shake at what is considered a "normal RfA process", rife with questions and thoughtful support/opposition based on contribs, edit history, the Q & A, etc. At the time of posting my first "discussion" here, he hadn't been asked a single clarifying/policy/attitude/scenario question, but had already seen several opposes as if he was a self-nom n00b. I'll admit, it upset me to see that because I pushed him here after a robust (and admittedly quick) admin coaching session. I wasn't expecting to be here already, and in hindsight I wouldn't be. Not because Dan isn't qualified, but because I never expected this style of oppostion for a good editor. I was surprised by his clue. I saw your "decline coaching" post on his talkpage directly above my "accept coaching" post, and I sighed, thinking I'd gotten myself over my head with a long term commitment. But we hit it off, and I knew within days that he didn't need coaching. Hope that helps explain my rationale for being here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And for the record, re Q9, that's exactly what I would do as an admin if someone made homophobic or otherwise racist comments on any page. I could care less if it were my own talkpage. That, IMO, would not be controversial. He answered correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidates answer to Q9 is spot on IMHO. The first time something of a similar nature happened to me I blocked indef. and then reported it to WP:ANI for transparency. There was unilateral support that this was in effect "collatoral damage" - i.e. one of the pages that was vandalised happened to be my user page, but it made no difference at all to the block. FWIW I actually thought the candidate might skirt this one, suggesting a short term block. No - he's answered honestly and decisevely, and well within acceptable interpretation of guidelines. That's good. Pedro : Chat 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Enthusiastic support, as nominator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, could do with more time here, as you only have four months here doing a lot of editing, but you are doing a lot, and have done well here, and I agree a lot with what Keeper has said. Good luck mate! ~ Dreamy § 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will do fine with the mop. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can be trusted with the tools. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
The only thing that made me nervous is the number of unanswered posts on the user's talk page, however despite this, I still think that Tanthalas39 can be trusted to make good use of the tools.I think this user will make good use of the tools. According to my RfA criteria v1.0, Tanthalas39 gets a score of92.8%94.3%. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Candidate response: I rarely, if ever, let a comment to my talk page go unanswered. I usually answer directly on the original poster's talk page. I got used to this while experimenting with the "talkback" tags. It was an unwieldy system at best, so perhaps I should go back to just answering on my own page. However, point is - I don't simply let comments or questions go ignored. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nod... I hate talk pages like his *grin* he does answer on the user's page which makes following conversations hard... but if that's how he likes to do it, there is no rule saying you have to respond on your own page.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that takes care of that, if the questions are answered, that satisfies me, it doesn't concern me whether it is on your talk page or the other user's. Thanks for letting me know. I am ammending my support comment because of this new information. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 05:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ammending my criteria score because of new information. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nod... I hate talk pages like his *grin* he does answer on the user's page which makes following conversations hard... but if that's how he likes to do it, there is no rule saying you have to respond on your own page.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate response: I rarely, if ever, let a comment to my talk page go unanswered. I usually answer directly on the original poster's talk page. I got used to this while experimenting with the "talkback" tags. It was an unwieldy system at best, so perhaps I should go back to just answering on my own page. However, point is - I don't simply let comments or questions go ignored. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Stats look good and I trust Keeper's judgement. MBisanz talk 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF. I'm not overly concerned by the opposition arguments; 4 months is fine, and in response to Mr. Arritt, we wouldn't have spotted Archtransit no matter when we sysopped him, or whatever is being argued there. We shouldn't disadvantage other candidates because someone skillful got through. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks OK and I don't think he is Archtransit. EJF (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope he is Archtransit. lulz Tnayin (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I definitely trust this user with the tools. S/He will make a great administrator. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Really like the users work and fulfills all my requirements but some´thing is bugging me. I will def. add it if I put my finger on it! --Camaeron (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good candidate who, as noted, contributes in a thoughtful and considered manner. I would encourage the candidate to tread lightly in their first days as an admin, as lack of experience is a (minor) concern. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Get the sense nominee won't abuse or misuse the tools. The only way to prevent an Archtransit would be to routinely checkuser everyone in so far as the sock puppetry. Afraid I know no way to gauge the likelihood of going rogue within a month, but that's rare. Dlohcierekim 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Again, I am going to bring up No Big Deal here. We tend to throw this around some, but it seems that its made a big deal during RFA's. This user is a prime example. He is strong in policy's and understands what Admin's are here for, and the power of the tools. He may not have a ton of experience, but look at Keeper's comments above and see that he actually pushed for this RFA to come. He may not have been here for 4 or 5 years, but he grasps the concepts and know's what he is doing. Good luck Tanthalas. I wish you the best. Dustitalk to me 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like a very solid candidate. He's experienced enough for me. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (from weak oppose) Okay, I'm buying this. Sure, there's some experience issues. Yes, we haven't got categorical evidence from contribution history with respect to the "finer arts of adminship" When someone finds out what they are, can they let me know as well. But the candidate seems ready. Why? Well 1) Look at the calm way he's dealt with this RfA for one - nobacklash, no snarky edit summaries - just a willingness to be transparent and honest. 2) The optional Q's - nothing here that's wildly outside of norms and expectations, and some insightful comments there as well - reasoned and collected thoughts. 3) It just feels right - about the worst reason there may be to support but after further extensive, and I promise very extensive, review and deep consideration I just can't see how this is going to be anything but a .... net positive to Wikipedia. Yes, mistakes may happen but the benefit will outway any possible "harm". Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm persuaded that Tanthalas39 would make a good administrator. Like Pedro, I've found the way he's handled himself during this RfA to be quite persuasive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Pedro. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - WP:AGF, While i generally oppose because of lack of experience, I don't feel that that will be an issue when it comes to Tanthalas39's judgments along with the fact that I trust keeper to nominate users who will be a asset to the project. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I support this candidate for several reasons. His obvious desire to further the good of Wikipedia , His sound knowledge of Wiki Policy (and in such a short time especially supports my first point), and lastly ability to take the barrage of criticism with grace and professionalism. Jmanigold (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. taken on board that edits can be substantial though low in numbers, from what I have seen can be thoughtful in AfD. net positiveCasliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Also, I strongly disagree with Raymond Arritt's vote to oppose simply because of the Archtransit debacle. I personally will be assuming good faith on this one. GlassCobra 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: My comment wasn't "simply because of the Archtransit debacle." In retrospect I should not have referred to Archtransit, because people have latched onto that while failing to grasp my larger point: we need to be careful handing out the admin bit, and that requires observing the candidate's track record longer than just 3-4 months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - I casted my oppose early in the process before any actual questions were asked, and regretfully I might add. After thoroughly reading the answers to each question, I was shockingly impressed by the user's level headedness and sound knowledge of policy. This coupled with the user's activity in WP:AIV and WP:AFD has made me re-evaluate. It left a good taste in my mouth. My balance criteria is going to take an ephemeral wikibreak on this one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Seems trustworthy. I'm not worried about tool abuse. нмŵוτнτ 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This user clearly has the skills and has strong references. If I was interviewing this user for a job I would hire him before they walked out of my office. "not enough time here" is a poor reason to turn this excellent editor down.Thright (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
- Support - Good answers to the questions particularly the follow-ups, time and experience are all relative and this editor has a good grasp of what is necessary. Time in project space is great, but should never be a litmus test.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems fine. Neıl ☎ 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust nominator. Greman Knight. 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support because of the lack of experience, but I feel they will use the tools properly. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support - good work in admin coaching; better than average answers to questions. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after reviewing his record: well-written articles, commitment to NPOV, refreshing support of IAR. He wants to help in areas that badly need help and has pledged himself to recall in the unlikely event he abuses his office. Let's allow him the opportunity. Biruitorul (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - strong nom, seems very willing to learn, and no indication that he can not be trusted with the tools. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Been around a while, appears to know the rules, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker. No reason to oppose. --Carnildo (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I believe that intent, trustworthiness, communication, and quality of edits are the most important thing for a potential sysop to have, of which Tanthalas has shown all. Edit count is just part of the picture, and improving an article in four edits instead of fifteen should in no way be counted against a contributor. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Unlikey to block good-faith contributors with clear demonstration of concensus to do so first. ➪HiDrNick! 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no experience with this editor but thought the answers to the questions are very reasonable (and thoughtfully articulated!). Clicking through to comments on a few contentious issues noted here, my impression is that Tanthalas will be an inclusive administrator in the sense that Tanthalas will try to listen to all voices, but will not hesitate to act in obvious cases of bad faith (perhaps becoming the Teddy Roosevelt of admins!).--RegentsPark (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great policy knowledge! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Happy editing! Kimu 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per solid answers. Bellwether BC 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this editor around and I have only positive impressions. I have no reason whatsoever they'll abuse the tools and I believe they have enough commonsense to be circumspect while picking up the finer points of using them. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good, meets my standards, decent answers (although I'll only block for a max of 3 months for homophoic vandalism). Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Tanthalas39's time as a user may not be very long, but I think his contributions are of very high quality. I think this user would make a great admin. --clpo13(talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. Addhoc (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As recently as one year ago, someone with Tanthalas39's experience would not have encountered serious opposition by more than 2 or 3 people for being too new. I see his recent contribs reflect sufficient familiarity with the way Wikipedia works to be a competent admin. In addition, I strongly support his answer to Q9, and I am baffled as to why anyone would allow such a vandal to run rampant and not block on sight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust Keeper76 as a nom; opposition appears to be superficial. Dorftrottel (complain) 21:38, March 16, 2008
- Looks like a good editor to me. Acalamari 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose - Definitely on the right track that's for sure, but I think there's an experience issue here. The count breakdown for individual articles is sorely lacking, and the project-space is kinda thin. I applaud the work at WP:AIV, but there's more to being an admin than just vandal fighting. I see the user has also taken an interest at WP:AN. Very good, but I would linger there abit longer. Also, I notice a distinct lack of talking, which is disconcerting. Come back in like 3 months at the most and I'll support you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Changing to weak support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I looked at Tanthalas a few weeks ago as a potential admin coachee myself and thought that he was about 3-4 months away from being a viable candidate. When this RfA came up, from a contributor I respect, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and looked at his contributions again with a fresh eye. My opinion remains unchanged, I think Tanthalas will make a good admin, but I don't think now is the time. Tan became an active contributor in December and almost immediately requested coaching. He has about 3 months of active editing (Dec, Jan, Feb.) If you look at the number of edits on articles, he has about 90 edits on the 15 articles he's edited the most. He's only worked on one article for more than 10 edits. His contributions to article talk space is even worse. He's only made 40 edits on the 15 article talk spaces that he's edited the most---none of which is for more than 4 edits. This shows a complete lack of article development experience or consensus building. User talk is the same story---if you ignore his own page (where he has 22 total edits) he hasn't communicated with other users to a great extent. The only Wikipedia category he has an extensive history (with 77 edits) is AIV. Wikipedia talk has a TOTAL of 5 edits. While I personally like him and think he may be a fine admin in the future, I don't believe that day is today.Balloonman (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whilst I of course respect your point of view, I would like to point out that a low number of edits to an article does not neccesarily indicate small changes or a lack of editing skill. With Landing at Kip's Bay as an example, Tanthalas39 massively expanded and improved this article in the space of only 4 edits. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Wisdom89. Given that we've had some adminships blow up in our face lately
(the worst case being User:Archtransit)it's prudent to observe candidates a little longer than four months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose Per Balloonman. I don't see anything that says that candidate will abuse the tools but there just isn't enough time spent in discussion to show composure under heated debate or a desire for article building. Just needs to spend more time collaborating and come back with a bit more experience. I agree with Wisdom, discuss things a bit more, participate in article building and come back in a couple months. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- is this not throwing the baby out with the bath water?Thright (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
- If not succeeding was permanent, yes it would be. Since adminship is permanent, I'll err on the side of caution, AOR or not. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I get a feeling of ambition here, which is not necessarily bad, but looking at this [1], I would gather that the candidate is more interested in being an admin rather than building an encyclopedia. I know my opinion is altruistic (is that the right word here?), but I feel more comfortable with candidates who don't outline a roadmap to adminship. While I'm sure the candidate will be trustworthy, I'd rather see more trenchwork. Yngvarr (c) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Moved to neutral. Yngvarr (c) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- is this not throwing the baby out with the bath water?Thright (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
- Oppose - After looking this candidate over, I cannot support at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposePluses : Great work so far, great nomination, clearly trustable, solid C:CSD and WP:AIV stuff. Downside : Weak article work, experience as demonstrated by "length of tenure", lack of project space input and the "building up edits to be an admin" comment on your user page. (I note you removed that about three and a half weeks ago). Bluntly, whilst I trust Keeper's opinion I also trust Balloonmans! I really wish you'd perhaps waited a while and participated more in the project side. However, should this RfA not pass I hope you will take positive feedback from the editors here, continue to do what you're doing, and work on those other areas for the future. Very Best.Pedro : Chat 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added some "nominator thoughts" about this RfA to the general discussion section above the support section. I'm hoping it will address some of the good faith concerns brought here. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Some more experience needed. Cxz111 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also object to my opposition being called clueless. Cxz111 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, Tanthalas did not call your oppose clueless. I did. Oppose me for it, not him. And I apologize for my frustrated language. I also, in the exact same sentence, called your oppose good faith. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also object to my opposition being called clueless. Cxz111 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose you are not for my liking, lack of experience. Try again in a few months time. AndreNatas (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this time. Will support in future. Skinwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Skinwalker. I certainly understand your concerns that the candidate would have a better case with some more time/tenure under their belt. However, given that you state you will support in the future, I would ask why we should wait a few months/weeks when we could have him helping Wikipedia out right now instead. What are you hoping to see from future contribtions that you do not see at present? Pedro : Chat 22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Experience/familiarity with the process. A longer time period gives us a better chance to observe how he interacts with others and to see how he handles adversity. It gives us a better basis to evaluate whether or not we wish to trust him with more tools. Using your logic, why wait three months... why not grant adminship to person with 1 month of experience? Or a week? It's for the same reasons why companies ask for experienced personel and will expect people to hold a position for a while before promoting them, eventhough they can see the person has potential to move up. Tan has potential, but I don't think granting him the rewards now is the proper course of action. Let him get experience where he needs it. 2-3 more months really isn't that long---especially for somebody who wants to make a long term commitment to the project.Balloonman (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious and perhaps revealing to describe it as a "reward". A reward for what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I explicitly used the term because of the phrase, "adminship is not a reward.Balloonman (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I explicitly used the term because of the phrase, "adminship is not a reward.Balloonman (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious and perhaps revealing to describe it as a "reward". A reward for what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Experience/familiarity with the process. A longer time period gives us a better chance to observe how he interacts with others and to see how he handles adversity. It gives us a better basis to evaluate whether or not we wish to trust him with more tools. Using your logic, why wait three months... why not grant adminship to person with 1 month of experience? Or a week? It's for the same reasons why companies ask for experienced personel and will expect people to hold a position for a while before promoting them, eventhough they can see the person has potential to move up. Tan has potential, but I don't think granting him the rewards now is the proper course of action. Let him get experience where he needs it. 2-3 more months really isn't that long---especially for somebody who wants to make a long term commitment to the project.Balloonman (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Skinwalker. I certainly understand your concerns that the candidate would have a better case with some more time/tenure under their belt. However, given that you state you will support in the future, I would ask why we should wait a few months/weeks when we could have him helping Wikipedia out right now instead. What are you hoping to see from future contribtions that you do not see at present? Pedro : Chat 22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too little experience to enable judging of policy knowledge and also temperament. The diff provided by Yngvarr, also raises concerns about how the candidate views adminship. TigerShark (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate comment: I anticipated some opposition based on that issue (here is the issue, for those who missed Yngvarr's comment). I am not hiding it - and although I regret that page in the context of passing an RfA, I can't really apologize for it because I know why I did it. I didn't mean for that page itself to be a self-promoting tool; I naively used it because I thought it would show organization and a sense of proactiveness. If I could have the tools of adminship without the title, that would be fine. Never in my life have I came across something (Wikipedia) and been so sure that this is important - THIS is going to be the future of online information dissemination (if it is not already!) and I want to be very active in making it as creditable and accurate as I can. Am I power hungry? Not at all. Am I proud to be part of Wikipedia? Bet your ass. But, in a sense, you are right - 4800 edits later, I really wish I had kept my good-faith ambitions to myself. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4800 edits later? It was still there until a couple of week before this RFA started [2]. The issue is more about how you view adminship (as a formal role), and the fact that you seem to have been aiming for adminship almost as soon as you had a few edits under your belt, rather than any issue of self-promotion. Do you mind me asking why you removed the comment shortly before this RFA? TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant 4800 edits later in the sense of the present - I didn't mean from that page. I apologize if that was misleading. I spent a lot of time reading Wikipedia policy and articles before I became a very active editor - if you look at my past, I did my first edit as Tanthalas39 over two years ago. I changed the page mostly at the request of my coach Keeper76 (see my coaching page), but I was starting to remove a little before that as I became aware that people would interpret it as power-hunger. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {Edit conflicted} It is probably in response to my [comment] to him on his talk page last month (or perhaps his coach pointed it out to him?)Balloonman (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did point it out to him as well. Not because I thought it was a big deal (I saw it as proactive, transparent, and well-intentioned.), but because I knew there would be superficial "power hunger" opposes potentially based on it. Que sera sera (sic). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4800 edits later? It was still there until a couple of week before this RFA started [2]. The issue is more about how you view adminship (as a formal role), and the fact that you seem to have been aiming for adminship almost as soon as you had a few edits under your belt, rather than any issue of self-promotion. Do you mind me asking why you removed the comment shortly before this RFA? TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate comment: I anticipated some opposition based on that issue (here is the issue, for those who missed Yngvarr's comment). I am not hiding it - and although I regret that page in the context of passing an RfA, I can't really apologize for it because I know why I did it. I didn't mean for that page itself to be a self-promoting tool; I naively used it because I thought it would show organization and a sense of proactiveness. If I could have the tools of adminship without the title, that would be fine. Never in my life have I came across something (Wikipedia) and been so sure that this is important - THIS is going to be the future of online information dissemination (if it is not already!) and I want to be very active in making it as creditable and accurate as I can. Am I power hungry? Not at all. Am I proud to be part of Wikipedia? Bet your ass. But, in a sense, you are right - 4800 edits later, I really wish I had kept my good-faith ambitions to myself. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Balloonman and Raymond arritt. However, I think Tanthalas39 is a very good editor and I will support his next RfA. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Insufficient experience, as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Balloonman raises some good points. However, in light of Keeper76's comments about the timing of the nomination, the quality of some of the edits, and the work in admin coaching, I could live with the relative inexperience. Certainly there is a potentially good admin here. The issue that moves me to oppose relates to question 14. Tanthalas39 admints that he "might have waded into waters over [his] head", and chose to back away - I can accept that, especially as he did look into the situation before commenting (not thoroughly enough, as it turns out, but that too could be excused due to inexperience). Unfortunately, in reflecting on it, Tanthalas39 evidently still does not see the problem: it isn't whether or not he was supporting Whig, or commenting on content, or whether I "didn't like" his comments. Characterising a discussion with contributions from three admins, two of whom do not edit in the disputed area, and one of whom was Whig's former mentor as seeming like "a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him" demonstrates neither good judgment nor an assumption of good faith. My advice to Tanthalas39 and Keeper76 is as follows: if this RfA fails, I suggest Tanthalas39 could spend time contributing to some of the more complex issues that come up at AN and ANI. After each has settled down, reflect on those contributions in light of the resolution adopted - were they consistent with the path ultimately adopted - and reflect on whether those contributions could have been better. It is inevitable that admins make mistakes. This isn't a big problem if they learn from those mistakes, which requires good judgment and reflection; ultimately, my doubts in this area prevent me from supporting this RfA. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect this decision on your opposition, while I don't agree with it. I still feel that perhaps I haven't been able to express my motivations in correct terms; I was in no way condemning any specific editors, admins, or users. I also don't feel that I made my comments in that discussion in a manner intended to immerse myself in it - I was trying to mildly keep people on a policy basis. You're right, everyone could have been acting completely responsibly. I was intending my comments to keep the discussion from even appearing like a mob mentality. I did research the conversation enough to make my comments, which were not on whether Whig was right or wrong (I think we're in agreement on that point), but were on that discussion itself. There were a couple users on that page that agreed with my observation. While I regret that you think these comments are indicative of poor qualities on my part, or at least qualities that would keep me from being an asset to the Wikipedia admin community, I really can't see anything I did wrong. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You exercised poor judgment (and possibly didn't assume good faith) in characterising a group of editors as a "mob" and as involved when there uninvolved editors and admins editing - including the former mentor who was calling for an indef ban after previous restrictions hadn't worked. You commented on the diffs (albeit recognising there may be more to the story), but didn't appear to consider the RfC's or the preceding editing restrictions, yet many comments referred to ongoing conduct problems. Trying to keep the discussion connected to policy is fine - I applaud your aim. I also understand that this RfA is probably causing you a lot of pain, and I am sorry to be contributing to that. Combining your comparatively recent active involvement with a questionable judgment call in the last week made me doubtful. I asked a question and gave you a chance to convince me, and regretfully concluded that you aren't yet able to sit back and objectively assess your action. I understand that the middle of an RfA is a difficult time to have to do that, and I hope (in the event this RfA fails) that you will be able to see that I am trying to be constructive. As I stated above, you are potentially a good admin - and I hope I can support in the future if that becomes necessary. I would have endorsed Balloonman's comment below, but if there is a next time it won't be "experience" per se that I will look for. Whist I think you do lack experience, I accept Keeper's explanation and would be willing to disregard the early nomination as outside your control. My advice, for what it's worth (and should it be necessary for a second RfA), is to spend time in the interim diversifying your experience, and spending time refelcting after taking actions to help you to more objectively self-assess. Please don't take this as a criticism of your personal qualities. I think your intentions are good and your skills in some areas are excellent - your admin coaching page is impressive - but you will make mistakes. Everyone does - the important thing is to learn from them, and that is something even experienced admins stuff up occasionally (just look at Georgewilliamherbert and his block on Mackan earlier today). Keep working away, and I'm sure you will make admin sometime soon. :) Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for Jay, but I want to make it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, that I do see you as an asset to the community and to wikipedia as a whole. I do not want you (or anybody else) to think that I am opposing your nom because of anything personal---if that statement undermines my opposition some, so be it, but I don't want you walking away thinking that our opposes are an inditement of you personally. I do believe that you have a hell of a lot of potential as an admin and will be more than happy to support you in 2-3 months when you run again (if this one fails). I just want to see a little more experience on your behalf.Balloonman (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you can't speak for Jay, but you can speak for me. I agree wholeheartedly with what you just wrote. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the sentiments. I'm not taking any of this personally, and while I had to slightly defend my past actions to Jay, I don't feel like I've been defensive. I'm certainly not offended by anything being said here. If this RfA fails (I'm still polling around 70%, remember!), it's not as if I can't continue to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia in the meantime. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect this decision on your opposition, while I don't agree with it. I still feel that perhaps I haven't been able to express my motivations in correct terms; I was in no way condemning any specific editors, admins, or users. I also don't feel that I made my comments in that discussion in a manner intended to immerse myself in it - I was trying to mildly keep people on a policy basis. You're right, everyone could have been acting completely responsibly. I was intending my comments to keep the discussion from even appearing like a mob mentality. I did research the conversation enough to make my comments, which were not on whether Whig was right or wrong (I think we're in agreement on that point), but were on that discussion itself. There were a couple users on that page that agreed with my observation. While I regret that you think these comments are indicative of poor qualities on my part, or at least qualities that would keep me from being an asset to the Wikipedia admin community, I really can't see anything I did wrong. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. T39 needs more experience and greater diversity in experience. Get more involved in discussions so we can learn what you'll be like as an admin. Wryspy (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Balloonman, perhaps next time. --Charitwo talk 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely strong oppose User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. I will not support right now. No."Moosester (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing bureaucrat, please note that Balloonman had indef blocked Moosester as a vandalism-only account at the time the above comment was made. Since then, block has been reduced to 12 h, in part as appropriate edits had been made, so vandalism only is unfair. User is new so basis for opposition may be uniformed and not worth serious consideration, but discounting as a vadalism-only account would not be justified. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely strong oppose User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. I will not support right now. No."Moosester (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, insufficient article-space experience. Tahquitz is now a bit more than a stub, but I'd like admins to have a bit more idea about writing the encyclopedia than that. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose insufficient experience in wikipedia space also. Comments in AFD's generally miss the point and gives to much benefit of the doubt for things to eventually establish notibility etc. Has even pointed out sources to apparently show nobitility, but not added it to the articles as the sources not seem notable. Needs more experience.--Dacium (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples of your observations?Balloonman (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to believe that giving the benefit of the doubt on notability at AfD, and pointing out sources where appropriate, is a positive trait, and so a strange reason to oppose. But each to their own. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lukewarm Oppose - Adding another deletionist to the ranks of admins would exacerbate the (unintentional) systemic bias toward deletion already existing. If this editor had more content creation in their history, it could counterbalance the impression given in their answers above, but, lacking that, I have to sincerely disagree with their approach to this project. I've seen more than one encyclopedic topic terminated with extreme prejudice because the article wasn't up to scratch. Encyclopedias are written by adding and editing content; deletion should be a last resort, not a first strike weapon. On the other hand, I'm quite impressed by the editor's willingness to look for sources rather than remove content, where possible. It's an approach I'd like to see more widespread. --SSBohio 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, oppose number 16 says he is too slow to delete (inclusionist?) and gives too much "benefit of the doubt" Oppose number 17 says he is too quick to delete, (deletionist?) and with prejudice even!. Which is it? Did either actually look at his AfD experience and CSD experience? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember to AGF... 17 said he was a deletionist, but praised him for his efforts to find sources. Thus, I see nothing inherently contradictory in their positions. They are not mutually exclusive.Balloonman (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, oppose number 16 says he is too slow to delete (inclusionist?) and gives too much "benefit of the doubt" Oppose number 17 says he is too quick to delete, (deletionist?) and with prejudice even!. Which is it? Did either actually look at his AfD experience and CSD experience? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Balloonman (also endorsing Balloonman's other comments elsewhere on this page; opposition not personal, etc.) Carom (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too soon, I think, without prejudice towards another request a few months down the line. Relata refero (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Tanthalas39 is quick to attack other users and jump to conclusions about their edits. After reviewing Tanthalas39's contributions, I see a pattern of this behavior. Many of Tanthalas39's edits appear to be geared toward gaining adminship status instead of the best interests of the Wikipedia community. Tanthalas39 appears to have a high level of enthusiasm and shows great promise to be a good administrator eventually. In the meantime, I think Tanthalas39 needs to be given a bit more time before becoming an administrator. Xbones1000 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am voting to oppose Tan, it should be noted that this user has made 8 edits, 5 of which are attacks on Tan here and elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is apparently angry at me for a reversion I didn't make but warned him about - I would chalk this opposition up to a spite vote, although the user has every right to cast their vote. See my talk page for details. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am voting to oppose Tan, it should be noted that this user has made 8 edits, 5 of which are attacks on Tan here and elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Wiki doesn't need any more career admins with little experience of serious article building. Too many already. Not that experienced in the trainee career admin stuff either, so definite no. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not enough edits to wikispace. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Just not quite ready yet. Jmlk17 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- If it were really true that "admin is no big deal", in the sense that it didn't have to be prised from the cold, dead hands of a recalcitrant administrator, then I would be inclined to support this nomination, in spite of the candidate being relatively inexperienced as measured by edit count. So I have a question and a comment:
- What would have to happen/be required for you to resign as an administrator?
- Thank you for your interest in my RfA, Malleus. I would unhesitatingly resign as an administrator if there was a consensus that I was using the tools improperly, abusing my power, or otherwise not furthering the interests of the Wikipedia project. I am not interested in personal gain or status - I have been proactive in my adminship training simply because I feel that I can help the project. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am slightly worried that you would block an editor as per your answer to Q9. I really would prefer administrators not to do anything that might possibly be interpreted as being personally motivated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be a personal opinion of yours, and I can't really change my answer to court your support vote. Of course a block like that "might possibly be" seen as personally motivated, but I think a vast majority of editors (and virtually all administrators) would view what I did as simply a duty in the course of a day - if a brand new account makes homophobic, blatantly egregious vandalism to any two pages in a row, I think it is my responsibility to stop it, regardless if it's to my page, your page, or the main page. The question you have to ask yourself is, is it likely that this editor will quickly come to their senses and start editing constructively to Wikipedia, or is it a lot more likely that we'll see more homophobic garbage? Of course there's a modicum of judgment to be made, and without given the exact circumstances of the situation, it's hard to categorically state what I'd do in any situation. This one, however, was more or less cut and dry. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your replies. I'm going to trust you and support, even though I still think you'd be mistaken to carry out that block yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and I respect your opinion. I, of course, would be open to review any arguments, policies, or traditions that might change my answers here, so if you feel strongly about this, feel free to follow up on my talk page (or right here, obviously). Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral My original concerns [3] are still there, but during this process, the candidate has handled himself commendably, which prompts me to move from oppose to neutral Yngvarr (c) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. <broken record>Requests for Adminship in wikipedia re, at their core, a referendum on a given editor's judgment, and a discussion amongst wikipedians if the community as a whole should extend its trust in the candidate's judgment</broken record>. In my opinion, I have not seen enough activity by this editor in areas that concern me to feel that I have a comfortable enough feeling to extend trust to this editor. At the same token, I have not seen enough from this editor to register an oppose. In this user's 1660+ User talk edits, the vast majority of them are templates. There are too few non-templated warning/informative edits for me to get a good feel as to how this editor would act under the inevitable pressure that janitorial duties bring. The editor does seem to have experience in vandalism prevention and AfD, a plus, but not enough to counteract the lack of edits in article talk space discussing articles and wikipedia space at this point. I am certain more exposure to other areas of the project will round this user out admirably, and I do appreciate his responses here. Good Luck - Avi (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Avi, you poor chap.:) I know they said you should be more visible at RfA.... Relata refero (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs more time, but not opposing simply because of this reason. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit torn on this one. I'm concerned based on what Avraham (Avi)'s brought up, but the concerns raised by opposers (especially the "too new" ones) don't sway me either way. There is nothing to say that Tanthalas will be a bad admin, but little to say that he will be a good one, either. I'm simply stuck on the fence. I will keep an eye on this to see if anything comes up that may change my mind. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Not sure - too low edits for my liking but I m happy with the mainspace and such. Not much experience but you still have me to convince. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 06:27, 17 March 2008 (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.
Hurricanehink
Final (92/2/2); ended 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) - Hurricanehink has been a great friend of mine for over 2 years of my time here at Wikipedia. He has over 20,000 contributions to article writing and over 30 featured contributions. He is an active contributor to Featured article candidates and is a great peer reviewer. He is a person with great civility control and knows the up and down of Wikipedia. I'm sure that he'd make a great admin.
In the past he has refused adminship, once in 2006. There has been curiousity if he would ever run again, and he came to me today on Internet Relay Chat claiming that he was pondering adminship. He feels that after seeing me go through it and the self-respect that adminship gave me, that the powers would be a large help for future contributions, being able to move future FAs, FLs and FTs from sandboxes. Hurricanehink is a very respectful contributor to Wikipedia, being in the top 10 of most featured contribution lists. I wanna say that I am pleased to nominate him for adminship after almost 2 years. Mitch32contribs 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Here goes nothing - I accept. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I should clarify right here that I do not intend to be the most active administrator; if I did, then my FA output would certainly come to a halt. However, I certainly would partake in the tools. After two years of relying on others to move a simple page over a redirect, I would simply move a simple page over a redirect. Additionally, I'd delete my personal redirects, which build up over time as useless redirects from my user space. Additionally, I'd help out with speedily deleting, merging page histories, and continue fighting vandalism, which I have done in protecting the tropical cyclone Wikiproject from vandals, by blocking such vandals when the situation warrants.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have successfully nominated or co-nominated 32 featured articles, all of which I wrote or significantly contributed to. Additionally, I have quite a few featured lists up my sleeve. I feel that I am an integral member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, as that has been where nearly all of my mainspace edits have been. Specifically, I am most proud of my work to Hurricane Isabel, which resulted in a featured topic of 10 articles, 9 of which I wrote from scratch.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have run into some situations with fellow users in the tropical cyclone WikiProject, and though most were minor, a few caused some stress. I won't bore you with the details, but one particularly major conflict involved whether any tropical cyclone could get an article. I believe I assisted in calming the conflict, by a massive discussion on the talk pages. This is how I have dealt with similar conflicts, by talking in detail (often to the point of filibuster!) on the pages. I admit, occassionally I deal with conflicts on the IRC channel for the WPTC, though that is only if it is a particularly minor issue.
Optional question from Keepscases
- 4. In regards to adminship, what do you view as prima facie evidence of power hunger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. I'm not so sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I believe if a user is power hungry for adminship, they'll show it by repeated failed RFA's without significant experience, and if they were really hungry they would nominate himself/herself each time. I'd imagine they would try and participate in AFD and FAC's, but rather than commenting on it they would merely vote, or use weak reasoning such as WP:ILIKEIT. And by the way, I saw your one question in another RFA, and I hope you don't mind that I answer it. Yes, I do know the tune to "Pachelbel's Canon" (the bass line, which is easy, as well as a few of the themes), and I can play it in all 12 keys on the piano. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Coredesat
- 5. What are your views on IRC with regards to decision making on-wiki? --Coredesat 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. As said above, I have made decisions on IRC, but only particularly minor issues that were unlikely to be challenged. For example, changing the image of a certain hurricane article, or maybe whether a certain active storm should get an article. I believe such minor issues are fine with being talked upon on IRC, as often times it is merely someone asking for a second opinion before being Bold. Discussion on the IRC is common, but actual proposals and decisions should not be done on there. I prefer keeping the discussion on Wikipedia, so there is a clear archive of what happened (such as with the somewhat controversial decision to have articles for all storms). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Stifle
- 6. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
- A. Under most circumstances, that is not allowed, as the following clause in the fair use policy forbids it.
- "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"
- If a person is still alive, then a free equivalent is technically available, or could be created. However, there are some exceptions. If a musician, for example, appears on an album cover, then the non-free image could be used; however, it could only be used for the article on the album, and not for the musician. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Under most circumstances, that is not allowed, as the following clause in the fair use policy forbids it.
Optional question from J.delanoy
- 7. While fighting vandalism, I came across this article. What would the appropriate action be? (please be specific)
- A. I would tag it for speedy deletion, under hoax/original research (I checked Google, no supporting references for these exact events), and crystal ball (if the collapse comes in September, so be it, but for now it's merely based on guess work). Alternatively, I would merge it here, if that's allowed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As-optional-as-any-of-the-other-questions questions from Messedrocker'
Greetings, citizen. I haven't the slightest idea who you are; however, I have randomly selected you for experimentation purposes.
8. If you were offered a bowl of butter pecan ice cream, would you consume said ice cream? Personally, it is my favorite flavor.
- A. I would personally choose a bowl of mint chocolate chip, but if someone offered me butter pecan, I'd sit down and enjoy it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Would you consider the above question an illegal disruption of Wikipedia, and, were you given the opportunity to, would you deem it necessary to block me?
- A. I believe people need to see the humor and goodness in people in the world. Sometimes, people need a slight disruption to keep connected with the rest of the world. It's the reason we have commercials on television. It's the reason we have traffic jams. If everything was perfect, life would get boring. Those slight disruptions keep life interesting, and so, if necessary, I would block you for 5 seconds, only to keep things interesting. If it was really disruptive, I'd probably warn first, especially if it was their first offense. Only if they repeatedly were disruptive would I take action. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from a stupid user
10. OK, you were offered to rule the world but you were in the middle of constantly checking over you admin page. Which one would you choose? Conquering the world or settling for the .001% of the net, Wikipedia? --Alisyntalk 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Tough call, though I think I'd settle for ruling the world. That way, I would make sure that every person in the world had the right to a free and open Wikipedia (which would be the first rule of the world), make every image in the world as public domain (which would be the second rule of the world), and make sure there is a steady and secure fund for the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you, and vote Hink in '08! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Hurricanehink's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Hurricanehink: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hurricanehink before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Strong support as nominator.Mitch32contribs 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Okay I've had a good look at this and I see no problems at all, this editor seems to me to be helpful, friendly, constructive and useful. He could do with the tools and he has my support. AndreNatas (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of significant development and improvement since the candidate's first and very recent RfA is deeply concerning. Pedro : Chat 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support (EC) Hink has proven to be a very valuable and dedicated editor. I would be MORE than happy for him to join the ranks of the mop-slinging admins. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This user is an excellent contributor to wikipedia being the nominator with the most current featured articles (32), numerous featured lists (14) and several . He has helped bring up brand new editors to a standard of being able to attain GA's and be able to competently review GAN's. He can keep a cool head in discussion and very easy to work with. The responsibility of the mop will not be misplaced in his hands and i have no reservations about supporting this editor in the role of admin. Seddon69 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shocked support. A brilliant editor. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. But dubious. No one can be this qualified... Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Amazing contributor. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of Wikipedia's finest contributors. I've always wondered why you hadn't nommed yourself for adminship before. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- biting tongue with sarcastic comment... biting tongue with sarcastic comment... biting tongue... OUCH!Balloonman (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support is such an understatement in this case. Without question, without doubt, and without reservation. Absolutely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per the nom, per the answers to the questions, per statement above by Seddon69 (talk · contribs). Simply incredible work with WP:FA content. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A dynamo editor. I'm usually reluctant to support candidates who only massively edit, but thoroughly going through the user's contributions has lead me to believe he/she has the experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well rounded editor. SpencerT♦C 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I cannot think of a candidate whom I would endorse more enthusiastically for administrator status than Hink. Hurricanehink has, on several occasions, asked to be cloned due to the exorbitant production of Featured Articles and Good Articles coming from his keyboard. From my experience in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I've found Hink to also be an absolutely pleasant user to work with, and my trust in his judgment is complete. I cannot fathom a scenario where Wikipedia would be worse off with him as an administrator, so I happily offer my support without any reservations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Glad to support; an outstanding editor and an asset to the project. (As someone despairingly watching him zoom up WP:WBFAN, I also have a sneaky hope that he will get distracted by his admin role and let the rest of us catch up. (Yes, just kidding.)) Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support, was ready a year ago, more than ready now. Wizardman 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He has created several great WP:FLs. I see him at WP:LOTD regularly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (edit conflict). I'm confident he can do a good job, can be trusted, and needs the tools. AGK (contact) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously, but hoping this won't impact upon his fantastic mainspace contributions. Neıl ☎ 00:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as Neil said - Shudde talk 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not only because of his excellent contributions and amazing number of featured articles, featured lists, and featured topics, but also because he is very helpful, and willing to answer the questions of newcomers and professionals alike. When I became active in Wikipedia, he was one of the first people I encountered. He, over a period of months, certainly aided in the development of myself as a user, and he still to this day has excellent suggestions and words of advice. In my opinion, he would do just fine with the mop and bucket. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support #25 Hopefully I won't run into edit conflict. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, trustworthy, great FA content contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without question (I'll let others ask the questions ;) ) His heavy work with FA and GA along with the Tropical Cyclones project display great dedication to the community - and judging by his answers - he's cool and patient. That's a big plus — master sonT - C 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (3 ec) hoping that he rarely uses them. Royalbroil 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, an excellent, trustworthy, and dedicated encyclopedia builder. --Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Track and contributions.The commitment of the user is beyond questionPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. MrPrada (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - sure, vastly experienced and very active..YNot?..--Cometstyles 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sometimes your personal guidelines/expectations on what background/experience a candidate should have is negated. This is one of those cases---he may not have all of the 'experience' one would like elsewhere, but how can you oppose?Balloonman (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong article builder, plenty of experience (excluding the Policy realm) and no reason to believe the candidate will abuse the position, or the tools. I would prefer to see more direct participation in more administrative areas, but the good easily outweighs my concern. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great editor. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. One of our most dedicated and prolific quality content contributors. He understands why we're here and thus is the kind of person we definitely want with the admin tools. Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dedicated and trustworthy, and very professional in his demeanor. κaτaʟavenoTC 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support steady editor, professional demeanor. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have encountered Hurricanehink many times at FAC and have always been very impressed by the quality of his work and the way he has been leading Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. (ok, he's not really "leading" it, but he sets the standard and encourages other members to work harder.) I have often wondered why he didn't try to become an admin, and I would have been happy to nom/co-nom him for admin if I had known he had decided to go for it. Honestly, at this point in time, I have encountered no one on Wikipedia who deserves to be an admin more than Hurricanehink. I'm happy you decided to go for it again, and I wish you luck. Thingg⊕⊗ 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No issues here. ArcAngel (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very impressed an editor who needs the tools so little and who has done so much so well is unlikely to to anything but good with them. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A good user. Acalamari 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - happy with this user. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent user, haven't seen someone this qualified in a long time. J.delanoygabsadds 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The sheer volume and quality of output make this a no-brainer, which could only be undone by something truly pathological (which hasn't happened), so come on board.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hope you get some more expertise in wielding the mop and helping others that need assistance with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. 32 FAs --> O_O Maxim(talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A terrific user, with great contributions, he should make an excellent administrator. Hello32020 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - prolific contributor, professional and civil in his actions. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Impressive. :) GlassCobra 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A perudal of the users contributions shows an understanding of the project, a knowledge of policies and guidelines, a willingness to help, and a civil and polite demeanor. This is a user in whom I am reasonably comfortable having the community's trust in his judgment. -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per answers to Messedrocker's questions. --bainer (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good editor. There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Worked with Hurricanehink on many occasions before when I used to carry out good article reviews, and his mature attitude combined with excellent article skills make this a definite support. Greman Knight. 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Trusted editor I feel will use the tools positively but one who should engage in the more usual administrative work. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Naerii · plz create stuff 10:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport - Very nice answers. KTC (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport: Excellent user with excellent contributions. Good luck! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, probably not a sockpuppet, so I don't think he'll go crazy and block me. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, be careful and have fun! Dustitalk to me 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good for the role. --MPerel 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, your general WP namespace contributions may be low, but with 77 AIV reports you've already done a lot more than many. Take that mop and start cleaning ;) Poeloq (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yes. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Excellent editor that I have worked well with in the past. I have found him to be civil, focused on the tasks at hand, and see no reason he shouldn't receive the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support would make a good administrator. -Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, an excellent candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support strongly, as he is an experienced article writer and is pretty much as far as one can get from a career mandarin. Great to have an article writer standing for adminship. Invite your friends! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, faithful editor. SexySeaShark 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, given his helpful attitude in Wikipedia as well as his due dilligence in writing and editing. I strongly doubt he'd abuse the position. Hurricane Angel Saki = My own personal NHC 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support every interaction has been good and a pleasure. Easy to work with. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of the best editors around.--Dacium (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no concerns; meet my standards; we could use "a mop" around the hurricane articles. :-) Bearian (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My metasense ain't tingling. Kimu 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jmlk17 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sup. --Alisyntalk 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent candidate. --Irpen 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - iMatthew 2008 10:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen him around and respect his contributions and temperment. A rock-solid candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Fantastic edits - Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hurricanehink is an excellent Wikipedian who is definitely ready for the mop. He has a good temper, which will be an asset in dispute resolution. He also has written excellent content, and thus will have the requisite experience to deal with content issues, which come up fairly regularly as an admin. He responded well to the questions, especially Messedrocker's, and I'm sure he has the good sense and judgment to use the mop well. I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of "admin-y" contributions. He has shown that he knows the way to use them, and to be fair, he has said that he will not be that active of an admin. He has been around long enough to know and respect convention surrounding the admin tools, hence my support. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ready to be an admin. --Sharkface217 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball support This user seems like such an obvious sysop. So many FA contribs and never a bad edit. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. Wonderful content contributor, there should be more administrators with this focus. Can certainly be trusted not to abuse the tools -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Hands down one of the bestThright (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. If he can figure out how to write 30 Featured Articles I'm sure he can figure out the unimportant trivialities of whatever goes along with the tools. --JayHenry (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Doubt he'll be the origin of many tempests as an admin. Gimmetrow 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good editor with a good grasp of policy and its implications. Gwernol 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great article editor, answered questions well, great nom. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers and looks like a fine candidate. No problems here - Alison ❤ 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Don't see why not. Sunderland06 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. I hate to do this, as I know Hink is an excellent editor. I've given this a lot of thought, and while he has remarkable experience in article writing, when you look at the big picture, he has very little experience to speak of in various policy areas. His record in those policy areas consists primarily of a handful of XFDs, very little anti-vandal work, and almost no activity at any of the noticeboards. Pretty much all of his work is focused on WP:TROP (in fact, most of the XFDs he's been involved in were related to that particular WikiProject), and he rarely ventures out of that area. Being able to write good articles is admirable, and adminship might be no big deal, but you have to ask - will Hurricanehink actually use the tools? I'm not sure he will, and in this case
I'm really not sure he needs them.--Coredesat 09:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Not that one oppose will make much difference, but I thought we'd put the "no need for the tools" argument out to pasture a long time ago. He's said he won't be using them much, but even if he only uses them for his own benefit that means less requests to other more "involved" admins. If we had limited admin bits to give out then perhaps we'd have to only promote those who would be most involved with admin functions, but since we don't, the only question you need to ask is: do you trust him not to misuse the tools? Yomanganitalk 10:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect this well thought out oppose regarding the candidates areas of activity. However I must agree with Yomangan that "no need for the tools" is an argument that has been done before, and found lacking. The tools don't rust, don't cost, and we have an unlimited supply of them. Pedro : Chat 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I worded that quite badly. Yes, I don't think he needs the tools, but that's not exactly all I'm arguing. Back when I became an admin (which was only in October 2006), admins were expected to be able to use the tools for more than just their own needs; a lot of RFAs that are passing now would not have passed then. In the case of Hurricanehink, he's already gained a fairly positive reputation from his article work; the only thing adminship would do is add "he's an admin" to that without benefiting the project much. Yes, he writes great articles, but he lacks process and policy experience. A good article writer does not translate immediately to a good admin, and I think he needs that experience first. As an aside, I'm also a bit worried about his sudden change of heart; until now he had been fairly strongly opposed to pursuing adminship. I'm also interested in how he answers my question. --Coredesat 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that you feel he needs more experience doing admin related activities first, that is clear. But how do you stand on the trust issue; do you feel he would abuse admin tools if they were granted? κaτaʟavenoTC 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I worded that quite badly. Yes, I don't think he needs the tools, but that's not exactly all I'm arguing. Back when I became an admin (which was only in October 2006), admins were expected to be able to use the tools for more than just their own needs; a lot of RFAs that are passing now would not have passed then. In the case of Hurricanehink, he's already gained a fairly positive reputation from his article work; the only thing adminship would do is add "he's an admin" to that without benefiting the project much. Yes, he writes great articles, but he lacks process and policy experience. A good article writer does not translate immediately to a good admin, and I think he needs that experience first. As an aside, I'm also a bit worried about his sudden change of heart; until now he had been fairly strongly opposed to pursuing adminship. I'm also interested in how he answers my question. --Coredesat 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect this well thought out oppose regarding the candidates areas of activity. However I must agree with Yomangan that "no need for the tools" is an argument that has been done before, and found lacking. The tools don't rust, don't cost, and we have an unlimited supply of them. Pedro : Chat 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that one oppose will make much difference, but I thought we'd put the "no need for the tools" argument out to pasture a long time ago. He's said he won't be using them much, but even if he only uses them for his own benefit that means less requests to other more "involved" admins. If we had limited admin bits to give out then perhaps we'd have to only promote those who would be most involved with admin functions, but since we don't, the only question you need to ask is: do you trust him not to misuse the tools? Yomanganitalk 10:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I think he needs more experience doing admin related activities before we can judge how good he will be at it. Cxz111 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral Brilliant editor in the mainspace, but with comparatively little experience in environments such as WP:XFD, WP:AIV, and WP:AN. Given this, I can't support, but I see no reason to oppose, either. --Coredesat 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Changed to oppose --Coredesat 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neutral pending answer to my question. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Neutral for now The question is just for my peace of mind. J.delanoygabsadds 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)changed to supportJ.delanoygabsadds 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I view nominations by other users as prima facie evidence that the user himself does not desire the admin powers particularly strongly. Otherwise, he would have nominated himself long ago. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I talked about it with the nominating user on IRC, and after indicating I was interest in admin powers, he nominated me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a Kurt parody.... Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I view people who try to imitate Kurt as prima facie evidence that user lacks originality and feel like making disruption just for the sake of being a bit disruptive. Maxim(talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a Kurt parody.... Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I talked about it with the nominating user on IRC, and after indicating I was interest in admin powers, he nominated me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Hink is an excellent editor, coordinator and contributor to WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. It's obvious he pours an incredible amount of time and effort into this encyclopedia. On those merits alone, he is an instant "Yes" to get adminship. However, I can see the points of others, wo put their votes as "Oppose", as the question is whether or not he would actually significantly contribute as an administrator. Also, on a more personal level, if he were to begin significantly contributing as an admin, that would be time away from editing the WikiProject, where his help and coordination is sorely needed. I'm something of a noob to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how much my vote counts, but there's my two cents.TheNobleSith (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2008 (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.
Hersfold
Final (75/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold (talk · contribs) - Greetings! I would like to nominate Hersfold for adminship. I will keep this fairly short (although I tend to go on) - Hersfold is an excellent user who has shown his dedication to the project over a protracted period of time, making his first edit in December 2006. He has over 11,000 edits across the English Wikipedia, with almost 2,500 mainspace edits. A lot of his work has been at AFD, where he's made many excellent contributions. Hersfold has a number of strings to his bow - he's a new page patroller, helps out on the Help Desk, fulfils speedy rename requests at CFD, contributes to Motto of the Day, participates in Articles for Creation, and works on some of our most intricate templates, including the user talk warning templates. His editing history shows a sound grasp of policy, including our image policies, an agreeable disposition when dealing with both new editors, and general awesomeness.
Hersfold has been nominated for adminship on two previous occasions (June 07 and September 07). The second time, in particular, led me to conclude that all Hersfold needed was to gain experience. In the six months since that last RFA, he has taken the advice offered to heart, more than doubling his article activity whilst still continuing his excellent work in the project namespace. In particular, one of the reasons cited for his last RFA failing was a failure to do his research (he didn't know who Bertrand Russell was). I suggested as a penance for his error, he improve the article, as it wasn't great at the time considering the subject. He took this to heart, and look at the difference. I think that is penance enough! I believe Hersfold is an outstanding, polite, knowledgable editor who has exhibited a willingness to learn and improve, to listen to others, and to contribute to making Wikipedia better (just look at all those barnstars!). He has a clear use for the tools, and his gaining the mop would benefit Wikipedia greatly. I hope you will agree. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination. Just felt like I should add something. Hersfold has been extremely helpful on a couple of occasions [4]. Just lending a hand. I offered to nominate him for adminship before, but unfortunately Neil got there before me (grr!) He has worked on Wikipedia:Help desk and obviously have been a great help to others and I think that by giving him the mop will be a great asset to Wiki. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would intend to work mainly in deletion processes, including WP:AfD, expired PROD's, and speedy deletion candidates. As I also do a lot of work with vandalism patrols, I would also spend some of my time at WP:AIV, blocking users who continue to make unconstructive edits. I've also had some experience with sockpuppetry, and would spend some time occasionally reviewing those cases. While I currently have little experience in those fields, I would also begin to look over protection requests, starting with the most obvious need for protection, gradually moving upward. I have experience with using the rollback tool - I have used Twinkle for several months now, and was granted "official" rollback rights by User:Acalamari on January 30th.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I keep a running tally of my particularly outstanding contributions on my user page, but of those, I'd say the best are these:
- When I was first getting involved in Wikipedia, I worked with User:SebastianHelm to update the templates at WP:UTM (back then, WP:TT) to include tooltips with the {{tltt}} templates, to make the templates easier to use for vandalism patrollers.
- I have continually assisted editors at the Help Desk, helping them use Wikipedia and get started on those lines.
- Along those same lines, I have adopted three different users through the adopt-a-user program. While I have yet to graduate anyone, unfortunately, I do hope to continue this work in the future.
- I am a founding member of WikiProject Articles for creation, and have done a lot of work there with the project templates and clearing the backlog, which was finally closed in a drive started by me a few weeks ago.
- I have two DYK credits with Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park and Hood Mockingbird, and significantly improved the references to Bertrand Russell, as Neil noted above. I do know now, most completely, who Earl Russell was. (joke)
- A: I keep a running tally of my particularly outstanding contributions on my user page, but of those, I'd say the best are these:
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have had conflicts in the past, and in every case I've done my best to deal with things in a calm and reasoned manner. Looking through my talk page history, my first major conflict was in January of 2007 with Seicer over the 3RR, wherein I had warned another editor for violating the 3RR when he was reverting vandalism (See here for full discussion). Other conflicts have taken place over prematurely tagging articles for deletion (here), tagging articles for deletion that did need to be deleted and explaining the reason to the authors (here, here (although that was an AfC decline), among others), pointing out where other users have been a bit incivil (here), dealing with complex vandalism (such as this lovely case). The links here are all obviously to my talk page archives, which I plowed through to help answering this question, but in all of my conflicts, of which there have been several, I've always tried to remain as diplomatic and understanding as possible, and always consider the option that I could be wrong. I think I've improved on that as time has gone on, and I hope that can be seen through the links above and my more recent contributions.
- Update March 11: One more dispute to add to this list took place at User talk:64.238.172.212 today. The IP address had been flagged as being a shared IP address, based on the WHOIS report provided via a link at the bottom of the talk page. The IP editor was disputing this, repeatedly removing the banner with edit summaries that accused other editors of malicious, libelous intent (see [5] [6]) In an effort to stop the edit war that had to this point involved reversions by several different editors, I posted an explanation for the shared IP template, at the same time requesting semi-protection of the page in case things didn't work out. Fortunately, I was able to get the IP editor into a civil discussion and withdrew the request. I'm still not certain we've really resolved the problem completely, but I think at this point we understand the other's point of view a little better and are willing to make some sort of compromise on the matter. P.S. - If anyone is wondering why I didn't simply allow the IP to remove the header per the talk page guidelines, I was ignoring that particular rule for the justification I made to the IP here: such a header is rather a benefit to the IP in the event he does get blocked, as it means the block is shorter. Having the header saves time and effort for any admin, or other editor, who needs to deal with issues with the IP address. The header is not a vandalism warning, and removing it could do more harm than good in the long run. Added by Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Avruch
4. What issues from your previous requests for adminship have been raised, and how have you addressed them? What new or returning issues do you expect to see from opposers, if any, this time around?
- A: My first RFA was going rapidly downhill mainly due to a lack of experience in editing - at that time, I had only been on the project for about 6 months and had around 2,000 edits. While many of the supports appreciated the enthusiasm I had demonstrated, many others felt I hadn't done enough at that point to grant me the tools. Following that RfA, I worked more in anti-vandalism, and moved into Articles for Deletion debates, which to that point I had not been very involved in.
- My second RfA plummeted mainly due to the Bertrand Russell incident - opposers felt that my not bothering to check who he was was a sign that I would not properly check any AfD's I was to close. In response to that, I have taken special care to do internet searches on almost every AfD I check (some this still isn't necessary for, but those are rare cases and generally fit some speedy criteria or other or are blatant keeps). I did also improve the Bertrand Russell article to get it back to GA quality (not yet listed, nobody's reviewed it), but this I feel is more article-writing. Researching something after it's been deleted doesn't do much good, although were that to happen, there's always WP:DRV. Back to the point, I've taken much more care about what I say, how I say it, and how much I look at something before I say anything at all.
5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
- A: I certainly would not undo their edit without making a strong attempt to contact them about the situation first. My first action would be to go to their talk page and find what their reasoning was behind it, and try to explain my point of view. If we weren't able to come to any sort of agreement there, I would begin to move up the dispute resolution process with the other admin (slash editor, this would apply to anyone in good standing), bringing the issue to the article's talk page and trying to form some sort of a consensus there. If that didn't get anywhere, as talk page discussions rarely do, unfortunately, I'd open a request for comment on the article to try and pull some more editors into the discussion.
- In the event this was actually a deletion (probably speedied under G10 - other processes would involve discussion ahead of time, wherein I could have voiced my concerns) I would bring this to DRV if discussion with the admin failed.
6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?
- A: He who giveth shall taketh away if the big red button gets pushed the wrong way too many times (Sorry, couldn't tell how to stretch the fancy speech any further). I certainly would - if I royally screw this up, the community deserves the right to take back the tools they gave me, or in fact any administrator, in the first place. I realize that not all admins share this same opinion, but recall is a helluva lot easier than dragging things through ArbCom - it allows someone who has made a mistake to leave their position with some bit of dignity, as well as an improved chance to redeem themselves through continued editing.
7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?
- A: Wikipedia:Civility. With the ability to delete pages, block users, protect pages, yada yada so forth, admins get crap thrown at them faster than a sewer from people who argue that they can edit however they want; my band IS notable, you dummy; who are you to tell me I'm vandalizing; so forth and so on. I've certainly had plenty already, plus one or two actual death threats. An administrator needs to be able to know how to deal with these people, and/or know how to simply brush off those that can't be dealt with, like the last few links there. Staying calm, and trying to rephrase things as clearly as possible, is key to avoiding a complete explosion and making situations worse. After all, the longer you keep the vandal talking, the less time he has to vandalize. Compared to this, WP:DELETE, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC, and all the rest, are secondary (but still very very important, don't take that the wrong way!!). Of those, I'd say WP:NFCC is the most important, as that's the one that can really get Wikipedia in trouble if we neglect it, followed by WP:BLP for the same reason. WP:DELETE is really just a compilation of all the other policies (if it violates X, Y, or Z, it should be fixed if possible or deleted).
Note: If a dozen more questions are added after this before you have a chance to answer, don't answer mine - I'll withdraw them when I notice.
No big deal - I'd be somewhat surprised if I didn't get bombarded with questions, most everyone does. :-)
Optional question from Keepscases
8. If it were to come to your attention that a fellow Wikipedian frequently snuck into the RAC to play basketball, what if anything would you do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Someone's been reading my user page... I would likely congratulate him for the spirit he's showing for the college that's going to win the America East Conference this Saturday. :-) (Then make sure he's not adding biased information to the UMBC Retrievers article - we have to stay neutral, you know.) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Questions from - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. When should you apply a cool-down block?
- A: Never, especially if I'm involved in the dispute that needs cooling down. Such blocks tend to only make the situation worse. If an editor is being particularly uncivil, then the situation should be brought up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, or if more severe, WP:ANI. Blocks should only be applied when a user is being blatantly and deliberately unconstructive or disruptive, and only when the blocking admin does not have a conflict of interest.
10. Which contributions are you not proud of?
- A: Bleah - I hate these questions. I'm certainly still slapping myself over the Bertrand Russell thing - that was definitely a very dumb thing to do. There's a few other AfD mistakes I've made, nominating articles that had little business being nominated, or something similar. Unfortunately, I can't recall anything else that's particularly outstanding - as I'm always trying to improve upon what mistakes I do make, they all rather smush together in the long run. Sorry I can't come up with a better answer for this, but this is honestly about 20 minute's worth of thinking on it.
11. How long would you block a user (account), if s/he recieved a warning after a final warning?
- A: It depends on a lot of things, mainly what type of account we're facing, what kind of vandalism we're dealing with, and if the user has been blocked before. Since you mention "account", I'm assuming you don't mean an IP editor, but someone who has created an account for the sole purpose of vandalism. For simple stuff that appears to mostly be someone who's really bored and can't find anything better to do (test edits, section blanking, tossing in random words that don't make a huge impact, etc.), I'd probably do a couple days (48-72 hours) up to a full week, just to give them time to give it up and find something else to do. In more severe cases, where the intent can't be described as anything but blatantly disruptive and/or malicious, I'd go for a longer block, likely indefinite. Since it's an account, we won't have to worry about blocking out other users who do want to constructively edit, and the account can always be unblocked if they show an honest desire to reform themselves.
General comments
- See Hersfold's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Hersfold: Hersfold (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hersfold before commenting.
Discussion
- Note from Hersfold: I will unfortunately not be online when this closes due to a previously scheduled trip from Monday the 17th to Wednesday the 19th. I'll continue checking this page up until that date, but if anyone leaves me any last-minute questions or comments they expect a reply to, just know they may not get answered. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Your response to the Bertrand Russell issue demonstrated a sort of ultimate way of responding to an area where you had messed up. If anything, it shows you would take seriously any significant error you made that is identified by the community. Furthermore, I've reviewed your recent work at AFD and it appears balanced and always with a decent explanation of your thought. An overall glance at your last 1k edits or so shows broad activity and good work being done, and impressive situations where others request help and you promptly help them. Good luck.Gwynand (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong support: I was going to co-nominate him but I didn't notice he'd applied until just now so this'll do. He's one of those people where you see their user page, talk page, contribs etc and you just can't believe he's not an admin. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as last time but now without any qualification. Pedro : Chat 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No obvious problems, seems trustworthy, demonstrated need for the tools. Fire away :) AGK (contact) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another RfA in which I either got mentioned in the questions or the statement, yet I'm not the candidate or nominator: I'm everywhere! :) Heh, heh, Hersfold is an excellent user, and I was more than happy to grant him rollback. He will make a good admin. Acalamari 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lots of experience, lots of excellent contributions, no red flags. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree with number 2. I thought you were already an admin. Well, after this, im sure you will be, you're a helpful user who has contributed to WIkipedia in a big way, and for that, you get my support. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. My interaction with this user has been very positive. Willing to help out wherever possible. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I see this user around everywhere, especially the help desk. Without hesitation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Qualified editor, and it sounds like he won't tell on me for sneaking into the RAC without paying the five dollar guest fee. Keepscases (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - great editor, well versed in almost all areas of the project. Great work on WP:AFC! Tiptoety talk 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ach! Keep getting edit conflicted! - Helpful and knoewledgable user, will not abuse the tools. Best of luck! SpencerT♦C 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor. Superb answer to Q7 above. (anyone that can use "dummy" in a self-reference is fine by me:-) I have no worries about your inevitable promotion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No reason not to. I'm sure he's learned from his past RFA's. And since nobody's seemed to have mentioned this (unless I missed it), I'd like to say that aside from his help on Wikipedia:Help Desk, he's also helped users on CAT:HM.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per track and concerns of previous RFA overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers to questions. Avruch T 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. Neıl ☎ 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Per answers to questions, experience, and edit summary usage. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, Hersfold is such a great user that I have to come out of my wikibreak just for this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Go get 'em! --Sharkface217 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Support, no questions, all the way as per co-nom. You've been a great help keep up the good work. :) Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support per above. Good candidate, supported his/her last RfA last September. Hopefully Hersfold will not get opposed. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. MrPrada (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A familiar name — no reason to withhold support. WODUP (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, proud to add my name here. :) GlassCobra 06:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I trust this user. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support brillian ansers, will make an exeedingly good administrator! Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YoungWebProgrammer msg 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor, my issues from the last RFA have definitely been addressed. Definitely trustworthy! VanTucky 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hersfold has done such good work since last time that I've been proven an idiot for opposing previously. That clean-up of Bertrand Russell was not an easy task. Bravo! --JayHenry (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Editor appears to have gained from previous experiences, exhibits civility and politeness (GRUNet was a nice example), and demonstrates knowledge of pertinent policies and guidelines. I am reasonably confident that the community's trust in this user's judgment will not be abused. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. нмŵוτнτ 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Greman Knight. 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Completely support, have seen them around and they will be an excellent admin. Woody (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contributor, has improved significantly since the last rfa. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Third time's a charm. Jmlk17 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've seen this user around and they contribute well. They will, I am sure, make good use of the administrative tools using their wholly unique, intelligent and exceptional method of contributing... Go get 'em, Tigger. ScarianCall me Pat 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good luck and avoid letting those powers get to your head! Dustitalk to me 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ready for the role. --MPerel 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, yes. Fantastic work, Hersfold. Particularly at WP:AfC. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very civil and helpful user, great knowledge and experience, will make a good admin! Tiddly-Tom 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, another quality candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support Good user. Maxim(talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong user. Lara❤Love 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great approach to helping editors. Has my respect. Best of luck. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see he has made a lot of improvement. Change from last time of (oppose). Bearian (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great candidate. Valtoras (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I love the answers to all the questions. Good Luck! Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It's time.--Kubigula (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. From a review of his recent contributions, I believe Hersfold has learned from past errors of judgement and is now ready for admin tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great nom and great answers. I have no doubts. --jonny-mt 09:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor - no reason to oppose. --Veritas (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely See him around often enough, have never had any problems with him. The only thing that gives me any pause whatsoever is the Bertrand Russell incident, but that seems to be an isolated incident more than six months ago; I can forgive Hersfold for not being a philosophy major. Therefore, no reason to oppose (well, aside from the fact that he supports the Blues :P). faithless (speak) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything here seems good. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me. Kimu 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Time to let him live down the Bertrand Russell incident. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've found Hersfold to be a good editor and fair in matters of AfD and related processes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A rare case of a user who's never stopped improving. Will make a fine admin. Húsönd 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hersfold clearly now doesn't need my support but I give it gladly for the assistance he's given me with PD-copyright issues. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some sort of recommendation here.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good asset tp WP. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Logical and deserving. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great answers to the questions. iMatthew 2008 10:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm happy to add my name here. Hersfold will make an excellent admin. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Support Overall, this candidate is very good. I like his/her reply on question 11.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a good candidate. However, I can't see why the oppose vote should be discounted.--Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well answered questions. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - an experienced, well-rounded editor who should make a capable admin. No obvious reasons not to support. Good answers to questions. --BelovedFreak 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa - let me just check the admin list to check he really isn't there.... Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. Since Herfold has only 1 000 more than this, I will not support him right now. No.Moosester (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is now blocked only for 12 hours.[7]Should not the vote be counted.Feel only indef blocked votes should not be counted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might not be discounted, but I can't imagine the closing bureaucrat taking it seriously. For one, this oppose has 70 supports going against it. Furthermore, this user's criterion are unrealistic, especially in light of Jimbo Wales stating that adminship was no big deal. — scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per generally uninformed commentary on Geni's current RfA. Failure to check details over before commenting and slightly worrying characterisation of the candidate. Nick (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you elaborate a little more? After some review of geni's RfA, it seems that Hersfold's done some real detective work. He's asked geni several questions, and gave a detailed explanation of why he was opposing. If you feel that some mischaracterization was done, I'm sure both Hersfold and indeed everyone (certainly myself) would appreciate some details as to what exactly you felt was incorrect. GlassCobra 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's something you feel I've done wrong, I will certainly take a look at the situation again; however based on Geni's responses and what I've seen, I'm not comfortable with giving him the tools back. I do openly admit to failing to notice that he had been desysopped at first, but then afterward took careful note to figure out why that had happened, what Geni's reasons for his (her?) actions were, and if there had been any noticeable change since then. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The detective work was crap, look at the comments in the discussion section. I also don't like the dangerous characterisation "Stating that you "no longer really have the time to be involved in that form of conflict" tells me that you no longer really have the time to be an administrator." We're a volunteer project, the attitude that some people need to spend more time editing than others is wrong, and that assertion that someone has no free time to be an admin is wrong. Nick (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which comments specifically are you referring to? I also justified my reasoning for that characterization - I do realize that this is volunteer work, but if such conflict comes his way, Geni's going to need to deal with it and not shove it off. Doing such is, as I said, irresponsible. I'm not requiring him to go seek that sort of conflict out, such is his right as a volunteer. Also, offering to take on extra responsibilities by nominating himself for adminship should mean that he feels he is able to take on that extra responsibility - immediately turning around and saying that he doesn't have time for it seems contradictory.
- On an unrelated note, is there any reason directly pertaining to myself as a prospective administrator that you are opposing? We are all entitled to our opinions in RfA's, which is why we have them. Opposing for that reason alone seems unfair (acknowledging that in this case I do have a slight conflict of interest, of course ;-) ). Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Geni didn't say he doesn't have time to deal with administrative functions, he said he doesn't have time to continue being involved in conflicts. Adminship doesn't revolve around conflicts and edit warring. I'm sure you know that, if not, then that alone is sufficent for me to oppose. I believe you do know that adminship doesn't have to be about conflicts and edit warring, so I have to take issue with the time statement. I've said this already, availability to be an admin has no bearing on suitability. If that's an attitude that's going to carry over into your administrative actions, then I'm feel I need to note my concerns here. Nick (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentary that you disagree with on a completely separate RfA for another user is not a valid reason for opposing a candidacy for adminship. To clarify, Hersfold's oppose commentary on Geni's RfA and his reasons should not cause you to oppose Hersfold's own RfA, or at the very least should not be the sole basis for your opposition. (I'd support Hersfold in this RfA, but at this point it would not make much difference in an RfA that was already in outstanding favor of the candidate). — scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that commentary makes me concerned on how it will impact on a candidate's use of the tools, it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Nick (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, I've been involved in conflicts simply due to the actions I currently undertake as a non-admin, as I have taken painstaking care to elaborate in the questions above. Administrative tools, by their very nature, tend to involve more controversial changes. Even if admins do not go looking for conflict, their position and increased access makes them far more prone to being involved in conflicts. I know that conflicts aren't what adminship is all about, however people seeking the admin tools need to be able and willing to deal with it when it does arise as a result of their actions. Furthermore, that was not my only reason for opposing Geni - if you read my comment again, (which I note you have not bothered to respond to within Geni's RfA, where I believe this discussion should have taken place) you will see that there were other reasons which led to my opposition.
- I further don't see how this would have any bearing on my actions as an administrator - judging the qualities of a prospective admin, and the consensus within an RfA, is the task of a bureaucrat, not an administrator. If the community grants the tools to Geni, as an administrator I would be able to do absolutely nothing about it, nor would I even if I could. You can tell from my responses to my questions above, and comments in debates elsewhere, that I value and respect community consensus and will abide by it even if it is against my own personal views. Your reason to oppose my RfA above does not provide any detail on how you feel this would reflect on my usage of the administrative tools, and you still have not made that distinction clear despite this long discussion on that very topic. Were I applying to be a bureaucrat, then I would understand. Since I am not, I miss your point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm concerned that if you think conflict is unavoidable, that will, to a certain extent, dictate your behaviour, which I find slightly worrying. Conflict is avoidable. If you go into a discussion with the idea that someone is always going to find fault with your actions, it has the potential to completely change the way the discussion evolves, and when you've got access to things like Special:Blockip, that makes me ever slightly worried. Nick (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Polling at... lets see... 97% right now. Perhaps this conversation meets this policy :-) And Nick, on a edit conflict, you might want to be more careful that you don't just delete comments, as you did to my last one. Thanks! Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm concerned that if you think conflict is unavoidable, that will, to a certain extent, dictate your behaviour, which I find slightly worrying. Conflict is avoidable. If you go into a discussion with the idea that someone is always going to find fault with your actions, it has the potential to completely change the way the discussion evolves, and when you've got access to things like Special:Blockip, that makes me ever slightly worried. Nick (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was probably more directed at Hersfold than you, Nick. I am in no way saying your opinion, discussion, or thoughts should be discounted or dismissed, even in the case that you are essentially the sole opposition (the other being a blanket, template opposition of all RfAs from a not-very-trustworthy editor) in the face of 70-odd positive ones. I was commenting that if I was Hersfold, I would stop arguing with you - I would bet a paycheck his RfA passes. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you elaborate a little more? After some review of geni's RfA, it seems that Hersfold's done some real detective work. He's asked geni several questions, and gave a detailed explanation of why he was opposing. If you feel that some mischaracterization was done, I'm sure both Hersfold and indeed everyone (certainly myself) would appreciate some details as to what exactly you felt was incorrect. GlassCobra 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Scott5114
(talk page) (61/0/3); Scheduled to end 5:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Scott5114 (talk · contribs) - I stumbled across Scott5114 back in November during his first RfA. During that RfA I was brutal towards him. His answers to the questions were uninspiring and failed to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of Wikipolicy. I was particularly disappointed that he didn't appear to research the answer to some questions, particularly one related to WP:BLP, where he was provided with the relevant link. His first RfA failed largely because of the arguments that I made against it.
I come before you today to state that I was wrong in my initial assessment of Scott5114.
I started to question my appraisal of him during the last RfA. While he failed to show the technical expertise necessary to become an admin he clearly demonstrated the soft skills required. He kept a level head despite some harsh criticism. Then there were the comments of his fellow wikipedians who work with him on a regular basis coming to his aid. Those comments proved to me that Scott was the type of person that we need for admin, but it was his technical knowledge that I questioned. Too that end myself and several other people suggested Admin Coaching. I offered to coach him... I didn't really expect him to accept the offer because of how critical I was during his first RfA, but those soft skills convinced me that he just might deserve the tools after all. He accepted my offer.
I asked him a number of policy related questions during the Coaching and he gave excellent well thought out responses. He demonstrated that he had the technical knowledge to look up things when he didn't know the answer. In short, he convinced me that my opposition to his first RfA was in err. The only reason why I didn't re-nominate him immediately was because I felt that he needed some more exposure elsewhere and the notion that one should wait 3 months or so before a second RfA. I asked him to participate in more XfD's---as those are always high on people's list for potential admins. I monitored his posts, and his rationales were spot on (as were his contributions elsewhere.) I also asked him to get some exposure outside of his comfort zone (eg articles other than roads and highways)---which he did.
Over the past two months, WikiProject USRD has been involved in an arbcom case involving an editor who was alleged to be disruptive. In accepting the case, the Arb Committee did so with the reasoning, "All three RfCs focused not just on NE2's behavior, but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia." I watched the case very closely due to Scott's involvement with the project. At first, I was concerned that this comment might hurt Scott's chances of becoming an Admin. Having watched the case unfold, I realized that the case didn't really involve Scott. Scott's involvment throughtout the case was that of bridgebuilder/mediator. Irnoically, I actually became somewhat involved with this case presenting my own concerns about the project and debating Scott's co-nominator Rschen7754 as to the role of Wikiprojects. While Rschen and I have drastically different views on Wikipedia, we both believe that Scott would be an excellent admin.
I believe that Scott has all of the tools to make an excellent Admin and now is time to rectify an error that we made in November.Balloonman (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to co-nominate Scott5114. Scott has been an established user since 2005 and has been beneficial at USRD and in other areas. He has contributed to Kansas Turnpike, a FA, as well as a few GA's and the entire OKSH. In addition to this, he maintains professional courtesy on IRC and on Wiki (even better than me at times.) He has the knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines / policies that is necessary to become an administrator. In my opinion, his adminship is long overdue because of his willingness to contribute, his diligence, civility, and willingness to help out. Therefore, I heartily endorse this candidate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Thank you! I accept your nominations. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:38, 8 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: My chief concern as an admin would be to work on clearing out the administrative backlogs. I would probably focus most on keeping speedy deletion...well...speedy. Keeping tabs on the categories containing images that have been copied to Commons would also be something I'd try to do.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: During my time here, I've gotten one article to Featured Article status: Kansas Turnpike, which required about a year's worth of work, with a lot of help from User:SPUI. Also, I've gotten Oklahoma State Highway 9 and Oklahoma State Highway 74 to GA status, and have
twoone more waiting in the queue. One of those is Chickasaw Turnpike, which I'm especially happy with, and am hoping to make my second FA in the future. Since joining Wikipedia, I've created about 140 articles from scratch, and I'm pretty happy with how a lot of those are shaping up. In addition, I've gotten around 30 articles to B-Class.
- A: During my time here, I've gotten one article to Featured Article status: Kansas Turnpike, which required about a year's worth of work, with a lot of help from User:SPUI. Also, I've gotten Oklahoma State Highway 9 and Oklahoma State Highway 74 to GA status, and have
- 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: Working on road articles, as I often do, isn't easy; for some reason, it seems that subject tends to attract many strongly-willed editors. This can lead to a lot of conflict within the WikiProject. I avoid provocative behavior, and I always try to facilitate discussion and keep things from falling into a shoutfest. As an admin, I hope to deal with conflicts in much the same way, through keeping a cool head and encouraging discussion to the greatest extent feasible.
Optional questions from Wisdom89
- 5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- A- Well, the first thing to do is get it confirmed through WP:RFCU to make sure that they are, indeed, using sockpuppets. If it comes back positive, the next thing to do is block the alternate accounts. I would then go to WP:ANI to seek input on whether to block the main account. While administrators have may block the main account at their discretion per WP:SOCK#Blocking, in this specific case of a prolific user with a positive history, I would work to ensure that community is happy with blocking the user.
- 6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- A- I would most likely allow the block to stand, and offer a statement in the ArbCom case. I would try one last time to reach the unresponsive user through email. Perhaps having been blocked would make them more willing to talk. If ArbCom rejected the case, I would encourage the users to use the Mediation Cabal to help work out their dispute; the U.S. Roads project that I am involved with has been in a few disputes, and MedCab has proven helpful to resolving disputes in the past, so I would recommend trying it.
- 7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
- A-
- 8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
- A- Indefinite blocks are only permitted in cases of severe disruption or policy breaches. The canonical example of this is cases where it's obvious that the user is using their account only for vandalism and has no intent of stopping and editing productively. Since undisputed indefinite blocks essentially become a ban, they should be given out carefully.
- 9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
- A- I would probably lean towards "keep" and "no consensus", respectively. In borderline cases (in any AFD), defaulting to keep permits the article to be improved, and if no considerable improvement has taken place since the AFD, it can be nominated for deletion again at any time. In other words, "better safe than sorry". Of course, there may be other things to consider depending on the specific case.
- 10 What's the difference between a ban and a block?
- A A block is keeping a user from editing, usually temporarily, through technical means. A ban, on the other hand, formally revokes any and all editing privileges from the user, either temporarily or indefinitely. A user can be banned from the whole project, a topic area, or even individual articles. A banned user is often blocked in order to enforce the ban, and any edits shown to be made by a banned user can be reverted on-sight, regardless of the merit of the edits themselves.
- Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
- 11. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
- A. A POV fork is when an article is split to emphasize a particular point of view. POV forks aren't acceptable, and generally need to be dealt with through AFD. Sometimes, though, another article needs to be spun off from the main article anyway — in that case, the forked article needs to be worked on in order to comply with the core policy of WP:NPOV.
- 12. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
- A.
- 13. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
- A. Pages should be salted (or protected from recreation) when the same article has been recreated and (properly) deleted many times. Recreating an article multiple times is disruptive, because it wastes administrators' time to have to delete the same thing over and over again. Salting prevents that from happening.
- 14. Can you provide a specific diff where you helped a user.
- A. [8] - this user had nominated a few of his own images for deletion at IFD. I let him know about the speedy criteria for requesting deletion of your own content. Hopefully that'll save him some time in the future.
Questions from Majorly
15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?
- A. Not really.
16. Why do you think that?
- A. Well, most of the situations outlined in these questions haven't ever arisen in my editing history. That doesn't mean that they won't in the future, however, so being prepared for the possibility is important. Plus, it motivates me to look up some policies that I know the general spirit of but not the exact letter to confirm that my ideas are correct.
17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?
- A. No, the only musical instrument I play is the trombone. Preventing conflicts of interest are important, but a violin player might be able to write more about the subject than a non-violin player. Therefore, they should be free to contribute, but of course, should take extra care in keeping their writing neutral.
Optional question from Keepscases
18. Do you feel that I PUT THE P IN WIKIPEDIA is an appropriate user name?
- A. I'd say it's probably appropriate. It's not blatantly disruptive, and I doubt there's anyone who would actually think that before this user came along, we were all editing 'Wikiedia'...
Optional question from Ozgod taken from Wooyi
19. What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?
- A. I knew BLP was going to come up eventually, seeing as how it was an issue in the last RfA. The reason we have the BLP policy in the first place is because having libelous content in Wikipedia articles on living people can have serious repercussions for its subject (not to say that libel is OK when directed towards a dead person, it's not, but living people require particular care). Poorly sourced, libelous content should be expediently removed. Users who insert BLP violations should be warned with the {{blp0}}/{{blp1}}/{{blp2}} tags (as appropriate) before being blocked, because they may not be aware of the policy. Editors that are knowingly editing in conflict with the policy should be blocked for disruption, however.
- My last RfA had a question (Q4) about BLP, and was one of the major factors in users opposing. I now see I was wrong to advocate copying content to the talk page, and have 'learned my lesson', so to speak. However, in the case of content that is disputed as to whether it violates BLP, I would foster talk-page discussion after removing the contentious text.
Question from Seddon69
20. What do you feel should be done regarding inappropriate conduct from one user to/about another outside wikipedia? eg on IRC
- A. Well, ArbCom says that they're in the process of drafting policies regarding IRC (at the resolution of the case of the same name), so hopefully they'll do something about it so I won't have to :) but in regards to your question, I think a lot of it has to do with the forum it takes place in. I'm not sure I can say much about inappropriate conduct on non-Wikipedia websites; I know there's been a lot of problems with Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica and other such sites, usually involving Daniel Brandt, but I never really was much interested in checking those out, so I'm afraid I'm unqualified to state my opinion on sites like that. As for IRC, it makes a big difference on if it's a Wikimedia O&O channel. If it's not affiliated with Wikimedia or Wikipedia in any way, unfortunately, there's not much you can do about it. On the other hand, the administration of Wikimedia-affiliated IRC channels have the responsibility to make and enforce a set of channel rules to maintain a level of decorum so outright incivility doesn't take place. Basically, I feel the rules on IRC can probably afford to be a bit more lax than on Wikipedia, seeing as it's an informal meeting place, but the general rule of "don't say anything you wouldn't say to them if they were in the channel" is probably a good rule of thumb and should be good enough to keep things from getting out of hand.
Question from Balloonman
- 21. Now that you've played 20 questions, what is the answer?
- A: Assuming I'm not misunderstanding your question, 42.
- Best answer yet!Balloonman (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Scott5114's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Scott5114: Scott5114 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scott5114 before commenting.
Discussion
- Re question #8 answer. Undisputed indefinite blocks are not effectively bans. Indefinite blocks are not infinite blocks: they just have no set duration and have to be manually removed. In practice, indefinite blocks don't need to be given out that carefully: their effect, in some cases, is really to force the user to start communicating and to agree to accept WP policies, with the idea that the block will eventually be ended. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as co-nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support as conom---probably the first thing Rschen and I have agreed upon in 3 months!Balloonman (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems trustworthy. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great candidate. Rudget (?) 09:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really co-operative with the UKRD/USRD thing :) Will (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Trustworthy, and his silver mop is long overdue. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. RC-0722 communicator/kills 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like he would make a good admin, with 100% edit summary usage, and great experience, I don't see why not. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks OK. The nom statements are very persuasive. Dlohcierekim 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent answers to the questions. I was leaning toward support anyway, but this gave me the nudge. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I worked with him during a GA review, and he did a good job. Excellent answers to the questions provided. miranda 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent answers. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no concerns. Xenon54 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per the superb answers to Majorly's SURREAL questions. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MBisanz talk 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Edit history: Very strong - Edit summaries: 100% since February 2006 - Warnings: None found - Blocks: None - Primary questions: No problems - Extra questions (4 - 19): No problems -- Scott5114 appears to be a trustworthy candidate. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I feel confident in supporting after the answer to the question I posed. --Ozgod (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the best nominations I have seen. Good introduction by the nominator, good answers to the question and well established and trustable candidate. My full support, good luck! Poeloq (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a well-qualified user to me. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hard-working editor. - Darwinek (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above. Good answers to questions. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After reviewing the candidate's contributions and the opening statement, I see no obvious reason to oppose. I'm confident Scott will do a good job as an administrator. AGK (contact) 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While admins are responsible to the community, I see no problem with one that appears to have a specific project interest. Tools are provided on the basis of trust, not need, but a sysop with specialist subject knowledge means the requirement for the intervention of a outside admin is diminished. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools, so yup!. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support- Per answers to questions. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good one. нмŵוτнτ 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I had positive interactions with this user, and I trust him with the tools. PrestonH 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No problem. --Abrech (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problem. A Raider Like Indiana (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - unless he plays his trombone at 3a.m. in the room above mine. Seriously, though, yes, a good candidate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This candidate seems OK. I see no reason to oppose. Majoreditor (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit-conflicted Strong Support I opposed Scott's last RfA, noting that he did not seem to have a grasp of the policies as shown by his limited participation in admin-related areas and answers to the questions. I joined many others in suggesting that he try and branch out a bit more from road-related work--I am delighted to see that he has taken this to heart and pleased to see that his meta contributions are now of the same quality as his fine mainspace contributions. I've participated in a number of XfD discussions with him and have been impressed by the effective, policy-based rationales he presents in each. I am also impressed by this closure of an MfD discussion per WP:SNOW--while this call may have been easier than most, I think it shows a willingness to make tough calls that is valuable in an admin. These factors combined with his much-improved answers to the questions leave me with no doubts about offering my support. --jonny-mt 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't see any problems. Good Luck. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to the questions, and a wide array of contributions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No real concerns. NB That is a stonking nomination... very persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like a strong editor. No reason to oppose. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The coaching page pretty much said it all for me, and I even learned a few things. I haven't always agreed with Balloonman, but I certainly can't deny that his coaching was spot-on for training a responsible, knowledgeable administrator. I think Scott5114 will be a fine admin. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I warn you to be careful in making rash decisions, and those actions you condone......see below discussion Dustitalk to me 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I don't have any concerns and I think you will make a great admin. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: After arguments in my talk page I changed a my vote:) Paweł Alden or my talk page 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *grin* I wouldn't really call asking your for clarification on your vote as 'arguments' :-) Balloonman (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Working with him at USRD - I've found that he has been great to work with - and he has been patient with his efforts (even under pressure) and has stuck with the goal. I'll let the experience and the above answers decide this. Give the man a mop! — master sonT - C 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ready, willing, and able. MrPrada (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support again as in his 1st RfA. Still a great editor, who meets all my standards, and his answers are much stronger now. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User seems to have learned from prior experience, exhibited civility on the sample of user talk edits that I checked, and appears cognizant of the proper policies and guidelines. I am reasonably comfortable that the user will exercise good judgment on behalf of the project. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all above. Good luck! GlassCobra 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above (everything that can be said has been said) and per my comments on his previous RFA. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've run into this editor at MfD and he seems to have good sense. The answers are fine though a bit brief, or maybe just concise.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the glowing nom is persuasive, and the candidate appears ready. --MPerel 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I just took a look at his previous RFA and I think that sense that he has learned a lot and I think that he deserves to be an admin. Mifter (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - see my neutral comments --Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good user. Acalamari 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong-to the point of dying Support-Scott, you're the one deserving of these tools. Hope for good luck.Mitch32contribs 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good strong editor. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. --Irpen 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems. Timmeh! 02:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile on support - All looks fine here. Net positive. Tiptoety talk 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments here in response to this leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Admittedly, the nominator of this RfA did much worse, but Scott's condoning, and the "it's like that" comment especially, are not what I like to see. I'll try to not mention how long it took me to close that discussion, but after doing so, to have this user (and, admittedly, several others) whine about my work and about the project in general just isn't on. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DHMO, as somebody who is not overly acquainted with Commons matters, being a non-regular, I don't follow your concerns: if you've got a second, could you elaborate/clarify? Obviously, it must be of a matter of sufficient seriousness as to spur you into opposition, and I'd very much like to factor your thoughts into my decision regarding support or opposition of this request—but I'd like to be 100% clear before I do so :) AGK (contact) 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a citation or a link so that we can judge upon that? seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, my major issue here isn't so much the deletion request. As I said, Scott didn't make it. My issue is the comment "Commons is like that for some incomprehensible reason." - This, a standalone aggressive comment, contributes to the us vs. them attitude that's already present in much of the Wiki. I understand others not sharing my opinion on this, but being a Commons regular and someone with strong feelings about that project, that comment really got my goat. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you didn't interpret that as a slight against you or any Commons administrator. I wasn't intending that to be an aggressive remark. I do respect Commons as a project and, indeed, quite like the concept of a central media repository. There are just some aspects of Commons policy (like their policies on superseded images) that I find kind of counter-intuitive. My comment was more meant to be read as a "yeah, that seems to be the way things work over there, much like you, I don't really understand/agree with it." "Incomprehensible" was a bit strong of a word to use. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've withdrawn my oppose; as I said, you weren't the major "culprit" (for lack of a better word) there. But I hope you understand why I can't bring myself to support this. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you didn't interpret that as a slight against you or any Commons administrator. I wasn't intending that to be an aggressive remark. I do respect Commons as a project and, indeed, quite like the concept of a central media repository. There are just some aspects of Commons policy (like their policies on superseded images) that I find kind of counter-intuitive. My comment was more meant to be read as a "yeah, that seems to be the way things work over there, much like you, I don't really understand/agree with it." "Incomprehensible" was a bit strong of a word to use. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, my major issue here isn't so much the deletion request. As I said, Scott didn't make it. My issue is the comment "Commons is like that for some incomprehensible reason." - This, a standalone aggressive comment, contributes to the us vs. them attitude that's already present in much of the Wiki. I understand others not sharing my opinion on this, but being a Commons regular and someone with strong feelings about that project, that comment really got my goat. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::::: Oppose Paweł Alden or my talk page 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral - Would like to support his user, but judging by the minimalist answers I just can't see that this user has put time and thought into their Rfa. There is no excuse for this kind of minimalist Rfa, one has all the time in the world after all! Sorry --Camaeron (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Changing to support. Generally I prefer longer answers but this user's good work has convinced me to "overloo" this personal requirement..just this time... Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have to point out that this candidate put more time and thought into their RfA than most---he went through Admin Coaching, which is more than most people. And a quick look at his coaching page will show that it wasn't just a spur the moment thing.Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Gut feeling, and per Camaeron. SpencerT♦C 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I question some of his \ her answers. It is not clear why he \ she wants to be an admin. If he \ she can clearly state why, I change my view to support. I fear if this is not done this user will be an admin who acts first and may or may not think second - sorry if this sounds negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Per Camaeron and I'm just not sure, I can't support unless I'm 100% sure that it's the right thing to do, sorry. Harland1 (t/c) 14:42, 10 March 2008 (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
== Alphachimp ==
I nominate Admin/SySoP Alphachimp for bureaucratship. In review of his contributions, I think he would make a great addition to the bureaucracy. --InvisibleDiplomat666 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related requests
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The 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.