Calmer Waters (talk | contribs) →Support: +! |
Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) nope, it's inappropriate; if you want to ask such a question, you'll have to rephrase |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:'''10.''' Are you an article updater or an article deletioner? [[User:TruPepitoM|TruPepitoM]] ([[User talk:TruPepitoM|talk]]) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
:'''10.''' Are you an article updater or an article deletioner? [[User:TruPepitoM|TruPepitoM]] ([[User talk:TruPepitoM|talk]]) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::'''A:''' I would say I am both. I have created 32 articles so far and helped to get another 26 created through [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]]. I update articles that I see in WikiProject Wikify and usually have one project or another of articles I am updating. I currently have a list of 45 articles I am creating. At the same time, there are a number of articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia and eligible for Speedy Deletion. I have tagged those articles deletion. |
::'''A:''' I would say I am both. I have created 32 articles so far and helped to get another 26 created through [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]]. I update articles that I see in WikiProject Wikify and usually have one project or another of articles I am updating. I currently have a list of 45 articles I am creating. At the same time, there are a number of articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia and eligible for Speedy Deletion. I have tagged those articles deletion. |
||
;Additional question from [[User:86.150.68.109|86.150.68.109]] |
|||
:'''11.''' Much seems to made out of your userbox regarding paid editing. I note you also have a userbox stating you are Christian; I'm sorry, but I have a deep distrust of people who believe in "god" (I find them childishly naive at best). Given that you show a userbox that commits you to a belief system about as valid as the tooth fairy, how will you, as an administrator, balance the current community concerns over paid editing against your opinion that it is acceptable - when there's a good chance you are in the minority? |
|||
::'''A:''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.150.68.109|86.150.68.109]] ([[User talk:86.150.68.109|talk]]) 20:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|2=Question}} --> |
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|2=Question}} --> |
||
Revision as of 21:18, 1 July 2012
Ryan Vesey
(talk page) (41/11/4); Scheduled to end 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) – Esteemed members of the community, I would like to present to you Ryan Vesey. When I met Ryan a year ago, he was a relatively new editor who was asking questions about adoption. I offered to mentor him and quickly found him to be far too competent for adoption, he quite simply didn't need my help. Since then, I've watched him develop into an editor I really admire, mentoring editors himself, helping new users, always offering sage advice. Scroll through his talk page archives, they're littered with positive interactions
Ryan is a hard worker at Articles for creation, helps to co-ordinate WikiProject Wikify, regularly reports vandals to WP:AIV, offers good advice at WP:ANI, has a CSD and PROD log longer than my arm and has even turned his hand to content creation - Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) and HMS Phoenix (N96) are just two examples of articles he's worked on.
If I'm honest, I'm almost disgusted at how much good work Ryan does, it makes the rest of us look bad. On the other hand, he's everything I'd want in an admin and more, I hope you take a look at his contributions agree. WormTT(talk) 13:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:31, 30 June 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: I have never been one to strongly stick to one area of the encyclopedia so I intend to be fairly varied in my administrative activity. To begin with, I plan on helping with protected edit requests, Administrator intervention against vandalism, Candidates for speedy deletion, and some less controversial closes at Articles for Deletion. I also plan on hanging around Requests for undeletion and requests for page protection but intend on offering more advice than taking action since I am fairly new to those areas. That being said, I certainly intend to assist in a more substantial manner if there is a clear backlog or the cases are uncontroversial.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: As I stated in the question above, my edits on Wikipedia aren't generally focused on one area but the contributions I am most proud of were mentioned by Worm. Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) was my first major content project and it actually led to my other quality contributions. I focus on that one in particular because taking that from its beginning status to where it is now broadened my editing ability more than any other article. My work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify would also be among my best contributions. I generally only make one or two edits per page and don't add content in that area; however, I believe having a properly Wikified article is very important to the project because that is what makes the encyclopedia legitimate in the eyes of many readers. Finally, I have done a lot of work at the Help Desk and the Teahouse which has included working with new editors.
- 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'd like to address two conflicts here. First, I would like to address my earliest experience with a dispute with another editor. I was a fairly new editor and was unaware of Wikipedia's various dispute resolution systems. I felt like I was unable to get assistance and finally became stressed to the point where I deliberately got myself blocked. I have archived the block information here. During my block, I spent time reviewing various Wikipedia Policies, to prepare myself to edit constructively in the future. Going through Worm That Turned's adoption program a month later helped to firmly ground my knowledge in policy.
- A more recent content dispute I have had was at Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii. While my personal opinions were strong on the issue, I helped facilitate talk page discussion and worked to come to a consensus that editors could agree on. Another current example of this appears at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. I certainly plan on dealing with it in the future in the same way that I have been recently.
- Additional question from Maxviwe
- 4. Do u think that the closure of this AFD was reasonable? or the user from a specific region tried coordinately to save the article?
- A: I do find the the closure of that reasonable. Aside from myself, only one other editor had commented that the article may be deletion worthy. The keep arguments, while generally short, were grounded in an established common outcome. TerriersFan had the most useful keep argument in my opinion. Citing systemic bias as a reason why the common outcome is to keep the articles, specifically related to schools outside of the US, was very useful. In addition, I feel that the AFD had fairly representative global involvement, so I don't believe there was a coordinated effort by editors from a specific region.
- Additional question from Leaky Caldron
- 5. Ryan, please summarise your thoughts on RFA reform.
- A: I think that RfA is generally effective in its goal of keeping poor candidates from obtaining Admin tools. I think it is almost equally as effective in giving admin tools to those who deserve them. That almost is one of the reasons that I am supportive of some method of reform attempts. RfA isn't as "broken" as people say, but it can be improved and I see no reason not to. In addition, I think that RfA has historically allowed too many NOTNOW and SNOW editors to create RfA's, but that appears to have been fixed. There has been only one this month if I reviewed them correctly. That may be due to the introduction of the warning template when creating the nomination subpage and I'm interested in seeing if this continues in the future. Finally, I think that the general opinion of RfA keeps some qualified editors from running and I believe that some form of reform, even if it was in the form of minor modifications rather than sweeping changes, would encourage those editors to run.
- A few weeks ago you were a strong advocate for minimum edit requirements, insisting that something had to be done and enthusing about a community RFC on the question. You also suggested that sub-minimum candidates should be automatically blocked from transclusion. Which arguments in that discussion have resulted in your change of mind? Leaky Caldron 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Arguments in that discussion had nothing to do with it. Worm That Turned made a comment in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 216#RfA graph and included a percentage chart for NOTNOW and SNOW closes. While it is still too soon to be sure, there does seem to be a decline in the percentage of candidates. If more information shows that the warning is not adequately serving its purpose, I would still be in support of a minimum edit requirement-given the ignore all rules "workarounds" that were built into the proposal.
- Was your enthusiasm for a minimum edit count misplaced and that asserting that something really has to be done to reduce SNOW & NOTNOW closures without doing any analysis yourself an indication of impetuousness on your part? Leaky Caldron 13:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- It was not. I had worked with RfA reform 2011 when the proposal for a minimum edit count was created. While working there, I had examined the stats already, my determination on the issue was made back in August. I was unaware of some of the newest information, but to say that I had done no analysis myself would be untrue and it is not an indication of impetuousness at all.
- Was your enthusiasm for a minimum edit count misplaced and that asserting that something really has to be done to reduce SNOW & NOTNOW closures without doing any analysis yourself an indication of impetuousness on your part? Leaky Caldron 13:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Arguments in that discussion had nothing to do with it. Worm That Turned made a comment in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 216#RfA graph and included a percentage chart for NOTNOW and SNOW closes. While it is still too soon to be sure, there does seem to be a decline in the percentage of candidates. If more information shows that the warning is not adequately serving its purpose, I would still be in support of a minimum edit requirement-given the ignore all rules "workarounds" that were built into the proposal.
- A few weeks ago you were a strong advocate for minimum edit requirements, insisting that something had to be done and enthusing about a community RFC on the question. You also suggested that sub-minimum candidates should be automatically blocked from transclusion. Which arguments in that discussion have resulted in your change of mind? Leaky Caldron 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- A: I think that RfA is generally effective in its goal of keeping poor candidates from obtaining Admin tools. I think it is almost equally as effective in giving admin tools to those who deserve them. That almost is one of the reasons that I am supportive of some method of reform attempts. RfA isn't as "broken" as people say, but it can be improved and I see no reason not to. In addition, I think that RfA has historically allowed too many NOTNOW and SNOW editors to create RfA's, but that appears to have been fixed. There has been only one this month if I reviewed them correctly. That may be due to the introduction of the warning template when creating the nomination subpage and I'm interested in seeing if this continues in the future. Finally, I think that the general opinion of RfA keeps some qualified editors from running and I believe that some form of reform, even if it was in the form of minor modifications rather than sweeping changes, would encourage those editors to run.
- Additional question from Phil Bridger
- 6. I think that some further comments on the deletion discussion raised in question 4 would be useful. In particular do you still think, as you did six weeks go, that being "a poorly written article ... with few references" is a valid reason to nominate for deletion? And what have you learned from that discussion?
- A: That one is fairly tough because I do feel that Wikipedia allows poorly written articles on schools in ways it doesn't allow for other content. That being said, we should really have an essay that says AFD is not a cleanup tag. One aspect of having a crowd sourced website like Wikipedia is that pages can always be improved. That is why we have maintenance tags and the like. "A poorly written article ... with few references" would only be eligible for deletion if it couldn't be improved, but that would be a result of not being notable more than of being poorly written. The main thing I learned from the discussion was an appreciation for countering systemic bias.
- fwiw, I'd suggest WP:ATD does offer pretty clear guidance that AfD is not a cleanup tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- A: That one is fairly tough because I do feel that Wikipedia allows poorly written articles on schools in ways it doesn't allow for other content. That being said, we should really have an essay that says AFD is not a cleanup tag. One aspect of having a crowd sourced website like Wikipedia is that pages can always be improved. That is why we have maintenance tags and the like. "A poorly written article ... with few references" would only be eligible for deletion if it couldn't be improved, but that would be a result of not being notable more than of being poorly written. The main thing I learned from the discussion was an appreciation for countering systemic bias.
- Additional question from Leaky Caldron
- 7. Did prior warning of this proposal WP:Village_pump_(technical)/Proposal_by_Jc37 influence your decision to allow your name to go forward for RFA now?
- A: It had no influence in my decision
- But you were aware of it via this off-wiki message from your proposer [1]? Why did you have a change of heart and decide to go ahead with RFA a bit sooner than intended having expressed concern about the need to get some article creation work out of the way first? Leaky Caldron 17:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll leave Ryan to answer his change of heart, but my reasoning was the signpost article, the flurry of nominations that it inevitably created, and I thought he'd contrast well against the other candidates. I was only peripherally aware of jc37's proposal, I haven't been following it. I did not mention it in the email and it did not occur to me. WormTT(talk) 22:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- As Worm said, the Proposal by Jc37 was not mentioned and I had taken part in the discussion prior to any mention of RfA by Worm. My change of heart came in that I felt attempting to create all of the articles prior to the RfA would cause me to rush my contributions and result in lower quality articles. I have no intention to discontinue working on those articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- But you were aware of it via this off-wiki message from your proposer [1]? Why did you have a change of heart and decide to go ahead with RFA a bit sooner than intended having expressed concern about the need to get some article creation work out of the way first? Leaky Caldron 17:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- A: It had no influence in my decision
- Additional question from Salvio giuliano
- 8. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?
- A: I have a bot account User:Ryan Vesey Bot. It is an AWB bot and has been used to tag articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Umpires task force and has had no other tasks.
- Additional question from Bbb23
- 9. Following up on the AfD issue but addressing the more global issue of our policies and guidelines, what should be done to tackle the problem of poor quality articles? WP:ATD (policy) states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." WP:BEFORE says pretty much the same thing. My experience, though, is too many poor quality articles are not improved, but, generally, nominating articles, even ones that have been tagged for years, is met with hostility. (Ironically, such AfDs often result in an improved article.) Should the current system remain because, at least in the opinion of many, it is the lesser of two evils, or should the system be changed and, if so, how?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- A: The best way to improve this globally, in my opinion, is to work on editor retention. Specifically of the editors who create those articles. Many editors come, create an article, then leave. We could greatly improve the quality of new articles if we could work on keeping new editors and advising them to improve the articles they most recently created. I really don't have much of an idea on what can be done with the ones that have been tagged forever, except hope that they are improved at some time. Here's a reason why I wouldn't support changing the system to one in which poor articles could be summarily deleted. While it may seem to make sense to nominate a poor unsourced (or poorly sourced) article on a topic that the nominator doesn't find interesting for deletion, there are many editors and readers who find the topic very interesting. PSG Public Schools isn't widely read, but it is still being accessed by a few people every day. Likewise, we have many articles on legal topics that are unsourced and poorly written, but I don't think there would be a valid argument for deleting them if they aren't improved.
- Additional question from TruPepitoM
- 10. Are you an article updater or an article deletioner? TruPepitoM (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- A: I would say I am both. I have created 32 articles so far and helped to get another 26 created through Articles for creation. I update articles that I see in WikiProject Wikify and usually have one project or another of articles I am updating. I currently have a list of 45 articles I am creating. At the same time, there are a number of articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia and eligible for Speedy Deletion. I have tagged those articles deletion.
General comments
- Links for Ryan Vesey: Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Ryan Vesey 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
- Edit statistics are pasted on the talk page now. mabdul 09:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Support
- Strong support - No reason to oppose. He has pretty good CSD log. Also, his article space edits look nice, shows good understanding of policies and is hard working in a good way. →TSU tp* 08:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious support is obvious. See nom. Nom nom nom. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support from the logs I can see he has tried patrolling, moving and uploading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support particularly regarding the answers of the question and wide types of edits.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Ha, I wondered when this was going to happen! I've seen Ryan Vesey around since the days Worm first encountered him (and even before then, in fact!), and he's been terrific in every forum I've seen him - knows Wikipedia policy very well, is able to interpret it intelligently, and is very helpful all round. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Hard-working, helpful user--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support based on what I've seen of Ryan around various places. KTC (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I've grown to trust his opinions and objectivity in discussions. We sometimes have different ideas, but he is always inquisitive rather than stubborn, open minded and wanting to understand the "why" of things. Ryan will be an asset with the bit, this I'm sure of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Everything I've seen about Ryan's editing has been good, so I've got no reason to think that he'd misuse the tools. Nick-D (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you were an admin already! →Bmusician 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen him in far too many places to count and he certainly conducts himself like an admin. Andie ▶Candy◀ 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support – I've been waiting for this to happen. Ryan was extremely helpful to me personally recently and has been to many other people as well. He seems to understand how Wikipedia works and I see no real reason not to support him fully. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support As per Bmusician! ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 14:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support – Seems like a levelheaded editor. -- Luke (Talk) 15:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support One of the most ideal candidates for these tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I have seen edits from this editor in admin-related areas on a large number of occasions, and am sure he will be a competent admin.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions. CSD tagging has a good hit rate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support I first came across Ryan in May 2011, when he made an unblock request from an indefinite block. I kept a close eye on Ryan's editing for quite a time after his unblock, and I was delighted to see that he was editing completely constructively, with no repetition of the problems that had led to the block. He said that he had learnt his lesson, and indeed he had. He has continued to do excellent work from then on. From time to time I come across Ryan's reports at AIV, and they are always sound (which is, unfortunately, not true for many regulars there) so I am confident that he has a good understanding of this area of admin work. I don't always agree with Ryan's opinions at AfD, but they are always reasonable and intelligent opinions, and I have seen him willing to be persuaded to change his mind when others have given good reasons, which is an important asset for an administrator: we don't need dogmatic and inflexible administrators. Ryan's strongest point, in my opinion, is that he is courteous and helpful to well-meaning but uninformed new editors. He is much better at this than many existing administrators, so adding him to the admin corps would have a benefit in this respect. All in all, I am delighted that he is now being considered for the mop, and I am totally confident that he will make good use of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thousands of good edits, lots of good administrative work, has been here for more than 6 months. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support He may have had an erratic history, but I keep seeing him around the admin areas - and find it hard to believe that he hasn't been here for years (and have to keep reminding myself that he isn't an dmin...). I can't recall any problems that I've come across, and reckon that he'll be a willing learner in areas he hasn't done much in yet. (If there are any...) Peridon (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support I have seen Ryan around WP for many months and he frequently catches and reverts vandalism faster than I can. His edits seem very constructive and I've seen him be helpful to other editors. I find his nomination answers genuine and his explanations of historical challenges very satisfactory. There is no need for someone to have been perfect to receive Admin privileges. If that were the case, we'd have no admins at all. Vertium (talk to me) 19:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Soutenir et fort! ⇒TAP 21:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support, thought you were already an admin.. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support, like what I've seen around wiki, a few kinks to work out, but he'll be fine.PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I am so impressed with his turnaround since May 2011. I keep seeing his name attached to reasonable comments all over the admin areas and think he will be an asset to the admin corps. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Per my 8-ball. Also, opposes are unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I'll try to get a more extensive reasoning in, but on the off chance that I'm offline until the conclusion of this RfA, I want to express my faith in Ryan's actions as an editor and trust in his abilities as an admin. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I met Ryan on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC, and he's a joy to interact with - plus, his edits are strong, too! Start mopping, my friend. :D Theopolisme TALK 01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support I've seen him around here wherever I go, and he certainly is fit for the mop. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns from what I've seen of the candidate. Glad to have him on board. -- Ϫ 01:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support – From everything I've seen of him, he seems conscientious and knowledgeable. —Torchiest talkedits 01:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - He's been a dedicated host at WP:Teahouse. On top of his many other fine qualities, he's a good collaborator and works hard to support new editors. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 03:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought he already was a sysop, but if not certainly someone who is looking to do article related stuff will earn my support. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great contributions and CSD noms. —HueSatLum 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I thought he had been here a lot longer. Deb (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good to see how things can improve over a year or so, if people are given a second chance and have the nous to seize it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Normally I would oppose a young man having his intelligence spending much time on Wikipedia, but I am impressed by his having stopped editing during his school term(s). He has intelligence, character, and discipline, and the rest of us should support him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Kiefer, although I do have minor concerns about the paid editting stance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I had initially came here to support and having read the current oppose rationals still find myself here. Ryan has shown a great many of the qualifications we should be looking for in a administrator. He has demonstrated his strong grasp of policies and guidelines and willingness to help others on many occasions at places such as the help desk and answering help requests where his answers are usually spot on. He has shown that he can communicate well with a variety of different editors, often going to lengths to help out an editor at the end of their rope. As far as the paid editing opinion, it is just an opinion. Most of us have one, but it is whether or not it effects how we contribute and adhere to policy. I have seen nothing to suggest it would effect the way he carries out policy, just as it doesn't for the rest of us with or without an opinion. Calmer Waters 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- This is a regrettable oppose. The breadth of a man's character is measured across his ability. The depth, by tenacious resolve. While I've observed your abilities, I've also observed your lack of depth. Unfortunately ability is hardly effective if you lack endurance to see it through. Good luck Ryan. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- When I noticed you removed content from your user page, I was curious. What I saw
in reading the page, I find very, very disturbing. I will review this matter in depth, but initial results are damning.Your aggressive nature and inclination to assume the worst, first, are telling.I don't know if Dannyboy1209 can become a good contributor or not. What I know is that any user should cringe that decisions can be, and are made this way. I do advise as many who aspire to diligence to review this talk page from the top.Do consider that the user began affiliation with Ryan as his adoptee. Remember that this debacle was displayed as a proud moment.And notice the dates as well. If you like this stuff, and it suits you, I'm sure you'll feel more comfortable in supporting. For me, it is the last thing I thought I might see.StringdaBrokeda (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)- My76Strat, I had to agree to get CSD mentoring to pass my RfA two months ago, so I'm not as worried about depth, as he is pretty good at not biting off more than he can chew. As to that user page, I see several editors that are assuming good faith with the lad, perhaps assuming too much good faith, which is entirely better than an admin that assumes too little. I've made the exact same mistake of assuming faith and getting trolled, yet the blue marble still spins. If anything, it shows he is patient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. Thank you for that perspective Dennis. - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- My76Strat, I had to agree to get CSD mentoring to pass my RfA two months ago, so I'm not as worried about depth, as he is pretty good at not biting off more than he can chew. As to that user page, I see several editors that are assuming good faith with the lad, perhaps assuming too much good faith, which is entirely better than an admin that assumes too little. I've made the exact same mistake of assuming faith and getting trolled, yet the blue marble still spins. If anything, it shows he is patient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- When I noticed you removed content from your user page, I was curious. What I saw
- Oppose. User has had less than 12 months total contributions and in that time managed to get blocked, and in the recent AfD linked above the user is badgering other participants in the discussion in a moderately aggressive manner with personalised wording such as "There really isn't anything I can do though if nobody will engage with my argument and continue to rely on the mess that is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)" and "Their interest is limited to keeping this slop in Wikipedia", displaying the same difficulty in remaining neutral and calm and assuming the worse of others that resulted in the block. I would like to see at least another six months of active, appropriate and trouble-free participation in order to feel more comfortable supporting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose. I don't see anything of major concern from the last 12 months, but I would like to more experience in a candidate in order to support. Being only intermittently active until a few months before an RfA is a concern. He was blocked in May 2011 - contributions since then look fine but given that he barely made any edits for three months before April this year, I would also like to see 6 months of solid contributions before supporting. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Silktork and Michig and little editing between Sept'11 to April '12 the user joined the project in Feb 2011.The User was indef blocked for May 2011 just over an year ago and for edits like these edit 1edit 2 edit 3edit 4 under pressure and has done admiring well after being unblocked and I really appreciate his resilience commitment and dedication to the project by the user for that.As a Admin the user will come under much greater pressure ,disputes and drama not sure whether the user will be able to handle it and we have seen some of the best admins quit after years due to pressure . The user supports paid editing as per userbox and I am disinclined to support functionaries who will do paid editing as users may come under pressure from the company/client to protect there interests or lose there jobs/Commission if they did not use tools to protect there interests rather than that of Wikipedia .My sincere apologies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to address one point in your oppose. You state that you are "disinclined to support functionaries who will do paid editing" and mention that they will feel pressure to use tools to protect their interests. I feel like you may have been confused into thinking that I am paid myself. I am a completely volunteer editor and have no intentions of ever being paid to edit. My support is related to the idea that editors who are getting paid, if assisted in doing so in an ethical manner, can bring a great amount of information to the encyclopedia. Research suggest that 60% of business articles contain errors. If paid editors can be taught to use the {{Request edit}} template to fix those errors, I see no reason not to support their contributions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the absurdity and immaturity of setting out to get yourself blocked as a result of a dispute. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per concerns expressed by Pharaon and Silktork. Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Q5 & Q7 have been answered fully. Thanks. These were designed to establish a couple of things; first to see if the candidate knows when to stop flogging a dead horse and second to determine what hastened their decision to present for RFA. The second point has been fully answered by the candidate and supported by their respected nominator. I expect an Admin candidate to have good content development experience, clear knowledge of policy, the support of editors who’s opinions I respect and a manner & style which demonstrates their ability to convince editors to modify their position when dealing with disputes. I encountered this candidate in a discussion relating to a proposition to introduce minimum edit thresholds for RFA candidates. He was a leading advocate. I challenged the proposal, as indicated in Q5. The ability to recognise when you are wrong is important for all of us. Entrenched views are at the heart of most disputes and the ability of an Admin to see all points of view and persuade intransigent editors towards an alternative is essential. That requires sound judgement. If the candidate cannot be convinced to drop their support of such a poor, intellectually deficient idea as minimum edit thresholds I do not consider their judgement to be yet adequate. Leaky Caldron 11:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Leaky, I understand that we have different views on a minimum requirement; however, I feel you have overgeneralized your comments. My views are generally not entrenched. I changed my way of viewing AFD's such as the one mentioned and I have always focused on creating compromise. The two recent examples of disputes at Talk:Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii and Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan show exactly the ability to "persuade intransigent editors towards an alternative". I am always willing to modify a view I have if I am sufficiently persuaded. See the requested move at Talk:Hockey at the Commonwealth Games for an example of this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns about civility, activity, and maturity as articulated by Pharoah and Silktork. Support of paid editing is also alarming. Shrigley (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose reluctantly, mainly per Wisdom89 and Silk Tork. Could certainly see supporting in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose due to paid editing userbox and an indef block over drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Mr. Vesey has made useless comments about me archiving my talkpage. Unacceptable. --J (t) 19:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral leaning support The May '11 block doesn't bother me. I am sure it was built out of frustration and lesson has been learned. I trust Worm that Turned when he says this is a trustworthy editor who would make a great admin. What holds me back from supporting is that the user has barely edited from Aug '11 to April '12 and only recently returned to major editing. I'd like to see consistent contributions that show a bit of the dedication necessary to be a sysop. I'd support in 3 months.--v/r - TP 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- My job forces me to have irregular schedules, so my edit vary by time of year, so that doesn't bother me so terribly. That was brought up in my RfA as well, but quickly shot down. I edited more just before and after being an admin, due to a willingness to commit more to the project. I even took a long Wikibreak midway into my Wikicareer with no edits logged in. His edits are a shorter time period, but no more variable than my own [2]. I see your point which is valid, but I just think that variability is common as we all have other obligations. And I'm not sure if we will keep him as much as support him ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi TParis, it is fine that you are in this column, but I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to explain my disappearance. I did go through my freshman year of college this past year, so I made a personal decision to avoid editing Wikipedia as much as possible. It wasn't until April that I found a way to fit in editing time with all of my schoolwork. In any case,I'm sure my contribution rate will decrease in September, but the decrease will be much smaller than it was the year before. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- His stopping editing is a mature and intelligent use of time, because he will learn more on campus than on Wikipedia. It's good to have mature persons who view Wikipedia as a hobby, one among many, rather than as a surrogate for social & intellectual life. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I didn't learn much in my freshman year in college. Hopefully, Ryan's experience was different. I don't think it matters that much why someone takes a break from Wikipedia. We should all do so if we feel the need. However, one's edit history at RfA, including breaks, is still relevant, and how much it matters is up to the judgment of the !voter.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- His stopping editing is a mature and intelligent use of time, because he will learn more on campus than on Wikipedia. It's good to have mature persons who view Wikipedia as a hobby, one among many, rather than as a surrogate for social & intellectual life. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Plain Neutral, Don't Ask I'd better ask then change my mind (or not, due to personal time conflict) TruPepitoM (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am going to ask. What the hell does that mean? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral, substantially as per TParis. May reassess. --John (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I like the paid editing userbox. While I am more of a traditionalist, I think Wikipedia needs progressive users. I'm quite concerned about the Youth Energy Summit! article. It's icky. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)