Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) support RfA |
Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) →Oppose: headless |
||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
#::::The edit is still on the page and still technically unsourced; is it really worth opposing for? Still, I'm not ready to support, but I certainly won't oppose. '''[[User:Soap|<font color="green">—</font>]][[User talk:Soap|<font color="057602">''Soap''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Soap|<font color="green">—</font>]]''' 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
#::::The edit is still on the page and still technically unsourced; is it really worth opposing for? Still, I'm not ready to support, but I certainly won't oppose. '''[[User:Soap|<font color="green">—</font>]][[User talk:Soap|<font color="057602">''Soap''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Soap|<font color="green">—</font>]]''' 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:::::For some supporters little short of genocide is really worth opposing over. But this lack of sourcing is a feature of what very few contributions this candidate has made to article space, as I pointed out above. It's not the quantity of contributions ''per se'' that's of concern it's their quality. I understand that many administrators consider [[WP:CIVIL]] to be the most important of the five pillars, but this candidate doesn't even seem to be on nodding terms with an equally or perhaps even more important one, [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
#:::::For some supporters little short of genocide is really worth opposing over. But this lack of sourcing is a feature of what very few contributions this candidate has made to article space, as I pointed out above. It's not the quantity of contributions ''per se'' that's of concern it's their quality. I understand that many administrators consider [[WP:CIVIL]] to be the most important of the five pillars, but this candidate doesn't even seem to be on nodding terms with an equally or perhaps even more important one, [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:::: (reply to [[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]]). The [[decapitation]] article is a general one about animals in general, as the lead indicates. This includes insects which can survive decapitation for long periods - some live longer if you cut their head off. The key point here is that we have an editor who seems lack elementary knowledge of key policies such as [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]. But let's verify this by looking at another edit such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decapitation&diff=prev&oldid=358726537 "fixed year of Tahvo Putkonen's execution to be consistent with the existing article on this person"]. Now he obviously means well but seems not yet to understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And the article that he's using as a benchmark for this fix doesn't have <u>any</u> sources. I did some digging and my impression is that the English article is based upon the Finnish equivalent. That has some sources - a genealogy site. A guy roots around in court records because "[http://www.genealogia.fi/genos/68/68_55.htm I am trying to check who is in Finland the last person beheaded, because there seems to be different information]". I'm not sure what the contrary information is because my Finnish isn't up to it. By our customary standards, we shouldn't have the [[Tahvo Putkonen]] article and so I shall now nominate it for deletion. I wouldn't trust the candidate to close the AFD because he doesn't seem to understand the basic principles of this place and so should not be an admin. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
#(Moved from neutral) Well, no wonder you state in question 4 that you're willing to block a user for "edit warring" because they repeatedly removed unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially [[Wikipedia:Libel|libelous]] material about an organization: you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself! "It's obvious" is an inadequate excuse: if the truth of the material were plainly apparent, there would be no purpose in inflicting such useless banalities upon the reader. [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 17:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
#(Moved from neutral) Well, no wonder you state in question 4 that you're willing to block a user for "edit warring" because they repeatedly removed unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially [[Wikipedia:Libel|libelous]] material about an organization: you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself! "It's obvious" is an inadequate excuse: if the truth of the material were plainly apparent, there would be no purpose in inflicting such useless banalities upon the reader. [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 17:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:There's no need for rhetoric such as "you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself". Also, which of the exemptions to the 3RR did those reverts fall under, because I'm not seeing it? [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
#:There's no need for rhetoric such as "you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself". Also, which of the exemptions to the 3RR did those reverts fall under, because I'm not seeing it? [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:16, 12 December 2010
Richwales
(talk page) (32/9/3); Scheduled to end 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
Richwales (talk · contribs) – Richwales has been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years. In that time, he has started or heavily revised four articles (including one DYK); has made significant contributions to fifteen more (one of which gained a week-long WP:ITN listing); and has made minor wikignome improvements, offered assistance (including "third opinions"), and fought vandalism on many pages. He hasn't been the most prolific editor, but he has been a steady contributor.
Rich has tried, in several cases, to mediate disputes between competing factions with strongly held positions and limited tolerance for opposing views. As a result of those experiences he has learned some of the finer points of the NPOV policy, gained practice explaining it to other users, experienced the challenges of achieving consensus, and refined his "people skills" in difficult situations.
He has shown that he has good sense, works well with others, and makes positive contributions to the project. In my opinion, he would be a careful, conscientious, and useful administrator. Will Beback talk 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:19, 11 December 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: Initially, I expect most of my admin work will deal with reducing edit warring and vandalism. Since I started editing in 2005, I've done a fair amount of work in this area — by trying to forge consensus between warring factions; by seeking extra input on articles where a small established group of players have reached an impasse; and by reporting obstinately counterproductive editors. I have also reverted (and, since getting rollbacker rights in January 2008, rolled back) far more clearly inappropriate edits than I can count.
- In one case, responding to a "third opinion" request (at East–West Schism) resulted in my getting involved in an extended effort to mediate an ongoing dispute extending over several related articles. Since admins are often called upon to intervene in random situations, this sort of experience is clearly an important thing for me to be acquiring.
- Having the admin tools would allow me to supplement what I can already do with the additional ability (where appropriate) to do a block or a semi-protect myself instead of having to get someone else to do it. I'm sure I will branch out over time into other admin areas, but I understand and agree with the advice to go slow and not try to take on too many new tasks all at once.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have made major contributions to several articles dealing with United States citizenship and immigration law. My first big piece of work on Wikipedia, in 2005, was a major rewrite of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a landmark Supreme Court citizenship case from the 1890s. I also started an article on Vance v. Terrazas (another citizenship law case) in 2007, and I have made significant contributions to Afroyim v. Rusk (another citizenship case) and Plyler v. Doe (a case dealing with the rights of illegal immigrants). An article I started (White Horse Prophecy) made DYK in June 2010.
- 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 stressful editing conflict I've been involved with happened in February 2010 and involved Another Gospel, a book linked to the Christian countercult movement. After an initial and embarrassing novice stumble in the AfD world (my first impression of the article was that it was hopelessly flawed and really belonged as a small part of a wider article on the subject in general), I accepted that other editors really wanted the article to stay, and I resolved to do whatever I could to improve the page. Although my attempts to fix the problems I saw in the article were initially met with fierce resistance, I did eventually manage to get some (not all, but some) of my concerns fixed — in part following requests to WP:3O and WP:RFC. If I ever encounter a similar situation in the future, I will definitely try harder to find good sources earlier, rather than later. And if I ever find myself pulled into a contentious situation like this as an uninvolved admin, I'll make every appropriate effort to persuade people to work cooperatively rather than as adversaries.
- Additional optional question from Mkativerata
- 4. Assume that your RfA passed on 4 November 2010. I supported it. On your first day as an admin I have come to your talk page with this message, congratulating you on your RfA and asking for your help with the tools on a matter in which I am involved. I am asking you to consider protecting this page on a Malaysian political party (assume it is on the mainspace). I've been trying to stop the insertion of material by a new editor, User:KMalaysia (see the article's history). I think the material is unreliable and POV. Please (a) respond to my message on your talk page; and (b) describe here what action you would take, if any, in respect of the page and the editors concerned.
- A. See that section of my talk page for my response in detail. In brief, I would give the other editor (a very new editor who is not obviously trying to vandalize) a strong warning to stop violating WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA; direct him/her to WP:RS and WP:NPOV; mention specifically that blogs are not acceptable sources; and caution him/her that s/he will get a 24-hour block if s/he persists in his/her current misbehaviour. You, on the other hand, are an admin (and should know better, and are to be held to a higher standard), so I would give you an immediate 24-hour block and suggest you use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating. Additionally, since (as a highly involved administrator) you had no business simply erasing the other editor's page protection request (as alluded to in one of your edit summaries), I would reinstate that request — and then decline it in the proper way, since protecting the page is not appropriate here. This was, by the way, a very interesting exercise (and complicated in numerous subtle ways); I hope I managed to catch all the issues you raised. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional questions from Access Denied
- 5. What is your opinion on the double standard between admins and other editors? If an admin was edit-warring with a non-admin, how would you administer the blocks?
- A: See my answer to question #4 above. In an obvious, blatant instance of edit-warring, I would consider the admin to have already been warned a long time ago, and I wouldn't hesitate to impose a block on him/her right away (while, at the same time, giving the non-admin the benefit of at least one warning). I believe this is fair and appropriate, since administrators can be expected to know better than to engage in serious misbehaviour. There are, however, borderline cases which reasonable people might perceive differently; in such a case, I believe it would be proper to give an admin a polite (albeit urgent) warning to reexamine his/her manner of editing before I would feel obligated to block him/her to prevent further disruption. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- 6. What is your opinion on civility blocks? Where should the line be drawn between incivility and personal attacks?
- A: My impression, from reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, is that personal attacks are a particular type (and often, though not always, an extreme type) of incivility. The basic "don't do it" concept is the same — always try to be polite, try not to offend, and focus comments on content rather than personalities. And conversely: assume others are acting in good faith, and try not to take offence (even to the point of sometimes letting something that might be a bit improper pass by without comment). Rather than expend lots of hair-splitting effort on deciding whether a given comment is "incivility" on the one hand, or a "personal attack" on the other, the important thing seems to me to be that we should try hard not to engage in any sort of misbehaviour of this type. And I personally make it a habit, by the way, of re-reading anything I write on a talk page several times to be absolutely sure it says what I really mean (and, hopefully, so I won't be misunderstood and possibly offend people). As for how to respond to incivility or personal attacks, and when to block, the policy pages suggest that there's a continuum in each case — minor incidents (possibly resulting from misunderstanding) may best be simply ignored or call for a gentle word of caution, while extreme incidents of either type may require immediate and strong actions (including even an indefinite block until a particularly egregious remark is retracted). But the general rule for blocks, as I understand it, is that blocks are not to be issued in order to punish, but rather as a means of preventing future disruption of Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- 7. If an editor has a long-term pattern of serious personal attacks, trolling, and use of good-hand bad-hand accounts to troll and deceive, but they have also produced quality content, does their content work cancel out their abusive behavior such that they should not be blocked?
- A: Short answer: No. (Regrettably no, perhaps, but still no.)
- Longer answer: I think WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors describes the issue well when it says that "By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing...." Also WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad: "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."
- When warning people who are seriously violating the accepted policies or norms, I have sometimes commented that if s/he persists, s/he likely to get blocked from editing, and if that happens, the community will thereby lose the opportunity to benefit from whatever helpful contributions the person might otherwise have been able to make here.
- And since I just replied to a "blocking" question by quoting from the "banning" policy, I know I need to say that I do know the difference between a ban (a ruling that someone may not edit certain pages or, in some cases, may not edit at all) and a block (a technical mechanism which enforces a site ban by making it impossible for a user to edit even if they try). Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Minimac
- 8. Have you worked, or have you had an intention to work in the backlog? If so, what areas were or would you be interested in?
- A: In July 2010, I signed up for the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog elimination drive. Unfortunately, I only had time back then to work on cleaning up one article — History of Bălţi (about a city in Moldova). As I look right now at the backlog list, some of the categories (aside from "copy edit") which I believe I would find interesting are "minor POV problems", "biography articles without listas parameter", and "disambiguation pages in need of cleanup". Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Sandstein
- 9. You made a recent revert ([1]) with the edit summary "rvv", which is shorthand for "reverting vandalism". Do you believe that the edit you reverted was vandalism, and if yes, would you – as an administrator – block the user who made it?
- A: This specific revert needs to be understood in context, and I would recommend you take a look at the recent revision history of the "Anchor baby" article. An editor (happens to have been an "anonymous" person using an IP address instead of an account, but that's not the point here) made a particular change five times within a period of a little over a week — four of these times being within a period of less than 12 hours. Two editors (myself and one other person) reverted this change, indicating (first in edit summaries, and then on the user's talk page and the article's talk page) that the disputed phrase was supported by reliable sources cited in the text of the article and could not simply be removed without (a) reviewing the sources involved and (b) discussing the proposed change on the talk page and reaching a consensus that a change was warranted. Even after the IP-anon finally did start discussing (actually, mostly just arguing) on the article talk page, he still made the change again, twice, without obtaining a consensus first. It was at this point that I made the revert you asked about (with "rvv" in the edit summary); given what had happened up to this point, I felt the editor's actions had clearly crossed over into negligent (or possibly malicious) territory.
- Note, too, that at this same time I also filed a notice at the administrators' edit-warring noticeboard — and the IP-anon ended up being blocked for 24 hours by an uninvolved admin. Aside from my concern that the person in question was edit-warring, I lodged the notice when I did because I believed it was important to create an official record of what was going on, lest an admin might possibly come by and, without noticing the big picture, conclude that all three of us (the IP-anon and the two of us who were reverting him) were edit-warring and deserved sanctions. This was also the basis for my decision to use "rvv" in my last edit summary — again, to alert other people to the true nature of what was happening.
- In point of fact, I use "rvv" (or variations thereon) very rarely. At one time, I was pretty quick to label questionable edits as vandalism in my edit summaries, but I eventually came to the conclusion (see this comment from 2008) that a too liberal use of "rvv" in edit summaries could be inflammatory, and maybe even uncivil. I have backed off a little bit from my decision, back then, to stop using the "rvv" edit summary tag entirely, but I currently try to use it only in cases where someone simply isn't getting the point and I feel it to be essential that others should clearly realize that I'm fighting inappropriate edits and not trying to participate in an edit war.
- Finally, I want to say that although there may perhaps be a valid reason to question the content that was in dispute in this particular case (indeed, the uninvolved admin who did the 24-hour block questioned whether the disputed phrase really belonged or not), the overarching issue here was not a content dispute as such. Even if the IP-anon may have had a point, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to handle this sort of thing, and engaging in a revert war was unquestionably the wrong way. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum to my answer above: Although I do believe the IP-anon's misbehaviour in the above scenario did descend to a level where it was proper for me to label it as vandalism, I would not have blocked this person myself (if I had been an admin), but I would still have reported it (as I did) and allowed someone else to decide whether to give the block or not. Although, technically, reverting vandalism doesn't negate an admin's status as "uninvolved", it could reasonably have raised questions in this case, and it would be better for me to take the more cautious approach. Further, it happens that I have been significantly involved with this particular article in the past — in discussions over whether the term "anchor baby" is inherently derogatory or not — so for me to give a block myself in this case would definitely make a reasonable person wonder if I were abusing my administrative powers to advance my own position on the dispute. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Richwales: Richwales (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Richwales can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Edit stats posted on talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 14:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Support
- I see no issues here. Richwales should make a great admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Per nom. Will Beback talk 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support Still awaiting answer to Q7, but answer to Q5 and Q6 are spot on. Excellent balance of vandal fighting and content work. access_denied (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I like what I see in the candidate's history, and the answers given to date look good to me -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Q4 was aced, in my view. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with the block (I don't) nonetheless considers that all important points were covered, and the candidate showed he knows admin misconduct when he sees it. Otherwise, everything looks great. The candidate is clearly an excellent communicator (see edit summaries) which will serve him well with the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- In my view, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR are important points. WP:EW is not a license for biased users to force material from political activist blogs into Wikipedia, so long as they are sufficiently numerous, and neutral editors are sufficiently few. Administrators need to understand that Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission should come first, and not enable obvious disruptive editing. The "block everyone" response to edit warring should be reserved for cases in which it is not immediately obvious to an uninvolved administrator who is in the right (both "sides" have apparently reliable sources that seem to support their preferred versions.) Chester Markel (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Thoughtful answers to the questions, no problems that I could find in the edit history; seems to have a good temperament and understanding of policy. 28bytes (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per answers to Q1-7, which show a responsible and considered attitude to the use of the tools. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions and a good history of interactions with other editors. A bold response to questions 4 & 5. It is true that admins are expected to have a higher standard of conduct. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Has clue... and knowledge... and a clean block log after 5 years... I think it's time for me to go ahead and support this nomination. Minimac (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good answers to the questions and has more than enough experience. I have only seen good contributions from Rich and the mop will help him make even more of them. Airplaneman ✈ 14:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your response to question nine was well done. In response to your answer to question four, I would advise you to perhaps contact the admin first, directly, and demand that they revert their own edit. As an administrator, you can do the right thing in this situation without using your button. It would not be wrong to block the admin, but it would possibly be more correct to take a less drastic method. Nonetheless, it appears that you are qualified to do administrative work. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I want to note that although he has a slightly lower participation level in the projectspace, he makes up for this with clue. Malinaccier (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support He has a lot of experience, so he should be fine. WAYNESLAM 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support per answers to questions. Not even looking at the relatively low edit count (by today's RfA standards), this user has a great understanding of policies and dispute resolution. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- RayTalk 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support very longterm user with a clean blocklog and no real negatives that I could see. Technically yes Malleus is right in that Admins shouldn't get fewer warnings than other editors, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that we should be setting an example, and therefore will not oppose for his views on that. ϢereSpielChequers 20:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a general comment, not a comment on this candidate's answer to Q4, I really can't see that the present state of affairs, which swings wildly between administrators sometimes being given far more leeway than mere editors and sometimes far less, can be anything but an unhealthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, I agree that consistency is a virtue, and I'd prefer an attitude of "if anyone is entitle to greater rope it is newbies not admins". But I'm not going to oppose this candidate over that answer. As for your comment re the present state of affairs and wild swings, are you talking about inconsistencies over time, between different parts of the project or from different admins, and more to the point how would opposing this candidate for that reason affect that issue? ϢereSpielChequers 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a general comment, not a comment on this candidate's answer to Q4, I really can't see that the present state of affairs, which swings wildly between administrators sometimes being given far more leeway than mere editors and sometimes far less, can be anything but an unhealthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good answer to Q4, and the diff LoveMonkey cites below is the kind to aspire to. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Not seeing any issues. ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 21:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I like the answers to the optional questions. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per #1 & #2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Canceling out some of the ridiculous opposes, I don't see a problem with you. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which of the opposes do you think are ridiculous? I think that some of the
opposessupports are ridiculous as it happens, especially the rather ridiculous "Why not? votes". Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)- I would assume you mean ridiculous supports, well, Fastily's Why Not is legit, s/he has his own set of RFA criteria, and if that person meets all the criteria, s/he signs with why not. I think LoveMonkeys oppose is ridiculous because s/he states This person should not be an administrator and then says that he already acts like an administrator, referring that Richwales telling him/her to use more edit summaries is inappropriate, that makes no sense. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume that you mean "set of of RFA criterion", as "set" is obviously a collective noun. But you said "some" opposes, which implies more than one, yet you have mentioned only one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my mistake, I did not wholly agree with Swarms oppose, stating that he has a lack of activity, while 50-100 edits a month would not be alot, it has been steady for over two years, and I would not expect it to suddenly drop. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- So because I feel 50-100 edits a month is too little of an activity level for an administrator, you call my oppose rationale ridiculous and vote 'support' specifically to spite the users you disagree with? Thank you for that. I love RfA, where someone always feels it's okay to throw pleasantness out the window. Swarm X 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I called the numbers part of you vote ridiculous, quality not quantity. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- So because I feel 50-100 edits a month is too little of an activity level for an administrator, you call my oppose rationale ridiculous and vote 'support' specifically to spite the users you disagree with? Thank you for that. I love RfA, where someone always feels it's okay to throw pleasantness out the window. Swarm X 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my mistake, I did not wholly agree with Swarms oppose, stating that he has a lack of activity, while 50-100 edits a month would not be alot, it has been steady for over two years, and I would not expect it to suddenly drop. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume that you mean "set of of RFA criterion", as "set" is obviously a collective noun. But you said "some" opposes, which implies more than one, yet you have mentioned only one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume you mean ridiculous supports, well, Fastily's Why Not is legit, s/he has his own set of RFA criteria, and if that person meets all the criteria, s/he signs with why not. I think LoveMonkeys oppose is ridiculous because s/he states This person should not be an administrator and then says that he already acts like an administrator, referring that Richwales telling him/her to use more edit summaries is inappropriate, that makes no sense. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which of the opposes do you think are ridiculous? I think that some of the
- Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good answers and sustained effort throughout. Andrei S (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Good answers to the questions. —mc10 (t/c) 06:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Good answers to questions. As someone who became an admin with a good deal of time experience, but arguably limited editing experience, I have confidence that you can do what is expected of an admin without four thousand edits being a concern. One two three... 09:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. This editor's history convince me he would have a steady and unbiased hand on the tiller. Criticism as to number of edits is just silly since any drone can accumulate thousands of brainless edits. I see an attempt to create quality rather than acquire quantity. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could provide a link to some of this quality that the candidate has in your opinion created then? Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer not to. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I quite understand that you are unable to, but I fail to see why you would prefer not to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Despite your accusation that I would be unable to show quality edits by the candidate (thus hinting at both my incompetence and/or my honesty), my response using Bartleby the Scrivener's choice quote is more an attempt to gently disengage with you and your apparent vigorous mission against this candidate. I read your original oppose and your rationale. I let your statement stand as expressed without comment. I request you consider extending a similar courtesy to others. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I quite understand that you are unable to, but I fail to see why you would prefer not to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer not to. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could provide a link to some of this quality that the candidate has in your opinion created then? Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Answers to the questions above, as well as a review of some recent contributions show me that Richwales won't abuse the tools. Definitely a good candidate! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Cerebral answers to questions combined with the candidate's long-term commitment to the project make a strong case for support; however, I do have to confess that I'm somewhat stunned at the level of opposition to this nom.--Hokeman (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I believe he is a experienced editor, who has proven himself to be ready for the role of becoming an admin. --BobNewbie talk 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I can appreciate what some of the opposes say about wanting more contributions, and ideally, I would have preferred that too, but other factors make me support. I think that the answers to questions here have been very strong. I see an impressive ability to conduct himself in the ways that I want administrators to act, in areas where there are strong content disputes, and these things taken together give me confidence to support. In fact, I'm concerned that a big part (not all) of the opposition is simply what comes with doing good editing in areas where opinions run high, and I don't want to see that scuttle this RfA. Specifically, I'm very interested in building NPOV at pages dealing with religious controversies, and so I've just spent some time reviewing at length the page histories concerning the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox subjects that are discussed in some of the opposes. I've had a lot of experience working closely with Esoglou/Lima at Crucifixion for as long as I've been editing here, and more recently with Taiwan boi at Christianity and violence, and I've found both of them to be very good editors to work with, so it caught my attention to see how they regard this RfA so differently. I've very carefully reviewed Richwales' comments at the talk pages of the involved editors, and, bottom line, I think Rich has been spot on. Oh, and that high dudgeon about whether decapitation is medically reversible (something quite different from spinal cord regrowth, I assure you!) is hardly worth discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- support This editor seems to me to both skilled and careful. If he does not have as high an edit frequency as many other editors, then so be it. Surely quality is better than quantity. Many of the oppose votes seem to me to be excessively superficial, and having read them all and followed the relevant links I personally find them unconvincing.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. This candidate appears to have no significant content experience; the last thing wikipedia needs right now is yet more career administrators lording it over those who are actually trying to produce some decent content. The candidate mentions United States v. Wong Kim Ark, to which he has 75 edits, as one his biggest and best pieces of work, yet it is almost completely uncited and has contained two request for citation tags since June. This does not seem to be setting a good example. I'm also troubled by the answer to Q4. Administrators should be held to exactly the same standards as any other editor, neither higher nor lower. That and the answers to several other questions give me the distinct impression that this candidate might be altogether too keen to be handed the block hammer. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. This person should not be an administrator. This person has been defending User:Esoglou and covering for this biased and POV pushing editor while not once publicly criticizing Esoglou for his various edit wars and wiki hounding behavior go look at Esoglou's talkpage and thats only the tip of the iceberg. This person is hypercritical and blinded and therefore will just contribute to making even more editors leave the project because of administrator protecting their their pet editors and those pet editors edit warring activities. The fact this person is up for administrator is proof of just how mess up wikipedia has become. Richwales already acts like and administrator as the inappropriate comments he posted to my talkpage today shows. [2]LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you perhaps mean "hypocritical" rather than "hypercritical"? BTW, I can hardly believe I'm writing this, but it isn't right to tar all administrators with the same brush. Sure, there are too many that ought not to be left unattended, but there are quite a few decent and honourable ones as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- LoveMonkey, the diff you provided makes me want to support the candidate even more. That has to be the most restrained, polite, and non-threatening "warning" I've ever seen on a talk page. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- If this person already acts like an administrator, shouldn't he be one? And, how does telling you about using edit summaries constitute as an administrative action, I don't ever recall reading somewhere that non-admins couldn't do that. Maybe I missed something. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- LoveMonkey, the diff you provided makes me want to support the candidate even more. That has to be the most restrained, polite, and non-threatening "warning" I've ever seen on a talk page. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you perhaps mean "hypocritical" rather than "hypercritical"? BTW, I can hardly believe I'm writing this, but it isn't right to tar all administrators with the same brush. Sure, there are too many that ought not to be left unattended, but there are quite a few decent and honourable ones as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – I can't see why he needs the tools. One of the stated uses would be vandlaism fighting; but looking at his edit figures, he has made less than five reports to WP:AIV. (WP:AIV doesn't show up on his most edited pages in the Wikipedia name space while the last, and least edited, one on the list has five edits.) If he's rolled back "far more edits than [he] can count", but has only made at most 5 AIV reports then he either misunderstands what vandalism is, or misunderstand AIV. Over a six year period that isn't a lot at all. From a content point of view, well, five new articles in six years isn't what I'd expect. I'd like to see more experience at the coal face before giving anyone a promotion. I counted ten months, out of the last 70, where the user made more than 100 edits per month, i.e. more than four a day. The activity levels just aren't high enough. We need someone who's around, in touch and contributing. If he gains more experience in AIV, increase his involvement in the project, and produce more content then I would happily reconsider. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose For multiple reasons, primarily because they have a huge lack of experience. User only has 4,000 edits, and in six years time that shows a lack of activity that isn't desirable for an admin. First, I agree with Malleus about the lack of content experience. In addition, doesn't seem to have experience in the areas they intend to work. Virtually no experience in the Wikipedia namespace whatsoever (less than 200 edits!). Only ten edits at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and apparently less than five reports at WP:AIV! Are any of the 'why nots' actually looking at this user, or do they just not care? Although I disdain WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, the edit counts alone show a lack of experience that I can't trust in. Response to Q7 gives me the impression that user is unfamiliar with WP:No vested contributors. Some of their other answers are unsatisfying to me as well, but my real issue is the huge lack of experience. Swarm X 22:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly hope all supporters and opposes are looking at the editor. I have, and I've dismissed the so-called "low edit count" as a concern because it is abundantly clear to me that the candidate makes full use of the preview button, making his count look a fair bit lower than other editors with "similar experience". (Note: I do agree with Malleus that the content work is less than stellar; but adminning AIV is so bloody simple I don't care if he's never made a report there). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- You have 16,000 edits in three years (or one year since you became active), is that because you don't make good use of the preview button? I'm inclined to believe it's because you're very active here, something that I can't say for this user. Swarm X 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I did use the preview button as much as I should, I'd have significantly fewer edits, that's for sure :) But more to the point, if we're talking about scrutinising the candidate (a good thing), is there any demonstrable evidence of the lack of experience? A cock-up that a more experienced editor would not have made? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- The less you edit, the less likely you are to make a cock-up. There's clearly a problem with the candidate's activity level. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Swarm, if you look at X's edit tool, he has been editing steadily from November 2005. I wouldn't really call that a lack of activity, some people just can put forward 300 edits a month. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The less you edit, the less likely you are to make a cock-up. There's clearly a problem with the candidate's activity level. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I did use the preview button as much as I should, I'd have significantly fewer edits, that's for sure :) But more to the point, if we're talking about scrutinising the candidate (a good thing), is there any demonstrable evidence of the lack of experience? A cock-up that a more experienced editor would not have made? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- You have 16,000 edits in three years (or one year since you became active), is that because you don't make good use of the preview button? I'm inclined to believe it's because you're very active here, something that I can't say for this user. Swarm X 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly hope all supporters and opposes are looking at the editor. I have, and I've dismissed the so-called "low edit count" as a concern because it is abundantly clear to me that the candidate makes full use of the preview button, making his count look a fair bit lower than other editors with "similar experience". (Note: I do agree with Malleus that the content work is less than stellar; but adminning AIV is so bloody simple I don't care if he's never made a report there). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lack of experience, lack of activity, inadequate use of citations, and I have seen him observe an edit war without significant intervention or contributions towards resolution. On the "Theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox" page Catholic editor User:Esoglou repeatedly made POV edits misrepresenting the Orthodox position (improperly sourced edits, misrepresentation of sources), and engaged in extended edit warring. Several times I made the suggestion that the User:Esoglou confine himself to edits which discuss the Catholic position, and that User:LoveMonkey confine himself to those which discuss the Orthodox position (which he was mostly doing anyway), in order to try and reduce the friction. I also opposed User:Esoglou's disruptive editing. Richard observed the edit warring but made very few attempts to resolve the situation, other than a couple of requests that people stop edit warring. Richard rightly commented that the article needed to be reduced drastically in size, but didn't do anything about it. I made some bold edits, removing extensive material on specific subjects to the respective subject pages, which finally defused the edit warring on the page, a move which Richard supported. I would have liked to have seen Richard take active steps to resolving the problem, especially since the entire issue was the result of one consistently disruptive editor, User:Esoglou.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I'd like to mention that I did make some additional efforts to improve the situation at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. I posted a request at WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, in an attempt to get more editors participating on the page. I also posted a request on OrthodoxWiki (an outside wiki) for more participation here; and I contacted a few individual editors and asked them to consider contributing to the discussion. I was (and still am) convinced that an article on an inherently controversial subject (such as this) needs more than just two active editors; otherwise, it is impossible to achieve consensus when disagreements arise, and each editor is really forced into a situation where s/he must attempt to present and critique both sides of the issue (making allegations of distortion/misrepresentation almost unavoidable). Merely chasing one or both of the existing editors away might have put a temporary end to the drama, but it would not have improved the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard, my comment wasn't intended to be unmitigated criticism and I apologize that it came across that way. I should have balanced it by acknowledging your efforts at the Theosis page (I have also appreciated your balanced work at the Christianity & violence page). However, I would have liked to have seen you do the same at the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences page. Getting more editors involved was not the solution because it wasn't addressing the problem. The problem was that two editors were using the article to criticize each other's personal religious beliefs. This was resulting almost entirely from the fact that User:Esoglou was not confining himself to edits on the Catholic Church, but was actively attempting to attack the Orthodox view by posting material which he claimed represented Orthodox beliefs but which User:LoveMonkey (who is Orthodox), believed was not accurately representing Orthodox beliefs. That is where the conflict was coming from. As I pointed out more than once, neither editor had to be chased away from the article, they just had to be encouraged to behave themselves. The edit warring would have stopped immediately if Esoglou had confined himself to edits on the Catholic perspective, and not repeatedly made edits attempting to (mis)represent the Orthodox perspective. Failing that, some intervention had to take place which defused the conflict, and in this case it proved that simply removing the superfluous material from each section into the individual subject articles diffused the conflict to the point that it was no longer taking place in the article. What I felt was necessary from you was a clear declaration of what the problem was, and a clear recommendation for a solution, followed by actual personal action towards that solution. The entire issue could have been shut down instantly if Esoglou had been kept from making edits ostensibly representing Orthodox views, given that he isn't Orthodox and has a record of attacking and misrepresenting Orthodox views, sometimes with inadequate or misrepresented sources. To my mind a good administrator identifies a root problem, makes it clear to the editors involved, calls out disruptive editors, and works actively to a solution which addresses the root problem directly, rather than just asking for more editors to contribute (it doesn't take an administrator to do this).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am indeed sorry to see that two editors who have it in for me have, for that very reason, here expressed opposition to the candidature, which I would certainly support, if I did not fear that listing myself among those who support might appear to be merely a reaction to the attacks by these two. The candidate has not been a backer of my opinion and has actually reined me in, guiding me, for instance, to avoid edits what might appear as poking fun at others over what I find something amusing in what they write. It would be quite out of place for me to discuss here Taiwan boi's accusations, and his demand that I refrain from editing what are really caricatures of a church's teaching. Anyone who is interested is invited to intervene at Talk:Theoria#Unexplained deletion of sourced contributions. Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have made my objections clear and they have nothing to do with "having it in" for you. Please don't come here and re-interpret what I say. I have never said that Richard was a backer of yours. Your record for disruptive editing, the list of editors who have opposed you, and the AfD which was carried out specifically because of your editing, is a matter of record. This is not the place for you to canvass for support for your disruptive edits on the Theoria page.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am indeed sorry to see that two editors who have it in for me have, for that very reason, here expressed opposition to the candidature, which I would certainly support, if I did not fear that listing myself among those who support might appear to be merely a reaction to the attacks by these two. The candidate has not been a backer of my opinion and has actually reined me in, guiding me, for instance, to avoid edits what might appear as poking fun at others over what I find something amusing in what they write. It would be quite out of place for me to discuss here Taiwan boi's accusations, and his demand that I refrain from editing what are really caricatures of a church's teaching. Anyone who is interested is invited to intervene at Talk:Theoria#Unexplained deletion of sourced contributions. Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard, my comment wasn't intended to be unmitigated criticism and I apologize that it came across that way. I should have balanced it by acknowledging your efforts at the Theosis page (I have also appreciated your balanced work at the Christianity & violence page). However, I would have liked to have seen you do the same at the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences page. Getting more editors involved was not the solution because it wasn't addressing the problem. The problem was that two editors were using the article to criticize each other's personal religious beliefs. This was resulting almost entirely from the fact that User:Esoglou was not confining himself to edits on the Catholic Church, but was actively attempting to attack the Orthodox view by posting material which he claimed represented Orthodox beliefs but which User:LoveMonkey (who is Orthodox), believed was not accurately representing Orthodox beliefs. That is where the conflict was coming from. As I pointed out more than once, neither editor had to be chased away from the article, they just had to be encouraged to behave themselves. The edit warring would have stopped immediately if Esoglou had confined himself to edits on the Catholic perspective, and not repeatedly made edits attempting to (mis)represent the Orthodox perspective. Failing that, some intervention had to take place which defused the conflict, and in this case it proved that simply removing the superfluous material from each section into the individual subject articles diffused the conflict to the point that it was no longer taking place in the article. What I felt was necessary from you was a clear declaration of what the problem was, and a clear recommendation for a solution, followed by actual personal action towards that solution. The entire issue could have been shut down instantly if Esoglou had been kept from making edits ostensibly representing Orthodox views, given that he isn't Orthodox and has a record of attacking and misrepresenting Orthodox views, sometimes with inadequate or misrepresented sources. To my mind a good administrator identifies a root problem, makes it clear to the editors involved, calls out disruptive editors, and works actively to a solution which addresses the root problem directly, rather than just asking for more editors to contribute (it doesn't take an administrator to do this).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I'd like to mention that I did make some additional efforts to improve the situation at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. I posted a request at WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, in an attempt to get more editors participating on the page. I also posted a request on OrthodoxWiki (an outside wiki) for more participation here; and I contacted a few individual editors and asked them to consider contributing to the discussion. I was (and still am) convinced that an article on an inherently controversial subject (such as this) needs more than just two active editors; otherwise, it is impossible to achieve consensus when disagreements arise, and each editor is really forced into a situation where s/he must attempt to present and critique both sides of the issue (making allegations of distortion/misrepresentation almost unavoidable). Merely chasing one or both of the existing editors away might have put a temporary end to the drama, but it would not have improved the article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - User just doesn't have enough involvement or experience for me to support at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Off with his head I sample his contributions and immediately find this edit to decapitation. These are quite assertive statements of fact and yet no reference is provided to verify or substantiate them. The candidate does not seem to have relevant qualifications or expertise which would make him an authority on this topic and so is presenting his own opinion of the topic in an improper way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon, that you cannot reattach a severed head with today's technology hardly requires a reference. In fact it is so obvious that it does not need mentioning at all. -- The other sentence was merely moved around from somewhere else. --Pgallert (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The disputed edit said "Repair of a severed spinal cord is not possible through any known medical technology.". But see Neurobiology of spinal cord injury which states "Several investigators have even reported successful attempts to regrow the spinal cord of rats, overturning the long-held dogma that the adult mammalian spinal cord cannot regrow and reconnect". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot read that quote, but the "even" seems to prove my point rather than yours. Needless to say that the decapitation article is not predominantly about rats, and that they didn't regrow it in seconds? --Pgallert (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The edit is still on the page and still technically unsourced; is it really worth opposing for? Still, I'm not ready to support, but I certainly won't oppose. —Soap— 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- For some supporters little short of genocide is really worth opposing over. But this lack of sourcing is a feature of what very few contributions this candidate has made to article space, as I pointed out above. It's not the quantity of contributions per se that's of concern it's their quality. I understand that many administrators consider WP:CIVIL to be the most important of the five pillars, but this candidate doesn't even seem to be on nodding terms with an equally or perhaps even more important one, WP:NPOV. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- (reply to Pgallert). The decapitation article is a general one about animals in general, as the lead indicates. This includes insects which can survive decapitation for long periods - some live longer if you cut their head off. The key point here is that we have an editor who seems lack elementary knowledge of key policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. But let's verify this by looking at another edit such as "fixed year of Tahvo Putkonen's execution to be consistent with the existing article on this person". Now he obviously means well but seems not yet to understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And the article that he's using as a benchmark for this fix doesn't have any sources. I did some digging and my impression is that the English article is based upon the Finnish equivalent. That has some sources - a genealogy site. A guy roots around in court records because "I am trying to check who is in Finland the last person beheaded, because there seems to be different information". I'm not sure what the contrary information is because my Finnish isn't up to it. By our customary standards, we shouldn't have the Tahvo Putkonen article and so I shall now nominate it for deletion. I wouldn't trust the candidate to close the AFD because he doesn't seem to understand the basic principles of this place and so should not be an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The edit is still on the page and still technically unsourced; is it really worth opposing for? Still, I'm not ready to support, but I certainly won't oppose. —Soap— 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot read that quote, but the "even" seems to prove my point rather than yours. Needless to say that the decapitation article is not predominantly about rats, and that they didn't regrow it in seconds? --Pgallert (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The disputed edit said "Repair of a severed spinal cord is not possible through any known medical technology.". But see Neurobiology of spinal cord injury which states "Several investigators have even reported successful attempts to regrow the spinal cord of rats, overturning the long-held dogma that the adult mammalian spinal cord cannot regrow and reconnect". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon, that you cannot reattach a severed head with today's technology hardly requires a reference. In fact it is so obvious that it does not need mentioning at all. -- The other sentence was merely moved around from somewhere else. --Pgallert (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Moved from neutral) Well, no wonder you state in question 4 that you're willing to block a user for "edit warring" because they repeatedly removed unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous material about an organization: you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself! "It's obvious" is an inadequate excuse: if the truth of the material were plainly apparent, there would be no purpose in inflicting such useless banalities upon the reader. Chester Markel (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need for rhetoric such as "you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself". Also, which of the exemptions to the 3RR did those reverts fall under, because I'm not seeing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:IAR. Removing potentially libelous material about an organization sourced only to political activist blogs should be an exception to the 3RR, for some of the same reasons that the BLP contentious content sourcing exception was created: since corporations are (legally) people, the same issues of defamation are presented in both cases. Other justifications for WP:BLP don't really seem to apply, because Wikipedia considers there to be no moral issues involved in how we write about organizations :) It's much less trouble to simply let editors force WP:LIBEL out of articles, and use blocking and page protection to ensure its removal, than it is to respond to OTRS complaints, or lawsuits (even though the Wikimedia Foundation almost certainly couldn't be held liable for defamatory content in an article, just responding to a lawsuit by someone who's being defamed, or dealing with a subpoena to seek the IP address of a user who added libelous material to an article is likely to be expensive. When occasioned by bad decisions such as Richwales' wikilawyering 3RR block, such expenditures would be a highly avoidable waste of donor funds.) Chester Markel (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's no need for rhetoric such as "you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself". Also, which of the exemptions to the 3RR did those reverts fall under, because I'm not seeing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm generally inclined to be more liberal in supporting RFAs, but this edit (the one Sandstein referenced) clearly isn't vandalism. I wasn't convinced by the answer you gave to his question either. DC T•C 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
- Interesting response to #4. I read "reverting pending WP:RPP request" not as meaning "I have reverted your WP:RPP request" but rather "I am reverting your change to this article until my pending WP:RPP request is addressed." If my interpretation is correct, that's a hell of a nasty block you just gave the theoretical Mkativerata. Admin or not, I think a warning and demand that they revert themselves would be a better call. Nonetheless, I'm leaning support pending the other questions. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say either way I've breached 3RR and it would be a fair block. I read it as "I'm reverting to the version I want until one my admin mates at RPP protects my version". (I then did seek out a mate, wrongly thinking that Richwales was one :)) --Mkativerata (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- 28bytes, you're clearly right about my having misunderstood "reverting pending WP:RPP request". If this had been a real case, I would presumably have realized my misparsing of the edit summary as soon as I went to WP:RPP's revision history and failed to find any revert by Mkativerata of any request by KMalaysia! We often get too "telegraphic" in our edit summaries, I think, and it's often a very good idea to be a bit more verbose in order to make an edit summary as clear as possible. As for the "h*ll of a nasty block", I really think I need to stand by my decision — even if an admin is edit-warring in a good cause (!), there are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing it, and in this case I think it's clear that "the theoretical Mkativerata" was going about it the wrong way and had no valid excuse not to realize that. And Mkativerata, if this had been a real scenario, I would hope (possibly unrealistically, of course) that you would not hold a long-term personal grudge against me for "calling 'em like I see 'em"; my motivation was to help Wikipedia, and to help you stay focussed on being a better editor. Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- A 24-hour block for breaking 3RR is definitely supported by policy; but as you mention in your answer to question 5, a "polite (albeit urgent) warning" is also supported, and I think reasonable people can disagree about which is more appropriate in the scenario given. Regardless, the rest of the answer to #4 seemed spot-on to me, so still leaning support at this point. 28bytes (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- 28bytes, you're clearly right about my having misunderstood "reverting pending WP:RPP request". If this had been a real case, I would presumably have realized my misparsing of the edit summary as soon as I went to WP:RPP's revision history and failed to find any revert by Mkativerata of any request by KMalaysia! We often get too "telegraphic" in our edit summaries, I think, and it's often a very good idea to be a bit more verbose in order to make an edit summary as clear as possible. As for the "h*ll of a nasty block", I really think I need to stand by my decision — even if an admin is edit-warring in a good cause (!), there are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing it, and in this case I think it's clear that "the theoretical Mkativerata" was going about it the wrong way and had no valid excuse not to realize that. And Mkativerata, if this had been a real scenario, I would hope (possibly unrealistically, of course) that you would not hold a long-term personal grudge against me for "calling 'em like I see 'em"; my motivation was to help Wikipedia, and to help you stay focussed on being a better editor. Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
#Strong neutral I find your response to question 4 to be misguided. While adminship is not diplomatic immunity, neither are administrators subject to a reduced threshold for blocking. They may be blocked for edit warring on, and only on, the same terms as any other editor. In the example, Mkativerata's behavior did not merit a block. I concede that, according to a literal interpretation of Wikipedia:Edit warring, repeatedly removing highly unreliably-sourced, potentially defamatory material about an organization is doubleplusungood, and not excused by WP:BLP because for Wikipedia policy purposes, corporations are not people. However, the policy states that editors may be blocked for violating it, not that they must. Administrators are expected to wear their encyclopedist hats first, and exercise discretion. I would suggest that blocking KMalaysia for violating WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LIBEL would improve Wikipedia. The suggestion that "you use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating" is inexplicable: why assume that material attributed to political activist blogs could be reliably sourced? Also, the response to question 6, while generally satisfactory, misses an important point: a block of an otherwise productive editor for any incivility or personal attacks short of legal or violent threats stands a good chance of being controversial, and needs to be discussed on WP:AN or WP:AN/I before it is issued, to avoid a block war. Chester Markel (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Moving to oppose. Chester Markel (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll be a bad administrator, but I see several things that I usually don't like seeing at RfA: relatively low activity levels since 2005 (your "record" was 368 edits in one month, and your average is around 100 edits/month), relatively low number of edits to projectspace/projecttalkspace, few edits to AIV (as you want to work in vandalism patrol), and relatively low number of edits in general (relative to most RfA candidates that I support, that is). The attitude I have seen from you is something I like, even though I disagree a bit with your answer to Q4. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- One reason (not the only reason, but one) why my edit count is relatively low may be that I've been doing everything by hand. I've read good and bad comments about the various productivity tools, and I would be willing to consider using one of these if it would really help me work more effectively. I'm open to recommendations (please be aware that I use Firefox on Linux — so, for example, IE/Windows-based tools are out of the question). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The concerns over inactivity etc are concerning, but not enough on their own to prevent me from supporting. However, Malleus raises a valid point about the zeal with which Rich might swing the banhammer, though I probably would have blocked the hypothetical Mkativerata because I tend to prefer blocks to shutting all editors out of an article. I get the impression that there are some situations in which you might act without considering all the options. Those concerns are enough to prevent me from supporting, but, like Fetch, I don't think you'd be a "bad" admin, so I'm not opposing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not convinced either way. The candidate seems trustworthy, but their lack of experience and inactivity worry me. ceranthor 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)