ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) oppose; careless accusations and biting newcomers |
Tofutwitch11 (talk | contribs) →Oppose: fix, made the oppose count (I assume that was intention) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
#:I just wanted to say that my response was not intended to be sarcastic in nature, the comment was meant as a true apology and not a dismissal of him or his opinion. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">[[User:Jerem43|Jeremy]] <small>([[User talk:Jerem43|blah blah]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jerem43|I did it!]])</small></span> 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
#:I just wanted to say that my response was not intended to be sarcastic in nature, the comment was meant as a true apology and not a dismissal of him or his opinion. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">[[User:Jerem43|Jeremy]] <small>([[User talk:Jerem43|blah blah]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jerem43|I did it!]])</small></span> 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Weak oppose'''—this doesn't look like the sort of behaviour expected of administrators. <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">Woolsack</span>]]─╢</font> 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Weak oppose'''—this doesn't look like the sort of behaviour expected of administrators. <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">Woolsack</span>]]─╢</font> 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
# |
#'''Oppose''' - answer to question 6 suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the [[WP:BLP|BLP]] policy, which allows an exception to [[WP:EW]] for [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material|the removal of badly sourced "contentious" material about living people]] in extreme and obvious cases (derogatory content from a a gossip magazine surely qualifies), and the use of administrative tools, including blocking and page protection, to force it out of articles, even when the "involved administrator" rule would otherwise preclude action. The candidate's response suggests not only an unwillingness to use the tools available to him to ensure that blatantly defamatory material stays out of articles, but also a treatment of such obvious BLP violations as simple content disputes, to be acted upon by administrators no differently than an edit war over whether "color/colour" should be written in the American or British spelling, in which both parties might expect to be blocked. [[User:Peter Karlsen|Peter Karlsen]] ([[User talk:Peter Karlsen|talk]]) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:And if the candidate is willing to treat straightforward, obvious enforcement of the BLP policy's source requirements as an edit war in direct contravention of the policy's text, what hope is there for a prudent response to requests for administrative action in more ambiguous cases? If several single purpose accounts add a crackpot physics theory to an article, using only some professor's blog as a source (where the article is on a general physics topic, not the professor), and several respected editors remove the problematic material, a naive reading of [[WP:EW]] does actually suggest that all of the involved users are equally culpable, and all could be blocked for "edit warring." Yet this is the classic situation in which administrators need to be sensitive to policies such as [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:NOR]], instead of robotically handing out blocks, a case in which the "administrators don't take sides in content disputes" principle is stretched to its breaking point. [[User:Peter Karlsen|Peter Karlsen]] ([[User talk:Peter Karlsen|talk]]) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
#:And if the candidate is willing to treat straightforward, obvious enforcement of the BLP policy's source requirements as an edit war in direct contravention of the policy's text, what hope is there for a prudent response to requests for administrative action in more ambiguous cases? If several single purpose accounts add a crackpot physics theory to an article, using only some professor's blog as a source (where the article is on a general physics topic, not the professor), and several respected editors remove the problematic material, a naive reading of [[WP:EW]] does actually suggest that all of the involved users are equally culpable, and all could be blocked for "edit warring." Yet this is the classic situation in which administrators need to be sensitive to policies such as [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:NOR]], instead of robotically handing out blocks, a case in which the "administrators don't take sides in content disputes" principle is stretched to its breaking point. [[User:Peter Karlsen|Peter Karlsen]] ([[User talk:Peter Karlsen|talk]]) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
#::Keep in mind that it might not always be clear to an uninvolved observer whether the BLP exemption for reverting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies in a specific situation. See [[WP:GRAPEVINE]]. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] ([[User talk:Richwales|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Richwales|contribs]]) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
#::Keep in mind that it might not always be clear to an uninvolved observer whether the BLP exemption for reverting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies in a specific situation. See [[WP:GRAPEVINE]]. [[User:Richwales|Richwales]] ([[User talk:Richwales|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Richwales|contribs]]) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:17, 7 December 2010
Jerem43
(talk page) (41/20/5); Scheduled to end 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
Jerem43 (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I was originally nominated for adminship by YoungAmerican about 15 months ago. Coming out of that discussion, I learned of several issues I needed to address at and have been working on improving myself and my interactions in the time since the closure of that RfA. I believe that I have grown as an editor and contributor since that discussion, and hope the community will give me another chance at the position of administrator.
I have been editing since September 2006, and have been concentrating heavily in the Food and Drink areas, but have branched out to other articles. I have accumulated over 32,000 edits since then and am continuing to learn to be a better contributor. I have taken over the maintence of the Food, Drink, Wine and Beer Portals and the Food and Drink WikiProject and the various related task forces since the retirement of Chris Tanner, our projects primary administrator. I try to be diligent in confronting vandalism and I attempt to warn and submit vandals when deemed necessary. I have been working to ensure that newer members feel welcome when they begin editing and correct any errors without making them feel unappreciated. I strongly support Wikipedia and its goals of free access to clear and concise information. It is my belief that if I was granted the position of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve its contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to answering your questions.Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Mainly house cleaning in the aforementioned projects and portals, but I have been following the Administrators Noticeboard/Incident pages daily and would step up there as well. I have also been looking at the intervention against vandalism reporting page and would help to appropriately block or comment on vandals reported. It is my intention to use the tools for page protection to help keep vandals at bay. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have begun following the good article nominations to help bring food and drink articles to GA status. However, as I previously stated my work on templates that help simplify the creation and maintenance of portals, projects as well as navigate articles are some of my better work. In the article space, I have been a major contributor to the fast food articles, especially the Burger King-related ones. I enjoy working on these classes of articles because so many people dismiss these companies as simply fast food joints, when in fact the subjects of these articles are major corporations that have positive and negative impacts on the global economy. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I have had several stressful conflicts in my history here, a good deal of them on the Korean cuisine article. It has taken a good deal of time, but I have managed to learn to not allow my anger to dictate my actions. When there are times that I feel that I cannot continue to interact with others, I will often step away form the discussion as needed so I do not excaborate the situation. If I feel that my interactions are not neutral due to one reason or another, I will try to bring in an outside, neutral party that can possibly help bring about a good consensus. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
- 4. Imagine for a second that you are an administrator. You have blocked an IP that was reported to AIV for vandalism. The IP requests to be unblocked, and in their unblock request, they promise to be good if they are unblocked. What do you do?
- A: I would have to look into the history of the address, and see how problematic it has been in the past as well as looking at whom the address is associated with. Unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history, I would assume good faith and unblock the address. If the address were a shared address, from a school or other institution, I would also encourage him/her to create an account to differentiate themselves from others would use that address for mischief. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
- 5. Do you think the current warning/blocking system is too harsh? Too lenient? Why? When should you block a user who was received no warnings?
- A: I feel the system works well but not perfectly, the warnings are concise and blocking mechanisms can work to teach contributors what is acceptable behavior. The thing I have noticed about the blocking tools from watching the ANI discussions that the guidelines for applying blocks are up for debate. The tools themselves are neutral, it is the users that can be either harsh or lenient, depending on the personalities of those users - like society in general. As to blocking a user with no warnings, based on my experiences in the real world punishing an individual without forewarning is a bad practice. It would require a truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction to jump right to a suspension of privileges. Again, this is based on dealing with subordinates in real world situations as a person in a supervisory position. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- 6. You write a BLP article on "Michael Watkins". Six days later, when the article is on DYK, an IP user adds the sentence "In late 2009, Watkins was charged in connection to the 2008 murder of actress Theresa Hutchins, but the charges were later dropped", citing only a gossip mag. This is a pretty well-known fact, and you would have added it to the article when writing it had you been able to fine a reliable source to back it up. You revert the IP's addition under the BLP policy, but xe adds it back again. You revert again, and it is re-added again. You revert again, and the IP re-adds it again. A random admin notices and blocks both of you for edit warring. Who is correct? What do you do?
- A: The admin who blocked us for edit waring. What I should have done was try to engage the IP contributor and explain the rules behind biographies of living persons instead of violating the three revert rules. I understand the rules and should not have allowed myself to be drawn into an edit war. I would then ask for a restoration of my editing privileges with a mae culpa. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare
- 7. Last time, I opposed in part because of this diff. What, if anything, has changed since then?
- A: I have been making an effort to engage those who leave posts on my talk page instead of blowing them off. When someone posts a question or comment on a talk page it is common courtesy to respond to the queries and provide explanations regarding to my actions. I was not doing that when at the time of my first RfA, and was appropriately called on my lack of civility. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Cube lurker
- 8. You express an interest to work WP:ANI discussions. Could you point out a couple of discussions you took part in that highlight your abilities in this area.
- A: I have only been monitoring the page and not participating as a disinterested third party. I wanted to see how others handled the various situations that arose and how they responded in order to glean how admins react. The only time I have ever really participated was in incidents I filed or had a intimate knowledge of. I have participated in couple regarding now-banned, long-time-sock User:Codyfinke and couple regarding User:Badagnani, both a long time ago. The last I filed was in July regarding a refresh of the edit warring in the Korean cuisine article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Groomtech
- 9. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
- A: From what I have seen and read, and admin doesn't issue orders so much as help to enforce the consensus of the contributors and editors of Wikipedia. As to banning a user, each case would have to be looked at to see if a ban is truly needed. In deciding if a ban would be warranted, I would look to see if the user had a history of disruptive behavior, check to see if he had been warned appropriately about the behavior and work from that point. If need be, I would consult on AN or ANI for a second opinion if I was not confident a block was necessary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- - Correction - I used the word "ban" in this response, I meant to say "block". I will sometimes confuse words when speaking or typing, and did so in this instance. Thanks to mild dyslexia, my spelling is also problematic, and while Firefox & Word spellcheckers are a great help, they cannot help when the brain will not or cannot choose the proper words to use. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Additional question from Keepscases
- 10. Which of the "personal appeals" speaks to you the most? Why?
- A:
- Additional optional question from Richwales
- 11. How (if at all) do you feel your answer to #9 above might stand to be refined in light of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban?
- A:
General comments
- Links for Jerem43: Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Jerem43 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support Seems fine to me. I very impressed with the low number of automated edits. Inka888 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Don't see why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why he shouldn't be a sysop. WAYNESLAM 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support - lots of good contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support – I can't see any of the problems raised in his last RfA in his recent edit history. Seems more than capable. I wish you all the best; good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Great edits, and an active user for quite a while. Krashlandon 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Seems like he has all the wanted qualities of an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a fantastic candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - No reservation whatsoever in supporting. Jerem reviewed and passed one of my GA and I was impressed with his active help, suggestions, and polite approach to the task. I'm also impressed by his diversity of interventions across the board. --Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support No red flags here :)--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 03:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - He is a active and constructive editor in the WPFOODS and has given me good advice for many things. Shows that he has very good understanding of WP policies. A very good candidate indeed to help with general backlog stuff and general mop duties. --Visik (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate Cirt's concerns, but the edit in question is incredibly minor - simply adding a word. In regards to this I can see Jerem43's point, in a way; two requests within a minute of each other followed by "very good, now here's how to talk" would hack me off as well. I don't see it as "his only response is to blank his talkpage", given that he was initially engaged and, following Cirt's comments on his talkpage, opened up discussion again and reengaged with those editors who had a problem. His edit there cannot, in full, be summarised as brusque or sarcastic, but simply the standard response of somebody being rebuffed. Yes, he did make other edits, which seem fairly reasonable. WP:BRD exists for a reason; to promote the idea that nothing is irreversible, and if you want to make a reasonable change, do it - anyone with a problem can then revert, and discuss. This process was followed, with Jerem43 engaged in it. The idea that somebody should be opposed on the grounds that they WP:BOLDly went where no man has gone before would have a chilling effect on the acceptable actions of contributors, even when it's within policy, should said contributors ever want to become admins. I doubt this is something any of us want to see. I cannot see a valid reason why Jerem43 should not become an admin, excepting this wholly understandable blip. For that reason I Strongly Support. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Supported for Admin in the past. Positive benefit to the project, has matured well in the past year. Plus one again. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Has been around since 2006 and has over 38000 edits and has overcame the issues raised at the last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support A Wikipedian since 2006 with a consistent editing record, the candidate has shown improvements and maturity since last RfA.--Hokeman (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. I've had a good look at the previous RfA and at the nominee's recent work, and I see a great deal of improvement since that RfA - we clearly have someone here who has listened to what people were saying and has acted appropriately. I don't see that Portal:Bacon thing as a big deal really - more just an example of WP:BRD that ended up staying reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)- Going to have to shift to neutral over concerns about answers to later questions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Don't see why I should oppose, fine job. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Good edits in relevant areas, seems to have experience and appears trustworthy. The Bacon thing looks to me like a small incident that was at worst misguided and can possibly be justified under WP:BOLD. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, happy with. Jeremy has been known to be forceful, but that is not a negative quality. I've found him to be communicative (beyond the call of duty on occasion), clueful and generally mindful of the opinions of others, and haven't seen anything which would give me significant pause after a rather long-term overlap in editing on fast food articles. The cluebat is always available if there are any problems mop-wise, but I can't see anything which should prevent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns here. ~NerdyScienceDude 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support
but willing to change to strong support once the candidate answers their optional questions.The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 17:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC) - Support as the opposes (valid as they are) do not concern me. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I to am impressed with the low automated count. (and a Twinkle fan) I think Jerem43 is a good candidate and can be with the tools. Mlpearc powwow 19:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Whilst Jarem43 has made a substantial contribution to not only WikiProject Food and Drink but many other areas; I am primarily in support as Jarem43 has shown experience, and exercised both opinion and good judgement in discussions responsibly since the last RfA, and I have come across no significant recent activities which suggest Jarem43 would not be appropriate as an admin. Aeonx (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support — Seems to be competent and reasonable. I'm satisfied with his answers (including answers to the additional questions). While respecting people's right to hold different opinions, I agree with Ironholds' position (see above). Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whopper support (warning: image NSFW). I was waiting for the answers to questions 6 and 8 and they look good. I particularly liked q8 because I would be sceptical of a non-admin hanging around ANI and AN too much - observing from a distance before actively engaging oneself is a very good approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- q6 is a problem actually, but because I missed it at 2am (and am rather embarrassed for that) I can't excactly oppose over it. FWIW I think Peter Karlsen's explanation of why it is a problem is correct. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Answers look good and I am not seeing any concerns. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support No major concerns, looks fine. I agree with Ironholds, it is normal for users to make problematic edits once in a while, so Cirt's concerns are not enough to drag me to oppose. — Waterfox ~talk~ 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support I do have some concerns (in the same vein as Cirt; I remember seeing a rather brusque and unhelpful edit by Jerem43 months ago but for the life of me I can't remember where it was). However, bearing in mind the volume of edits and the diversity of contributions I think that, overall, Jerem43 can be trusted with the tools and would make a lot of positive change with them. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Opposes are personal opinions, that whilst valid are not enough to withhold my personal support. Not likely to break the place with the tools. net positive. Pedro : Chat 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support this guy seems good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support no reason not to. --rogerd (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- He could have answered question 6 more wrong (like that wasn't a BLP violation for example), just because he was a little off doesn't indicate instant oppose. Secret account 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support- sure, why not? Reyk YO! 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very productive editor, good technical skills. Occasional (very occasional..) lapses in the highest standards of civility and communication are not sufficient reason for me to oppose. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support' yes of course. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Knows his way around content creation and user interaction, no major issues with the answers. Fences&Windows 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support There are some red flags, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, cross my fingers, and hope you don't wreck the place. AniMate 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Seems like someone who knows what he's doing and is more than willing to learn on the job, which is important. No serious concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I am disappointed to see that Jerem43 was tripped up by Fetchcomms' trick question (question 6). However Jerem43 has many good contributions and appropriate interactions with other editors. I think that it is unlikely that will misuse the tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How was it a "trick question"? It looks to me like a perfectly legitimate question designed to test the candidate's understanding of policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I wrote a gentle but strong oppose in the last RfA, but I believe he has soothed all of my concerns. Others disagree but few seem to suggest situations in which the candidate might actually cause problems; they merely seem to feel he could be better if he waited for a 3rd RfA. Sure, he could, but how many third RfA's succeed? Let's give him a chance. —Soap— 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Disruptive behavior at Portal:Bacon, domineering edit style attempting to push POV from "food" portals into this particular portal - with unilateral actions. Subtle edit summary of "tweak" formatting was actually quite drastic, adding ugly large text to the top of the page [1]. When communication was attempted with the user in question - he chose instead to blank out two subsections from his talk page, rather than respond to the concerns raised [2]. User tagged a major important template for Portal:Bacon with deletion, without any prior discussion whatsoever [3], and then proceeded to modify multiple pages on the portal - again, with zero prior attempts at discussion [4] [5] [6] [7]. When two users disagreed with the changes, user responds with sarcasm, "Sorry for trying to help." User's responses were less than helpful, discussion style and tone seemed to be abrupt, brusque, and less than professional. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- See my comments in the support section. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- While this was recent, it was one incident, which you happened to be involved in. Is that enough to warrant an oppose vote? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Goes to a pattern by the user in question. See Oppose by Malinaccier (talk · contribs), directly below. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- While this was recent, it was one incident, which you happened to be involved in. Is that enough to warrant an oppose vote? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- See my comments in the support section. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I came to this RfA hoping to support. I specifically remember your last RfA because I thought that you were a really good editor that just needed work with thoroughness and communication/interaction skills. 15 months is certainly a long time since then and is long enough to change or correct, but I do not think that this has happened. Cirt's diffs show the same type of demeanor that I opposed for last time. Malinaccier (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose—this doesn't look like the sort of behaviour expected of administrators. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - answer to question 6 suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the BLP policy, which allows an exception to WP:EW for the removal of badly sourced "contentious" material about living people in extreme and obvious cases (derogatory content from a a gossip magazine surely qualifies), and the use of administrative tools, including blocking and page protection, to force it out of articles, even when the "involved administrator" rule would otherwise preclude action. The candidate's response suggests not only an unwillingness to use the tools available to him to ensure that blatantly defamatory material stays out of articles, but also a treatment of such obvious BLP violations as simple content disputes, to be acted upon by administrators no differently than an edit war over whether "color/colour" should be written in the American or British spelling, in which both parties might expect to be blocked. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- And if the candidate is willing to treat straightforward, obvious enforcement of the BLP policy's source requirements as an edit war in direct contravention of the policy's text, what hope is there for a prudent response to requests for administrative action in more ambiguous cases? If several single purpose accounts add a crackpot physics theory to an article, using only some professor's blog as a source (where the article is on a general physics topic, not the professor), and several respected editors remove the problematic material, a naive reading of WP:EW does actually suggest that all of the involved users are equally culpable, and all could be blocked for "edit warring." Yet this is the classic situation in which administrators need to be sensitive to policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, instead of robotically handing out blocks, a case in which the "administrators don't take sides in content disputes" principle is stretched to its breaking point. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that it might not always be clear to an uninvolved observer whether the BLP exemption for reverting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies in a specific situation. See WP:GRAPEVINE. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- There are certainly borderline cases, in which editors removing what they believe to constitute violations of the BLP source requirements will sometimes be granted the benefit of the exception, but it shouldn't be relied upon. However, I'm sure we've all seen supermarket tabloids whose content is salacious and mostly fictional claims about celebrities; removing information about purported criminal charges brought against a living person, supported only by one of these gossip magazines, seems to be plainly within the remit of the exception. But the biggest problem with the response to the question is that it doesn't discuss the exception at all, even to disaffirm its application to a situation where it obviously seems relevant. The answer shows a clear lack of familiarity with the BLP policy. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that it might not always be clear to an uninvolved observer whether the BLP exemption for reverting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies in a specific situation. See WP:GRAPEVINE. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- And if the candidate is willing to treat straightforward, obvious enforcement of the BLP policy's source requirements as an edit war in direct contravention of the policy's text, what hope is there for a prudent response to requests for administrative action in more ambiguous cases? If several single purpose accounts add a crackpot physics theory to an article, using only some professor's blog as a source (where the article is on a general physics topic, not the professor), and several respected editors remove the problematic material, a naive reading of WP:EW does actually suggest that all of the involved users are equally culpable, and all could be blocked for "edit warring." Yet this is the classic situation in which administrators need to be sensitive to policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, instead of robotically handing out blocks, a case in which the "administrators don't take sides in content disputes" principle is stretched to its breaking point. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't want to put off a good contributor, so please remember adminship is not some kind of Great Editor Award, and so declining to support is not saying you're not a great editor. I'm opposing because of "I would be able to better serve its contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia." This suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning and importance of WP:INVOLVED; there are well-established procedures for every kind of admin intervention and contributors shouldn't generally approach you directly for intervention (advice is different).
Also, not spelling correctly in an RFA self-nomination is just slightly suggestive of a lack of requisite attention to detail.Finally, as Peter Karlsen noted, being seemingly blissfully ignorant of the BLP exemption to 3RR is not a good thing for someone self-nominating for their second RFA; you'd expect them to have prepared adequately by brushing up on major policies, or at least refer to them carefully in answering questions. Rd232 talk 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - Per the answers to my questions (Q5 and Q6). An admin may actually block a user who has not been warned for many reasons, such as: socks of banned users, persistent vandals, or other LTA users; vandalbots or unapproved bots; users making death threats or outing other users; open proxies, obviously compromised accounts or accounts of confirmed-to-be-deceased users; and grossly inappropriate usernames ("User:Block me please, I'm a vandal!" or "User:Go fuck yourself, wikibitches"). And 3RR does not apply to BLP violations, which my example clearly was. Of course, the blocking admin was probably acting with the intent of stopping the disruption, but that doesn't make his actions right, and you should have every right to enforce the BLP policy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are seriously opposing someone for answering a damned if they do, damned if they don't question (Q6)??
- Q You're an admin and you've just being blocked for replacing the main page with the word CUNT. Someone overrules your most recent speedy deletion on the grounds of a compromised account. What do you do next? Pedro : Chat 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean in regards to my question—I would have expected "the blocking admin should have looked closer to see what was happening, and clear BLP violations can be reverted past 3RR" or something like that, so I honestly don't know what the do/don't is referring to (answering it?). It's a situation that has happened several times before, at least. In response your question, I don't know what you're looking for, but if I was blocked, I don't think I'd care much about the speedy (by overrule, do you mean undelete? If so, and the article was "go fuck yourself" and I had deleted it under G3, any admin undeleting that is ... well, whatever.) and I'd just walk away. I mean, if I decided to put CUNT on the MP, that would mean for me that I'm done with the project. (I'm assuming you meant that I intentionally did that, and my account was not actually compromised.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Where did that come from Pedro? Q6 isn't "damned if you do, damned if you don't", the question is about the intersection of BLP and 3RR, and any answer that shows no awareness of the existence of the BLP exemption to 3RR fails. Rd232 talk 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well clerarly I read this differently, but strikes me Fethcomms is asking wether the candidate is still beating his wife. Ignoring the BLP bit the main thrust of the end of the question is "You've broken 3RR" - so the question specifically creates a situation wheer the candidate has erred. The simple reply would be "I wouldn't have broken 3RR in the first place".Pedro : Chat 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Q8. Many situations at ANI are dealt with via discussions. Often when tool use is needed it's after consensus. If you intend to work ANI I'd like to see you participate in discussions so I can get a feel for how you'd deal with situations there once given tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Questionable knowledge about BLP. In regards to Q7, "I have been making an effort to engage those who leave posts on my talk page instead of blowing them off" is at odds with your response to Cirt. —Dark 03:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't like the answer to Q5, it seems to miss the point. I would like to have heard a view on whether four warnings is too many or too few and whether or not we should be tougher on vandals. Also Q6, of course. To get a question wrong is one thing, but that was an open book test. If you can't take the time to look up WP:EW to double check in your RfA, what's to say you would when you're about to block someone in similar circumstances? Sorry. Fifteen months is a long time, but it takes more than waiting patiently to be an admin. If I were you, I would think long and hard about whether I wanted to be an admin. If the answer is still yes, then I would spend another 3 months at least gaining more experience in the areas I wanted to work in (interesting that someone who wants to work at AIV hasn't been granted rollback, but that's not an indicator of anything in and of itself). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerns with policy knowledge and experience in areas candidate wishes to work. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Clearly needs more experience with BLP, an essential part of adminship. A good way to get it is first careful obsersvation, at the various discussions of WT:BLP and WP:ANI, nd then suggest some active participation there. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The candidate's editing history raises questions for me about temperament and civility. My opinion only based on issues raised by commenters above. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. To me, Q6 was a particularly easy "technical" question that the candidate should have gotten right. Sometimes the questions on RfA do seem to be extremely tricky and subtle; this one pointed to a clear policy that I would expect all Admins to know before gaining access to the block button. As has been pointed out many times, in many places WP:BLP really matters, in a way that many of our other policies don't (in a real world sense). Candidates don't need to nail ever question, but they do need to get core policy at least close to right. I'm also unclear exactly what the candidate plans to do as admin. As an experienced user xe can already be a source of guidance and info; and anyone can join in the discussion on WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Some people should never be Admins. This is not meant as a put down, as I also fall into that category. However you are a gifted editor. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ans 9, 6, 5. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Q6 is bad enough by itself. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I agree with Ironholds, and don't oppose on the points he's addressing, the Q5 and Q6 answers are problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately there are numerous indications that this user is unclear about various areas of policies and procedures. Also, several of the answers to questions are too general, and avoid really indicating what the candidate's views are, in some cases leaving me wondering if they have any views. For example, the response to question 5 doesn't answer "When should you block a user who was received no warnings?" Yes, it says that "It would require a truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction", but it gives absolutely no indication whatsoever what the candidate thinks would be such a "truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction". Presumably we all know that it would have to be something serious, but to me the question is asking for an indication of specifically what would be serious enough, and the candidate makes no attempt at all to tell us. The answer to question 4 suggests a readiness to unblock by default "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". I would certainly want to ask the user requesting the unblock for further information than just "I will be good in future". Also, while "If the address were a shared address from a school" then the candidate is right to "encourage him/her to create an account", but wrong to think that one should, in general, also unblock for the whole school. I am also not sure about unblocking "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". If there was no pattern of vandalism then why was the IP blocked in the first place? The answer to question 9 suggests a lack of clarity as to the distinction between a ban and a block. Yes, I accept that it is possible to make a slip and use the wrong word, but (1) the question asked about banning, and to say "oh, I was answering the question as though it meant blocking, and only wrote 'ban' by a slip" is really not good enough. Also, "ban" appears three times, which seems unlikely unless the candidate is not really all that clear about the difference. An admin should be 100% clear about those two being different concepts. The candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in ANI, but admits to having taken very little part there hitherto. Watching and not taking part is helpful, but does not provide any evidence as to how the candidate would perform there. Likewise the candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in AIV, but I can find very little vandalism-related work in the candidate's edit history. My experience of working at AIV indicates that even among experienced Wikipedians there are many who have quite mistaken ideas about how AIV is to be used, and it is essential that every admin who works there has a thorough grasp of procedure. Those are just a few samples of my concerns, and unfortunately there are many others, several of which have already been discussed above by others. (e.g. the answer to Question 6, and doubts about the candidate's temperament.) Some of the concerns are fairly minor, but there are just too many of them. My overall feeling is that the candidate is rather vague about the whole question of what being an administrator involves. It's a pity, because we are dealing with an editor with many strong points, but unfortunately some weaknesses in areas which are of great importance to admin work. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is true that Q6 contained a pitfall it is one that an admin should not fall into. It may be that this candidate's answer was arrived at too hurriedly, but whether this is the case or not he clearly failed adequately to consider the relationships between WP:EW and WP:BLP. And, as a seperate concern, the failure to differentiate between a ban and a block (Q9) is worrying, whatever the reason for it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can and do differentiate between the two and understand the difference. As I stated in the correction, when I type, and sometimes speak, I will confuse or even forget words. This is not deliberate and sometimes I do not even realize I have done so until after the fact or when another person points it out. This is what happened here. This issue is compounded when stressed, excited and other intense emotions or when I have to concentrate.
- This is caused by the perfect storm of mild dyslexia, adult ADHD and another neurological disorder that causes migraines and seizures. While I have got a good hand on these and can usually avoid things that trigger the effects and the migraines have lessened in occurrence as I get older, I am unable to avoid every situation in life that is effected by them. As I said in the last paragraph, there are times I will be overwhelmed and loose that control over the effects. In the real world, my wife and I cannot watch comedy films or TV shows together because I become so fidgety and antsy that I cannot sit still - no matter how hard I try to suppress the urge to stay seated.
- When editing extensively and concentrating on the actual content I am typing, I will often have to reread the passage several times to ensure that I have actually typed words on the screen in the proper order that appears in my head. It is hard to explain the disconnect between what I envision in my head and what I type or say, and is often an annoyance to myself at a minimum and a source of deep frustration when others confuse this disorder for incompetence or lack of thoroughness at worst. When editing on Wikipedia, composing letters or emails or other tasks that requires me to think I will have to repeatedly go through a passage to ensure that I have not abruptly ended a sentence in mid thought, duplicated the same passage several times in a row, add involuntary spaces where they do not go or misspell common words that I know how to spell, but just cannot for one reason or another. I also have to make sure that my point has been properly spelled out to ensure that it is not misinterpreted incorrectly by others as rudeness or some other ant-social behavior. My answer to number 9 is a one example, I got the word ban in my head and could not shake it, even when I proof read the passage I read and saw the word block even though it clearly said ban.
- I just wanted to try to explain this to let you know that this is not me being unprepared or lacking in knowledge of our policies, but to explain these personal issues that I have and how they affect my interaction with others. I have been able to overcome these issues in my real world job, despite my supervisors' initial misgivings, and obtain a position of trust in my company. I hope to show others here that I can do so here, given the chance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- This editor often labels good-faith edits as vandalism in edit summaries when reverting. Some examples here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The edit summaries link to WP:VAND, in the first sentence of which the editor is accused of a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I really want sysops, especially those who deal with vandalism, to be able to make the distinction between misguided good-faith edits and real vandalism; the appropriate response is radically different. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutralchanging to Support — Seems like a conscientious editor who could be trusted with the admin tools and would make good use of them,but I want to see him answer the additional questions before I decide whether to support this RfA or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral veering towards
opposesupport Cirt's comments cause me concern. I will look into the candidate's editing and communication in more detail in a couple of days when I'm not at work, and change to either oppose or support -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC) update having seen Ironhold's comments above, I'm more inclined towards support, but will look into this in more detail in a couple of days when I'm off from work and have the time to do it properly -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Neutral I need to see some more answers to questions before I can make a support/oppose decision. Joe Random Contact Me 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Moving to support. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Why not? —WFC— 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wat. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Why not"? Inka888 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would you be asking if I was in the support column? —WFC— 05:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the support column it means "why shouldn't this person be an admin? I can't see any reason why not." What does it mean here? Rd232 talk 12:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest it could be interpreted as "I have made my intention to vote clear, and await answers to questions/the persuasion of supporters/opposers to tell me which way to go". So in other words "Why not?" means "Why not neutral? Come on, show me something which raises my eyebrows". Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the support column it means "why shouldn't this person be an admin? I can't see any reason why not." What does it mean here? Rd232 talk 12:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would you be asking if I was in the support column? —WFC— 05:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Why not"? Inka888 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wat. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral. My comments in my original Support still count and I still see some very positive attributes, but concerns voiced by a number of people over the answers to the later questions have pretty much neutralized my opinion. I would be very likely to support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral - I see many good qualities here with respect to content, but some of the issues raised about policy knowledge worry me. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral. Serious concerns raised by those in the oppose section, but still a number of positive attributes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)