→Support: Agreed |
Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (talk | contribs) →Oppose: cmt |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
:: "I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past" I don't agree that adminstrators should get special treatment, but blocking them, or any long-term user for [[WP:BITE]] will cause unneeded drama, as we usually can't tell if a person is violating it or not, it's up to a personal opinion. Its also a vauge rule that admins and other users usually without knowing violate, like for example when we delete a good faith article by a newcomer, even if it doesn't meet criteria, that's a violation of BITE, that admin in the question who kept on reverting the page, I doubt they knew they were violating BITE. See where I'm coming from, blocking an editor for it will cause unnessary drama. Of course if it's obvious they are violating BITE and they were told to stop by multiple editors, there are other ways to go, like an RFC. [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
:: "I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past" I don't agree that adminstrators should get special treatment, but blocking them, or any long-term user for [[WP:BITE]] will cause unneeded drama, as we usually can't tell if a person is violating it or not, it's up to a personal opinion. Its also a vauge rule that admins and other users usually without knowing violate, like for example when we delete a good faith article by a newcomer, even if it doesn't meet criteria, that's a violation of BITE, that admin in the question who kept on reverting the page, I doubt they knew they were violating BITE. See where I'm coming from, blocking an editor for it will cause unnessary drama. Of course if it's obvious they are violating BITE and they were told to stop by multiple editors, there are other ways to go, like an RFC. [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: Well I agree that it's not blockable, because there is no evidence that the block will help. On the other hand multi reverting an IP on non-contentious facts is clearly bitey, unless the IP has a history of inserting incorrect unsourced non-contentious facts (possibly the most dangerous type of vandal) - but even then the registered-user should have left a warning. Similarly with GF articles, there's no reason a talk-page message about the deletion can't be left, leaving the door open to userifying, DRV etc. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC).<br /> |
:::: Well I agree that it's not blockable, because there is no evidence that the block will help. On the other hand multi reverting an IP on non-contentious facts is clearly bitey, unless the IP has a history of inserting incorrect unsourced non-contentious facts (possibly the most dangerous type of vandal) - but even then the registered-user should have left a warning. Similarly with GF articles, there's no reason a talk-page message about the deletion can't be left, leaving the door open to userifying, DRV etc. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC).<br /> |
||
# '''Oppose''' Hmm... I don't trust you. I have not interacted with you as far as I know, so I don't really know what you do, what have you done, etc. and I just don't want to go look your contribs. [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 22:17, 26 October 2010
TheCatalyst31
(talk page) (40/12/6); Scheduled to end 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs) – TheCatalyst31 has been helping at Wikipedia for several years now and is one of the most prolific people to start articles for the smaller communities of the world. Catalyst contributes in a wide variety of areas and I think there's something here for everyone to like. Plenty of DYK, Good, and Featured articles shows that Catalyst can write. Lots of gnome editing and new page patrolling, yet does a good job of using talk pages to discuss issues. Catalyst has been involved in deletion discussions and has a nice mix of nominating articles for deletion and commenting to keep others that should be kept. I decided to nominate Catalyst for the mop because there are plenty of ways that s/he would use it. Royalbroil 16:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:24, 24 October 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: I do a lot of work on new page patrol, which I expect to continue; I don't think there's a way to count patrolled pages, but I've definitely patrolled quite a few and have a lot of experience with tagging pages for speedy deletion. I also intend to do some vandal-fighting, mostly with pages on my watchlist; I watch a lot of settlement articles, as these tend to be targets for vandalism but are often unwatched or poorly watched. As a related issue, I also intend to work with Special:UnwatchedPages, especially unwatched settlement articles; I've seen vandalism on these articles sit there for months before I stumbled across it (this edit comes to mind; that article had no demographics section from then until I reverted it in September). I expect to branch out to other areas (such as AfD closures) once I become comfortable with the tools.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions are probably the three good articles and one featured list I've written. Two of the good articles, Pulaski (CTA Orange Line) and Cumberland (CTA), stand out in particular; they are the only GA-class or higher articles about the Chicago 'L', and Pulaski was one of the only GA-class train station articles when I wrote it (and there still aren't many). I've also written numerous articles about unincorporated communities and similar settlements in the US (I'm currently one of the top 100 Wikipedians by article count, mostly because of these articles); in particular, I'm quite proud of finishing articles on every community with a post office in Illinois and West Virginia. This has admittedly led to me writing a lot of stubs, but stubs are much better than nothing, and I've expanded several of these beyond stubs (Clayton, West Virginia, for example).
- 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 haven't been involved in many serious conflicts in the past; most of the disagreements I've had with other editors were resolved civilly, and I haven't been part of anything that went as far as ANI or RFC. Occasionally I've had to deal with a disruptive editor (this discussion, though it's a year old, comes to mind); in these cases, I try to be civil and keep the discussion under control, and would only bring something to, say, ANI if the other editor was either making threats or being continually disruptive in the article space. I also should note that as an admin, I would generally bring a serious conflict which I was involved in to ANI/RFC to get an outside opinion rather than intervene myself.
- 4. Thank you for putting yourself forward. I have a hypothetical question, assuming you are an administrator. An IP edits one of the locality articles that you have created. The IP inserts text to the effect that the locality is the birthplace of a named professional athlete. There is no source cited to support the text. There is an article on the athlete, but there is nothing in the article about her birthplace. A fellow administrator comes along and immediately reverts the edit, posting a message on the article talk page to the effect that unsourced information about a living person is impermissible. An edit war follows. After the IP has inserted the text five times, and the admin has reverted the IP five times, the IP gives up. The IP never posts on the article's talk page. This all happens over an eight hour period while you are asleep. You wake up, log on, and see this all on your watchlist. What, if anything, do you do? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- A: The first thing I would do would be to look for a source for the athlete's birthplace. If I could find a reliable source saying that the athlete was born in the locality, I would first mention the source on the talk page; if there's no objection, I would then re-add the content to the article. I wouldn't re-add the content immediately after an extended edit war to avoid starting it up again, as the situation would probably still be a bit volatile. If I found a source saying the athlete was born somewhere else, I would mention this on the talk page in case the issue arose again. If I couldn't find any reliable sources saying anything about the birthplace, I would probably leave the situation alone; unsourced content shouldn't be in articles, especially if it's content about living persons. I wouldn't see a need to take action against either party, since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content, and the IP is no longer making the problematic edits. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- After some re-consideration of the question and the responses my answer has generated, I admit that my initial answer was a bit off, especially in regard to how to deal with the editors. Regardless of the factual accuracy of the claim, the admin definitely violated WP:BITE, and he/she should've made greater efforts to contact the IP and explain WP:RS and WP:BLP. Both parties also violated WP:3RR, though I would be a bit more forgiving to both sides on this point; the IP probably didn't know the policy (especially since the reverting admin never pointed it out), and the admin may have had cause to revert under WP:BLP (though this depends on the situation). For these reasons, I wouldn't block either user for this incident unless the admin had been warned before about this kind of behavior. I wouldn't take action against the IP, especially since he/she seems to be gone, but I would warn the admin about biting the newcomers and violating 3RR to hopefully reduce the chance of him/her doing this to other newcomers. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- When you're in a hole stop digging is always good advice. You're saying that that you wouldn't have the courage to warn the admin unless someone more courageous than yourself had done it first? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what I said. I meant that I would definitely warn the admin, I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- When you're in a hole stop digging is always good advice. You're saying that that you wouldn't have the courage to warn the admin unless someone more courageous than yourself had done it first? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- After some re-consideration of the question and the responses my answer has generated, I admit that my initial answer was a bit off, especially in regard to how to deal with the editors. Regardless of the factual accuracy of the claim, the admin definitely violated WP:BITE, and he/she should've made greater efforts to contact the IP and explain WP:RS and WP:BLP. Both parties also violated WP:3RR, though I would be a bit more forgiving to both sides on this point; the IP probably didn't know the policy (especially since the reverting admin never pointed it out), and the admin may have had cause to revert under WP:BLP (though this depends on the situation). For these reasons, I wouldn't block either user for this incident unless the admin had been warned before about this kind of behavior. I wouldn't take action against the IP, especially since he/she seems to be gone, but I would warn the admin about biting the newcomers and violating 3RR to hopefully reduce the chance of him/her doing this to other newcomers. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- A: The first thing I would do would be to look for a source for the athlete's birthplace. If I could find a reliable source saying that the athlete was born in the locality, I would first mention the source on the talk page; if there's no objection, I would then re-add the content to the article. I wouldn't re-add the content immediately after an extended edit war to avoid starting it up again, as the situation would probably still be a bit volatile. If I found a source saying the athlete was born somewhere else, I would mention this on the talk page in case the issue arose again. If I couldn't find any reliable sources saying anything about the birthplace, I would probably leave the situation alone; unsourced content shouldn't be in articles, especially if it's content about living persons. I wouldn't see a need to take action against either party, since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content, and the IP is no longer making the problematic edits. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- 5 What is your view on ignoring all of the rules? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR]
- A: Ignoring the rules means that the rules should never stop an editor from improving Wikipedia, provided they have a good reason from ignoring them. The rules are rules for a reason, and generally promote good practice for editing and interacting with other editors; IAR should not be invoked to break a rule in a straightforward case of the rule (e.g. speedily deleting an article which asserts minimal notability under speedy deletion criterion A7, even if it probably wouldn't survive PROD or AFD for lack of notability) or to break rules because you feel like it. IAR also doesn't necessarily apply to all rules, of course; for example, I can't think of a case where it's a good idea to violate WP:CIVIL. IAR can be easily abused by its nature, and for that reason, it's best not to break the rules unless you have a very good justification for it; otherwise, there's a good chance you're going against consensus and the rules, which usually leads to lots of drama and worse. It's also much better to discuss whether a rule should be broken before breaking it, to make sure that other editors also agree that the rule can be broken. However, there are often exceptions to the rules, and the existence of these rules shouldn't stop editors from acting differently in the exceptional cases. For an example which I was involved in, there's recently been some debate over whether all verifiable settlements are notable; though there's no official rule saying this, the consensus from numerous AfD discussions has been that they are. This goes against the general notability guideline in many cases, as sources cannot easily be found for many of these settlements, but since there are usually offline or foreign-language sources for these articles which are out of the reach of most editors, it was decided to consider them notable anyway. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Lambanog
- 6. Agree or disagree: There are active vandals on Wikipedia with over 1000 edits. If you agree, explain in general terms what constructive steps you can take to mitigate the problem. If you disagree, please explain how you arrived at your conclusion.
- A: I'd say there are some active vandals with over 1000 edits. They probably aren't full-time vandals if their edit count is that high, but there are probably sneakier vandals who both vandalize and make constructive edits; in the case of User:Karmafist, a vandal has become an admin in the past. These vandals are probably going to vandalize obscure pages with few to no people watching them or perform subtle acts of vandalism, such as changing statistics or adding false but believable claims, possibly using fake or irrelevant sources as citations. The first step toward handling editors like this is to make sure obscure pages are thoroughly watched. As I stated above, unwatched and obscure pages are easy targets for regular vandals if no one is watching them, to say nothing of the sneakier ones. Another important step toward stopping sneaky vandals is to check all dubious unreferenced claims for accuracy and to check the existence of the references on dubious claims. This is a little trickier given that many of these edits will be good-faith contributions, but there are still some things to watch out for (fake references are a red flag, for instance). Granted, both of these are easier said than done given how many articles need to be covered, but any progress is a good thing. As far as actually handling these vandals once they're identified, good faith should be assumed at first to sort out the legitimate editors, but if an editor has a pattern of making these kind of edits, the standard procedure for dealing with vandals should be followed. It is also important to check the talk page history of possible sneaky vandals, as they will likely remove warnings. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional question from Collect
- 7. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?
- A: I'm generally satisfied with the way AfDs are closed; usually if I disagree with the result of an AfD, it's because I disagree with the consensus rather than I disagree with the closing admin's decision based on the consensus. I admit I'm not much of a fan of "no consensus" closes, unless there's a need to wait until, say, better sources can be found; from my experience, AfDs closed as "no consensus" often get renominated several months later with the article in similar condition, and the 2nd debate generally mirrors the first. In cases where the article is contentious and isn't pending improvement, the closing admin is usually better off making a decision. I have less experience with MfD closures, but my philosophy on them is pretty much the same. The main difference with those from my experience is they often generate less discussion than AfDs, but they also generate less disagreement as a result, so I also generally agree with how they're closed. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for TheCatalyst31: TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for TheCatalyst31 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support: No problem for this user to become an administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. No problems that I can see, content creation checks out OK, so why not? The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Good work, no problems here. Mlpearc powwow 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Won't abuse the tools, written articles. Secret account 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)- As for question four so I don't see how he could abuse the tools in the just ignore scenario. The admin was reverting unsourced information from a BLP, no way he can't get blocked for that, as for the IP he needed a warning, and that's what messed the question up. I would have told the admin that look you should have warned him with the BLP rules and thats it. There shouldn't be a block for both editors even though they broke 3rr, unlike some suggested. Secret account 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent, well-rounded editor with lots of experience. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Master&Expert (Talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I asked Q4 to get a sense of the way the candidate thinks. There are a number of answers that can be given to it, including blocking both parties (including the admin) for edit-warring. Some might consider the candidate's approach to be a bit soft, but it's legitimate and the reasoning for it is sound. Also, the candidate's first thought is "what do I do about the content?" not "what do I do about the editors?" which is good and consistent with the candidate's track record as a content contributor. Good luck.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, here I was hoping you asked the question for better reasons :) No mention of whether IPs know how to find article talk pages? No response about why the admin never went to the IP's talk page? No mention of WP:BITE or how to deal with new editors? It's not all about whether or not we block; how about how we treat clueless newbies who are only trying to add to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and may not yet know how to do it? No, the response doesn't account for "what do I do about the editors?" It gives a rude admin an advantage over a clueless newbie. It makes admins above the behaviors we should all know. Admins aren't here to fix content; they're here to regulate misbehavior, and the hypothetical admin behaved *wrong*. Of course* the "IP is no longer making the problematic edits"; it was chased off, while the admin survives to do the same to another IP. Rather than doing the content work him/herself, Catalyst might have dropped a friendly note to the IP, and a trout to the admin. The response shows that Catalyst either thinks admins are above the expected behaviors on Wiki, or doesn't know them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Re the non-supports over Q4 - the "blind eye" is exactly what many admins would have done in this circumstance. In my view, the admin should be blocked or at least reported to 3RR - the admin has broken 3RR and potentially driven away a new editor. But I can't fault an RfA candidate for exercising the same hesitation that many admins would. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well no mention of 3RR either, but one could assume that's because it was a trick question about a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That many admins can't tell their arses from their elbows is no reason to support another one who can't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- And fade to black... and we're in commercial. The pointless drama, Days of our Wiki-Lives, will be back after these sponsors. Vodello (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Absolutely. Nolelover It's football season! 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Moving to Neutral. Nolelover It's football season! 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support evidence will be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No opinion for or against. Default to Support. Vodello (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Seems good! Derild4921☼ 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support no issues here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support – No problems here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Royalbroil 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a good candidate; no problems with supporting this user. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Not noticing the 3RR and possibly overly tolerant reaction to an admin's edit warring may be a concern, but I'm satisfied the editor isn't naive and credit his content contributions. Lambanog (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support I will support, but why can't non-admins view pages unwatched by anyone? Minimac (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support No reason to oppose. Ronk01 talk 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Good answers to the questions, is experienced, and is active in many areas of the project. No doubt in my mind that this user having sysop tools would benefit Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support On the topic of Q4, remember we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to block every user possible. So the answer above is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. Regarding the opposes and the answer to Q4, I agree that a response which discussed 3RR, exceptions and so on would have been preferable, however the candidate's answer is a long way from a deal breaker for me. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Sure Inka888ContribsTalk 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support I'm not really bothered by the answer to question 4. AniMate 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support I would have done at Q45 essentially he same as the candidate--including the warnings. The only thing I would do also, which was alluded to at then end is check the contribution history --if the editor had been previously making similar unsourced edits in multiple articles, a very strong warning or even a block might be in order. (And I would make sure those edits were actually removed or else sourced, as they should have been--sometimes a few slip by).I am very reluctant to block but if it's obvious someone is here to vandalize only, I have a few times blocked immediately Unfortunately this exact type of vandalism is one of the most common. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Q 4 was not framed as vandalism; it was framed as unsourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support A Wikipedian since July 2007; trustworthy & consistent--Hokeman (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- agree with PhilKnight. -Atmoz (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Longterm experienced user with a clean blocklog and good contributions. Q4 is troubling, but it is a sin of omission not a sin of commission. I don't think you'd be the sort of admin who'd bite that newbie, and I'm more concerned about over eager admins than over hesitant ones. ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support(olive (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC))
- Support. Seems trustworthy, and I thought his answer to question 4 was fine, if I understood it correctly. His instinct was to take care of the content issue, and not stoke drama by warning editors after the issue had died down. It's also a little unfair to expect people to be experienced admins before they've been elected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a reasonable person who isn't likely to act precipitately. Net positive. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. The only possible issue is q4, but the fact that so many admins and other users with more experience than me disagree about what, if anything, is wrong with that answer makes me think that I shouldn't withold support purely because of it. FWIW, I think that approach could be helpful, as it sorts out the content issue without causing unneccesary drama. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. SlimVirgin basically sums it up well. There's this certain subset of editors who are addicted to warnings and formal disciplinary pathways, the sort who prefer the letter of the rules to the spirit of them, who get a squirmy, squishy feeling in a certain nether-region over working out a rigid, completely inflexible and oftimes labyrinthine "dispute resolution flowchart". I do not consider myself amongst their ranks. What strikes me as particularly funny is the insinuation that not editing for eight hours is the same as "abandoning the project forever". I remember when eight hours felt like a long period of time, too. Badger Drink (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, where do you see a penchant for warnings in the need to make sure a new IP isn't bitten, rather discussion occurs on its talkpage where it has a better chance of being seen by the IP, who might not know how to use article talk pages? I'm wondering if folks weighing in here are actually reading the discussion or understanding the issue-- it's a bit alarming that they don't seem to be in such an important discussion as RFA should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - seems to be a competent, sufficiently experienced editor with a good attitude. I'm not convinced at all by the Opposes. I think the initial answer to Q4 was perfectly reasonable; we need more admins who are reluctant to get involved in drama, and are more interested in improving the encyclopaedia than throwing around warnings and blocks. To me, opposing over the answer to Q4 looks less like a justified objection and more like looking for an excuse to oppose. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Even if they got muddled on answer 4 - so what?they are not expected to run the wiki single handed. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Support The Catalyst has done an excellent job with the unincorporated communities in Wisconsin-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- The answer to Q4 is simply ridiculous, and demonstrates that the candidate does not have enough experience in dealing with content disputes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Admins need to be able to deal with content issues; the Q4 answer suggests this user, unfortunately, is not. Ucucha 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- We'd best desysop the six admins that support! They clearly don't know the right answer to Q4 either! Let it be noted that the admin that asked Q4 has voted to support. Desysop the question asker as well. Content? Pish posh. It's all about the editor. Vodello (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- They may do as they choose; I'm entirely unconvinced by arguments of the type "X admins did this, so it must be a good idea". Admins make errors all the time, after all (perhaps this oppose vote is among them). Ucucha 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- We'd best desysop the six admins that support! They clearly don't know the right answer to Q4 either! Let it be noted that the admin that asked Q4 has voted to support. Desysop the question asker as well. Content? Pish posh. It's all about the editor. Vodello (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Regretful Oppose. After the first 3 questions and having had a look at some of TheCatalyst31's work, I was leaning towards Support. But last night Q4 was there and unanswered, and I decided to wait. And I'm afraid that answer has changed my mind. It is not OK for an admin to blatantly ignore the 3RR rule and engage in an edit war with an IP editor over an entirely harmless change which might even be correct, which has apparently chased them off and perhaps lost us a potentially great future contributor. (I confess I'm not sure what I would do so long after the event, but I think there is a bit of a Wikipedia problem in that there doesn't seem to be a workable way of handling such transgressions by admins). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Based on answer to Q4, which displays too much naivety to suggest the user is ready for adminship. The answer is simply written from the perspective of an editor, not an admin; it does not display the required understanding of 3RR or exemptions to it. I'm not saying that the hypothetical example necessarily required blocking but the answer required discussion of these issues, and a mention of WP:BITE and helping the errant IP (eg with a welcome message or friendly note) would have been nice. In addition, taking an interest in the content issue is fine (sometimes illuminates how to interpret the behaviour), but your comment about not starting up the edit war again also seems underthought: if the sole objection given was the lack of sourcing, re-adding with a (reliable) source should resolve the issue better than leaving it on the talk page, especially given the IP's previous failure to use the talk page. Rd232 talk 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, per my struck neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with WP:NOBIGDEAL; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 14:52, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I will respond on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with WP:NOBIGDEAL; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 14:52, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per Boing said Zebedee; I was leaning towards supporting too, but I cannot do it now in light of your answer to question 4. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can trust your judgement as an admin... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Moved from support) Q4, as well. My reasoning: I think that looking for a source is important. I think unsourced material should be discussed. I also think that it's not good to create more drama if the event happened while I was sleeping and I didn't notice till later the next day. But what I disagree with you is your statement "since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content". The admin acted in no way appropriately, considering that 3RR is a policy and the admin should know better. The admin should have notified the IP of 3RR, stopped reverting once the IP violated it, and reported the IP to AN3 to let an uninvolved user assess the situation. Pulling the "it was vandalism" card is clearly unjustified, as the content was not potentially harmful BLP material. At the very least, the admin needed a strong warning (if someone didn't already report to ANI), and a block if they were continuing to demonstrate similar behavior elsewhere. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we had leeway when it comes to unsourced information in WP:BLP Secret account 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as 3RR is concerned, only to the extent it is "contentious", and even then the admin should have sought outside help rather than edit-warred. But, as a general comment, it is an unfortunate manifestation of the question that many people have different views on it and it has caused many to oppose. See the oppose below - he/she thinks the IP is entirely in the wrong and the admin was right. We have to be careful judging the candidate on his or her answer to a question if reasonable !voters are going to disagree. Most of the opposes focus on the candidate having missed an important issue - which is fine - I'm worried about opposes that say he/she got the answer "wrong". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unsourced is not automatically an exception to 3RR. I agree with Mkativerata; the material would need to be contentious for 5 reverts to be justified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Potentially adding the wrong information in a BLP is usually an exception for 3rr, especially if it can't be verified on a reliable source, everyone including adminstrators has different opinions about this, so I respect yours. Just because you have a different opinion isn't a reason to oppose someone, and that's what most of the oppose votes aren't getting. Secret account 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mkativerata, I think you're making a good point, and I'd like to add that people under "Oppose" seem to have different views of why the candidate's answer to Q4 was less than optimal. I don't think either editor should be blocked for example, or that the IP should be warned (contra Tofutwitch11 below, for example); rather, I found it odd that he would not remind the admin of WP:BITE and also that instead of just being a bold and adding it, he would place his reliable source on the talk page before adding it. If we're going to ask at the talk page before making any edit, we're never going to finish an encyclopedia. Ucucha 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I fully agree with Rd232 above, who brought up some of the same problems with the candidate's answer. Ucucha 00:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC))
- Unsourced is not automatically an exception to 3RR. I agree with Mkativerata; the material would need to be contentious for 5 reverts to be justified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- As far as 3RR is concerned, only to the extent it is "contentious", and even then the admin should have sought outside help rather than edit-warred. But, as a general comment, it is an unfortunate manifestation of the question that many people have different views on it and it has caused many to oppose. See the oppose below - he/she thinks the IP is entirely in the wrong and the admin was right. We have to be careful judging the candidate on his or her answer to a question if reasonable !voters are going to disagree. Most of the opposes focus on the candidate having missed an important issue - which is fine - I'm worried about opposes that say he/she got the answer "wrong". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we had leeway when it comes to unsourced information in WP:BLP Secret account 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per the answer to Q4. What about WP:3RR? The IP added unsourced information to the article, which can be identified as vandalism and continued to do it! Leaving it alone is not the right approach...sorry. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't really have a choice. Despite my best AGF, the answer to Q4 shows that the candidate isn't familiar enough with the policies. — Waterfox ~talk~ 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerns with answer to question four and policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - amendment to q4 represents an improvement, but not enough to cancel out the original answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose While I don't agree with some of the question four oppose votes, his amendments is putting himself digger to a hole and shows clear inexperience. We don't block people especially adminstrators if they violate WP:BITE. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. It would cause a bunch of unneeded drama. Note I could change my mind, and go to neutral especially if the user claifies the WP:BITE comment, or if it's borderline territory, I just can't support because of that comment. Secret account 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting that the administrator be blocked for violating WP:BITE; if I blocked the administrator, it would be for violating WP:3RR, and even then it would only be if the admin had a track record of edit warring. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- @Secret: When you say "especially administrators", surely you're not suggesting that admins should get special treatment and be allowed to break the rules more than "ordinary" editors, are you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting that the administrator be blocked for violating WP:BITE; if I blocked the administrator, it would be for violating WP:3RR, and even then it would only be if the admin had a track record of edit warring. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- "I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past" I don't agree that adminstrators should get special treatment, but blocking them, or any long-term user for WP:BITE will cause unneeded drama, as we usually can't tell if a person is violating it or not, it's up to a personal opinion. Its also a vauge rule that admins and other users usually without knowing violate, like for example when we delete a good faith article by a newcomer, even if it doesn't meet criteria, that's a violation of BITE, that admin in the question who kept on reverting the page, I doubt they knew they were violating BITE. See where I'm coming from, blocking an editor for it will cause unnessary drama. Of course if it's obvious they are violating BITE and they were told to stop by multiple editors, there are other ways to go, like an RFC. Secret account 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well I agree that it's not blockable, because there is no evidence that the block will help. On the other hand multi reverting an IP on non-contentious facts is clearly bitey, unless the IP has a history of inserting incorrect unsourced non-contentious facts (possibly the most dangerous type of vandal) - but even then the registered-user should have left a warning. Similarly with GF articles, there's no reason a talk-page message about the deletion can't be left, leaving the door open to userifying, DRV etc. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- Well I agree that it's not blockable, because there is no evidence that the block will help. On the other hand multi reverting an IP on non-contentious facts is clearly bitey, unless the IP has a history of inserting incorrect unsourced non-contentious facts (possibly the most dangerous type of vandal) - but even then the registered-user should have left a warning. Similarly with GF articles, there's no reason a talk-page message about the deletion can't be left, leaving the door open to userifying, DRV etc. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
- "I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past" I don't agree that adminstrators should get special treatment, but blocking them, or any long-term user for WP:BITE will cause unneeded drama, as we usually can't tell if a person is violating it or not, it's up to a personal opinion. Its also a vauge rule that admins and other users usually without knowing violate, like for example when we delete a good faith article by a newcomer, even if it doesn't meet criteria, that's a violation of BITE, that admin in the question who kept on reverting the page, I doubt they knew they were violating BITE. See where I'm coming from, blocking an editor for it will cause unnessary drama. Of course if it's obvious they are violating BITE and they were told to stop by multiple editors, there are other ways to go, like an RFC. Secret account 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Hmm... I don't trust you. I have not interacted with you as far as I know, so I don't really know what you do, what have you done, etc. and I just don't want to go look your contribs. Diego Grez (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral, looking for experienced thorough editors for the admin corp, and the "miss" in Q 4 is disappointing. Equally disappointing are more than half a dozen supports after the response was added without pointing out anything amiss in the response to Q 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Continued disappointment. We all make mistakes, and we can't ask potential admins to know everything, so I lodged a neutral pending Catalyst's response. But, although Catalyst has edited this RFA since the response to Q 4, there has been no explanation. At FAC, we do our darnest to put articles through the wringer so we can put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, but while good content contributors are trying to work, some abusive admins at worst make their work harder, or at best, don't make it easier. While FAR is a process for defeaturing FAs that have deteriorated; there is no easy process for desysopping abusive admins; RFA should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, at least akin to FAC. Yes, it is "hell week", but adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves. Since Catalyst has not responded to explain the oversight, I am moving to Oppose, noting that had s/he not edited this RFA subsequently without addressing the concern, I would have stayed neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral per SG. --John (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral mentioned above, q4's approach is rather questionable.--iGeMiNix 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral upon re-reading Q4. Nolelover It's football season! 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- neutral - I mostly agree with SandyGeorgia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral. Would have liked to support, but response to Q4 illuminates significant weaknesses, as explained by others. Not enough misgivings to oppose, but enough doubts to not support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Q4. There is no doubt that this editor has done great work, but the answer to Q4 raises concerns about the editor's ability to handle conflict. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)