→Oppose: fix link |
→Oppose: not at all |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
#::::With AfD, if you become an admin you will have the authority to close them and use a tool to delete the articles. A low level of corrects hits with your commenting demonstrates that you may not be able to evaluate which arguments are based on policy and which ones are purely deletionist, inclusionist, or sentimental. This also raises my doubts that you may still not be in a position to weigh consensus in other debates from a neutral standpoint, which reinforces the reasons why I mentioned the albeit somewhat older debates you started and the way you handled them. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
#::::With AfD, if you become an admin you will have the authority to close them and use a tool to delete the articles. A low level of corrects hits with your commenting demonstrates that you may not be able to evaluate which arguments are based on policy and which ones are purely deletionist, inclusionist, or sentimental. This also raises my doubts that you may still not be in a position to weigh consensus in other debates from a neutral standpoint, which reinforces the reasons why I mentioned the albeit somewhat older debates you started and the way you handled them. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
#:::::I'd respectfully disagree. I know well when I am voting with a stream of policy behind me, and when I am voting based on my opinion (which I am generally forthright in admitting). Aside from these older nominations, could you provide me some examples of my low accuracy in voting? - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">Floydian</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
#:::::I'd respectfully disagree. I know well when I am voting with a stream of policy behind me, and when I am voting based on my opinion (which I am generally forthright in admitting). Aside from these older nominations, could you provide me some examples of my low accuracy in voting? - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">Floydian</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
#:::::: |
#::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banks of Eden|This]] is one of your most recent AfDs on something other than a road, where you argued strongly to keep on what boiled down to your rejection of the relevant guidelines. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
#:::::::Rejection of other users interpretation of the relevance of those guidelines in that particular discussion. There wasn't an [[WP:ILIKEIT]] argument being made there. I don't see anything wrong with taking a stance on the discussion and making the arguments to back my case. I wasn't closing the discussion, I was participating in it. - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">Floydian</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' - I hate to find myself here, but I have no choice. There is no doubt that Floydian is a good contributor who has been here a long time and has a great deal of experience, but admin need to be more than an editor with new tools. I started out thinking I would support, but then wrote out a Neutral response due to HJ Mitchell's concerns, and after a great deal of digging into past ANI, talk, etc, I find myself here. My criteria, the most important thing that matters to me, is the demeanor of the candidate. Period. Everything else can be learned, so past minor mistakes don't bother me, but we seldom change our stripes, our style of communication. While Floydian's style makes him a formidable editor in a debate, I fear it would be problematic when dealing with the vast array of problems forced upon him if he had the admin bit. An admin that is too gruff, rigid or blunt at times can cost us good editors, something I'm already having to spend time dealing with. Looking at the totality of edits, rather than any singular examples, I find an overall good editor, but not a good admin. In short, I fear it would not be a [[WP:Net positive]] for Wikipedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2¢</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>©</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - I hate to find myself here, but I have no choice. There is no doubt that Floydian is a good contributor who has been here a long time and has a great deal of experience, but admin need to be more than an editor with new tools. I started out thinking I would support, but then wrote out a Neutral response due to HJ Mitchell's concerns, and after a great deal of digging into past ANI, talk, etc, I find myself here. My criteria, the most important thing that matters to me, is the demeanor of the candidate. Period. Everything else can be learned, so past minor mistakes don't bother me, but we seldom change our stripes, our style of communication. While Floydian's style makes him a formidable editor in a debate, I fear it would be problematic when dealing with the vast array of problems forced upon him if he had the admin bit. An admin that is too gruff, rigid or blunt at times can cost us good editors, something I'm already having to spend time dealing with. Looking at the totality of edits, rather than any singular examples, I find an overall good editor, but not a good admin. In short, I fear it would not be a [[WP:Net positive]] for Wikipedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2¢</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>©</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' The candidate's personality is incompatible with proper administrator work. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' The candidate's personality is incompatible with proper administrator work. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:20, 16 August 2012
Floydian
(talk page) (13/8/2); Scheduled to end 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
Floydian (talk · contribs) – A few years ago, I first ran into Floydian among the Canada road articles. Originally, he was a bit rough around the edges, which greatly influenced his first RFA. Over the years, however, he has matured and changed as an editor, becoming more diplomatic and willing to exercise self-control in heated situations. He has become an editor who is able to collaborate with others constructively, and is a great asset to the English Wikipedia as a content contributor and a colleague on the roads projects.
So the question that remains to be answered is, why admin? Floydian is an editor who could benefit greatly from the tools, be it editing protected templates (as one of the editors helping with {{Infobox road}}, a massive protected template), dealing with vandals, or helping with growing backlogs on a site with a declining active admin population.
For those who judge candidates by this sort of thing, Floydian has written 2 FAs (including Don Valley Parkway which was on the Main Page) and 28 GAs, and has autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker, and file mover, and over 24,000 edits. Rschen7754 04:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for this nomination Rschen. It is with great honour that I accept! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: The primary reason I have sought to become an administrator over the years is my technical expertise with regards to our template language. With a few extra tools in my belt, I will be much more capable of sharing these expertise and making necessary changes without the hurdle of edit requests. In addition, the declining number of administrators here means that an ever increasing backlog of tasks will be accumulating, which I am happy to take on. I am also a good third-party to discussions or debates and would take an active role in closing RfCs and deletion debates, a process I am currently excluded from (as non-admin closures of contentious debates are simply reverted).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My contributions fall into a few areas, and so I thought I would share what I feel to be my greatest contributions in each:
- Content - My personal coup de gras is Highway 401, an article on the busiest highway in North America which I gradually rewrote from scratch and brought through the processes to featured article status. Expanding beyond that, my greatest plethora of content creation in recent years has been documenting the history of provincial highways in Ontario. I am extremely proud of this work and hope that one day it is looked upon as the benchmark of quality and quantity for other WikiProjects, much as the Military History project is today.
- Templates - I believe my greatest contribution here was the discovery of a mechanism to overlay a KML file on Google Maps and Bing maps, allowing us to create vastly-informative geospatial diagrams placed over satellite imagery. Because of this, we are now able to chart river courses, rail lines, canals, highways, tunnels, etc. with a single pair of links. Using this, the template {{Attached KML}} was created by User:Scott5114 and is now on approximately 1000 pages and counting. I also helped User:Fredddie with reorganizing and simplifying the huge and over-complicated {{Infobox road}} template into a core-shell design.
- Community - I can't lay claim to some suggestion that has gone on to become a useful feature unfortunately. However, I have created and maintained the backend of several wikiprojects over the years, including WikiProject Progressive Rock, the Ontario Roads WikiProject and the Canadian Roads WikiProject. While most of these are rather niche projects with limited participation, I believe they set out everything and provide the resources for new/future editors to jump in and make great contributions.
- A: My contributions fall into a few areas, and so I thought I would share what I feel to be my greatest contributions in each:
- 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: And this is where the brakes are slammed and the tires screech to a halt.
- I have had a fair share of confrontations over the course of my several years of participation here. However, I have grown from this and I can certainly look back and admit that I was far too hot-headed for my own good and certainly for the collaborative atmosphere that Wikipedia is supposed to foster. As Rschen mentioned, this was undoubtedly the single greatest factor in the outcome of my first RfA. I can only hope the community acknowledges this maturity in behaviour and doesn't hold the past over me indefinitely.
- My most recent confrontation has been over the past several months, as part of a debate over the inclusion of coordinates in articles covering linear subjects. I won't get into specifics, as there are far too many and the point here is how I've handled myself through the confrontation. Looking back at confrontations I had three years ago, I was quite abrasive, to say the least. I swore (not at others) and was occasionally accused of making borderline personal attacks and using inappropriate edit summaries. Today I rely on policies, guidelines and essays to make well thought-out responses that address the points of the argument, rather than the person making the argument. In particular I have sat down and read thoroughly through WP:NPA, WP:Civility, . I believe I have shaken off the abrasiveness, but I will leave it to the community to make the final judgment.
-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Thine Antique Pen (public)
- 4. A user uploads a file under a CC-BY-ND-SA license. How would you act?
- A: Assuming that the user has not included an appropriate Fair-use rationale, the image does qualify as free content. The WMF licensing policy establishes that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. Wikipedia:Non-free content reads: "free content [is] defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.". By applying a no-derivatives clause to an image, the uploader is placing a restriction on the reuse of the image and effectively making it non-free content.
- I would begin by informing the user that the image they've uploaded is classified as non-free content because of the no-derivatives clause; ideally they would change the license or request that the photo be deleted, resolving the situation. If they did not respond after some activity or after a day or two, I would tag the image as non-free content. At that point I would follow-up on the talk page of the user, informing them of the process that has begun and the steps they need to take to resolve the issue. I'd inform them that the image would be deleted after seven days if no action was taken, per our copyright and non-free content policies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Dennis Brown
- 5. I've just downloaded coolimage.jpg, an image that is in the public domain. After extensive modification, can I upload here and claim a Creative Commons (attribution) license?
- A Yes you can. This is the same concept that allows filmmakers to create interpretations of Shakespearean works, where the original work is public domain but the derivative is copyright. I'm trying to find a Wikipedia policy that states that, but cannot locate anything in the copyright policies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain we don't have a specific derivative works policy, but you can look at Commons:Derivative works for what is acceptable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A Yes you can. This is the same concept that allows filmmakers to create interpretations of Shakespearean works, where the original work is public domain but the derivative is copyright. I'm trying to find a Wikipedia policy that states that, but cannot locate anything in the copyright policies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- 6 I've also decided to upload the original coolimage.jpg without changing it, under the public domain. Do I need to bother telling Wikipedia where I got it from, since it is PD?
- A Of course. All our images must contain source information so that the copyright status can be verified by other users. In fact, even in the case presented in question 5, the source of the original image must be provided. WP:Public domain states "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Mysterytrey
- 7. Have you had any editing conflicts in the past 6 months?
- A: The only one I can recall is the one I've disclosed above, regarding a dispute between a large group of editors on the merits of coordinates in highway articles. This is a case where I believe two editors were being very vehement about their solution being the only correct method, despite an overwhelming number of editors voicing otherwise, and an RfC siding with the method that I implemented and stood upon. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Jorgath
- 8. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A:
- Additional question from 99of9
- 9. You were "occasionally accused of making borderline personal attacks and using inappropriate edit summaries". Looking back on those edits (e.g. the diffs in your first RfA), do you agree with the accusations?
- A: Certainly. I'll be the first to admit that I was not a pleasant editor to deal with then. Since that RfA, I've tried my best to zip my lips and approach situation from a level-headed stance, avoid derogatory edir summaries, and most of all abstain from making any (borderline or otherwise) personal attacks. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- 10. As an administrator, how would you deal with a user like your former "abraisive" self?
- A: With a light hand and a heavy heart (not sure if that is the correct idiom, but anyways). I believe these editors dance on that thin line between being prolific and knowledgable content creators and a thorn in everyones side. I would try to approach these editors, show them my past, and demonstrate to them that they can get a lot further, make much stronger cases for their debate, and overall come across as a more genuine and concerned editor by toning down the sarcasm, the jabs and the insults and replacing it with being social, seeking compromise and working collaboratively. I know of a few editors that have taken on mentorship and buffed out their edges; they are some of the greatest contributors we have now, thanks to some patience by one party and an attitude adjustment by the other. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Hahc21
- 11. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
- A: Newbie and general editor retention is one of my greatest concerns on this project, and I have spent a lot of time observing interactions with the hope of one day offering some solutions to this situation. To the user going through the experience, a block is almost akin to jail. It can be unexpected, certainly isolating, and undoubtedly damaging to a users experience of Wikipedia. For a new editor, it is often the death knell to their contributions. As blocks are supposed to be protective, not punitive, I believe that we should only block users that are clearly destructive or disruptive to the overall project. A dissenting viewpoint on one particular topic should not result in a sitewide block, but all too often I see just that. Our long rulebook of policies and guidelines is especially daunting to a new user, and anything but outright bad faith should be treated with a great deal of leniency and communication. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- 12. Imagine that you are the first admin to spot a user is mass-vandalizing several pages related to a same topic with extremely rude comments and insults. Then, you warn the user and he stops vandalizing other pages but starts vandalizing your userpage. Will you perform the block by yourself? Will you protect your page and wait until another admin arrives? Would you consider yourself involved in the situation by the fact that the user started vandalizing your userpage?
- A: I'll start by saying that I would not protect my own page. I'd rather this mass-vandal damage my userpage than our content. The action I would take would depend on the history of the vandal account. If an otherwise good faith editor with a long history of positive contributions suddenly displayed these behaviours, I'd be inclined to assume that the account had been compromised. Per WP:User account security, "Accounts that appear to have been compromised may be blocked without warning". I would follow-up by emailing the user detailing the situation so that if they are able to regain control of the account, the issue can be resolved. As I wouldn't be familiar with the situation, I would consult fellow admins to get a sense of if or when the rightful owner has regained control of the account. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Riley Huntley
- 13. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
- A: I would assess first whether the user is belligerent or simply emotional. In both cases, I would start by pointing them to our civility policy and letting them know politely that the cursing does not reinforce their arguments. If the user was belligerent, then I would seek an uninvolved admin to assess the situation, as my involvment in the content dispute would be a conflict of interest. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- 14. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?
- A: I think we all have the potential to rehabilitate. It would be hypocritical of me to state otherwise. That said, the key point is whether the once-vandal shows a desire or willingness to reform and contribute positively. We were all immature youth at one point, and most of us matured with time. Our blocking policy states "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", or in other words that all users should be given the opportunity to reform themselves and make amends. A block log is sufficient watching should their disruptive activity resume. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- 15. In what situations would you be uncomfortable using your administrator tools?
- A: There are plenty to list here, but I suppose that the best way to summize that list would be: any situation where I am uncertain. Certainly as a new admin this will crop up far more often. Fortunately I'd have several colleagues that I work closely with who'd be able to offer a quick second opinion on a controversial situation. I will definitely be erring to the side of caution, and only utilizing the tools in situations that I am absolutely certain they are justified. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Tagishsimon
- 16. In course of deciding the outcome of an RFC in your capacity as admin, you come across a small and strongly cohesive group of editors - in effect a cabal - showing very strong WP:OWN tendencies and seeking to limit the scope of content in classes of articles to suit their limited aspirations and arguably against wider and core principles of wikipedia. The RFC has a plurality of these cabal voices. How do you close the RFC?
- A:
General comments
- Links for Floydian: Floydian (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Floydian can be found here.
- Edit stats on talk page.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Is there any possibility that you could add some string of normal characters to your signature? Even if it was ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ with something after it that could be used for the search. Right now, a ctrl+f yields me nothing when I try to find your contribs on a talk page. Ryan Vesey 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I've had the occasional complaint of it appearing as "square square o square square ia square" to users without a unicode set enabled (and likely many mobile users). I suppose this is as good a time as ever to change it to normal characters until I can find a way to make it searchable. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Support
- As nom. --Rschen7754 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support. But don't give up your major contributions to roads and highways. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support - but only weak because it would be a shame to burden such a prolific content creator with janitorial duties. Achowat (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support - This editor exceeds my RfA criteria. I like that he balances his contributions between mainspace and projectspace. He doesn't involve himself in drama or bureaucracy more than is absolutely necessary to get things done. His content contributions are also excellent, and if there's anything I truly worry about, it's just that those contributions might suffer if he is drawn too far into administrative tasks. Trusilver 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. I was impressed of the quality of the answer to question 4 (which is correct, by the way)! Thine Antique Pen (public) 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Floydian is a great and productive editor who I feel can be trusted with the admin tools and put them to good use. Dough4872 01:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks all good to me. – Connormah (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support—wasn't a perfect editor, still isn't, but neither are the rest of us. He's learned and grown and matured, and I think the tools would benefit him and his editing. I'm happy to see him add another avenue to the balance of his editing. Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the past, I would have thought myself extremely unlikely to be in the support section at the RfA of this user. Floydian said some cringe-inducing things as recently as 2011, including but not limited to the incidents mentioned by OwenX in the oppose section, but I also see tremendous improvement in recent times just by looking over his answers to the standard RfA questions and his participation in the AfDs that Axl linked to below. We need more administrators, and I feel as though Floydian would do the job well — with the obvious caveat that I most definitely do not want to see him lapse into his prior temperament issues. Kurtis (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - We haven't always agreed but for the most part my interactions with this user have always been pretty positive. Kumioko (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support clean block log, very longterm user. Seems a fair bit more mature than he was in 2003/4, but if his age is as per his userpage that is only to be expected. I'm staying out of the infobox/co-ords wars, but all the evidence that I've seen so far is that he was a participant but not one doing things unbecoming of an admin. I vaguely remember the primary topic arguments, but though I'm almost far enough on the other side to support the ignore the last two centuries rule for determining primary topics, I'm happy to treat that incident as past. ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support Writing 2 FAs shows that he knows the Wikipedia guidelines. Minima© (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support I believe that Floydian has established through his behavior that would do the job well. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why? NW (Talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just hazarding a guess here, but I'm assuming its based on my feedback at a request for comment regarding this user (diff). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- A mop is not supposed to be a club. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just hazarding a guess here, but I'm assuming its based on my feedback at a request for comment regarding this user (diff). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why? NW (Talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Floydian indicates an intention to close deletion discussions. However he has relatively few contributions to XfDs. This AfD is worrying. (Disclosure: I am not able to view the deleted material.) Also, the bizarre signature makes it awkward to search for his comments in a page of text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Floydian has participated in 87 AFDs. --Rschen7754 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the 'worrying' AfD. He was expressing an opinion. I am MUCH happier to see an RfA candidate that has dissenting opinions than I am to see a yes-man that only states an opinion if they know they are on the majority side. Trusilver 22:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- From looking through the contributions, I have found the following relevant XfDs from 2012: 6th August, 29th July, 18th July, 14th July, also 14th July, 4th May, 19th March (including sarcastic retort and edit summary), 16th March, also 16th March, another on 16th March, 14th March, and 1st February (I'm not sure what happened with that one). Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Generally my participation at afd has been on an as-required basis - when it shows up in article alerts, my talk page or my watchlist. However, I am well aware of the growing backlogs and shrinking number of administrators, so I'd like to volunteer some of my time to help where I have experience helping already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record without taking a side on this nomination (yet), AFD closure have been excellent this month in terms of time taken (compared to say June & July). By the time User:Mathbot can add a new day to WP:AFD/Old (after midnight GMT), there's been only a small number of open dicussions left. That said, of course AFD is not the only XFD around. KTC (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Generally my participation at afd has been on an as-required basis - when it shows up in article alerts, my talk page or my watchlist. However, I am well aware of the growing backlogs and shrinking number of administrators, so I'd like to volunteer some of my time to help where I have experience helping already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- From looking through the contributions, I have found the following relevant XfDs from 2012: 6th August, 29th July, 18th July, 14th July, also 14th July, 4th May, 19th March (including sarcastic retort and edit summary), 16th March, also 16th March, another on 16th March, 14th March, and 1st February (I'm not sure what happened with that one). Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even more worrisome than the AfDs listed by Axl is this AfD, where Floydian attempted to carry out a non-admin closure after taking a side in the discussion itself. Beyond the obvious ignorance of the procedure (which I'm sure he has since rectified), this shows a patent disregard for basic principles of fairness and neutrality. No, I am not ready to let someone like him close XfDs. Owen× ☎ 05:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was in 2009. --Rschen7754 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it was. While I'm sure people can learn to be more civilized and avoid expressions such as "thick", "clueless" or "fucking tards" (all in 2011!), I don't think one's basic attitude towards fairness and neutrality changes that much in three years. Basic ethics and character traits tend to stay with a person. Owen× ☎ 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, still not seeing it. Obviously the close was improper, but the consensus was to SNOW keep by an overwhelming margin. It was more of a matter of waiting for someone uninvolved to close it. It was the right determination, and I am sure that Floydian will not make that procedural error again. --Rschen7754 05:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never had any problem with the result of that AfD; on the contrary. But while I am sure Floydian will never make that particular mistake again, my comments about his character and ethics still stand, whether you "see" them or not. Owen× ☎ 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Improper NAC are a big issue to me, however 2009 is a long way to go back digging for this kind of stuff. That doesn't bother me in the slightest given its age, at first blush. Any reason it should? Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never had any problem with the result of that AfD; on the contrary. But while I am sure Floydian will never make that particular mistake again, my comments about his character and ethics still stand, whether you "see" them or not. Owen× ☎ 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, still not seeing it. Obviously the close was improper, but the consensus was to SNOW keep by an overwhelming margin. It was more of a matter of waiting for someone uninvolved to close it. It was the right determination, and I am sure that Floydian will not make that procedural error again. --Rschen7754 05:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it was. While I'm sure people can learn to be more civilized and avoid expressions such as "thick", "clueless" or "fucking tards" (all in 2011!), I don't think one's basic attitude towards fairness and neutrality changes that much in three years. Basic ethics and character traits tend to stay with a person. Owen× ☎ 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was in 2009. --Rschen7754 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Floydian is a good writer and has obviously done some good work elsewhere on the wiki, such as with templates. However, his reasons for requesting adminship are wishy-washy and vague and do little to address how the project would benefit from him being an admin. More importantly though, he seems to have carried a grudge from this FAC to this current ANI thread. Bearing grudges does not become an administrator, especially when it gets to the level of weighing in (repeatedly, and with strong views) on an ANI thread tangentially related to an argument from some six months previous. This and the two discussions themselves seem to demonstrate a degree of bloody-mindedness on the part of the candidate, which is a trait we need in fewer admin, not more. They also speak poorly of the candidate's ability to deal with editors who disagree with him, which, if those two discussions are anything to go by, seems to consist of throwing a tantrum and starting a row which takes up a ridiculous amount of space. Finally, the sneakiness and disingenuousness of this edit (in which the candidate removed two sets of coordinates after the article was promoted to FA, having added them days earlier to ensure the success of the FAC, and did so under a misleading edit summary) and participation in the ensuing edit war is just about the farthest thing from what I expect of potential admins. For the purposes of this RfA, I don't give a flying fuck about whether or not the articles should contain coordinates; what concerns me is the candidate's deceitful, sneaky and dishonest conduct throughout the whole thing, and his belligerence in holding a grudge for an extended period. I can't support giving admin tools to somebody with any one of those character traits. That said, Floydian's work on Canadian highways seems to be otherwise stellar, and I hope he continues to focus his efforts on this instead of adminship or rows over metadata. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- grumble, I hate to be seen as badgering the opposes, but This is a fairly one-sided account of the dispute, missing context. I have also commented on the ANI above, and expressing a valid opinion on something quite related (as both situations involved coordinates) should be... valid. Pigsonthewing also hit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 (which closed two weeks ago) with coordinate issues, when coordinates are not part of the FA or GA criteria, and have been ignored by the FAC delegates. I see this not as a grudge, but as trying to combat repeated disruption on the part of POTW (which resulted in two ArbCom cases, by the way) - which is my exact rationale behind my own commenting on that ANI. --Rschen7754 07:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- IIRC, I, too, argued for coords in the two FACs you mention, and argued against GA for DE17. Should I too expect to see a bid to ban me from this or that because I've disrupted the equanimity of the USRD cabal? Since when is it disruptive to make a policy based argument that additional information is required in an article to merit GA or FA? You may not agree with Andy's opinion, or mine, or those of others, but I'd rather you see them as honestly held and good faith opinions, than as "disruption". --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Continuing discussion on user's talk page. --Rschen7754 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm as happy that this discussion be out in the open. You say on my talk page "The method that you are choosing to express your opinions is disruptive; it is not the opinions themselves.". So you are saying that I should expect the same ban hammer as Pigs because I have the temerity to argue for the addition of coords in a FAC, or against GA for the tissue-thin DE17? And you'd like another USRDr to be an admin. Good-oh. Nothing threatening in that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, reluctant to be debating this here, and wouldn't be offended if this got hatted or moved, but some of the above is simply not true Your oppose on DE 17 was not entirely based on coordinates, and Floydian does not edit U.S. road articles. Also, I have a list of a few candidates that I have considered nominating and/or encouraging to run for admin; some are roads editors; some are not. --Rschen7754 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The point you miss, and which is of relevance to this RFA is: it is not illegal to argue for coords at a FAC. An editor who thinks that making such arguments is "disruptive" and cause for a ban hammer is not an person I'd like to see endowed with admin powers. It may well be inconvenient to you and the USRD crew that others voice opinions contrary to yours, but your collective intolerance of the expression of those views is as chilling as the USRD group-think is limiting and cargo-cultish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I never claimed that editors with a dissenting opinion should be banned. But when two editors repeatedly raise the same points at numerous forums, it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It eventually exhausts a person's patience. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The point you miss, and which is of relevance to this RFA is: it is not illegal to argue for coords at a FAC. An editor who thinks that making such arguments is "disruptive" and cause for a ban hammer is not an person I'd like to see endowed with admin powers. It may well be inconvenient to you and the USRD crew that others voice opinions contrary to yours, but your collective intolerance of the expression of those views is as chilling as the USRD group-think is limiting and cargo-cultish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, reluctant to be debating this here, and wouldn't be offended if this got hatted or moved, but some of the above is simply not true Your oppose on DE 17 was not entirely based on coordinates, and Floydian does not edit U.S. road articles. Also, I have a list of a few candidates that I have considered nominating and/or encouraging to run for admin; some are roads editors; some are not. --Rschen7754 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm as happy that this discussion be out in the open. You say on my talk page "The method that you are choosing to express your opinions is disruptive; it is not the opinions themselves.". So you are saying that I should expect the same ban hammer as Pigs because I have the temerity to argue for the addition of coords in a FAC, or against GA for the tissue-thin DE17? And you'd like another USRDr to be an admin. Good-oh. Nothing threatening in that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Continuing discussion on user's talk page. --Rschen7754 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- IIRC, I, too, argued for coords in the two FACs you mention, and argued against GA for DE17. Should I too expect to see a bid to ban me from this or that because I've disrupted the equanimity of the USRD cabal? Since when is it disruptive to make a policy based argument that additional information is required in an article to merit GA or FA? You may not agree with Andy's opinion, or mine, or those of others, but I'd rather you see them as honestly held and good faith opinions, than as "disruption". --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the disputes I'm concerned with. We all fall out now and then, but I expect a (potential) admin to handle it better, and certainly not to resort to that kind of chicanery. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose we disagree, but the "six months" part is false, as it cropped up two weeks ago. --Rschen7754 07:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- HJ brings up some relevant points, ones I haven't looked into. I hope Floydian comments on these points directly because I think this would be better dealt with early and openly for everyone's sake. Particularly for those of us unfamiliar with the ANI incidents referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I accepted this nomination knowing that the coordinates debate is a recent conflict that would be exposed in all its disgusting glory. I'm sure we've all been in them. I can safely say that there is no grudge being held here, but that I've certainly formed an opinion of the editors involved. We all judge people here based on their communication with us, and their actions. Certainly I am not alone in feeling that one of the editors was somewhat belligerent and disruptive, not just in this discussion but in general. I do not believe I threw any tantrums or went on any rows, though I can admit I lost my cool from repeating myself ad nauseum or dealing with what at times were absurd tangents. As both a matter that I was involved with and one that I have a great deal of passion regarding, I would certainly not be using any admin tools to lobby or enforce my position.
- Regarding the coordinates removed following the FAC, this discussion details the situation more. In short, the addition of coordinates were an attempt to reach a compromise. However, no votes were changed following their addition and no outcome altered by that addition, so I chose to revert myself. I did not spell it out in the edit summary because it would have restarted the same debate that had supposedly been dealt with at an RFC, but which continued to spill into several FAC's, TFA requests, and even a GAR recently. This was more an attempt to avoid reigniting the flames than to be deliberately sneaky.
- As to why I would benefit the project with these tools, I stated that my main area of focus would be in templates, where I feel my expertise would allow me to assist along the same lines of User:MSGJ and User:WOSlinker. Many admins have no technical knowledge, yet are entrusted with approving editprotected requests to huge complicated templates. I understand these templates and can approve such changes not just in regards to consensus (per WP:HRT), but also in regards to whether the edit will work. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- HJ brings up some relevant points, ones I haven't looked into. I hope Floydian comments on these points directly because I think this would be better dealt with early and openly for everyone's sake. Particularly for those of us unfamiliar with the ANI incidents referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose we disagree, but the "six months" part is false, as it cropped up two weeks ago. --Rschen7754 07:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- grumble, I hate to be seen as badgering the opposes, but This is a fairly one-sided account of the dispute, missing context. I have also commented on the ANI above, and expressing a valid opinion on something quite related (as both situations involved coordinates) should be... valid. Pigsonthewing also hit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 (which closed two weeks ago) with coordinate issues, when coordinates are not part of the FA or GA criteria, and have been ignored by the FAC delegates. I see this not as a grudge, but as trying to combat repeated disruption on the part of POTW (which resulted in two ArbCom cases, by the way) - which is my exact rationale behind my own commenting on that ANI. --Rschen7754 07:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - per HJM. TheSpecialUser TSU 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose (strongly). His answers to Q3 give me pause; now is not the time for him to start addressing his civility issues. 'Abrasiveness' is putting it mildly - Floydian is from nature combative, sarcastic, and at times, insulting. His spate of disambiguation attempts (all failed) in late 2010 could be interpreted as POV pushing, or at the very least, time wasting - Floydian created a series of move/disambiguation discussions claiming primacy of North American cities (especially Canadian) over famous major UK locations. None of his proposals were met with consensus in favour of them, and many comments were clearly derogatory towards UK users. He sometimes deletes rather than archiving his gross incivility in his talk page. [1], [2]. Multiple snide and argumentative remarks in his FA discussions Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2 also do not impress. With only just over 60% accuracy in his AfD comments, sufficient knowledge is not demonstrated for use of the deletion tool, and/or closures and evaluating consensus. Wikipedia's principles, and policies can be learned and knowledge improved, but generally a person's character traits won't, and his ability to get along with his fellow editors still leaves much room for improvement. He has not taken on board comment in his first RfA], and I would like to see at least another year of trouble-free editing before he presents again for RfA. (Assorted diffs: [3], [4],[5], [6], [7],Talk:Cambridge#Requested move2010, Talk:York#Disambiguation required, Talk:Cornwall/Archive 10, Talk:Peterborough#Disambiguation required, Talk:Sydenham#Disambiguation required). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those diffs are from October 2010 - nearly two years ago. GiantSnowman 09:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well noticed, the point being that nothing has changed since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will admit that looking back on those move requests, a select few were pointy. However, the vast majority were done in innocence, as there were many rather standard UK towns that are not famous, a few that I actually hadn't heard of. This wasn't an attempt to give North America favour in any way - more often it was an attempt to avoid giving the UK favour and creating a neutral disambiguation page, as I felt then that far too many primary topics were based on the fact one is an older city. Anyways, the timing of these requests was based purely on the geographical areas of the province I was working on at that time (southwestern and eastern Ontario), and wasn't part of an attempt to disrupt or cause problems, though I sincerly apologize if it did. I do however find it odd that my opinions at AfD are being rated for accuracy. They're my opinion, and votes don't necessarily have to be based in policy or guidelines. It's up to the neutral closing administrator to appropriately weigh the value of the comments and come to a conclusion based on the arguments presented. For what its worth, I have tried my darnedest to live by the comments made at the previous RfA and to improve myself. I'm sure it hasn't been a smooth road, but it sure isn't the start of it. I will address the FAC point above soon, but more or less this was the very unfortunate conflict that I disclosed in question 3. - Floydian τ ¢ 10:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- With AfD, if you become an admin you will have the authority to close them and use a tool to delete the articles. A low level of corrects hits with your commenting demonstrates that you may not be able to evaluate which arguments are based on policy and which ones are purely deletionist, inclusionist, or sentimental. This also raises my doubts that you may still not be in a position to weigh consensus in other debates from a neutral standpoint, which reinforces the reasons why I mentioned the albeit somewhat older debates you started and the way you handled them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd respectfully disagree. I know well when I am voting with a stream of policy behind me, and when I am voting based on my opinion (which I am generally forthright in admitting). Aside from these older nominations, could you provide me some examples of my low accuracy in voting? - Floydian τ ¢ 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is one of your most recent AfDs on something other than a road, where you argued strongly to keep on what boiled down to your rejection of the relevant guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rejection of other users interpretation of the relevance of those guidelines in that particular discussion. There wasn't an WP:ILIKEIT argument being made there. I don't see anything wrong with taking a stance on the discussion and making the arguments to back my case. I wasn't closing the discussion, I was participating in it. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is one of your most recent AfDs on something other than a road, where you argued strongly to keep on what boiled down to your rejection of the relevant guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd respectfully disagree. I know well when I am voting with a stream of policy behind me, and when I am voting based on my opinion (which I am generally forthright in admitting). Aside from these older nominations, could you provide me some examples of my low accuracy in voting? - Floydian τ ¢ 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- With AfD, if you become an admin you will have the authority to close them and use a tool to delete the articles. A low level of corrects hits with your commenting demonstrates that you may not be able to evaluate which arguments are based on policy and which ones are purely deletionist, inclusionist, or sentimental. This also raises my doubts that you may still not be in a position to weigh consensus in other debates from a neutral standpoint, which reinforces the reasons why I mentioned the albeit somewhat older debates you started and the way you handled them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I will admit that looking back on those move requests, a select few were pointy. However, the vast majority were done in innocence, as there were many rather standard UK towns that are not famous, a few that I actually hadn't heard of. This wasn't an attempt to give North America favour in any way - more often it was an attempt to avoid giving the UK favour and creating a neutral disambiguation page, as I felt then that far too many primary topics were based on the fact one is an older city. Anyways, the timing of these requests was based purely on the geographical areas of the province I was working on at that time (southwestern and eastern Ontario), and wasn't part of an attempt to disrupt or cause problems, though I sincerly apologize if it did. I do however find it odd that my opinions at AfD are being rated for accuracy. They're my opinion, and votes don't necessarily have to be based in policy or guidelines. It's up to the neutral closing administrator to appropriately weigh the value of the comments and come to a conclusion based on the arguments presented. For what its worth, I have tried my darnedest to live by the comments made at the previous RfA and to improve myself. I'm sure it hasn't been a smooth road, but it sure isn't the start of it. I will address the FAC point above soon, but more or less this was the very unfortunate conflict that I disclosed in question 3. - Floydian τ ¢ 10:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well noticed, the point being that nothing has changed since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those diffs are from October 2010 - nearly two years ago. GiantSnowman 09:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I hate to find myself here, but I have no choice. There is no doubt that Floydian is a good contributor who has been here a long time and has a great deal of experience, but admin need to be more than an editor with new tools. I started out thinking I would support, but then wrote out a Neutral response due to HJ Mitchell's concerns, and after a great deal of digging into past ANI, talk, etc, I find myself here. My criteria, the most important thing that matters to me, is the demeanor of the candidate. Period. Everything else can be learned, so past minor mistakes don't bother me, but we seldom change our stripes, our style of communication. While Floydian's style makes him a formidable editor in a debate, I fear it would be problematic when dealing with the vast array of problems forced upon him if he had the admin bit. An admin that is too gruff, rigid or blunt at times can cost us good editors, something I'm already having to spend time dealing with. Looking at the totality of edits, rather than any singular examples, I find an overall good editor, but not a good admin. In short, I fear it would not be a WP:Net positive for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The candidate's personality is incompatible with proper administrator work. Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral for now.VolunteerMarek 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't have a problem with the arguments Floydian 2 was making in regards to the demands for coordinates to be added in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2; the editors calling for the coordinates were, to be blunt, attempting to impose their personal preferences in a field where there is no consensus that the coordinates were required and went over the top with this, and Floydian was entirely correct to stand his ground (which can be a very good thing in an admin). However, this could have been done much more politely, and in light of the other concerns raised above I can't support this nomination at present, though I'm not seeing grounds for an oppose based on my positive experiences with Floydian's editing. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is one thing to stand one's ground in a discussion of whether or not coords should be in an article. Another entirely to seek to have dissenting voices barred from editing wikipedia pages as HJ Mitchell discusses, above. No criticism has been levelled at Floydian in respect of his views on coordintes. And without wishing to rehash old discussions, the editors calling for the coordinates honestly believe that certain FAs should have such things and have, reluctantly, accepted the consensus that was expressed in the FACs discussions w.r.t. the articles under discussion. That's what one does at an FAC: argues one's point. The question of whether or not there is consensus for coordinates is somewhat moot; it's more a question of determining whether an article without coordinates meets the established "best of wikipedia" consensus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)