Undid revision 462460567 by Tom Morris (talk) remove malformed request |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
<!--<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>--> |
||
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below --> |
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule and place rfa transclusion below --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tom Morris}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guerillero}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guerillero}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 21:09, 25 November 2011
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guerillero | 59 | 14 | 6 | 81 | Successful | 23:49, 30 November 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
CharlieEchoTango | 85 | 2 | 1 | 98 | Successful | 05:34, 30 November 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guerillero | 59 | 14 | 6 | 81 | Successful | 23:49, 30 November 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
CharlieEchoTango | 85 | 2 | 1 | 98 | Successful | 05:34, 30 November 2011 | 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 | % | ||||
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 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
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
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Guerillero
Final (59/14/6); Closed as successful by MBisanz talk at 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Guerillero (talk · contribs) – Greetings. Over the past month or so I have run into several places where having the sysop tools would have been useful. I have decided that since I have more then 8,000 edits and have been here for over 2 years now I might as well try my hand at my first RfA. Like my userpage says, I am a jack of all trades master of none. I have not concentrated in one area heavily. I grow easily board in small areas of the project or I stumble upon a new area where I find my work would be needed. I do have a soft spot for the under loved file namespace. This often results in my edits changing focus every few months or so. As you are looking over my edits please also look at In actu (talk · contribs). That account is for when I am using Huggle, AWB, or when I am editing from a public computer as well as a few other things. These personal statement-esque things are not one of my strengths. If there is anything else you would like to know please ask. Guerillero | My Talk 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 intend to take part in CSD and UAA; however, I would imagine that the admin work that I do would change much like my editor work. I have no desire to work in high stress and drama places such as ANI and Arbitration Enforcement. Wikipedia is only a hobby.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Due to my dyslexia, my writing is not the best and it is difficult for me. Most of my article writing has been start to stub class articles. I have written one DYK from the ground up, Bent edge. As part of the WP:Editing Fridays program I helped expand Traditions along with a large group of people to get a DYK. I personally expanded Straight Edge to its current state. I hope to take it to GA but that is far off. Outside of that, I enjoy working in small chunks at whatever falls in my direction.
- 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 was part of the Featured Sounds process before it went inactive. I seem to stay on the sidelines of most drama sorts of things. The one huge problem I was involved with ended with an editor being topic banned from the FS process. (ANI threads) Outside of that, I do get involved in minor every day content and conduct disputes. They mostly end up on a talk page of sorts and we discuss it.
- Additional question from Kangaroopower
- 4. What do you feel civility is and do you use it often?
- A to part 1: Interesting question. I feel that our civility policy is an extreamly wordy extension of universal reciprocity: you should try to treat all editors in a way that that you would like to be treated. It is a means to ensure that when people disagree it does not turn into a flame war or name calling, an issue that plagues most internet communities. We do not need editors calling each other asshats or fuck ups. It just drives people off the project. As with life, there are lots of gray areas to civility. We need people to both be civil and to not go out of their way to be offended. Unless its stalking or a personal attack, there is a chance that the person didn't mean for you to be offended.
- A to part 2:I try to be civil but does not always work. I try to not post the thing that pops into my head the first time I read a comment.
- Additional question from Kangaroopower
- 5. You block a user for repetitive section blanking of articles and that user puts forth an unblock request saying that they can be "put on a leash" and blocked if vandalism occurs. You agree to these terms and unblock that user. You watch them for a few weeks and when it becomes evident that they have change their ways you forget about the user. Six months later you're in Huggle and see a string of section blanks from the user you unblocked. You check the user's contribs and see that vandalism only started a week or so ago. What do you do? --Kangaroopowah 08:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: There are two possible replies to this question. The cowboy diplomacy route would be to look at unblocking him as giving him some rope. Since unblock conditions do not expire, he could be indef blocked for violating them. The user just took a very long time to get caught up in the rope. The safe route would be to start an ANI thread about this with difs of the original block, unblock, and ongoing vandalism. I have looked and looked and thought and thought but I could not decide which is the correct answer by policy. It all depends on how liberally you want to apply involvement. Since I was the one who did the first block and the unblock, I would not feel fully comfortable adding a third admin action to his block log. In addition, the six month gap is rather long. I would probability follow the ANI route because it would allow another admin to look over the situation and make a decision.
- Additional questions from Surturz
- 6. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?
- A: I will. Admins hold their positions because the community trusts them. I like Lar's method. It has a fairly low threshold of only 6 editors to trigger a reconfirmation, RfC, or a resignation. I would rather work off of the trust of the community then an arbitrary trust.
- 7. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?
- A: People have approached me with advice and moral support after they saw that I put my name forward for this RfA. Running for adminship today was a 100% spur of the moment decision of mine and wasn't motivated by any private comments.
- 8. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?
- A: Not to my knowledge. I have tried to just smile and nod when the conversation topic of the new RfAs comes up in irc.
- Additional question from TerriersFan
- 9. Will you please list the articles that you have created and indicate which ones have reached GA, FA or been featured in DYK?
- A:Articles I have created? (I used X!'s tool)
- Roll a D6 - (The AfD is at 100% keep right now)
- Adler & Sullivan
- 24th World Scout Jamboree
- The Encyclopedia of Punk
- My Forever (album)
- He Is We
- Manliftingbanner
- EP – Part II
- EP – Part I
- Everything Starts... EP
- Black Thorn (album)
- Bent edge DYK
- Mark E. Seremet
- Didier Lefèvre
- The Photographer (graphic novel)
- Wow. I have forgotten about many of these. Some are better then others. I need to go back at look through them again and redo parts of them.
- A:Articles I have created? (I used X!'s tool)
- Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish
- 10. Apologies if this is a little long-winded. Imagine you're reviewing CSD nominations. It's backlogged with a glut of music related stubs, all tagged {{db-band}}. None have references. Here are five of them (assume there are no factual inaccuracies):
- Siluriform James is a Britpop band from London. The band is fronted by Lousie Wener from Sleeper and Bernard Butler from Suede. They are unsigned and gigging in London.
- The Soapdishes are a garage band from New York. They are known for their anarchic live shows and have major label interest. Their self-recorded album The Cat and the Fish is available on iTunes.
- Jim Fish is a former singer-songwriter from Devon. He released two studio albums on Interscope Records in the early 1990s and enjoyed limited success in Italy and Chile. He now works as a janitor in a school in Portsmouth.
- Catfish Jim (1874 - 1918) was a blues guitarist from Edwards, Mississippi. Little is known of him and he is not known to have made any recordings. He is said to have played regularly with Henry Sloan and was a formative influence on Charlie Patton.
- With reference to specific notability guidelines, how do you deal with them?
- A: I will list this out
- Keep
- Siluriform James - The claim that two members of the band are from notable bands is enough for notability. (WP:BAND 6) In addition, this is a claim of importance.
- Jim Fish - The claim that he released two albums on a major label is enough for notability. (WP:BAND 5) That satisfies a claim of importance to negate an A7.
- Convert to Prod
- Jim Soap and the Fishcats - There is a claim of importance here. The multinational tours are close enough to BAND 4 for me, except for the fact that there are no sources. If there were sources, this article would be in the keep pile. The prod is to allow more time for sources to be added.
- Speedy Delete
- The Soapdishes - The article does not make a creatable claim of importance.
- Catfish Jim - This is on the borderline. The lack of recordings does not show importance. Playing with and being an influence on someone does not seem to be a claim of importance.
- A: I will list this out
- Additional question from ItsZippy
- 11. A few editors - myself included - have expressed concerns about your conduct. Could you provide examples of your civility, where your conduct has enabled the healthy progression of a dispute and prevented an argument?
- A: Here is an example from a fairly minor discussion earlier this month that came to mind fairly quickly. I try to avoid contentious areas as much as possible.
- Additional question from Ebe123
- 12. What's your opinion on the dark side of Wikipedia, WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?
- A: Its a part of the wiki I try to avoid. I find it a tad depressing. It is needed part of the project though. We have people who have nothing better to do but disrupt the project. I highly doubt I will ever work in that area. The stakes seem high and there seems to be an endless supply of sockpupets to look out for. I am extreamly grateful for the people who want to work there.
- Additional question from DGG
- 13. (I do not think that there is no absolutely correct answer to these that everyone would agree with)
- A. One of the articles you nominated for speedy was, just as you said, an obvious copyvio of the person's web page at the Ministry of shipping, Bangladesh. Examining the information there, were there any alternatives to deletion, and, if so, would you have used them? (there is no absolutely correct answer to these that everyone would agree with) DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- B. Another had the complete contents: "A China-based international online retail company selling consumer products via the domain name LightInTheBox.com." Earlier considerably fuller versions had twice been deleted as G11, : The company's web page is [1].Had you been an admin, is there any additional action you would have taken?
- C. Another, with the title What If (Coldplay). Had been deleted as G4, with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song). (the article was in fact identical, though of course you couldn't check it yourself). Looking at the AfD, do you see any possible alternatives to deletion, and if so, would you have used them? DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Interesting! I broke it down by letter.
- A - If the article was a copy and paste copyright violation then it needed to be deleted. Copyvios can not stay on the servers in public view. There wasn't any action that could be taken that didn't involve deleting the article in its current state. Looking at the personal bio, it appears that an article could be written about the subject. There certainly wouldn't be any prejudice against starting a non-copyvio article about him.
- B - If I was the patrolling admin, I would have done a quick google search to make sure that there wasn't a treasure trove of sources that were missed by the tagging user. The shortness of the article with a link to a company's website sometimes looks or starts out as an add but there is a reason to keep the article due to the subject's notability.'
- Additional question from Epbr123
- 14. Do you regret the comment you made at the Run to Mommy RfD?
General comments
- Links for Guerillero: Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Guerillero 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
- Guerillero's stats are now available on the talk page. Logan Talk Contributions 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question 14 I don't think this is a valid question. Any kind of answer is damaging to the candidate. It's a loaded question. An answer of "Honestly, no" would further embolden those who support SarekOfVulcan's oppose (not that it's not valid) and an answer of "Actually, yeah" would appear to be gaming the RFA or playing politics for the sake of succeeding. I strongly suggest the candidate not answer it either way.--v/r - TP 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- I've bumped into Guerillero in various venues and, on reflection, think they would be a net positive; I think the mop would be in safe (and mostly undramatic) hands. I expect that some will oppose on the basis of content contributions, and I respect that, but my personal feeling is that "dealing with disputes and fractious editors" is pretty much orthogonal to "finessing large slabs of content" - both may be essential to the project, and the latter is far more visible to end-users, but some editors may be better at one than the other. Getting involved in ambassadorial work is a positive too; I think the positives outweigh the negatives. bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A strong contributor who will use the tools well. bd2412 T 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I doubt that he'll break anything. I don't see why him having an opinion about something is any reason why he would misuse the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support -- Qualified editor. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He does good work and is a helpful and generally friendly person. The two diffs below really don't scare me all that much. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An outstandingly nice editor and every inch a man. Strong support. Have interacted at Featured Sounds and other venues. He is calm and pleasant and will deal well with people new to Wikipedia. Has empathy. I can easily imagine him thoughtfully explaining to a 40 year old man why his page on his company was deleted...and not making it a rote policy cite.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be knowledgeable and well-qualified. While Jim's dif below shows a less-than-ideal interaction, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair support I like the intentions and friendliness of the editor, and though I am concerned with the civility mishaps pointed below, I cannot in good faith oppose this RfA. I think you will do fine with the tools. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I find the "civility" concerns more political than they are actual concerns. this editor has an opinion that's not obfuscated behind pedantic political correctness. I like that. If the comments in the oppose are the worst they can dig up, then I'm happy to support. If you want to fix RfA, looking past sound bite politicism like this is a good place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor - definitely deserves a promotion for his contributions. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility "concerns" are nitpicking at someone's bad day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Every editor has their ups and downs; some slight civility concerns should not prevent the candidate from gaining adminship. —mc10 (t/c) 19:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Civility "concerns" are nitpicking asides on somebody's good day. Remaining every-other inch a gentleman, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Decisions, decisions –η-θ 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If the best the opposes can present is this then strong support. Honestly, even looking at at the context I can't for the life of me think how this is a "civility concern". These, frankly, look like reasons to just make an oppose for the sake of it, and not a full consideration of the candidate's overall participation. Pedro : Chat 21:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after much consideration. Incivility leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and thus I was rather reluctant to support. That said, I also feel opposing would be hypocritical. I've done far worse things in my time. I also think that one incident shouldn't define a user. On reflection, I think that the candidate will take on board all the comments at this RFA and take more care in his interactions with others in future. Best of luck. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Robjp21019 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No concerns that he'll abuse the tools. The civility concerns don't resonate with me; candidate strikes me as succinct and well-meaning. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Honestly with my interactions with this candidate, I was surprised to see one dif of incivility as he strikes me as a very kind editor, but we all make mistakes and that one edit shouldn't be judged against the candidate. If this RFA fails just because of that, then it strongly believes my faith that radical reform is needed. Secret account 06:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clueful answers to CSD question. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think he'll do ok - mop please! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Civility shouldn't be a necessary. Well, the mop. Give it to him. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like Guerillero would do good as a admin, I'm not concerned at all. -- Luke (Talk) 15:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not concerned. Guerillero has done good work. ceranthor 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Only because I can find no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of Guerillero's crimes was to effectively call something s/he regards as useless... well, useless. If that should be held against candidates, I suggest we block these candidates, and desysop and block anyone who has ever expressed an opinion which did not tally exactly with the wording of applicable policies, guidelines and processes at the time. An analogous approach seems to work for North Korea.
While I don't condone the tone of the comment on Fastily's page, the description of that user's behavior on that day was not innaccurate, and I note that nobody is suggesting that the admin guilty of biting on the same page be sanctioned, rightly so. Putting what can best be described as sledgehammer to crack a nut civility votes to one side, I think Guerillero is a good candidate. Non-article content contributions and FS work compensates for the lack of article work IMO. —WFC— 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Guerillero is an experienced user who know what he's doing; I'm not overly concerned with the civility issues highlighted by the opposers: the first diff just shows him expressing his personal opinion during a discussion, where people are encouraged to express personal opinions, and regarding the second one, well, we all have bad days... If that were a pattern, I'd be opposing, but I have not seen any indication of that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see why not. Baseball Watcher 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Guerillero has a great attitude and a developed understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Let's not let a minor incident at WQA deprive us of a great candidate.– Lionel (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guerillero is obviously very smart and has a positive attitude. Specialist administrators are great, but that doesn't mean general administrators are bad. I think he'll do great with the added toolset. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Several concerns, but none of them are enough for me to say "no" here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate is well equipped to accomplish what his request entails and nothing in the opposition below particularly strikes me. A one-off comment at a venue often marred by lack of good faith, and concern over his ability to write articles (seriously?) shouldn't be enough to disqualify Guerillero for the mop. Blurpeace 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only just supporting this idea. You really need to buck up your ideas on the civility front, but other than that there is nothing of note to fault. — Joseph Fox 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with Fox that the candidate needs to step up on the civility. However, I'm not convinced that the candidates civility is anything in excess of what we all feel from time to time and have expressed outself. A List of sysops who have never had civility issues would consist of maybe 2 editors. A List of editors who have never had civility issues would consist of editors with under 100 edits. I have seen Guerillero around and I thought they already were an admin. Sensible candidate w/ clue.--v/r - TP 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate has many redeeming qualities. Not overly concerned with the offhand comment at RfD. We all say some bonehead things sometimes. Besides, it looks like Tarc made the comment first, and Guerillero, influenced, was just paraphrasing. -- Ϫ 14:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It doesn't feel right opposing a great candidate for a bunch of minor, and most inconsequential, reasons. I truly believe that the candidate will use the tools well and will not abuse nor misuse them. Net positive.--Slon02 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Salvio. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support i was going to put neutral but im not because i think you deserve to be an admin but please be civil Puffin Let's talk! 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Oppose reasons seem rather trivial. The candidate's comment about WQA is a general opinion (which has some merit in itself, though the redirect was over the line) and not a personal attack, so I see no reason for concern about it. Chick Bowen 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My numerous past interactions and encounters with him have been nothing but positive and as an FS Director he showed initiative and capability. I trust his judgment and ability and feel he will handle the responsibility of adminship without trouble. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:43pm • 06:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Based on personal interactions and observations of the candidate in several areas of the Admin fringe. Guerillero has demonstrated competence and clue making this an easy choice as they are an obvious net positive for the project. My76Strat (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with caution. Remember that as an admin, you must try to set an example to the community, hold yourself to a higher standard etc. My views often clash with Guerillero, but when I looked through his contributions and I see a lot of positive contributions which demonstrate his knowledge. There is the odd civility issue and that's why I'm suggesting caution, and they are insufficient to take me to neutral, let alone oppose. WormTT · (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The way you talked to the distressed editor on Fastily's talk wasnt the best, but supporting per TParis and as you generally seem a very useful editor going by a random sample of your contributions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Generally helpful and hard-working. The behavior at the talk page of Fastily doesn't concern me too much, but that obviously isn't your best. HurricaneFan25 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. TParis does a good job of explaining what I think, too. Despite "board" in the self-nomination statement, I see the candidate as someone I trust to do moppish tasks. I've looked carefully at the diffs that have been provided as evidence of civility problems, and I'm not bothered by them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. ResMar 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Competent user, like answers to questions. --Kangaroopowah 02:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There are legitimate concerns about Guerillero's choice of words on occasion which I hope he'll take on board. A moment spent considering "might this offend someone and so inflame the situation rather than calm it down", would be useful. However, on the whole what I see is someone who is keen to help, and while judgement at times lacks experience and knowledge, Guerillero has shown a willingness to reflect and learn which bodes well for the future. I looked at Guerillero's talkpage archive for February and found the reflection on the "Removal of Google Book links" to be positive, the careful consideration in "Request to mentor a student" to be mature, and while this was inappropriate, when challenged, he helped improve the article, and acknowledged his mistake on Anneliese Michel. I didn't like his response to the Glitter Soundtrack edit - there was legitimate concern raised about his edit which he should have dealt with; and I admit that I did consider opposing on a "not now" basis, as I feel that Guerillero still has a bit to learn; however I was impressed by his willingness to reflect and learn, and feel that he will move forward and learn on the job. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good answers to questions. Experience in relevant areas isn't vast, but it's good enough. As for concerns about your mouth, just keep on calling 'em as you see 'em. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've been on the fence here over the civility lapses, but I've come down on the side of support after seeing how well Guerillero has handled this RfA and responded to feedback. Sure, there's more to learn, and I think a new RfA in, say, 6 months would fly through - but I've seen enough to think that's not necessary, and that the learning is going on as we speak. I think we have a good admin here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per above.Greg Heffley 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don't see many concerns to this well-established editor. 2 years, 8,000 edits and 3 user rights are solid enough. Minima© (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support has some faults but i think hes ok. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Cursory review didn't find any other diffs comparable to Sarek's; qualified. People who have stopped learning concern me more. Dru of Id (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Guerillero's answers to the questions reveal him to be reasonably competent, and the issues raised by those opposing this RfA are minor from my perspective. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical and moral support I know; this wordy support seems to have been used just for attracting attention. But perhaps that's why I've used it (apart from the fact that I hope this support would 'technically' ensure that Tom's RfA doesn't fall into the grey area). Irrespective, so that the closing crat considers this candidacy in the right perspective, I'll give my views on a few of the oppose !votes and comments. I'm actually in consonance with oppose comments like those left by Sarek and Jim (and those who've referred to them or mirrored their view to give their views; that is, Swarm, Itszippy, Skater, Tofut, Epbr,John Malleus, Alessandro, Snotty...); a prospective admin needs to have his civil sense pristine and crystal clear, and the diffs do provide quite some evidence to the contrary. I add to it Tom's view that "our civility policy is an extremely wordy extension of universal reciprocity: you should try to treat all editors in a way that that you would like to be treated." Viewed literally, this interpretation should be unacceptable to a prospective admin. I've seen some atypical 'tough nut' editors using this very concept of universal reciprocity to challenge other editors, commenting that as they themselves are perfectly alright receiving personal attacks from other editors, they find it alright to give it off to others in the same coin. I'd rather expect an editor to treat all others in a way "others would like to be treated" rather than in a way the editor himself should like to be treated. That's where our civility policy marches ahead. I do hope Tom understands these quite important requirements from an administrator. Or perhaps he already does and I've read too much into his reply. At the same time, Tom's acceptance of his mistake in his reply to Jim does give quite some credence to Tom's intent to improve, despite Malleus' valid 'best-behavior during RfA' point. I hope Tom stands up when this RfA closes and gives a strong closing statement to the community that he'll ensure that as an admin, he'll attempt to be a model editor on the civility front. It'll go a long way in assuaging the worry that even some of us supporters might entertain. It'll also ensure that Tom has a benchmark statement that he'll personally feel motivated to stand up to. Of course, I leave it to him to decide on that. Before I end this tardily elongated and backhanded support, I have to mention that some of the opposes are not quite acceptable in my view. Samir's view of Tom's inexperience in content is mislaid - in as much as while on one hand Tom does have considerable content experience, on the other, heavy duty content experience is also not required of admins. Intoronto's "some concerns are raised" is quite open ended and indefinite. NWA Rep's oppose seems utterly illogical ("self nom implying power hunger"). So in all, this is my technical support for Tom. Wifione Message 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Tentative oppose due to this comment -- I don't feel comfortable supporting people who belittle WQA participants. I could change my mind later, depending on what the Q&A looks like.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Concerns about civility... for example hereCatfish Jim and the soapdish 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I will admit that that comment isn't one of my shining moments on wiki. A better option would have been to move past the entry on my watchlist because my comment didn't help the issue move towards any type of closure--Guerillero | My Talk 04:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose (move from neutral): I'm really sorry to oppose you here, especially because I know just how much it hurts to be opposed at RFA, but the two diffs that have been presented above concern me a great deal. In my opinion, administrators need to be calm and courteous in their discussions with other users, and stay cool in even difficult or contentious situations. Whether we like it or not, administrators to an extent represent the community, and I worry how you will react in a situation where an angry user approaches you becuase you deleted their article/blocked them in the past/closed an AFD a way they disagreed, etc. My mind isn't made up for certain. If you could demonstrate a situation where you have mitigated a dispute (through perhaps one of our dispute resolution processes) then I could change my mind, but for now I must place my chips here. Sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)moving to support[reply]- So what did you check before supporting? Anything? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't support. I went neutral initially because what I saw in the first instance was good, but the incivility concerned me. Having read comments by others, it seems that the incivility is a more prominent issue than I originally assessed, hence my change of heart. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I don't like your overall attitude towards other editors, one of which wouldn't look very good as an admin. Evident on your talkpage. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm not happy to be here, as I want and did expect to support Guerillero. However, I can't bring myself to opine any other way after reading Sarek's diff. I can not support, or even remain neutral, regarding a candidate who would pretty much issue a slap in the face to those who would do no more than seek dispute resolution in good faith. Swarm X 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the candidate's defense, a large number of the WQA cases I've seen are not good faith requests for dispute resolution, they take the form of 'this user was mean to me, so I want him blocked'. Maybe I'm not getting a representative sample (no one talks about the ones that run smoothly, I suppose), but keep in mind that a not-insignificant number of people were in favor of shutting WQA down as part of the recent reconfiguration that resulted in the DR board. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice guy. But not enough substantive mainspace contribution. The expansion to straight edge was impressive, but all of the Q8 answers were short articles. In my opinion you need to demonstrate ability to add content as an editor to be able to judge content as an admin -- Samir 05:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Question 5 was ignored/incorrectly answered. Civility concerns, limited content creations, some grammar/writing issues the user hints at. I don't think the dyslexia is of much concern though, but constant health issues such as dyslexia & this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&diff=461859490&oldid=461840127 are worrying. RFA Guy (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions are optional and besides, is the candidate not allowed to skip questions and answer them later? Are they required to answer all questions in chronological order? That is a rediculous reason to oppose. I've no comment on the rest, but your first sentence lacks substance. The candidate will get to question 5 when they get to question 5.--v/r - TP 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Catfish Jim, I was going to strike the Q5 part of my comment but I don't know how. The candidate is handling himself well in this RFA. RFA Guy (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Health shouldn't be a concern here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (moved from neutral) - As I said earlier in this nomination, I have problems with the candidate's civility - examples of argumentative and unpleasant behaviour has been provided by other people. I asked the candidate to provide evidence of positive conflict resolution and, though I have nothing wrong with the example given, I feel that this is not enough. In the face of the civility problems, I would liked to have seen examples of positive discussion which helps to move an issue forward. Guerillero is a good editor and valuable to the project; I just feel his conduct makes him an inappropriate admin candidate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I don't want to oppose this RfA, and hope that someone will convince me to support it, but at the moment I just can't support. When a person doesn't name a specific area of admin work, I'm forced to look at excellence in all areas. I don't have any problems with his work at UAA, other than limited recent contributions- his most recent reports are in August, and the bulk of them are before April. Concerns about civility and a lack of content creation, worsened by only 27% of his edits being in the article space, should be noted in my oppose. However, I'd like to bring up his CSD record. I can't see deleted edits, and would appreciate an admin checking to see his record there. However, I can see his CSD log. He seems to have been keeping it since June 2011- yet in that time he only has 55 CSD nominations listed. Of these, less than a dozen seem to be for articles- and the overwhelming majority for files. Since Guerillero himself has expressed an intention to work in CSD, I must ask if he has demonstrated sufficient ability there for him to be granted the delete button. Moving on to his WP:AIV contributions, he only has 24 actual reports there- and only 1 in November, 2 in August, 1 in May, and the rest before April. That single report in November is one that also raises my eyebrows, [3], since he reported a person for making copyvio articles- yet never attempted to give him a warning or even talk to him. That kind of block-happy behavior seems, although within policy, to not be very friendly to new users. To sum up this block of text- my reasons for opposing are civility, limited content contribution, and concerns about AIV & CSD experience.--Slon02 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I would ask that you also look over In actu (talk · contribs), my semiautomated tools account, for a better picture of my AIV reports. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Some concerns are raised. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per reasons articulated at great length above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose pending answer to my question. I'm concerned with the lack of experience with deletion work. The three articles I listed were almost the only three articles as contrasted to files or obvious mechanical deletions I could find--they're not cherry-picked. I'm not looking for an answer that agrees with me. but a reasoned answer of some sort. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Opposeself-nom implies overly power-hungry. assumption of bad faith on his arbcom guide.--NWA.Rep (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose-Civility concerns are too much for me on this one. Sorry.--SKATER Is Back 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per civility concerns, lack of content creation, and weak admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Learning on the job is one thing, but "learning" during an RfA is a fish of an entirely different colour. Any sensible candidate will be on best behaviour for the week, but the question is, what about when the week's over? Either civility is important or it isn't, but there needs to be some consistency here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Sarek, DGG and Malleus. Concerns over health, level of experience, and temperament. No prejudice against coming back in a few months. --John (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would health be an issue? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See this, which someone already mentioned. --John (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... again, what is the relevance to adminship? If an admin has to take a break from Wikipedia due to health issues, then they have to take a break. It's hardly a problem, is it? Is 'no admin' better than an admin who is only able to be active 90% of the time? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See this, which someone already mentioned. --John (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would health be an issue? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral per Sarek. I came here fully expecting to support, but that comment leaves me solidly neutral. I can't default to support for someone with that attitude, and I'll have to do more digging, as well as see how the rest of the RfA plays out, before making a decision. Swarm X 23:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Move tosupportoppose.[reply]I'll have to think about it for a while and do some digging to see if there's anything else like this, or if it was a one-off. Very few things would bring me not to support a candidate, but incivility is one of them. I'll see how things go. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Move to oppose.[reply]I'll vote later. The two links in the first couple opposes don't concern me. Townlake (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Sarek. I'd like to see Guerillo response to those diffs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good contributor, but I have concern about civility. Will wait for answer to question before further judgement. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Moved to opposed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]I would like to see answers to the answers by other editors before I cast my support or oppose vote. -- Luke (Talk) 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Move to support.[reply]
- Concerns about civility, maturity, little content creation, and a slew of spelling/grammar errors prevent me from supporting. However, they are all somewhat minor problems so I don't want to oppose either. The RfD diff (comments about WQA) doesn't concern me at all, but this one reveals recent comments that are unbecoming of an admin. —SW— confess 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (from oppose) Satisfied by answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some reasons in the section above give me reason to want to oppose but I'm undecided - I'd also like to see an answer to Q5. Mato (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Limited content contribution. Some issues with civility. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I came after closing the Roll a D6 AfD, expecting to support, but the concerns of Sarek, DGG, and SnottyWong are too much, though not enough for an actual oppose given the evidence of good work. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2011 (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.
CharlieEchoTango
Final (85/2/1); Closed as successful by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Nomination
CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs) – Hello all. For a while I didn't think I would have a need or a "want" for the tools. But times change and ideas evolve, and I now stand ready to request the mop, simply because I see how the extra buttons could come in handy at various times and I see no reason why not to have them, nor do I see a reason why I should fear the community process, given that I don't have much to lose by stepping forward.
I am a generally clueful editor, with a fair amount of experience, a good and balanced record (though not stellar nor consistent), a clean block log (not technically, but in spirit), and an appropriate use of the buttons I am already entrusted with. Areas in which I feel more clueful in are copyright matters, NPOV matters, image and licensing work, content cleanup, deletion and its much more positive counterpart Articles for Creation, anti-vandalism work, and some level of original content work. Areas where I'm less experienced in, or simply less comfortable in, are conflict management, policy discussions, and the "drama boards". The comfort disparity is likely due to a) me not being a native English speaker b) me not being much of a people's person, both of which may result in possible awkwardness at times, and consequently generates some lack of wiki-confidence when it comes to getting involved in these areas. As someone who values integrity and personal responsibility, I fully acknowledge these shortcomings, but I am always willing to learn, adapt, and do the right thing.
If entrusted with the mop by the community, I intend to generally keep to the areas I've been working so far and to stay the course. I do not intend to work the more controversial areas of the wiki, but if ever I land there by misfortune, I think I can be trusted to do the right thing and use due diligence, perhaps seeking advice from more experienced fellow editors and administrators. That, in my book, is A Good Thing™.
Simply put, I think I am ready to be a trusted member of this community. Thank you for your time. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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: From a purely administrative perspective, AIV, UAA, AFD, CSD, PROD, RFPP, RM. That's pretty much it as far as my intentions go, but of course I may pop up elsewhere, who knows!
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Without hesitation, my mainspace work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great content creator or contributor, but I did improve several articles (whether from a backlog, from random browsing, or from a personal project), written a particularly neutral DYK/GA on a controversial book and idea (though the article is yet to be complete) and I have several articles in the making. Why are these my best contributions? Because for everything we do here, content work is by far the most visible and impacting. When I improved PPCLI, though it was far from perfect and rather gramatically suck-ish, I knew I helped provide a better knowledge of the topic for the readers. And that, to me, is far more important than all the endless bickering that goes on in the various inner venues of this big project. I only wish I had more time, competence and courage to contribute more from a content perspective; on the other hand, as a volunteer contributor I do not feel pressured into working a specific area, which is a good thing because everybody has something to contribute, from brilliant content work to simple maintenance tasks.
- 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: Quite frankly, I cannot think of an actual confict I've been in. Sure I've had disagreements, discussions, and frustrations. But a conflict? The closest thing that could come to a conflict was a misunderstanding that happened on IRC a year ago. Surely no stress was caused from that. Am I stressed? To some extent, yes, but all of it comes from real life, and quite honestly, while I value my participation here, I am not emotionally involved enough that any "wiki-stress" could affect my "IRL-stress". When real-life stress becomes more serious, I'm smart enough to back away from less important commitments. And if actual wiki-stress happens, as it may in the future (who knows!), I would be quick to temporarily go away, because I have far more important and challenging priorities that I would never let anything affect : my real life aspirations.
- Additional question from Surajt88
- 4. Just curious about your userbox. What's your take on WP:IAR?
- A: There is no perfect answer to that question, but the overall philosophy I believe in and which is conveyed by the userbox is that when one is not a dick and does not behave as an activist (e.g. NPOV), they already meet the general spirit of the rules. That certainly does not exclude one from following the written or unwritten community guidelines nor does it entitle someone to violate the key policies and pillars our project is built upon. Simply put, one should use common sense and due diligence, but also be bold and not worry to much about the rest if they feel, in good faith, they are Doing the Right Thing™.
- Additional question from Sven Manguard
- 5. A look at your monthly edit count shows that you fluctuate wildly between the 2000s, the lower hundreds, and 0. Do you mind explaining why? Do you predict it happening again? Do you believe disappearing for months at a time will have any effects on your ability to serve as an admin?
- A: (e/c) Sure: I'm not a consistent editor, and I have a rather varied schedule in real life. When I have more free time and less stress, as happened at the beginning of the year, then again at the end of the summer, I may devote a significant amount of effort to Articles for Creation, which translates in a significantly higher number of edits (2 edits per declined submission, 4-5 per approved submission). At other times, I'm more stressed and busy with my studies and training IRL, and may not want to deal with the commitment AfC brings, so I choose to merely monitor my watchlist for things to revert (vandalism, etc) or help with (WP:HD, WP:NCHP/Q, etc), or simply work in other areas (articles, etc) that require less commitment in time and effort. No, I do not think my inconsistency would affect my ability to serve as an admin. Why would it? So long as the on-wiki business (e.g. outstanding personal requests, ongoing mopping) has been taken care of, the temporary availability of administrators shouldn't matter, because sysops are volunteers like everyone else. I hope this answers your question! :)
- Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish
- 6. You say that you intend to work on CSD admin, which is great as it frequently becomes backlogged. The most frequently used speedy deletion category is WP:CSD A7... it's also the most frequently misused and a fairly large proportion of CSD A7 nominations inevitably need to be declined. Can you outline how you would go about assessing an A7 nomination?
- A: The issue with A7 is its ambiguous wording. Editors will have different interpretations of 'credible' and even of 'significance'. The important thing one must not do is preemptively decide for the community: even if one thinks an article may not stand a chance at AfD or PROD, so long as a credible (e.g. not silly) claim of significance (even the most basic) is being made, it should not be speedily deleted under A7, though other criterion may apply. Sometimes topics may appear completely non-notable because of poor writing or referencing by newbies, and giving an opportunity (PROD or AfD) to those editors to demonstrate notability and improve the article makes sense (pretty much like we do at AfC, which sees its significant share of potential A7s). That said, I would give significant consideration to A7s about unsourced BLPs, especially if written in a negative light but not quite meeting the criteria for G10. Sometimes shooting first and asking questions later is the right thing to do, but of course, it's a matter of circumstance, and BLPPROD is more-often-than-not appropriate.
- Additional question from Ebe123
- 7. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?
- A: Oh, the dark part of the wiki, eh? I don't have much of an "opinion" on it. I think these are important processes when it comes to tracking, identifying and combating persistent trolling and disruption, which can be very harmful to the project. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of the WP:DENY concept. Obviously there will always be a need for SPI, LTA, etc, and I'll leave it to the functionaries and editors who take an interest in that kind of work to do what they're competent at doing. If need be, I'll play catch up and learn the trade, though to be perfectly honest, it's not something that I'm eager to do, and I don't plan on issuing arbitrary nation-wide range blocks anytime soon.
- Additional question from Hurricanefan25
- 8. Say you come upon an article that reads:
"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"
Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do? (I originally used this question in another RfA back in October.)
- A: {{db-hoax}} should be used sparingly in obvious and/or known cases; if nothing else than MySpace, Facebook and blatantly unreliable websites come out from a search, then Blue Yellow Green Inc is likely not the biggest r&d company in Oregon; this combined with the silly third sentence, the false name of the CEO, and the blatantly false information added, leaves little margin for good faith and looks obvious to me. Speedy.
- Additional question from Salvio giuliano
- 9. What is the difference between a softerblock and a spamublock; and when would you employ the former instead of the latter?
- A: The former when there is a COI but no blatantly spam contribs, the latter when there is a corp/org COI and actual spam/G11 contributions.
- Additional question from Bongomatic
- 10. Could you please explain the circumstances that gave rise to your requesting to be indef blocked?
- A: Focus on IRL commitments. A block, e.g. 0 tolerance policy, was a convenient way to ensure self-discipline, even if it meant I departed the project for a while.
- Additional question from Shadowjams
- 11. I like much of what I see but I have these concerns I hope you'll address. I don't see much anti-vandalism experience (correct me if I'm wrong) nor do I see much CSD experience. That's fine, but you in a few places describe these sorts of tasks as "dark" (question above) or negative (in your nom statement, as opposed to AfC which is "positive"). You don't seem to like that sort of work. That, however is much of what admins do. Could you address that concern?
- A: It's not that I don't like these specific areas, in fact I regularly voice my thoughts at AfD, !voting delete more often than not, and I do vandalism reversion diligently when required. I just don't necessarily run after it (I used to work RCP when I started editing here, which was okay for a while), because I feel I can contribute more in helping users at various venues, creating content, and simply contributing where I see fit. Maintenance work however is required if we are going to provide a quality encyclopedia to our readers, and I do my fair share of reverting, tagging, helping, improving, creating. Not all of these tasks are equally rewarding, but I think a balanced editing pattern is a good thing. I wouldn't read too much in the 'negative' vs 'positive' comments, it's only a personal taste, and I do not see these areas as "bad" areas per se. Less fun to work in, but hey, we don't always get to do what's fun. :-)
- Additional questions from Surturz
- 12. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?
- A: No to all three. If some editors have concerns, I am more than willing to discuss them privately or publicly. If somehow I screw up, and a significant number of editors express concern about my abilities, through a RFC, AN/I or other avenues, then I'll do the right thing, take responsibility for my actions, and drop the bit.
- 13. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?
- A: No.
- 14. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?
- A: Not by me, but I can't speak for other editors.
- Additional question from TerriersFan
- 15. Will you please list the articles that you have created (or the major ones if there are many) and indicate which ones have reached GA, FA or been featured in DYK?
- A:
- Additional question from RFA Guy
- 16. You mention that you like WP:Deny policy in Q7. Would you use it regarding a blocked user's page and/or talk page?
- A: No. WP:DENY is a view that, in the context of persistent disruption, I agree with. But it's not policy nor guideline, so I'll stick to the actual process in place.
- Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
- 17. It's a pity this is already the seventeenth question, but I'm not really interested in how well you know the rules like some are above. My question is, why wouldn't you be a good administrator? Be specific in your response.
- A: I can be hasty at times, which may translate in an occasional lapse of judgement.
- A2 (expanded per dissatisfaction expressed with prior answer, admittedly a bit weak): My lack of experience with conflicts and controversial discussions (as outlined in statement and somewhat in Q3) indicates I may lack the competence to make tough calls in heated discussions, something admins may be called to do at times. Since it's a lack of experience, I don't really have specific examples in my contributions to provide, sorry.
- Additional question from Mabdul
- 18. In case of being successful in this RFA, will you still review AFC submissions and help us with the backlog?
- A: Yes.
General comments
- Links for CharlieEchoTango: CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for CharlieEchoTango 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
- Question 7 (Husky's) seems more like a soapbox-y diatribe about the current RFA process than a genuine question. I don't see how it has anything to do with the candidate's ability to succeed as an admin, or his likelihood of abusing the tools. Townlake (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be relevant given the WP:RfA reform 2011. Not sure what the motivation for the question is.--v/r - TP 15:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be relevant for that, but it is not relevant here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He could be curious on the candidates opinion of the current RFA process and how open the candidate is to reforms. There has been a lot of discussion about how admins are opposed to changes and he wants to know which side of the fence the candidate falls on. Like I said, I don't know the motivation, I am just trying to find a rationale that isn't necessarily inappropriate.--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Husky deleted the question and the candidate's response here. Townlake (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding the self-requested block, notice that it happens in April and unblock is requested in July. This is entirely my own speculation and the question is optional, but remember: that time of year is exam time. WilliamH (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point out AFC work I see lots of comments about this user's "articles for creation" work. How do I check out what a user has done there? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This should provide most of them. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to point out this comment at WT:WikiProject Conservatism: [4]. Unfortunately, the closing Bureaucrat may need to take that into account, although perhaps that will not be necessary given the clearly positive voting so far. Please understand that the candidate appears to have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it is not my intention here to cast any doubt whatsoever on the candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue boldly addressed. Thanks for the heads up! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You did exactly the right thing. Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue boldly addressed. Thanks for the heads up! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. Anyone who can do that many AFCs without cracking shouldn't have too many problems with adminship.©Geni 06:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. 10k edits, clean backlog, decent article work. We need admins. I don't think this user will go nuts with the tools. Net positive. You have my support. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no problems. James500 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems either. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Logs, deleted content look OK, plenty of help offered at AFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see any reason to oppose. 10000 edit with a year of experiance looks just fine. Happy Thanksgiving. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportStrong Support - Good to go. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Support Mop here please! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Clueful guy, been around a while, knows what he's doing, won't abuse the tools. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong candidate; I think he'll be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support experience is fine, helpful editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Well-presented rationales at AfD, civil discourse with oppose; my subjective views are not reason enough to land anywhere else. Dru of Id (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great work in Articles for Creation. My interactions with this user have always been positive. CharlieEchoTango would make a fine administrator. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per my reasons below.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per answers to questions so far. Confident that user will make a good administrator. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great candidate for admin. Very civil and mature. I don't why not. -- Luke (Talk) 17:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, will be fine. fish&karate 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Plenty of great work, sound knowledge of Wikistuff, and good answers to the questions - happy to trust with the tools -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Steven Zhang. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)3[reply]
- Support - no real problems here; his answer to
#9#8 stretches the notion of "obvious," just a bit - but that's more a function of the question than of the answer. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Renumbering - as pointed out below, the old #9 is the new #8. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Doesn't appear there is anything wrong with this candidate. — Moe ε 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The sporadic edit count actually makes me more comfortable. It shows someone who isn't completely addicted/obsessed with Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Working in AFC is definitely better with +sysop; sometimes editors' work grinds to halt because they can't see deleted contributions. In general: has written content, articulate/good answers to questions, sensible user page, e-mail enabled, clean block log, no red flags, basically: one big warm glow. WilliamH (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the fact that you know what A7 means, per your reply to Q6, brings me a ton of hope. Also you are one of the best guys to interact with. Keep up the good work --Guerillero | My Talk 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers to the questions - Cluefull user , no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support — His thoughtful answers to the questions and a demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia's more sensitive policies convinces me that he'll be an asset as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've worked with this editor before, and CharlieEchoTango is a good candidate for the mop. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 21:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Most definitely. I think you will be a superb administrator! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, even though you support the Conservatives :p Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I interacted with CET a lot via IRC when he was new-- he's not been around very long but from what I've seen has consistently been extremely level-headed and clueful, and has his priorities right. From experience, AfCing without +sysop is sometimes a bit of a pain; we definitely need more AfCers with mops. (well, and more AfCers in general...) I have to say this RfA was a surprise (wow, I feel like an old hand now!) but a very pleasant one at that. Fully qualified candidate, and a quick learner if there's anything he needs to pick up. All the best! sonia♫ 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonably impressed withe CET's contributions. I'm not sure a content section in a book article is entirely encyclopedic, but that's beside the point. ;) ceranthor 01:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pleasantly surprised with I saw this RFA. I have interacted with CET on IRC and on AFC and there is no doubt in my mind that he should be an admin. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The candidate is thoughtful, works well with others, and should be able to handle the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trustworthy. Townlake (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Positive interaction in article space. Helpful on the task and also pleasant to me when I was a newbie at Wilmer W. Tanner. Few other times I've seen him were positive as well.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I see no reason why CET should not obtain the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 04:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to oppose. All the best. Suraj T 04:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My gut feeling from recent interaction was positive and I reading Charlie's answers indicates strong knowledge with lots of clue. As others have indicated, AFC is greatly enhanced with the mop since you can see what had been deleted. Royalbroil 05:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Had reviewed a bit ago for file mover, see no problems Skier Dude (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Why not? I agree that they went the wrong way with Q8, but obviously a net positive. Swarm X 06:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly did anybody else mention question 8? And how is that a wrong answer (to a ridiculous hypothetical btw). Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See !vote #20. #9 became #8 when #7 was removed, see diff. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As to how it is a "wrong answer", I had this question in my own recent RfA, and I answered that I would decline it (my rationale is well-explained in the answer). Hurricanefan indicated that my answer was exactly what they were looking for. It's not "wrong" per se, as it's left up to the candidate's judgment. But, for that reason, I do agree that they "stretched the notion of 'obvious'". As an aside, IMHO, it doesn't help at all to create a positive RfA environment if you're attacking certain questions as "ridiculous". Swarm X 21:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been quite clear for a while that you and I Swarm don't see the RfA process in the same way, so I wouldn't expect that to change now. Your quip at my comment is curiously strange. Shadowjams (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly did anybody else mention question 8? And how is that a wrong answer (to a ridiculous hypothetical btw). Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bongomatic 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great content creation, solid professional, collegiate manner. - Haymaker (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - easy decision. –η-θ 20:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good - active and editing all over the project. Love the response to Q1 from User:Surturz; although I think the Q2 and Q3 from that editor are out of line "trip" questions in the way they are phrased. Pedro : Chat 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I also had some problems with your answer to number 8. I think the safest thing to do in that situation is to take it to AFD, but that isn't something that is going to stop you from being a great administrator. You have my support. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Not seeing any real reasons not to support. Enfcer (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Samir 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, for being a great helper in the IRC help channel and an AFC reviewer! mabdul 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing frightening. Perhaps the odd slightly snipey response on occasion, (say diff 460914861) but if that is as bad as it gets then just do a penance of 2 extra AfC approvals and move on. Particularly like response (as of now) to Q15. --ClubOranjeT 10:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Trusted by the community (filemover, reviewer, rollbacker), thoughtful answers to questions, I am familiar with the candidate's high-quality content work at various military pages--Hokeman (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good contributions. (For what it's worth, I cannot tell that CharlieEchoTango is not a native English speaker. His comments are remarkably articulate, especially his nomination statement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clueful, nice answer to my question. Reminded me it's not a policy. RFA Guy (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No real concerns. Answers above indicate an understanding of the spirit of the guidelines and policies in question. Kuru (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Although the answer to my question — Q8 — seems a bit off, what I've seen from CET tempts me to support. HurricaneFan25 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I understand that you wrote Ethical_Oil:_The_Case_for_Canada's_Oil_Sands and made it good class but the fact that you spent twice as much time on other articles that have not reached that level makes me wonder if you care more about the articles you created rather than others.; This might seem unfair and I like your other contribs but if an admin class user spends over 250 non reverts on an article I'd expect it to be GA at the very least. --Kangaroopowah 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm not certain the editor needs the tools, but I don't see anything to concern me either so I feel comfortable supporting. Shadowjams (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: impressed with his work so far and know that he will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. – Lionel (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No concerns. No candidate can be 100% perfect. The competency for the quality and volume of work this candidate does is sufficient to convince me they need the tools and can be trusted with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not seeing any issues. —SW— converse 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no reason why not. Mato (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. AfC work and content creation are major pluses. Your answer to Q6 assures me of his CSD competence, and your answer to Q2 shows me that you know what Wikipedia is really about. Even with only 73 AfD !votes, they are mostly accurate (86.7%) and he has shown knowledge of policy in those discussions. You have limited anti-vandalism experience, especially in RFPP, but I'm confident that you'll be a net positive.--Slon02 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thanks for answering my question and for good answers to all the other questions. If you enjoy AfC work then may adminship give more power to you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Qualified candidate. Courcelles 03:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Baseball Watcher 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Already a great contributor to Wikipedia; I have no reason to doubt his capacity to use admin tools well and I can't see him causing any problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support GOOD! Puffin Let's talk! 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (kinda redundant to be saying "support" in a section called support, but I digress) - Interacted with them on the Ethical Oil article, which has become a good article, and seen their edits in many other areas given we cross paths on various Canadian topics. Would agree with the self-characterization that they are a "clueful editor". Resolute 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CharlieEchoTango has made some great contributions to Wikipedia and looks like very good administrator material to me. -- Marek.69 talk 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Through past interactions with this user, I see no reason not to trust him with the tools. Kansan (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support C.E.T. appears to have decent grasp on policy and guideline, is willing to listen and moderate an opinion if new evidence is presented, and appears willing to ask for advichttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlieEchoTango&action=edit§ion=T-6e when unsure of something. I feel he will not use the mop in any manner that harms the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:37pm • 06:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Working in AfC is not an easy task, there's much junk in there and the odd gem. The fact that the user is willing to help out new users in this way is major plus for me. Having reviewed his contributions I'm seeing a helpful editor who has a good understanding of policy. Definitely a great candidate. WormTT · (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After looking at the answers to the questions and some of the editing history, I believe Charlie will make an excelent admin, having a diversity of abilities not just vandal fighting, or article creation, along with the ability to write convincingly, CharliesEchoTango gets my support. Jab843 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems worthy to wield the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate's civility and maturity are exceptional. Amazed that English is not their native tongue. Thoughtful answers demonstrate that CET is such a quick learner and I'd expect that his use of the tools would be as careful and considered as he has shown in the past. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen 04:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Weak OpposeI had hoped to support and I was really close to doing so when I saw this AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/180_Documentary that you closed. I really liked that you properly applied WP:IAR even though you were involved. There was no reason to wait for someone to close it and we need more bold admins like that.However, I was disappointed when I found this CSD tag (admins only; sorry) where you tagged an article as CSD G3 for vandalism when all the article contained was "information coming soon". There are two problems with that. 1) That you tagged that as vandalism when it was clearly in good faith (unless I am missing something big), and 2) That there was a clearly better CSD criteria as A3. Unfortunately, this happened fairly recently (6 August, so that makes it only 3 months ago) and you've identified CSD as one of the areas you'd like to work. I make this a weak oppose because I don't think you'd be harmful to the project if you did in fact succeed, but I think a little more experience in the areas you want to work would be helpful. Sorry.--v/r - TP 15:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Moved to support.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Oppose, for now. I like to look at a candidate's article creations to get a good sense of their understanding of WP:N and WP:V, since these are critical to useful participation in the deletion processes. The most recently created article, from October 30, 2011, is Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. I was surprised to see it sourced only to the organization itself, with no third-party reliable source references. I thought about tagging it with{{Ref improve}}
or{{Primary sources}}
, but decided to check the article history first. I was even more surprised to find that someone had already tagged it for improved references, and someone else added a notability tag, but the candidate had removed both tags with the comment "take it to AfD if you think it's not notable. rm ref tag too, since the stub is properly referenced per WP:V." Now, as an article creator, I can get annoyed by "drive-by" tagging myself, but the solution is not to simply remove the tags without improving the article. Fix the problem, then remove the tags. I strongly disagree with the candidate's assertion that an article – even a small stub – can be considered "properly referenced per WP:V" with no third party references whatsoever, especially after being challenged on it by two other editors. 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The barrister society is the professional order of lawyers (e.g. bar exams), I believe it is inherently notable. Because you raise the matter, I will go source it to WP:N, though it's true that I could have 'improved' it in the first place and you have a valid concern there. Thanks for your concerns :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Token Oppose. A lot of you should do some work, at least on one RfA. How can people write support without writing something like, "I checked the editing on [the article of greatest interest to me], and the candidate did a good job". At least some of you! (Updated 18:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC) The rest hasn't been touched)
- GA-status article Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands has a section on criticism that contains ad hominem attacks on (apparently) living persons, with little substance. WP:BLP suggests 2 reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons, and there is no reason that WP should be quoting a columnist's description of a living author as a "master of half truth". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kiefer. The article doesn't present the claim as a fact but as the opinion of the reviewer, naming the source in the sentence itself and using the word "contends" in a disinterested way. A BLP violation would be an engaged, authoritative, statement saying that "Ezra Levant is a master of logical fallacy", without quotes and in-sentence attribution, and then sourcing it to the paper. This is clearly not the case here, and I do not agree with your assessment that this is a BLP violation (in fact I took great care in ensuring the article was as NPOV as possible). To be fair, I realize how the quote directed at the author might be less worthy than one discussing the actual book, so I'll see if I can find a more relevant review. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your other articles seemed to be well done, at least when I checked biographies. I am unfamiliar with AfC's: Did someone else write the first draft of 10 kilobytes, and then you Wikiformatted it and improved it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, generally AfC's are submitted by anons or new editors writing their first article, and an AfC reviewer will go through the article and approve it (moving it to mainspace) or decline it, listing reasons. It looks like the article was written from scratch by Charlie. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you are referring to Stephen Herbits? This has not been processed through AfC, but is a special case of an editor coming on IRC asking for someone to format their article from a MS Word document. I guess I was feeling great that day, so I just did it. The original article was dumped on Gfoley4's sandbox, see here and subsequent edits. Since moving Gfoley4's sandbox would have been quite inconvenient, I simply created the page once I was done, crediting the original author of the article in my edit summary.
- At AfC, editors mostly format their article themselves, though I may provide tips and/or actually format it myself when the article has a good potential (most submissions don't). Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your other articles seemed to be well done, at least when I checked biographies. I am unfamiliar with AfC's: Did someone else write the first draft of 10 kilobytes, and then you Wikiformatted it and improved it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kiefer. The article doesn't present the claim as a fact but as the opinion of the reviewer, naming the source in the sentence itself and using the word "contends" in a disinterested way. A BLP violation would be an engaged, authoritative, statement saying that "Ezra Levant is a master of logical fallacy", without quotes and in-sentence attribution, and then sourcing it to the paper. This is clearly not the case here, and I do not agree with your assessment that this is a BLP violation (in fact I took great care in ensuring the article was as NPOV as possible). To be fair, I realize how the quote directed at the author might be less worthy than one discussing the actual book, so I'll see if I can find a more relevant review. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GA-status article Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands has a section on criticism that contains ad hominem attacks on (apparently) living persons, with little substance. WP:BLP suggests 2 reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons, and there is no reason that WP should be quoting a columnist's description of a living author as a "master of half truth". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. Per Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. 28bytes pointed to this above, and I feel that the way the candidate reacted to the tags was not the kind of temperament I want to see in an administrator, and this incident was very recent. Given the candidate's relative newness as an editor, I'd like to see some more experience without any repeats of this. At the same time, I think the candidate was entirely clueful in fixing the canvassing problem that I raised just under "Discussion", above, and I fully realize that I'm an outlier in my assessment of this RfA. So please take my comment as advice to keep in mind after you get the mop, and please accept my best wishes for a productive administratorship. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I wouldn't use this single "incident" as an example of my temperament, as said above I could have been more proactive in expanding the stub to make valid use of relevant sources showing notability (thereby addressing the editors' concerns), and so your (and 28byte's) point is duly noted and advice is taken in the spirit intended. Regards, :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I expected more out of the answer of Q17. No candidate is almost perfect. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- ^ 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.