Ivanvector (talk | contribs) m →General comments: gnoming a bit |
Ivanvector (talk | contribs) →Support: +1 |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
#'''Support''' - Great candidate, I see no valid reasons to oppose neither, Anyway no issues, Good luck. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - Great candidate, I see no valid reasons to oppose neither, Anyway no issues, Good luck. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' I prefer admin candidates with a somewhat stronger record in article development than Tavix has at present, but their contributions to Wikipedia - and especially the area in which they're planning to focus on as an admin - have been great so I'm confident that the tools will be used sensibly. Tavix's answer to question 5 in particular indicates that they have sufficient experience and a good understanding of the environment in which admins sometimes need to operate in. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' I prefer admin candidates with a somewhat stronger record in article development than Tavix has at present, but their contributions to Wikipedia - and especially the area in which they're planning to focus on as an admin - have been great so I'm confident that the tools will be used sensibly. Tavix's answer to question 5 in particular indicates that they have sufficient experience and a good understanding of the environment in which admins sometimes need to operate in. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' wholeheartedly. One of the hardest working gnomes at RfD, with a thorough knowledge of relevant policies, willing to engage in debate with sane, rational and insightful arguments. We've sparred occasionally (RfD is a [[Monty Python and the Holy Grail|silly place]]) but he's convinced me to take his position in a debate numerous times; the number of times I've written "per Tavix" at RfD probably number in the thousands. I've long wondered why Tavix hadn't already run an RfA, and I am pleased to support. Good luck! [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Ivanvector#top|talk]]) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
Revision as of 22:08, 24 May 2016
Tavix
(talk page) (53/2/0); Scheduled to end 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination from BDD
Tavix (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tavix for adminship, the first such nomination I've made. Tavix has contributed to the project since 2007, amassing over 30,000 edits in that time. As an administrator at RfD, where Tavix is active, I've long admired his judgment and thoughtful, policy-based arguments. For about a year now, he's been making sound non-admin closures at RfD, and he also performs them at WP:RM. He has consistently shown the sort of respectful, clear-headed temperament that makes a good admin. A look at his talk page is instructive. It shows fellow editors showing their appreciation, and Tavix responding gracefully and politely to queries.
Gnomish in temperament, Tavix has done fantastic work behind the scenes to keep the project navigable for all readers. Redirects, hatnotes, dabs, and set indices aren't sexy, but they pay dividends for our readers. Nor is Tavix a stranger to more visible content creation. I particularly like that he follows a gnomish path to creating content just where it's needed. For example, when RfD brought up the need to have content on Easter baskets, or the South African poet Bartho Smit—is a mention of the topic elsewhere sufficient, or should they be deleted per WP:REDLINK?—Tavix has stepped in and provided us with just the article.
As I noted on my own talk page, I didn't fully appreciate the metaphor of "the mop". But so much of the functionality of the project depends on admins willing to just do that unglamorous work of fighting backlogs. From his record so far and his plans should he be approved by the community, it's clear that he will continue to do that selfless, sometimes thankless, sort of work. I'm quite happy to put him forward for your consideration. Deryck and I both hope he'll be able to get started soon. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Co-nomination from Deryck
It is my pleasure to present Tavix to you all. Like BDD, I have also been working with Tavix regularly on redirects for discussion (RfD) for some time and am encouraged by his desire to improve the reader's experience through redirects and disambiguation.
Beyond redirects, disambiguation, and set indices, Tavix also contributes good quality article content and has a few DYKs under his belt. These can be seen on his user page.
In our interactions, Tavix has shown good temperament and introspection. I have every confidence that he will keep a cool head in difficult discussions.
In recent months there has often been long backlogs in deletion forums such as RfD because there are few admins who regularly patrol them. Tavix is an experienced editor who has shown good understanding for policy and extensive participation in deletion discussions. I strongly recommend him as a candidate for adminship so we can have an extra pair of hands at work without further delay. Deryck C. 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored and humbled by these kind words, especially coming from two people I look to as role models. I accept the nomination and I look forward to feedback from the community. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: The primary reason I am requesting adminship is to help out with the backlog at WP:RFD. I became a "regular" there about a year and a half ago. In that time, I have read just about every discussion to come through there. I have regularly helped out where possible at RFD, participating in perhaps thousands of discussions and closing hundreds of others. There are only a few admins who close RFD discussions, and sometimes discussions with an obvious "delete" consensus will sit in the backlog for weeks. As an admin, I would help keep RFD flowing and hopefully keep it from getting too congested. Recently, I've started to get more involved at WP:RM and I would also like to help out with that backlog. I could also see myself dipping into some other deletion-related backlogs every now and then, especially CSD, but I don't see myself getting involved in anything else (that would be enough to keep me busy!).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: As I mention on my user page, I consider myself a "navigational gnome" and my most significant contributions have been to do my part to improve the navigation of Wikipedia for our readers. These include adding or modifying redirects, disambiguation pages, indexes, and hatnotes. I've tried to add WP:RCATs where possible and have fixed broken redirects-to-sections. I've helped clear the only-two-dabs backlog and I'm currently working my way through the incomplete disambiguation backlog. I've also found a niche contributing to Anthroponymy indexes, where I've noticed that a significant number of name indexes need to be updated and still other names have yet to be created. The project has a huge scope and not enough help and it's been one of my priorities lately.
- Outside of my navigational work, I also enjoy contributing to articles and occasionally writing one myself when I stumble upon a notable subject that doesn't have an article yet. My favorite example is Kala Alexander. I watched his Shark Week special last year and wanted to learn more about him but was disappointed to find a red link. After researching for a bit, I found significant coverage of him in sources such as ESPN and the New York Times so I went to work writing an article. I think it's amazing that Mr. Alexander's article now receives about 50 views/day and 1,247 views the day it was featured on the Main Page. Now, anyone has the ability to read a fascinating redemption story: a surf gang leader who is now using his time to help people with Cystic Fibrosis, helping to uncover why shark attacks are increasing in Hawaii, and even getting a cameo in Hawaii Five-0.
- This brings me to the reason of why I do what I do. The best part of contributing to Wikipedia is the satisfaction of knowing that I am helping to contribute to the accessibility of human knowledge. I take great pride in the fact that I can highlight a park inhabited by turtle sculptures, a Naval surgeon who helped to incorporate the American Red Cross, and collaborate with one of my friends on an article about a South African poet. The work here is never done and I could go on and on about other wonderful stories, but I'll stop here.
- 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: Reflecting on my time here, I'd say that I've only been involved in one major dispute. In 2008, back before I had any WP:CLUE, I got into a pretty significant page-move war with another editor over whether NFL players should be disambiguated with "(American football)" or "(football player)." If I remember correctly, the pages were split roughly 70-30 in favor of (American football) and figured that I would move the rest "for consistency." Several reverts, an ANI thread, and another discussion later, I think we finally came to a consensus. It was through that situation where I learned firsthand several lessons related to Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, particularly related to consensus. Looking back, that dispute could have been handled miles better if I would've seriously considered other's viewpoints and I regret taking a "my way or the highway" approach to the situation.
- I believe that that I've come a long way since then and I no longer get worked up if someone disagrees with me. I don't maintain much of a watchlist as I am not too concerned with what happens to a page after I'm done with it. One of the nice things about doing gnome work is that you don't find yourself in disputes that often. When I do disagree with another editor, it's always best to use civility, assume good faith, and not to have a battleground mentality when it comes to discussions. I know these are all Wikipedia buzzwords, but there are plenty of reasons why they are. When we edit, we should always have a readers first mentality and put silly things like ego aside. It's important not to have a "winning" or "losing" attitude so long as we can try to find consensus that ultimately improves Wikipedia in the process.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from TJH2018
- 4. What does Wikipedia mean to you?
- I think of myself as an "information junkie," and from way back before I started editing, Wikipedia has been the place I would come to get the answer to a question, or to look something up, etc. I probably spend more time reading articles than I do editing them, and the best way to explain it is with a relevant xkcd. That's what Wikipedia means to me: a place where I can get answers to questions and satisfy my ever-hungry curiosity. But that's not all, since it's also a community: a place where I can interact and collaborate with others (see also: Q2, ¶3). It means something to help build and improve Wikipedia, so others behind me can get the information they want as well.
- Additional question from ThePlatypusofDoom
- 5. What is your view on WP:IAR? When should you use WP:IAR as a reason for making an edit?
- A good way to understand IAR is via WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:5P5. The policies and guidelines that Wikipedia operate under are not set in stone, they are developed via consensus and consensus can change. That being said, the rules that are in place have developed for a reason and one should follow them where possible. One should only use IAR when they can demonstrate why and how the deviation from the rules benefits Wikipedia. Personally, I use it sparingly and there's only one incident I can recall where I invoked it: a requested move regarding two footballers with the same name.
- Additional question from Crow
- 6. What do you feel is the line (or more likely, the grey area) between pointless redirects and the notion that "Redirects are cheap"? Or put another way, (and leaving G5's aside), when is an utterly pointless redirect not delete-worthy?
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Tavix: Tavix (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Tavix can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Obvious support, and pleased to be the first. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Has a clear need for the tools, intends to use them to further his already-proven record of fighting backlogs, and has always been both reasonable and sensible in my (admittedly sparse) interactions with him. —Cryptic 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's rare to find someone who is both willing to do the tedious administrative work of closing discussions, and a content editor who sees gaps in Wikipedia as an opportunity to create a quality article and learn something in the process. I'm happy to see this editor get the mop. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent editor with a great track record, shows a clear need for the tools and will be of a boon to the community assisting in clearing backlogs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Being familiar with Tavix, I'm here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I regularly interact with Tavix at RfD and occasionally in other discussions. I've never seen them exhibit behavior that is a cause for concern.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support everything I have looked at looks very good. The candidate is helpful and kind in his interactions. Content work I saw also looked good. He seems to be competent and active, but also knows how to take time off if needed. And he's willing to help out with backlogs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support – User knows policy. He negotiates well and can handle conflict gracefully. I checked for his name at WP:RM and looked for interactions with others in his talk archives. If he already has knowledge of RfD then the admin tools will be useful for his work there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support – CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Haven't encountered this user before, but Tavix's contributions speak for themselves. United States Man (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support – seems like a solid candidate. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - seems like a top-notch candidate. st170etalk 21:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - haven't worked with Tavix, but looks like a great candidate. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Solid experience with great history in gnoming. This housekeeping could be more effective with the tools - clearly trustworthy enough to have them NottNott|talk 21:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Why not? I can't find a reason to oppose. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I have had the honor of interacting with Tavix at WP:RFD, and I have found Tavix to be a kind, courteous, and incredibly thoughtful editor. Tavix is truly a model Wikipedian, and I enthusiastically support their promotion to Adminship. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Great contributions + no doubts from my end. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. Hats off to the 17 editors who have already beaten me to the party! Deryck C. 22:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I can't find any problems, looks like a great editor doing important work. Gap9551 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - work at RM demonstrates both a need for the bit and competence in using advanced permissions. From what I can see of their interactions with other editors, they know how to work with people, and take an appropriately collaborative outlook to their work on the project. Thanks for volunteering! Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns with this candidate. Nakon 01:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Another great candidate! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Shows a need to be an administrator to continue doing important housekeeping work. Shown to be an excellent contributor who will help clear backlogs. Appears to be helpful, collaborative and courteous - good demeanor. I think Tavix has been shown to be trustworthy and will be a good administrator. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, looks good, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - seen this editor around, and always been positively impressed by the contributions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support. In a few occasions, I have found Tavix to escalate situations too quickly, such as bringing incidents to discussion venues before attempting WP:DR processes. For example, about two weeks ago, Tavix started an ANI discussion about my AWB editing, without any attempt to discuss with me first about such edits. In some occasions, I've found Tavix to perform WP:INVOLVED editing, such as reverting my RfD closure even though he has voted in that discussion. Despite these issues, I still think that granting Tavix the tools would be a WP:NET POSITIVE overall. SSTflyer 05:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support From a quick look at his contributions, I can see that he's got a positive attitude and remains calm in discussions. Could use some more AFD work, but his contributions at RM are easily enough to make me support. It's great to see another excellent candidate applying for the mop. Omni Flames let's talk about it 06:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Fully comfortable in supporting a candidate wanting to help out in the less-than-glamorous areas. -- Ϫ 07:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Shows a clear need for the tools, and has an accepting and civil communication style -- samtar talk or stalk 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Thought you were admin already. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support We need more admins, see no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Tavix around, and he will put the mop to good use. Miniapolis 13:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support- definitely one of the good guys, and we need more admins who take WP:V seriously. Reyk YO! 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Can see several reasons to support and no compelling reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - would certainly do well, is certainly qualified. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support While some valid concerns were raised by the opposition I still think that Tavix will be a great admin. They brought the articles to the community for deletion discussion, deferring to the community and accepting their judgement even when it goes against your own is good for an admin. If they had used CSD wrongly I might feel differently, but we have AfD because it is subjective. I may reconsider if evidence of more serious problems is presented but for now I support. HighInBC 14:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good-hearted user, with a sense of duty which is obvious even when you do not know him very well. It would be a pleasure to see him among the administrators.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Tavix has done a lot of good work, and is a steadying influence, remaining calm and objective when others are doing just the opposite. At the moment, the 'oppose' votes are all concerned with Tavix taking a few articles to AfD on which the eventual consensus was 'keep'. So what? Tavix accepted the consensus view in all cases. Neiltonks (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I don't see anything wrong than him. Peter Sam Fan 16:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Tavix will be a very good admin, no real reasons to oppose. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. Having a different opinion from the majority in an AFD does not mean that Tavix will be unable to recognise consensus in future debates, so is no reason to oppose. GiantSnowman 17:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Experienced and trustworthy candidate. Good nominations. Intends to be active in areas, RFD and RM, that need more admins. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Moving to support per the discussion below. Tavix has sufficiently addressed my concerns with deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I've appreciated Tavix's behind the scenes work in areas I'm active. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I've had differing opinions at AFD than the consensus view. Doesn't mean I can't judge the consensus anyway. Tavix will do fine. Katietalk 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support precious contributor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - no glaring red flags, even taking oppose #2 into account. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Great candidate, I see no valid reasons to oppose neither, Anyway no issues, Good luck. –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I prefer admin candidates with a somewhat stronger record in article development than Tavix has at present, but their contributions to Wikipedia - and especially the area in which they're planning to focus on as an admin - have been great so I'm confident that the tools will be used sensibly. Tavix's answer to question 5 in particular indicates that they have sufficient experience and a good understanding of the environment in which admins sometimes need to operate in. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support wholeheartedly. One of the hardest working gnomes at RfD, with a thorough knowledge of relevant policies, willing to engage in debate with sane, rational and insightful arguments. We've sparred occasionally (RfD is a silly place) but he's convinced me to take his position in a debate numerous times; the number of times I've written "per Tavix" at RfD probably number in the thousands. I've long wondered why Tavix hadn't already run an RfA, and I am pleased to support. Good luck! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Weak oppose I was totally willing to support this RFA before I came across this user's AfD statistics, where I find that Tavix appears to !vote "delete" in very many situations where consensus is subsequently reached to "keep." This would not in and of itself be a problem, if the arguments for deletion were sound. However, I found 1, 2, 3, and 4, all of which went "keep" because the subject passed GNG comfortably. In three of these, Taxis was themselves the nominator, which suggests to me that they did not follow WP:BEFORE; and therefore, I am hesitant to give them the delete button. Now I recognize the excellent work that Tavix has done elsewhere, and I don't have any other major concerns. So I'm willing to be persuaded, especially if the candidate indicates that something has changed about their philosophy, or that they will hold off of deletion for now. But since the candidate has expressed an interest in working at CSD, my concern about deletion is serious enough that I find myself here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)(Moved to support, per discussion here). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- Comment - #1 of your examples was Tavix's procedural nomination of a redirect from RFD, so you'd be best removing that. #2 and #3 are marginally notable articles which could have gone either way at AfD, and #4 is a blatantly BLP1E subject that should have been deleted - the nomination was spot on. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, Coker was a star player in more than one season for more than one college and so that's not one event. See here for lots of detailed coverage which is much better than we see for many sports stubs. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit of a tangent to go on about specific AfDs. It is normal for an editor to personally disagree with the prevailing consensus. In those cases, the right thing to do is to participate in the discussion, voice one's opinions, and let someone else close the discussion. Nevertheless I understand Vanamonde93's concerns. As an admin who leans towards inclusionist when I do participate in a deletion discussion, I co-nominated Tavix to be an admin not because we agree on the specific applications of deletion guidelines, but because I trust him to remain impartial in gauging consensus when he chooses to close a discussion. Deryck C. 13:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, Coker was a star player in more than one season for more than one college and so that's not one event. See here for lots of detailed coverage which is much better than we see for many sports stubs. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Occasionally, I come across articles where the subject doesn't appear notable to me. If I still think that the subject has questionable notability after I perform a WP:BEFORE, then I'll nominate the article to get community feedback (if you can tell by my AFD stats, this only happens approximately a couple times a month.) No matter what the outcome is, there's a benefit to doing so: if the outcome is keep, at the very least, the question of "is this subject notable" gets answered. Sometimes, someone will dig up some sources that I might have missed in my search, and those sources can be used to augment the article, improving it in the process. Sometimes I'll even learn something new via an AFD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vincent (disambiguation) where I learned about a tool that can can be used to augment disambiguation pages. I recognize that I don't always get it "right," but as I allude to at the end of Q3, that's okay. As far as my philosophy on CSD, I'm pretty strict that a page must meet the criterion for it to be deleted via CSD. If there's any doubt in my mind that a page doesn't meet any CSD criteria, it's best to take the page to the proper XFD forum to get community feedback. This is important because there aren't many eyes watching any particular CSD'd page, especially after it's been deleted, so it's hard for someone after the fact to verify. To elaborate, I have seen admins deleting redirects with an "A" prefix criterion in the past (thankfully, not often), and that bothers me because "A" stands for "article" and redirects aren't articles. The other CSD pet peeve I have is when admins delete years old redirects via R3, when that criterion is only for recently created redirects. In that case, it's better to take it to RFD to make sure it's safe to delete (things like significant page views, old histories, or incoming links are red flags that it's not okay to delete), or use a different criterion, like G3 if it's vandalism or G10 if it's an attack. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for this detailed answer, Tavix. Clearly your opinion at AfD and the CSD criteria are two very different things. Just because there is "deletion" in both titles doesn't mean that your personal opinion on one will impact your actions on the other. Additionally, I've always thought that one should be free to take whatever (within reason) opinion they want within a Wikimedia project, so long as they are able to perform actions which reflect consensus and are within policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Tavix: Thanks for a detailed response. As I explained above, my concern was not based on any single AfD. No single AfD is individually overly concerning, and I hesitate to make judgements off of individual AfDs in any case. My concern was about an overzealous interpretation of CSD criteria, given the overall AfD record, of which I merely highlighted examples. However, your answer is thoughtful enough to allay my concerns, and so I am moving my !vote. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for this detailed answer, Tavix. Clearly your opinion at AfD and the CSD criteria are two very different things. Just because there is "deletion" in both titles doesn't mean that your personal opinion on one will impact your actions on the other. Additionally, I've always thought that one should be free to take whatever (within reason) opinion they want within a Wikimedia project, so long as they are able to perform actions which reflect consensus and are within policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - #1 of your examples was Tavix's procedural nomination of a redirect from RFD, so you'd be best removing that. #2 and #3 are marginally notable articles which could have gone either way at AfD, and #4 is a blatantly BLP1E subject that should have been deleted - the nomination was spot on. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vanamonde93. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Respectfully, I feel that I must oppose Tavix' appointment to administrator for now. In my opinion, Wikipedia administrators need to be exemplary when it comes to communicating their point in a discussion in a way that minimizes the possibility of being negatively misinterpreted. Unfortunately, I think that Tavix' writing style is highly susceptible to being negatively misinterpreted. Reading through the discussions in Tavix' talk archives, I see several examples where people have taken offense to something that Tavix has written, or where I read a message and think that it is negative myself. Some examples:
- [1] A user has a sour first impression, calling Tavix' actions bullying.
- [2] "Well, I believe that Redirects for Discussion is a good place to discuss redirects." can be negatively interpreted. Rich Farmbrough does not seem to be offended, but I thought that it was a little confrontational to emphasize "Discussion" like that.
- [3] which seems to be about Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Local knowledge. Less than a month later, Si Trew is thanking Tavix for the hard work at RFD, so it appears that these two editors are on friendly terms, but it concerns me that a user's initial impression of Tavix was sour.
- [4] "Since it doesn't sound like you read the notability policy" is unnecessarily confrontational. To be fair, Tavix was responding to someone who had already escalated the discussion. I just wish that Tavix did not escalate further.
- [5] "Frankly, I don't care how instrumental you were, I am simply trying to cleanup the mess you (and others) left behind." is too aggressive.
- [6] "WP:BEBOLD. Read it." is borderline curt.
- [7] "Actually, I think it is me that has been trying to convey you, don't make yourself out to be the victim." and "I'm done arguing with you because you always seem to either miss my point or spin it around completely. I have explained my actions, take them or leave them."
- At this point, I know that I am going way back in time, and Tavix may have changed since then. I will say that I think Tavix appears to have matured and gotten better at this over time (e.g.: [8]). If Tavix becomes an administrator, I sincerely hope that he/she works on communicating himself/herself while trying to minimize the risk of appearing negative. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments
- I see I have been mentioned above.
- User:Tavix and I are on "friendly terms" in the sense that we both work very hard at WP:RFD and we both kinda know each other's "style". In no way do we always agree on what to do with a redirect and very often we are in opposition to what to do with it, we work together to achieve WP:CONSENSUS but we come from different angles so that is just good for making the encylopaedia better to have different points of view. I feel that Tavix would make an excellent admin. I would not, I am a great right hand man but have never been good at that kind of thing, that is why I lurk at places like RfD because doing the gnomework and knowing all the bits and pieces and have a good memory so can quote things without needing to look them up, I am very good at, I would be an awful admin, but Tavix would be a great one.
- Tavix is an excellent judge. When you say "on friendly terms" I have never met Tavix in real life, I do not know what Tavix' real name is, I don't know if Tavix is male or female, I don't think I have even looked at Tavix' user page for all I know he or she may have twenty cats and live in Trump Towers.
- "On friendly terms" is just that we don't have to shout at each other at RfD even when we disagree we can be WP:CIVIL. Tavix would make an excellent admin. I wholly approve of Tavix' application for admin. I don't know how the admin rights can be dispensed these days but even if Tavix was given limited rights, at first, to deal with deleting redirects, as a kinda what's the word learning curve is not quite right, that would be an absolutely great help to the Wikipedia project and to everyone over at WP:RFD. I Wholly endorse Tavix' application for admin. I will probably go to RfD and find something that Tavix and I disagree on right now but that is exactly the point, this user is civil, treats others with civility, makes his or her point clearly (more than I do), and absolutely deserves to be an admin. I cannot put it more strongly.
- To be absolutely plain User:Tavix has not WP:CANVASSed me in any way I only "know" the user from WP:RFD. But this user's exemplary behaviour and diligence there is enough, I believe, to say yes, this user should be an admin even at first with limited "rights". As I say, not being one myself, I have no idea how admin "rights" are dished out. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is actually the first time I have heard of this request for adminship. There is definitely no WP:CANVASSing going on here or at least if there is I am so insignificant I wasn't asked! Si Trew (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think User:Rich Farmbrough's comments should be taken in the context that there is a vested interest or conflict of interest there which can be looked into more deeply by others (request for de-admin, anyone?) Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: if your intent is to support or oppose the candidate, the general convention is to add a numbered !vote in the appropriate section above. RfA often functions as a straw poll: total vote counts matter even though they're not supposed to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think User:Rich Farmbrough's comments should be taken in the context that there is a vested interest or conflict of interest there which can be looked into more deeply by others (request for de-admin, anyone?) Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is actually the first time I have heard of this request for adminship. There is definitely no WP:CANVASSing going on here or at least if there is I am so insignificant I wasn't asked! Si Trew (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)