→Discussion: reply |
→Discussion: fixed |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
;Additional optional questions from [[User:MC10|MC10]] |
;Additional optional questions from [[User:MC10|MC10]] |
||
:'''10.''' When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef-block a vandalizing IP editor? |
:'''10.''' When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef-block a vandalizing IP editor? |
||
::'''A:''' It should be normal to have to indef block an IP, as they are re-assigned, but if in some cases, such as a legal threat, or if the IP is a sock, an indef may be warranted, keeping in mind that 'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned. |
::'''A:''' It should be not normal to have to indef block an IP, as they are re-assigned, but if in some cases, such as a legal threat, or if the IP is a sock, an indef (or long term) may be warranted, keeping in mind that 'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned. |
||
:::I believe you mean that it should be normal to block an IP, not to indef-block an IP. IPs are almost never indefinitely blocked, because of the nature of the IPs, as IPs get rotated around, even if the IP is static, and even more so if IPs are dynamic. Range blocks can be made, but almost never should IPs be indef-blocked. Long-term blocks are recommended for long-term vandalizers. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|GB]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 L])</font></small>'''</span> 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::I believe you mean that it should be normal to block an IP, not to indef-block an IP. IPs are almost never indefinitely blocked, because of the nature of the IPs, as IPs get rotated around, even if the IP is static, and even more so if IPs are dynamic. Range blocks can be made, but almost never should IPs be indef-blocked. Long-term blocks are recommended for long-term vandalizers. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|GB]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 L])</font></small>'''</span> 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:'''11.''' When should cool down blocks be used and why? |
:'''11.''' When should cool down blocks be used and why? |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
***I was confused by that, so I replied to the candidate's response. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|GB]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 L])</font></small>'''</span> 05:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
***I was confused by that, so I replied to the candidate's response. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|GB]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 L])</font></small>'''</span> 05:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
****Oops. Slipped on the wording there, I'll fix it. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">[[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small></span></font> 05:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
****Oops. Slipped on the wording there, I'll fix it. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">[[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small></span></font> 05:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
****Fixed. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">[[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small></span></font> 05:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=====Support===== |
=====Support===== |
||
#'''Support''' Contributions come up to my standards. HJM has summarised the nom pretty concisely. Use the tools well Connormah. [[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red; text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"> ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ </span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣</sup>''']] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Contributions come up to my standards. HJM has summarised the nom pretty concisely. Use the tools well Connormah. [[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red; text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"> ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ </span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣</sup>''']] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:12, 10 July 2010
Connormah
(talk page) (3/0/2); Scheduled to end 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
Connormah (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to present to you Connormah's second request for adminship. Connormah registered his account way back in 2006 and has been mostly active since December 2008 and, in his time here thus far, he has clocked up over 16,000 edits in an impressive array of areas. He has uploaded over a thousand files under valid claims of fair use as well as many free images which he has uploaded to Commons. He is trusted with reviewer, autopatrolled and rollback rights, none of which have ever been removed from him. He has made his presence felt as a prolific vandal fighter, clocking up over 200 AIV reports, but he has proven himself to be so much more than just Cluebot, having also made well over 300 edits to WP:RPP, where he has also made comments on requests which I have found both clueful and helpful, saving time for the admin who has it review the request and his judgements on things protection expiry have rarely differed from my own. While his mainspace work is, admittedly, light, his work with images has been superb. His deleted contributions show many hundreds of spot on F5 (ununsed non-free file) taggings and he has nearly 400 edits to WP:GL/I as well as hundreds of other image-related posts scattered across the project. He has a desire to work in areas that are in constant need of willing admins so I hope the community agrees with me that he is a competent and capable editor who would make an excellent administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I plan to continue what I do regularly, uploading vector versions of fairuse images if necessary, but as far as admin-related areas, I intend to block vandals if necessary on WP:AIV, maybe come by WP:RFPP once in a while, and possibly dip into WP:UAA. At the moment, I intend the delete function to perform non-controversial moves that require deleting a redirect, but that, I think is as far as I'll go with the delete function, I'm not really interested in CSD or AFD. Basically, I will try not to allow admin chores to take all of my time I would use editing, but will use them if necessary, or just to help out (eg. clearing a backlog like AIV).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am quite proud of some of the signature images I've uploaded to Wikipedia (totaling to 100+), and my particularly minor edits that include fixing/adding infoboxes, {{Death date and age}} templates. Lastly I feel that my occasional anti-vandalism work and mostly accurate AIV reports, vandal fighting can be very tedious, and can test your patience quite a lot, and I think I've been doing fine.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: The most memorable conflict I've encountered during my editing time was a heated dispute with User:David Fuchs, over inserting a vector version of a logo to replace a raster. David erroneously claimed that WP:NFCC did not allow vectors (which was apparently discussed with no consensus previously). I was faced with a touch of incivility, but I think I handled myself pretty well throughout, though my immaturity at that time was quite evident. In the future, I would have been less persistent about including the vector, and I would have discussed more, rather than edit war, as I did. An ANI thread regarding this incident can be seen here.
- Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
- 4. What is your opinion on the current 4 warnings then block system that we use for common vandals?
- A: I, personally think 4 warnings is too much for common vandals. When warning, I usually evaluate which warning to give case by case. I think to myself "Was this a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia?" (eg - replacing a whole article with obscenities, introducing BLP violations, etc.). If the answer is yes, I usually start off with a level 2 or 3, depending on the severity. Some severe cases, I believe can warrant immediate blocks (eg, this). If the edit in question does appear to be made in good faith, I will start with a #1 warning, and maybe go to 2, but after that, I believe a more detailed explanation of why the edit is wrong is needed. Registered, new accounts that seem to deliberately vandalize should be treated more harshly - I just don't get why we should waste time with letting them vandalize 4 or more times (some AIV reports are not dealt with that swiftly), gradually rising warning levels, where, frankly the account is probably ignoring the warnings, vandalizing again after each revert. IPs, I feel should be treated in a similar manner, but blocks should vary in duration, depending on the type of IP (repeat offending school IPs should be dealt with more harshly, IMO, while non-static IPs should typically have shorter blocks).
- 5. Do you have any scripts that I don't have that you think would be useful for me? (Feel free to take any scripts I currently have in my monobook.js)
- A: Nope, sorry :). I'm not really a script guy, I only Twinkle to help with my AIV/RFPP reports, which are somewhat time consuming to type out manually.
Additional optional questions from khfan93 (talk · contribs) (optional for a support vote, that is :) )
- 6. An IP is vandalising an article that is on your watchlist. You run the user with all four warning levels, and then they stop vandalizing. The following week, the user makes another malicious edit or two. Do you run them through the warning levels again, or block him/her immediatly? Justify your answer.
- A: In that case, I'd issue a final warning (depending on the severity of the edit, maybe if not too severe, a level 3), and if they make another unwanted edit, it'd be a block, or warning, also depending on severity. I'd have to say that it depends though, the IP could be non-static, so it would not be an immediate block. I would, though, definitely not run through all the warning levels again, 4 warnings should be enough to get the message through, anymore violations, and a block should be put in place, duration depending on block history.
- 7. Do you view the glass of water that is Wikipedia as half-full or half-empty? What about the glass that is life?
- A:
- 8. Let's say an established, friendly editor (numerous edits, many constructive, generally good rapport) suddenly begins tagging pages like United States of America, Wii, and March with {{db}} tags. How would you react in this situation?
- A:
- Additional optional question from Mono
- 9. Say someone asks an editor a question at their RfA about their perspective on life, and dishware. Do you think they are wasting the candidate's time, or do you believe that "candidate's view on life in relation to dish ware" is a viable reason to oppose a candidate?
- A: Interesting question. I don't really see this as wasting time, though there could be strong arguments from both sides. I'd say that, in an administrative role, there may be some strange situations, and questions, and that you should be prepared for them. However, I don't really see the situation you listed the best reason to oppose, but the user who opposes would be totally entitled to his or her opinion, which I would respect entirely, and not badger.
- Additional optional questions from MC10
- 10. When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef-block a vandalizing IP editor?
- A: It should be not normal to have to indef block an IP, as they are re-assigned, but if in some cases, such as a legal threat, or if the IP is a sock, an indef (or long term) may be warranted, keeping in mind that 'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned.
- I believe you mean that it should be normal to block an IP, not to indef-block an IP. IPs are almost never indefinitely blocked, because of the nature of the IPs, as IPs get rotated around, even if the IP is static, and even more so if IPs are dynamic. Range blocks can be made, but almost never should IPs be indef-blocked. Long-term blocks are recommended for long-term vandalizers. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- A: It should be not normal to have to indef block an IP, as they are re-assigned, but if in some cases, such as a legal threat, or if the IP is a sock, an indef (or long term) may be warranted, keeping in mind that 'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned.
- 11. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
- A: I feel that cool down blocks should never be used, as most likely it will anger the already angry user more, but if an angry user is being disruptive, It should be entirely appropriate to issue a block to prevent any more potential disruption.
General comments
- Links for Connormah: Connormah (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Connormah can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Edit stats posted on talk page. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 04:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The answer to Q10 states "It should be normal to have to indef block an IP" – do you mean "It should not be normal to have to indef block an IP"? Airplaneman ✈ Review? 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Support
- Support Contributions come up to my standards. HJM has summarised the nom pretty concisely. Use the tools well Connormah. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a bit quick to jump here, but I think you've improved enough from the last one. ceranthor 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support – I trust Connormah with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- I don't have a vote for you because my own position is that I'm not looking for a way to slap someone down; if you've got a sense of how you want to contribute, and you make it work, fine. But I've got an opinion: I think you should be up front about your reaction to your last RFA; it looks like you didn't like the advice you got. Looking quickly through your deleted contribs since your first RFA, I don't see a single non-image CSD tagging. The community seemed to be asking for a little broader knowledge; it looks like you've gotten more focused. Some asked for "content"; have you had any DYKs or GAs since the first RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've become disinterested with CSD, honestly, since my last RfA. I have gained a better knowledge on the CSD policy, but I am not interested in CSD tagging. Like I stated above, I'd like to limit my admin activity, if this succeeds, to AIV and RFPP, without it interfering with my regular editing. The same goes for content writing - I did do a slight expansion on George H. V. Bulyea, but after that, I feel that I'm more comfortable with performing minor edits, as I just feel content is not my forte. Not to say I won't ever attempt writing content, I'd love to do a bit of more content work in the future. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like your straightforward answers. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've become disinterested with CSD, honestly, since my last RfA. I have gained a better knowledge on the CSD policy, but I am not interested in CSD tagging. Like I stated above, I'd like to limit my admin activity, if this succeeds, to AIV and RFPP, without it interfering with my regular editing. The same goes for content writing - I did do a slight expansion on George H. V. Bulyea, but after that, I feel that I'm more comfortable with performing minor edits, as I just feel content is not my forte. Not to say I won't ever attempt writing content, I'd love to do a bit of more content work in the future. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll do a full review soon. —mono(how's my driving?) 03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)