m →Questions for the candidate: edit conflict |
Shawn à Montréal (talk | contribs) m →Oppose: the "asshole" speaks! |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
#'''Oppose''' not for the swearing, but rather the exchange in September suggests this editor is not ready. Try again in a few months. Possibly 12. [[User:Craftyminion|Crafty]] ([[User talk:Craftyminion|talk]]) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' not for the swearing, but rather the exchange in September suggests this editor is not ready. Try again in a few months. Possibly 12. [[User:Craftyminion|Crafty]] ([[User talk:Craftyminion|talk]]) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=312693028&oldid=312691036 this]. It looked like a personal attack, and it was from September, not so long ago. [[User:December21st2012Freak|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> <i>December21st2012Freak</i></span>]] ([[User talk:December21st2012Freak#top|talk]]) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=312693028&oldid=312691036 this]. It looked like a personal attack, and it was from September, not so long ago. [[User:December21st2012Freak|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> <i>December21st2012Freak</i></span>]] ([[User talk:December21st2012Freak#top|talk]]) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
::*I ''am'' the "biggest asshole here" that Giants is referring to so I supposed I ought to reply. I had some minor issues -- and still do -- with how the candidate had removed a popcat tag and had begun to depopulate a category, using edit summary to vent but making no effort to raise this issue on the category or my talk page. If felt at the time that there was a bit of [[WP:OWN]] when to came to football articles. So I contacted him and went on to CfD to try to resolve the issue, which resulted in the category being kept, the depopulation stopping and general peace and prosperity in our time. But here's the thing: the manner in which I raised this at CfD ''was'' rather insulting. I arguably ''was'' the biggest asshole. We ended up resolving things quite amicably and I really hope this does not derail this CfD for a fine and committed editor. He's done outstanding work. '''I intend to !vote to support, if that's of any importance'''. And to be fair, every RfA candidate will henceforth gets one free pass at calling me an asshole. Okay? [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' per '''[[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]] <span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"></span>'''. Given more time I might support, but now is not the time. [[User:ArcAngel|ArcAngel]] ([[User talk:ArcAngel|talk]]) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' per '''[[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]] <span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"></span>'''. Given more time I might support, but now is not the time. [[User:ArcAngel|ArcAngel]] ([[User talk:ArcAngel|talk]]) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose'''. The candidate's content work is laudable but I fear that much of the support for this candidacy is of the "reward for lots of FA/GA/DYK medals" nature rather than any reflection on his suitability to admin tasks. Candidate has demonstrated some temperament issues in the not so distant past that has me questioning that suitability. [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose'''. The candidate's content work is laudable but I fear that much of the support for this candidacy is of the "reward for lots of FA/GA/DYK medals" nature rather than any reflection on his suitability to admin tasks. Candidate has demonstrated some temperament issues in the not so distant past that has me questioning that suitability. [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:06, 3 December 2009
Giants27
(talk page) (25/7/4); Scheduled to end 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Giants27 (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Giants27 for adminship. It is not hard to see what a phenomenal editor he is; he has created or contributed to 7 GAs and over 50 DYKs, with extensive referencing, clear prose, and good layout. Moreover, he has participated in countless AfDs with insightful comments, demonstrating a thorough grasp of policy. He has plenty of experience reverting vandalism as well. With thousands of user talk posts (for the most part, human messages rather than vandalism warnings), he also demonstrates an ability to communicate effectively, one of the most important skills for admins.
I am sure that as admin, Giants27 will use the tools effectively, updating DYK queues, closing AfDs, fighting vandalism, or whatever he chooses to work on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank my nominator for his confidence in my potential abilities as an administrator. I accept,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (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: If given administrator rights, I'd work in WP:AFD, blocking vandals at WP:AIV, potentially some page protection once I feel comfortable enough to go there and helping setup/move WP:DYK sets to the queues.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm proud of my DYKs but in my opinion, two stick out in my mind. Joey Hamilton and Nathan Horton. The former was my first WP:GA that I originally took from here to its present state. The latter is my largest article, which looked like this when I started on it. The amount of references (86) and the size of it took extreme effort on my end (and others who've reviewed or copyedited it), which I hadn't yet done with an article on Wikipedia.
- 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: Back in February of this year, I encountered a new user who had vandalized an admin's userpage so I reverted him. He then came over to my talk page telling me about how the admin had wrongly deleted a page he had created, to which I responded by explaining it had been speedy deleted but I escalated the situation here. Which the user was reasonably upset and posted warnings, insults etc. to my talk page. Also in September, I had this discussion on my talk page which due to incivility on both sides, led to this CfD where again incivility seemed to dominate the discussion. In both of these cases, I clearly stepped over the line of what is considered civil and I have definetely learned from both instances and the need to keep a cooler head when a discussion or circumstance becomes heated.
- Considering I've received a few opposes for a diff. from September I'd like to comment that, thanks to that comment I learned without warning or this RfA to leave the computer until I cool off or to not respond at all. The reason for this being that I don't want my reputation to be defined by an inappropiate and out of line comment like it unfortunately has.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Additional optional questions from Triplestop
- 4. How would you close these deletion discussions, in the state linked to? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination)
- A: The first one I would close as a merge because while the delete votes are convincing and policy based, the need to delete completely isn't there in my opinion. A small, referenced section after the people who "crashed the party" seems appropiate. The second one, I close as delete because WP:BLP is in my opinion, one of the most important policies here and any page that violates it with potentially sketchy refs needs to be deleted. The final one I'd close as keep. Taking out the SPA accounts, there appears to be two legitimate claims to keep with no delete !votes so the decision (while cluddered by SPAs) is clear.
- What else did you learn from the September clanger?
- 5. From A3 and the absence of any other such mistakes, as evidenced by the oppose votes so far, it is obvious that you learned how not to reply. But I'd like to look at how it began: One editor was displeased with your undoing of their edits (see archive). Do you feel the only thing you could have done better was to suppress the explosion at the end, or do you see a way how you could have defused the conflict sooner? — Sebastian 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- A. No I don't feel that way because simply put, I should've discussed with the user why I removed the category they populated and allow for the discussion to not start off in a fashion of "why'd you remove the category without telling me?!" Starting the discussion instead of avoiding certaintly could've helped avoid civility on both sides.
General comments
- Links for Giants27: Giants27 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Giants27 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Giants27 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Has matured significantly over recent months, and is a quality contributor well worthy of the mop. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reaffirmed; the sole major concern raised by the opposition thus far is worrisome, but given that that diff is a one-off incident, and Giants acknowledged his mistake, I'm comfortable AGFing. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I have full confidence in Giants27 that he will make a great admin. He has helped me become the editor I am now, and I don't think I would still be around here if it was not for him. He seems to be well-versed when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he helps out new users who need assistance, and he has never really had any issues with other users. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support @Kate (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Net positive, absolutely. Although learning how to control swearing is a must, but I am going on a limb here because it is apparent to me that this user will most likely be a good admin. A8UDI 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Excellent editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom, DYK work, GA's, overall civility (we need that), great editor over all. Overall, Giants27 as an admin would be a huge benefit to the project. His work to the DYK section can be improved as well (editing the actuall template). Good luck!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Giants27 is an absolutely phenomenal contributor; I am beside myself that he wasn't an admin already. Smithers (Talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support BejinhanTalk 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. IShadowed ✰ 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Obvious concern; however Giants is a very good content editor. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's a tough one. That diff was hardly appropriate, but I understand that everyone is human and that we are bound to lash out at some point. Yes, we all enjoy candidates who have no record of arguments with other users but in reality most of us aren't pure in that sense. This candidate has experience all around with content writing, vandalism, and communication. Surely all this, over countless months, is worth more than a single diff from two months ago? Come on people. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support Regarding the infamous diff: I've seen worse. Losing your cool happens. I really hate it when an admin (or a candidate for that matter) does it, which is why this is a weak/tentative support. If more examples of those types of outbursts come forward, then I'd likely go neutral or oppose, as the last thing Wikipedia needs is another touchy admin who doesn't understand how to be tactful when under pressure.Overall that one cock up isn't the end of the world to me and overall I reckon you'd do a lovely job. Good luck. Nja247 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Cyclonenim, and users quality edits both to content and well balanced contributions to AfDs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support A net positive. Weak support rather than neutral I've seen no evidence of similar behavior anywhere else, and because it wasn't in an area where an angry admin could have caused problems. That diff may prove costly in this RfA, but assuming it was a one-off this candidate will make a great admin in future. WFCforLife (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Julian and Cyclonenim. The diff is worrisome, no doubt about it. If that is the only time something like that happened, it is no evidence that the candidate has a pattern of rude behavior which would be a bad trait in an admin. Instead, it seems like an isolated incident which the candidate has learned from and compared to the great work this candidate has done, I think granting them the mop will be a net positive, even counting in that diff. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support as per SoWhy. I've been hovering between support and neutral-for-now, and have decided that, worrying as that diff is, hopefully it's a one-off, and the candidates response in the question, namely to step away from the keyboard when necessary, does show a lesson learnt. None of us are perfect. GedUK 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think Giants wont repeat what happened in September and will take the time to cool down before responding, also I think that 1 bad edit two months ago out of 27,000 edits at this time is not enough for me to oppose what could be a great addition to the admins Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is a no-brainer. Hes a great editor, hes never been blocked, always handles disagreements perfectly. One problem should not hurt his chances.--Yankees10 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support This user is a great contributer to the encylopedia, and is willing to help out users who need it. he is a great editor, and really disorves adminship. regards--Orangesodakid 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was planning on nominating him, but King of Hearts beat me. I understand the concerns of that edit, but it was one minor mishap out of 27,000 edits! The other party wasn't innocent as well (i saw the CFD debate), and he apologized for the action soon afterwards. We need to learn how to assume good faith and not punish an editor for one simple mistake. All my contacts with him as been positive, and he deals with a subject that is so underrated in this project. Trust me many of the sports contributors aren't easy to deal with, and with that one exception, he been civil to them. He clearly has a need for the tools, and I wish the opposers will reconsider. Thanks Secret account 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a diff for the apology? — Sebastian 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - If that diff (and he shortly afterwards apologized!) is the biggest thing stopping some people, then that's sad in my view. Agree with Secret that some opposers should reconsider. Good contributor, participates, and would be good to hand a mop. Jusdafax 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support This whole scenario feels rather familiar to me. I trust the candidate to resist taking the bait in the future, one incident does not a pattern make. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support – Yeah, that diff does sort of raise a yellow flag, (I should know about that.) but if getting the admin tools instills more of a willing to not fly off the handle, I don't know if I can oppose based on that. I just hope I'm right. MuZemike 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support: Re contribution level and activity, but diff does raise a yellow flag. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose per this. I see in Question 3 you said that you've learned from this, but I'm not confident that two months is enough time to make sure that you have the self control to not make comments like this again. One deals with a lot more stressful situations as an administrator, and I don't completely trust that you can handle it calmly after reading that. iMatthew talk at 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose September was not that long ago. We don't know yet whether or not this is going to be an eternal September. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- oppose That Sept. diff is a bit scary and recent. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Kurt gets one right. That diff is a derailer. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per iMatthew. Bad language and aggressive tones less than three months ago. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not for the swearing, but rather the exchange in September suggests this editor is not ready. Try again in a few months. Possibly 12. Crafty (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - per this. It looked like a personal attack, and it was from September, not so long ago. December21st2012Freak (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am the "biggest asshole here" that Giants is referring to so I supposed I ought to reply. I had some minor issues -- and still do -- with how the candidate had removed a popcat tag and had begun to depopulate a category, using edit summary to vent but making no effort to raise this issue on the category or my talk page. If felt at the time that there was a bit of WP:OWN when to came to football articles. So I contacted him and went on to CfD to try to resolve the issue, which resulted in the category being kept, the depopulation stopping and general peace and prosperity in our time. But here's the thing: the manner in which I raised this at CfD was rather insulting. I arguably was the biggest asshole. We ended up resolving things quite amicably and I really hope this does not derail this CfD for a fine and committed editor. He's done outstanding work. I intend to !vote to support, if that's of any importance. And to be fair, every RfA candidate will henceforth gets one free pass at calling me an asshole. Okay? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per iMatthew . Given more time I might support, but now is not the time. ArcAngel (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The candidate's content work is laudable but I fear that much of the support for this candidacy is of the "reward for lots of FA/GA/DYK medals" nature rather than any reflection on his suitability to admin tasks. Candidate has demonstrated some temperament issues in the not so distant past that has me questioning that suitability. Shereth 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was going to support as the contribution level and activity within the WP namespace seems to be there, but I can't in good faith support based on the posted diffs from talk pages. The candidate seems to show a overly aggressive nature that needs to be toned down slightly; it will take time for me to gain full confidence that this has been addressed. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per IMatthew and per Kmweber(!?!). I have to agree that it is too recent. It's customary for people to want to give an editor more time than 3 months to evaluate whether or not they have changed, hence why an RfA opened 3 months after a previous failed one is unlikely to succeed. In this case, however, if this RfA fails based primarily on that September remark I wouldn't object to another RfA in, say, 3 more months' time because that would put a good 6 months past the offending remark. (I'm not trying to come up with some arbitrary timeline, this is advice to Giants27). I think given more time and maybe a bit more work in admin-related areas this person will be ready for the mop. -- Atama頭 17:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Afd requires consensus, the sept. diff shows you're not big on consensus. enough admins already willling to call other editors assholes, so that's not going to get my support, either. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you see the CfD, another user made a similar comment to your's. However, the comment was made prior to the CfD and I haven't removed the category from a page (in fact I believe I've added it to a few). So, can you expand as you how I'm "not big on consensus"?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- I'm really not sure with this candidate yet. ceranthor 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can't support for that diff. Can't oppose due to the all-round good audited content. Can neutral because I'm a lazy bastard. :) GARDEN 10:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to oppose based on the one-off diff from iMatthew where the candidate lost composure (that would be rather hypocrital, wouldn't it?), but there are quite a few questionable things I find, such as this AfD comment, which isn't horrible but isn't exactly the type of response I look for in admin candidates. Giants27's impressive content work is noted. Tan | 39 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the edit summary? I don't see a problem with occasional use of the word "absurd" in an edit summary; many people write them without much premeditation, and it's better to write them quickly than not at all. — Sebastian 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be only one serious objection; at least all oppose votes so far mention nothing but the September clanger. In the 2 months and 25 days since, the editor has done several thousand edits[1], including hundreds in talk pages. If nobody could find any sign that the candidate lapsed again, then we have to conclude that the candidate has done a great job learning from his mistake. I also doubt the objectivity of oppose votes that focus only on the elapsed time, especially when 2 months and 25 days are downplayed to "2 months". I feel an urge to vote support just to counterbalance that, but I'll wait for answer to my Q5. — Sebastian 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)