Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) m : |
→Questions for the candidate: answer question 4 |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
'''Optional question from [[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font>]]''' Hello, Aervanath. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You may remove or not answer this question if you so choose. |
'''Optional question from [[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font>]]''' Hello, Aervanath. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You may remove or not answer this question if you so choose. |
||
:'''4.''' When you look at speedy deletion candidates, do you search for sourcing and verifiability? Or do you consider the article entirely on its merits as it sits? |
:'''4.''' When you look at speedy deletion candidates, do you search for sourcing and verifiability? Or do you consider the article entirely on its merits as it sits? |
||
::'''A:''' I consider the article as it relates directly to the speedy deletion criteria. For most items, this has nothing to do with sourcing or verifiability. For criteria A7 and A9, which have to do with notability, I will do a quick Google search for the topic to ensure my suspicions. I've been surprised a few times that something that seemed on surface to be completely non-notable turned out to have quite a few potential sources. If it does, then I will add a referenced sentence or two to the article to ensure nobody else comes along and re-tags it.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] '''''<font color="green">[[WP:O|the Orphanage]]</font>''''' 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
====General comments==== |
====General comments==== |
Revision as of 16:14, 8 November 2008
Aervanath
(talk page) (7/1/1); Scheduled to end 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Aervanath (talk · contribs) – One of the issues that has brought me to oppose people in the past has been the lack of substantive article building, it's an area that I generally find very important (primarily in vandal fighters) because it represents a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work. Yet here I am nominating a candidate with minimal article building experience, so what is the difference? Well, the biggest difference is that my expectation isn't really for article work, but rather something wherein the candidate contributes to building the encyclopedia and Aervanath does that. Generally, people who lack article building experience are vandal fighters or fill particular niches. Aervanath is the later. Aervanath has a proven track record of discussing policy and procedures. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his stances, one doesn't have to look far to realize that he has a clue. Which leads me to the other big difference between Aervanath and the typical person without article building experience, Aervanath does his edits manually, which means that people can see how he thinks.
Aervanath is a niche contributor, and people who know me, know that I like nominating niche candidates. While vandal fighting candidates are a dime a dozen, it is the niche candidate that brings a different perspective to the project. It is the niches were we need different sets of eyes, and people with the bit may overlook. Aervanath contributes to a virtually unknown area: The Orphanage The Orphanage is a Wikiproject that attempts to ensure all articles are adequately linked. In other words, Aervanath does contribute to the development of the project---just not in a stereotypical manner. There are reasons a person working the Orphanage might need the tools, but I'll let Aervanath explain them.
When I asked Aervanath about conflicts or other potential issues that he thought might endanger an RfA, Aervanath mentioned three things. 1) A case where he was a little bity but that is almost 2 years old, so I think enough time has passed that it isn't an issue. 2) He also mentioned a dispute with a well respected editor (but one with a reputation) related to links in articles. Looking at the discussion, I found Aervanath's behavior in the discussion was civil and courteous despite some serious allegations. That he distanced himself from the debate when the other editor started to make it personal and that others sided with him has to be taken as a positive. 3) About a month ago an admin, User:Cirt informed Aervanath about the essay pertaining to non-admin closures at XfD. Cirt wanted to let Aervanath know some people object to non-admin closures of non-unanimous XfD's. In his note, Cirt wrote, Though I tend to think your closure assessment was correct, might be best to leave these types of drawn-out discussions for others. Though so far your judgment seems pretty good, so I'll leave that up to you. While he wasn't an admin, I found myself agreeing with his decisions as well.
The biggest reason, however, that I think Aervanath deserves the bit is because he is already an admin---we just need to make it official! A quick look at Aevanath's talk page will show you somebody who is civil and thoughtful. A person that people come to seeking guidance and help. When I see people who are sought out by others, that IMHO, is the most important factor in granting the bit. Of course, the fact that he responds to help request is also a boon.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: After that glowing recommendation, I have to accept.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Well, as Balloonman said, I do mainly focus on WikiProject Orphanage. The admin tools wouldn't really help in directly de-orphaning articles, except for the occasional CSD candidate that I come across during my orphan scanning. However, it would allow me to support the project by personally contributing to the maintainence of {{orphan}}, {{articleissues}}, and other fully-protected templates that are associated with the project. I think I'd start helping out with {{editprotected}} requests, as well, since it's a logical extension of my CAT:ESP patrolling. As I do some responding to {{helpme}} templates as well, I'd probably also start tracking {{adminhelp}} requests. In addition, I've also started contributing at WP:Requested moves recently, and that's an area that could use another admin.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: This is a really hard question for me to answer, because I have never taken anything to Featured or even Good status, and I don't by nature stick around one particular topic of article, so there's nothing concrete that I can point to and say "Hey! I did that." I don't really think of myself as a wikignome, but I guess that best describes my work. That said, I'm proud of the way the WikiProject Orphanage page looks now, as I've taken the main responsibility for maintaining it over the last 6 months. I would be proud of how many articles I've de-orphaned, but I don't actually know, and I've never bothered to count, so it's probably not as high as it feels like, and there's so many orphaned articles I feel like I shouldn't brag about that.
- I'm also proud of the non-admin closures I've performed over the last few months, with a record of exactly zero being taken to WP:Deletion review.
- But I think my best contribution to Wikipedia has been assisting other users. My work as an account creator, requested moves clerk, and CAT:HELPME monitor all help the encyclopedia by helping my fellow editors, and that's what makes it worth it for me. I'm not a great researcher, but being able to make it so the actual researchers and writers can get on with their work is, for me, a worthwhile goal.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: The conflict that caused me the greatest stress was when I was accused of trying to "ruin" the encyclopedia. I don't actually think that Tony and I are all that far apart on the correct amount of linking, and now that I go back and review that discussion without the immediacy it had then, I see that he wasn't being as WP:POINTy as it felt like then, but that really made me angry. I think any of us would get hot under the collar with that sort of accusation. I at first responded civilly, but later got a little huffy. I kind of wish I'd dropped if before that, but I did in fact drop it, so I don't feel like I was complete m:dick. Basically what I got out of that experience was that sometimes it's best to step back from the situation and go do something else to get perspective back. If I find myself getting really steamed about something, I know that's the time to go take my dog for a walk.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Dlohcierekim Hello, Aervanath. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You may remove or not answer this question if you so choose.
- 4. When you look at speedy deletion candidates, do you search for sourcing and verifiability? Or do you consider the article entirely on its merits as it sits?
- A: I consider the article as it relates directly to the speedy deletion criteria. For most items, this has nothing to do with sourcing or verifiability. For criteria A7 and A9, which have to do with notability, I will do a quick Google search for the topic to ensure my suspicions. I've been surprised a few times that something that seemed on surface to be completely non-notable turned out to have quite a few potential sources. If it does, then I will add a referenced sentence or two to the article to ensure nobody else comes along and re-tags it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
General comments
- See Aervanath's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Aervanath: Aervanath (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Aervanath before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support - I can see that he/she is an avid Wikipedian and has been working hard. He/She deserves Adminship :) DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely! I was just wondering what was taking you so long to apply for adminship. All my encounters with you have been positive, and you really do put a lot of effort into some of the more neglected areas of the encyclopedia. I'm confident you'll do great with admin tools. ~ mazca t|c 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent nom, Balloonman! Sam Blab 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, good contributor. -- Mentisock 12:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support clean block log, good contributions where they are needed, good nominator; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 13:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Aervanath and I had a recent exchange about two articles which needed to be merged. S/he had a solid grasp of how Wikipedia worked. While Aervanath asked me to do the merge, s/he had a pleasant tone while explaining that that s/he didn't have the background to do the merge (I had enough background). Royalbroil 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, background on the subject, not background on how to merge the articles ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Herm, thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. —Ceran(sing / see) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support With a nod to the oppose regarding content creation, but on balance a net positive. Pedro : Chat 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adminship is not about article writing but about cleaning up. So there is no reason to deny the tools to a good contributor. SoWhy 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Lack of article work. Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK, but I do think admins need to have some idea about the frustrations of content creation. If you can't point to a few articles that you've made some significant contributions to, then I can't support. Respectfully suggest that you get a little (I don't ask for much) content experience and then return. Doing layout on some wikiproject just isn't comparable. Being mainly a process admin is fine, being exclusively one is not so. Do9n't be discouraged, please try content editing and then come back. You might even like it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Reluctantly, you have good contributions in your area but I also like to see a decent amount of article writing from admins. Usually Balloonman does as well so I took an extra hard look at your contributions when he nominated you but I still can't really see any of the amount of work that I like to see with admins in articles. I'm sure in a few months I'd support (if this one doesn't make it), good luck. --Banime (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
- Ironically, as per comments from the nominator -- the candidate lacks content creation history and is extremely niche focused without having wide experience across Wikipedia -- and from the candidate -- who clearly states that his ongoing work in The Orphange doesn't require admin tools. There is no serious reason to oppose, but no overwhelming reason to support. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)