Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikixpert (talk | contribs) at 12:10, 5 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sharkface217 | 28 | 42 | 15 | 40 | Unsuccessful | 19:39, 2 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Davidgothberg | 73 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 09:41, 11 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Bedford | 82 | 4 | 5 | 95 | Successful | 21:44, 3 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Redfarmer | 27 | 19 | 13 | 59 | Unsuccessful | 11:57, 8 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sharkface217 | 28 | 42 | 15 | 40 | Unsuccessful | 19:39, 2 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Davidgothberg | 73 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Successful | 09:41, 11 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Bedford | 82 | 4 | 5 | 95 | Successful | 21:44, 3 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Redfarmer | 27 | 19 | 13 | 59 | Unsuccessful | 11:57, 8 April 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 17:49:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Sharkface217
Final (talk page) (28/42/15); Ended Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:18:15 (UTC)
Sharkface217 (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to introduce to you as a candidate Sharkface217. You've undoubtedly seen him around RfA before, commenting on others in their candidacies, yet he himself has never been the subject of one. This surprised me, as I know he is a competent and experienced editor - he comes to be about every other week asking me to design a new ribbon for the barnstar he's just been awarded, and boy howdy, does he have a lot of them (even excluding all those hidden barnstars)! Sharkface has been on Wikipedia since May 2005, and been an active contributor since October 2006. For being around that long, he may not seem to hold a large edit count, however his contributions, from what I have seen, have been of high quality and always aiming to improve himself. Along that line, Sharkface has been blocked twice; however he has come a long way since then. He requested an Editor review shortly after the double block, in which some improvement was already noticeable, leading even User:Zscout370 (the blocking admin) to state that he "still [felt] that Shark is a good editor and in some time, he can be a good admin." To this day, Sharkface keeps a running tally of his mistakes at User:Sharkface217/screwups in his continual mission to improve himself. In terms of admin work, Sharkface has taken up some good work in WP:AFD, WP:CSD, and anti-vandalism, and I'm confident would be able and willing to expand elsewhere as needed. He is always a cheerful face and I believe would make an excellent addition to the administrative team. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-Nomination by - Milks F'avorite Cookie
It's always been a pleasure to work with Sharkface. He has been an active member for Wikipedia for over an year now, with nearly 5000 edits. I have seen him do some good work at WP:AFD, and he has 22 reports to WP:AIV, some nice vandalism work. He keeps a list of his "screwups" avaliable here, which I think - not only is that a good thing to look back too, but there have been no "screwups" since early 2007. He also has great edit summary usage. I doubt Sharkface will abuse the tools, and will make a great admin! - Milks Favorite Cookie 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-Nomination by The Transhumanist : I highly recommend Sharkface for the mop. I've worked with him closely from time to time, and have had my eye on him for quite awhile. He's smart, and he's a conscientious and dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. His heart is in the right place, he wishes the best for Wikipedia, and his efforts reflect this. When he takes on a project, it's a certainty to improve. I trust him to do his best should he be granted the mop, a move which would definitely provide a net benefit to the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community. The Transhumanist 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-Nomination by Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC): I have had only positive interactions with Sharkface. His work in the mainspace has been great, especially in the area of article creation and development (the list of articles created and improved on his userpage is overly long and tiring to read to say the least), and his anti-vandal work isn't skimpy. As you may know, Sharkface maintains the Award Center, and is always eager to take up challenges posted there by other editors. His attitude has always been positive, and he has obviously learned from his mistakes (per the "screwups" page in his userspace). It is obvious to me that Sharkface's great contributions will only increase in quality with the addition of the mop. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I graciously accept this nomination. --Sharkface217 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are several areas which I intend to take part in:
|
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of the following Wikipedia contributions:
|
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had a few major run-ins during my time here, as my Mistakes page can attest to. Rather than focusing on my triumphs, I have found that my mistakes are what help me learn the most. The following two cases have greatly shaped my character as a Wikipedian and as a human:
|
- 4. You noted in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favourite Cookie that the candidate had received a large number of barnstars. It was then revealed that most of them were from you. Comment on this, please, without a large box around your answer. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A. MFCis an extremely prolific Wikipedian and he went above and beyond in his vandal-fighting contributions. I honestly didn't expect that one would make such an effort in such a short period of time in the way of fighting vandals. The large number of barnstars is due to the fact that he completed the three challenges multiple times. It didn't seem fair to give him just one barnstar for 2400 warnings when the challenge explicitly stated that one barnstar would be awarded per every 100 warnings. The result was at least 24 barnstars in one sitting. --Sharkface217 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from ChetblongTalk/Sign
- 5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
- 6. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
- A: I would calmly discuss the issue with the other administrator in question for an extended period of time. If we continue to agree to disagree, I would seek a second opinion. However, I would only do this after the debate had been thoroughly exhausted. I believe that personal, intelligent diologue between two well-informed users can more often than not result in a positive conclusion. --Sharkface217 03:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
- 8. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
- A: Wikipedians should use common sense. We should do our best to limit bureaucracy here. As the rules of Wikipedia can sometimes be contradictory, WP:IAR provides the common sense basis that is sometimes needed in order for an editor to be bold while constructively editing an article. --Sharkface217 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Tiptoety talk
- 9. Why is it important that wikipedia not be used as a social networking site?
- A: Wikipedia exists to provide free, accurate information to the peoples of the world at a moments notice. Wikipedia shouldn't be a social networking site because, among other reasons, it is not one. The editors of Wikipedia should be here with the sole focus of trying to improve articles and contribute productively to the project. --Sharkface217 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 10. Do you feel that fun, friendships, and jokes/pranks (like some pulled on April Fools) have any room here at wikipedia? Do they help or hinder it? Why or why not?
- A: I don't feel that fun, friendships, and (for the most part) jokes really hinder work on Wikipedia. WP:FUN is always entertaining and provides an escape for those who want to take a break from their wiki-duties while at the same time staying on the site. I'm not the biggest fan of April Fools pranks, as I think they detract from the serious nature and goals of Wikipedia. --Sharkface217 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 11. What do you consider to be your worst edit/choice you have made and why?
- A: My diatribe against deletionists is probably the worst call I've had here for the reasons stated above. --Sharkface217 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Sharkface217's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Sharkface217: Sharkface217 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sharkface217 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support, it's been a long time coming, I dare say. (beat every nom, haha!) Take what the opposers say to heart though, most of them are ones that you should be able to fix/improve upon without much trouble. Wizardman 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I was waiting for this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's support. As stated in my nomination, this user is ready for the resposibilities of adminship. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my co-nom. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 01:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support as the original nominator, yet one of the last to cast their official support. Whoops. I'm not sure I've ever seen so many co-noms... Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What impresses me the most about this user is that he does not run from his mistakes; he confronts them and learns from them. His contributions are also admirable. — scetoaux (T/C) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Changed to Oppose per concerns raised. — scetoaux (T/C) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support he seems to know what he's doing around here. He deserves the tools. jj137 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per huge nominations and excellent preparation. Hesitant to !vote before the usual deluge of questions, but I guess I could always change my stance. For now, looks like an excellent candidate. Tan | 39 01:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great work at WP:AWARD Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools. A willingness to publically admit mistakes is also a trait that I view extremely positively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support the good humour and award-work are morale building. I do agree some more concerted article work would be good (and was almost but not quite a deal-breaker). Net positive (just). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As above. Axl (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sharkface may not be the wiki's most prolific article-writer, but it is to his credit that he does try; his answer to q2 reveals a long list of new articles created. I don't see any evidence that he's "only here for socialising", as the opposers assert. As to the "mistakes page", I see that as a strong point. No Wikipedian should take themselves too seriously, and we should all be prepared to laugh at our own mistakes, while at the same time learning from them. WaltonOne 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The opposers have not convinced me would abuse/misuse/go haywire with the tools. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support He is a really good candidate. Help the wiki a bunch. Nothing444 12:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do not see why socializing makes someone not suitable to be an administrator. As long as plenty of work gets done (as is the case with Sharkface) there are no problems at all. Captain panda 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak support. Despite the opposition's concerns, I believe giving him the tools would carry a net-benefit. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:25, April 5, 2008
- Weak support - While I agree with some of the concerns raised below I do not think they matter when it comes to handing out the mop. Sure would I like to see Sharkface217 take wikipedia a little more seriously and treat it for what it is, an encyclopedia? Yes, but at the same time I do not see any harm that is done to the project by boosting morale, and recognizing other users good work and dedication. We are ultimately discussing whether the user is ready for the tools, and whether or not they will abuse them, and the opposes do not raise either of those concerns (at least not with me). I think the Sharkface217 has shown that he has learned from his mistakes and for that reason I must apply WP:AGF. But, having said all that, I hope that Sharkface217 will carefully take all of the opposes to heart and learn from them. Tiptoety talk 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support You are not the perfect candidate, but who is? You need to focus more on doing article work, and less on socializing. That is my biggest problem with you. However, I don't see that as a huge problem, because I don't see any indications that you will abuse the admin tools. Good luck!--SJP (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support per Dorftrottel - giving him the extra buttons would be a net benefit to the project. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A couple concerns here and there, and a bit uncertain at times, but still trustworthy enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Good editor, won't abuse. Basketball110 pick away... 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - You really seem to have the qualities needed as an admin, not only are your answers consice, truthful, and honest, but as it looks, your experience with the MediaWiki coding also shows you have what it takes to be an admin, Good Luck! Tails0600 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When someone is conominated by 3 people who I've heard of and respect, I think that they will be alright ~or~ take a turn for the better. the_ed17 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh go on! -- respected nominators and I think this editor has matured such that his previous indiscretions should be set aside. Nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me Sharkface should not be granted access to the tools. Xdenizen (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, mainly to oppose the oppose arguments. I have had nothing but good interactions with Shark and I have no evidence that he will abuse the tools. Citing a user subpage is not a very valid oppose argument, particularly when that page is aiming to give Wikipedians the recognition they deserve and hardly ever receive. A social admin is a good admin, and I'd rather he was an administrator than many administrators we have with us now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the concerns raised below don't worry me. Someone who likes to socialise isn't necessarily going to abuse the tools. And an admin needs to be willing to talk to others rather than being held-back and withdrawn. However, whatever the result of this RfA, take note Sharkface217, they do have good advice, but I do not think that socialising and giving out barnstars are a reason not to support this RfA. Lradrama 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sharkface's award center shows me that he is willing to reach out to newer users, and trying to make them feel important on Wikipedia. iMatthew 2008 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I have never seen Sharkface as someone interested in the encyclopedia, but rather, as one interested in socialising and in earning (and giving out) as many barnstars as possible. Furthermore, his blatant preparation for this RfA (I echo Majorly's comments here, at least to some extent), for instance, his removing of the unfavourable content from a page that has been oft cited in the nom here (User:Sharkface217/screwups) and his jacking up his edit count with something most people do in 3 edits at most doesn't sit favourably with me. Open to discuss. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The so-called "unfavorable content" was indeed jocular in nature and should have been removed long ago. My Mistakes page had not been updated since at least early 2007 and, upon reviewing it, I realized that the easy-going attitude I once held towards my mistakes had changed long before. If you look at the page history, you'll notice the serious nature of my last report on the mistakes page. It has been over a year since I have taken my mistakes so lightly. I consider this as a sign of personal improvement and I am proud to say that I have matured since then. The light nature of the page didn't reflect the seriousness with which I now regard (had have regarded since 2007) my Wikipedia editing. I take offense to such a claim that I have been jacking up my edit count. The vast majority of my edits on this Wikipedia are incremental; one only has to view the history of my work to see that to do a small bit of work I may make dozens of revisions. Clarification of language is vital to all forms of communication. I often write and rewrite my work in order to find the most perfect and aesthetic use of language in order to properly convey information to the reader. An example of this can be found here. I also do this because I have often accidentally closed out my Mozilla Firefox window, only to lose several hours worth of work. --Sharkface217 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "you'll notice the serious nature of my last report on the mistakes page."—Sorry, which one? The last report by you (apart from the comments of yesterday/today which I've noted above and stand by my summary of) was this one on 9 January 2007. I'm not seeing a major difference there.
You may take offense at the edit count claim, but I have only my opinion to go by. In seeing this RfA, I clicked on your contribs and saw (barring a few RfAs and one article) only user/usertalk edits in the last 50, mostly to your /rfa page. I clicked "next 50" and saw the exact same thing. In viewing your last 250 edits, this is what I see. This is your article edits in that time. Let's analyse those edits; taggings; [1] [2] (despite the edit summary). Minor text fixes; [3] [4]. Wikilinking; [5] [6]. Vandal revert; [7]. Removal of one word for minorly better prose; [8]. This is in your last 250 edits, which you're welcome to compare to mine at time of writing.
I stand by my oppose. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I respect your opinion that my last edit (barring the recent ones) was not significantly more serious than the previous, more lighthearted (possibly even disrespectful) entries. I only ask that you assume good faith and trust me when I say that that entry regarding my mistake to the Pentagon Papers was much more serious in tone (which cannot be conveyed well in a text-only environment) than the previous entries on the page. Regarding my last 250 edits, I can only say that recently I have been caught up in administrative work for WP:AWC, as I just launched the Award Center newsletter and WP:ACCOTF. --Sharkface217 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I will assume good faith on that particular incident. I will also recommend you look into AWB botting for mass newsletter delivery, or else register an alternate account. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion that my last edit (barring the recent ones) was not significantly more serious than the previous, more lighthearted (possibly even disrespectful) entries. I only ask that you assume good faith and trust me when I say that that entry regarding my mistake to the Pentagon Papers was much more serious in tone (which cannot be conveyed well in a text-only environment) than the previous entries on the page. Regarding my last 250 edits, I can only say that recently I have been caught up in administrative work for WP:AWC, as I just launched the Award Center newsletter and WP:ACCOTF. --Sharkface217 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "you'll notice the serious nature of my last report on the mistakes page."—Sorry, which one? The last report by you (apart from the comments of yesterday/today which I've noted above and stand by my summary of) was this one on 9 January 2007. I'm not seeing a major difference there.
- I think that your assumption that he is jacking his edit count is unfounded. I do not know HTML very well, and I sometimes try up to 25 times before I get something relatively complicated (like his boxes around his answers) to work. I think that Shark just needs to start using the preview button. J.delanoygabsadds 01:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The so-called "unfavorable content" was indeed jocular in nature and should have been removed long ago. My Mistakes page had not been updated since at least early 2007 and, upon reviewing it, I realized that the easy-going attitude I once held towards my mistakes had changed long before. If you look at the page history, you'll notice the serious nature of my last report on the mistakes page. It has been over a year since I have taken my mistakes so lightly. I consider this as a sign of personal improvement and I am proud to say that I have matured since then. The light nature of the page didn't reflect the seriousness with which I now regard (had have regarded since 2007) my Wikipedia editing. I take offense to such a claim that I have been jacking up my edit count. The vast majority of my edits on this Wikipedia are incremental; one only has to view the history of my work to see that to do a small bit of work I may make dozens of revisions. Clarification of language is vital to all forms of communication. I often write and rewrite my work in order to find the most perfect and aesthetic use of language in order to properly convey information to the reader. An example of this can be found here. I also do this because I have often accidentally closed out my Mozilla Firefox window, only to lose several hours worth of work. --Sharkface217 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - not sure about your maturity, which, to your own credit you admit is an issue [9]. I don't read RFAs as much as I used to, but I can't think of one I've seen without you commenting on it (the signature is hard to miss) and your RFA !votes and AFD !votes are sometimes a minute apart. Rarely can you come to a reasoned, researched opinion about the quality of a candidate or an article in a minute and if you can, it's probably already in the pile on stage anyway. It's a far greater service to Wikipedia to cut the number of times you opine in half and make sure that they are well though out opinions, not just "x per y" or "support - looks good" rubber stamping of someone else's thoughts. --B (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out in regards to this that the time between edits isn't really a good indicator of how much time an individual has actually spent working on those edits; many people (including myself) like to open several pages in several browser tabs or windows at once, and work on them over the span of several minutes or even hours, and then submit them all at once. Just something to keep in mind... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two other things in the way of general advice: (1) When you tag an article, it is helpful to put in the edit summary what tag it is. Your last several edits this evening have been to add {{Unreferenced}} or {{notability}} to a few articles, but your edit summary in each was "tagged". If you say what the tag is, then there's at least a decent chance that someone who has the article watchlisted will see it and do something about it. Even if that doesn't happen, it at least is helpful for someone looking at the article history to know what tag you added without having to click on the diff. (2) In all of your edits I looked at, including your most frequented articles from the edit counter, I don't think I saw you add a single reference. It's extremely important that everything on Wikipedia be reliably sourced and verifiable. --B (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually I don't comment on RfAs, however... I read what DHMO had to say, and I agree with him when he states you are here only for socializing. It appears you have made less than 500 edits to the article space in the past year. While I'm not a die-hard "article writers only" kind of guy, this is less than TWO mainspace edit a day (41 edits a month in the article space). You really haven't even contributed to the Project space - most edits are to the user talk page, and when you aren't improving articles (which, user talk pages are used for collaboration), I'm lead to believe that you are simply socializing. Mønobi 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The three opposes above raise the two concerns I have; I do not believe Sharkface217 will make a good administrator at this time. Daniel (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have several concerns with this candidate. First of all, he has very few article edits. I don't need to see FAs or GAs, but, as Monobi said, he has barely more than 1 edit/day in the mainspace. Second, though there are quite a few very mature young editors, I am concerned about his maturity. This meads me to think that he will have problems as an administrator - civility and maturity are paramount. Also, the excessive socializing worries me. I see a lot of badly though out !votes and comments, often very close apart. I understand that in some cases it's open-and-shut, but the quantity is worrying. I would suggest admin coaching first. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- per Daniel. There are too many concerns for me to support. —Dark talk 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Giggy's got that good. Here to play games. east.718 at 03:19, April 5, 2008
- Oppose per Dihydrogen Monoxide. Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am very disturbed by the tendencies of some editors to value style over substance, and even more disturbed by the concept of dangling barnstars out in front of users to entice them to create new content. I can't say I've taken part in many RfA's, but I don't remember seeing anyone add "bells and whistles" to one before. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I really have a problem with awards that are given based upon mere quantity rather than quality. By making his award center, and giving out awards for meeting certain edit counts, he is engaging in the worst possible type of editcountitis. Additionally, he seems to be a master at reviewing AfD discussion. For example, in a 12 minute on March 21, he was able to read, assess, investigate 17 different articles---highly prolific or careless? Prior to that he assessed 22 articles in 17 minutes. Could it be that he is going after edit counts to meet the criteria within his own guidelines for barnstars? Between 3:13 and 3:16, he was able to tag this article for references, and this one for references and expand, and this one for neutrality and his one for references and this one for references and this one for references and this one for references. That's 7 tags in 4 minutes. Which of his awards is he seeking? Might this be an overly cynical perspective? Yes, but when you run an awards center whose primary criterion is edit counts, it casts your rapid edits into question. I should also mention that I am uncomfortable with somebody who cites a desire to work in virtually every area where Admins are needed, but doesn't have a strong foot print in all of them.Balloonman (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (double edit conflict, sorry for the timing to seem like a pile on) My opposition is based on what I believe the administrator's function on Wikipedia was fundamentally built upon: maintenance of the project that requires trust to give access to, as a janitor does. I do not feel that the user is trusted to receive the tools in those regards. I spent a good while reviewing the users contributions, and I agree with the above opposition reasons regarding the use of the website as an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I've only ever written two articles and my interest in Wikipedia has always lay in relaxing and reading, many many many many more hours than my edit count would suggest so I'm certainly no "Article Builder!" opposer. My issue is that the user has virtually no experience in dealing with users that they are unfamiliar with. Looking over the User_talk contributions alone gave me caution- this place should involve dealing with the unfamiliar with regular use of the encyclopedia. Heck, posting in Talk: space is what first motivated me to register my account. Even warning vandals gives experience in how to handle the situations that were expressed in the answer to question one. How can I trust someone to resolve an issue on the COIN when they have never dealt with COIN in starkness? The answer to Q1 is a litany of duties that seems to me to be derived to please the audience. Personal opinion, not a judgment call there. I feel the user doesn't truly understand the principle of an administrator on Wikipedia. This isn't a crown or status, it's a greatfully accepted burden. Sharkface, you are a valued member of the community and you should remember that. I want to see you branch out into the world of maintaining the encyclopedia, which is doable without writing but not without working in the mainspace. Keegantalk 05:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough experience, coupled with my feeling(s) that the editor isn't here for the right reasons at times. Jmlk17 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, but I don't believe you are quite ready yet. You lack experience in several areas. And while I'm not a huge opposer regarding experience, and while your edit count isn't small, you still need to become more proactive in editing and/or maintaining the encyclopedia before requesting for adminship. That being said, you are a respectable and valued contributor, and I encourage you to continue contributing the way you do. Basically per Keegan. Valtoras (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A keen user who has good intentions at heart, but not enough experience at the 'proper-work' of administrators. Potential sysops need to express their thoughts eloquently and make sure they have experience in the right areas. Immaturity (not at all related to the age of this particular user, I think) is quite a problem, and an administrator who could be open to making mistakes every couple of days or so, is not someone I'm comfortable with the tools. Also, per Dihydrogen Monoxide. Rudget (review) 10:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - some scary accusations of possible misuse of tools! Well, and also the fact that the candidate mainly seems to spend time handing out barnstars and chatting on talk pages. I'd like to see more "hard" contributions - more than stubs - and maybe I'll reconsider. The candidate would be well advised to demonstrate more commitment to the project that way. Biruitorul (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per User:Sharkface217/Award Center. Some people may not understand this reason. I'm not sure it's productive to try to explain it.. you'll either see what I see or you won't. If you don't, it's unlikely further explanation will help. Friday (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't, you might want to look over the MfD for it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there are just too many worrying concerns raised above for me to support or neutral. Baloonmans arguments are very good. Also doesnt meet my requiremnts... --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I have heard many good points in this oppose column, and I don't really trust that this user is telling the truth about his plans and whatnot.
The fact that he self-nominated and then had a flurry of co-noms looks suspiciously of either sock puppetry or meat puppetry. Otherwise one of his conominators could have just nominated him. Given the discussion about barnstars and so on, I would guess at meat puppetry, people trying to get awards.Also, given the rather low edit count considering that most of these edits were quick and easy tagging, minor edits, I don't think the user knows what it truly is to edit. I get the strong feeling that he doesn't want the mop to do actual work (and given the short length of thought made in posts, perhaps that's a good thing) but is rather trying to do this as a form of social promotion. There is very little talk on talk pages, the editor does not seem to discuss things with others about articles very often. KV(Talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- So, the administrator Malinaccier and established editors The Transhumanist and Milk's Favorite Cookie are sockpuppets/meatpuppets? Do you have any evidence to prove this, or this just an unfounded accusation worthy of being discounted? EJF (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already questioned him on his talk page about it. I was surprised at being called a sock/meatpuppet. Also, Sharkface was nominated by User:Hersfold (an admin) but KV says that Sharkface self nominated...Malinaccier (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I'm also opposing this particular candidate, I will state that accusations of meat/sock puppetry are completely unfounded, unnecessary, and unproven. Hoping King Vegita will retract that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I think we need to assume good faith, particularly since half the nominations are from administrators, the other two being from well-established editors. I opposed this RfA, but I bear no ill will towards any of the nominators, who I'm sure exercised good judgement. This is similar to the issue that doomed Riana's RfB. — scetoaux (T/C) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am retracting, I was tired when I wrote that up and misread the nomination as a self-nom, I think because sharkface was linked twice so close together. That was my bad and I apologize for that. My other reasoning stands, and I do apologize for jumping to conclusions, though I would keep the same reasoning if it were indeed a self-nom on the basis that it would be rather awkward. Now, I am not censoring thoughts that cross my mind, that's what that was; I was not stating there that they were such or even probably such, only possibly such. I didn't check out the nominators themselves of course. KV(Talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I think we need to assume good faith, particularly since half the nominations are from administrators, the other two being from well-established editors. I opposed this RfA, but I bear no ill will towards any of the nominators, who I'm sure exercised good judgement. This is similar to the issue that doomed Riana's RfB. — scetoaux (T/C) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I'm also opposing this particular candidate, I will state that accusations of meat/sock puppetry are completely unfounded, unnecessary, and unproven. Hoping King Vegita will retract that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already questioned him on his talk page about it. I was surprised at being called a sock/meatpuppet. Also, Sharkface was nominated by User:Hersfold (an admin) but KV says that Sharkface self nominated...Malinaccier (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the administrator Malinaccier and established editors The Transhumanist and Milk's Favorite Cookie are sockpuppets/meatpuppets? Do you have any evidence to prove this, or this just an unfounded accusation worthy of being discounted? EJF (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per DHMO. I'm a hardcore article-building RfA evaluator, so I feel that I can't support such a candidate. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Many above have expressed it better than I will, but I'll say it anyway. I have strong concerns about maturity (which is distinctly different than age -- I know a number of immature 50 year olds and a number of very mature 12 year olds), lack of encyclopedia building, policy knowledge, a viewing wikipedia mainly as a social club. Sharkface seems to be part of a group that view adminship as a social trophy rather than a commitment to making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I just can't support.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you come to the conclusion that the candidate views adminship as merely a "social trophy" given the detailed answers above, and the fact that he was approached by another editor for nomination? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already formed this opinion before the nom, while researching Milk's Favorite Cookie's nom. I spent a long, long time reading talk pages with posts by MFC, and came across Sharkface and a couple of other editors often on those pages. I made a mental note of those comments, because I had a feeling noms for those editors would be coming up in the very near future.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you come to the conclusion that the candidate views adminship as merely a "social trophy" given the detailed answers above, and the fact that he was approached by another editor for nomination? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry for the pileon here, but I have to agree with Fabrictramp, DHMO, and balloonman. Not ready yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns raised above. My support was written after inadequate assessment. I do not believe this user has demonstrated that possession of the tools will help maintain the encyclopedia. — scetoaux (T/C) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Friday, and immaturity concerns. Ral315 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Per above concerns. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Immaturity concerns, see Chuggo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.89.240 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in, thanks. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the IP was reffering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuggo. In this AFD I believe that Sharkface actually made a fine point...Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree. The article clearly made an assertion of notability. AfD is the forum where we can debate the accuracy of this portrayal and whether or not reliable sources back up claims made in the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the IP was reffering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuggo. In this AFD I believe that Sharkface actually made a fine point...Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in, thanks. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Immaturity concerns, see Chuggo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.89.240 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per DHMO, B, and a few others. I don't think Sharkface is here to "play games", but he does spend too much time doing unnecessary things, and I don't see how he would help if he had the tools. · AndonicO Hail! 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Past interactions left me worried about maturity (eg [10]), and whether the editor had ever had any experience using an encyclopedia, or any other authoritative reference source, before deciding to write in one (eg [11][12]). The diffs I just listed are quite old indeed, but the Awards Centre is an example of recent behaviour that makes me unable to trust with the bit, for fear that it will result in more noise and distractions for productive article writers to work around, and mop pushers to plow through. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling is that the maturity thing will keep popping up. Five Years 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As has been said above, the social-network aspect jumps out at me. George The Dragon (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per all the concerns mapped out here by several editors, I must oppose. --ChetblongTalk/Sign 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sharkface is a very civil editor, and contrary to what some people have said above, he does value the project. However, that value is popping up in the wrong places at the moment. Its great to see how he likes to acknowledge the importance of editors on this project and rewards them with a motivating barnstar or two. But of course, too much of his focus seems to be placed on that and his criteria for awarding needs some revision. Also, this type of endeavor makes him appear too focused on socializing and not enough time editing. I also think he needs a bit more time showing his experience as far as tool wise. Admin coaching would probably amend concerns about experience easily though. I think there exists good potential in Shakeface to make a good administrator, all that is required is that he take what has been said in this section to heart and work off of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rudget. Couldn't have said anything better in my own words. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Rudget and dihydrogen monoxide. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, the roughly 1:5 ratio of mainspace to other edits deters me from supporting at present; it shows that whereas your edits may be good (and the ones I've seen are), I think you need more experience in article building for now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mostly per Rudget and DHMO, seems to be some maturity concerns. However, I do agree that this user seems to have the best interest of the project at heart, and if he can get his act together, I would support in the future. GlassCobra 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose maturity concerns, a user who seem to be here to get credit and awards more than actually help the encyclopaedia. Sorry to pile on. Harland1 (t/c) 18:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - Both via the fact I see a lot more socializing than encyclopaedia building, and per User:Dihydrogen Monoxide. asenine t/c 22:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per User:Dihydrogen Monoxide.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unfortunately, per Dihydrogen Monoxide, Rudget and Persian Poet Gal. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. per dihydrogen monoxide and the others above, I don't fell this user is ready for the mop. Spinach Dip 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. While (I believe) this is the first time I've commented on an RFA, and I'm not exactly a beacon of righteousness either, I think the first three comments above have detailed more then enough reasons to hold on to the mop for a bit longer. Q T C 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The replies given here give me little confidence in the ability of this person to communicate effectively. The replies don't look open and clear responses to me. Rather then saying, "man it was a prank, I was just having a funny moment", there seems many politically correct replies and the same can be said for replies #5, #6, #7, #8 in the question list. SunCreator (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that Sharkface would be a greater asset to the project without the tools; consequently I cannot support. DS (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Keen to learn, but still has a lack of article-writing and admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning oppose per answers to question 3, but awaiting responses to other questions before I pass final judgment. ArcAngel (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning toward support. I want to take a closer look at this candidate than usual. I see the points of both the supporters and opposers, I like what the noms have to say and they are respected editors. But this isn't about them, but about Sharkface217. I don't like his gigantic answers or his userpage formatting, but I'm going to take a real close look at his contribs before taking sides. Useight (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning toward oppose -- I worry Sharkface misunderstands the gravity of content deletion from an encyclopedia:
- That's certainly not my approach when I look at an AfD -- at a minimum, I read both the other AfD comments and the article itself. If notability is an issue, I'll try my own reference search. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a person who has had to recreate articles several times due to their deletion, I am familiar with and appreciate gravity of content deletion. I also know that many other sites mirror wikipedia and, more often than not, there's a copy of the deleted article somewhere on the internet. --Sharkface217 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm ... several problems there. There are zero external references given in the article. There's no evidence from looking at the article that it meets WP:BAND - assertions of importance need to be backed up by reliable sources. Whether the deletion was correct or not, simply recreating the article is a really bad idea. You should discuss it with the deleting admin instead. --B (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a person who has had to recreate articles several times due to their deletion, I am familiar with and appreciate gravity of content deletion. I also know that many other sites mirror wikipedia and, more often than not, there's a copy of the deleted article somewhere on the internet. --Sharkface217 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Gut feeling. SpencerT♦C 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning towards support. I have had some experience with this editor, and I do believe he is a good person. His Award Center, imho, is a valuable tool. I have read all the AFDs for it, and I think that, whatever the motives, it has significantly improved Wikipedia. However, I cannot bring myself to support this nom mainly due the issues raised by Dihydrogen Monoxide. While I disagree that Shark was trying to jack his edit count when he started this RFA, (It is FAR easier to read than any of the others I have seen) I cannot ignore the other issues. J.delanoygabsadds 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning towards support. I simply cannot oppose this one; The work invested in the award center is tremendous, and i am absolutely sure that this initiative helped Wikipedia forward a lot. But at the same time i just cannot get myself to support due to a feeling the editor is still a little to green on the project space. While i am quite certain that there is nothing but good will, i am a little scared that mistakes will sneak in; Personally i made my fair share of those, and i certainly won't want to make those mistakes as an admin Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards oppose. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 14:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Will probably support their next RfA. TheProf - T / C 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - No point in piling on, but I will note that overly busy Wikipedia user space pages hurt my eyes, just like overly busy MySpace pages. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I could really go one way or the other. I always look for article contributions first, but barring that, I really respond to the user questions. I do not believe the candidate has enough questions up top to help me decide one way or the other. None of the opposes up above really give me pause, but I will evaluate this again after it has gone on for a bit longer. MrPrada (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Spencer. SexySeaShark 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - good editor, with useful contributions and a great user space. Not yet ready for prime time. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - More time and taking the opposer's constructive criticism to heart will likely help this editor pass their next RfA. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning toward oppose A slight maturity issue here, but good contributions, I really could go ether way. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Davidgothberg
Final (73/1/2); ended 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Davidgothberg (talk · contribs)
- Nomination from Happy-melon
I am delighted to be able to nominate User:Davidgothberg, the only non-admin to have edited {{ambox}}
. How? Because he created ambox. Although he maintains that he "just" created the template, Davidgothberg has actually been heavily involved with the template namespace in general, and the template standardisation effort in particular. A conservative estimate is that templates he has personally created are used on over 350,000 Wikipedia pages. Along with ambox, Davidgothberg is responsible for {{•}}
(which displays the dots between entries at Wikipedia:Featured articles), {{pp-meta}}
(the protection template meta-template), and {{notice}}
. Most recently, {{px}}
was created in response to the ClickFix bug, as an elegant and effective means of quickly fixing image display problems across thousands of pages. In fact, Davidgothberg's templates are so successful that they are almost all fully protected as high-risk templates, leaving him unable to maintain the code he is largely responsible for creating.
I've worked with Davidgothberg mainly in satisfying his incessant {{editprotected}}
requests to improve the fabric of the template namespace, where he has always been polite, resourceful and (despite not being a native speaker of English) communicative. I know he'll make a great admin, will use the tools he needs, and won't abuse the rest. And that aside, can you please give him the mop just to get him off my back?? :D Happy‑melon 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nomination from Davidruben
I guess many people have been obliquely aware of Davidgothberg's work for some time; funny how we tend to take for granted those who provide the tools we use daily. With recent ClickFix bug workaround of {{px}}
, a solution was also provided to issues of null and empty width parameters in templates, and together with its 2 alternative values, has greatly improved the clarity of coding in templates (eg as here to Chembox new). Likewise {{Ifempty}}
solves the longstanding problem of {{{a|b}}} returning "b" if parameter a is null, but nothing if the parameter is empty. Davidgothberg is polite in all his dealings, not least with the exasperation he must feel having to seek admins to carryout maintenance to templates he originally created but are now fully protected against him! It is ridiculous that such an important and valuable template editor is denied access his own work. He has shown great care in how he approaches changes to these protected templates by careful prior testing in his own user area, and I have therefore no concerns that allowing him direct access to such sensitive areas would be of any risk.
As he noted on my talk page, he "probably will not do much regular admin work" and indeed he has not been involved across the wide spectrum of administrative areas - but of course there is no requirement for any Admin to be active in all aspects, and as it is an all or nothing granting of the mop tools, the only issue should be that he has genuine need for at least one of the tools (editing protected templates) and has our trust not to abuse/misuse the others. The workload for the existing Admins is already excessive (just look at all the backlog of tasks) and we should be actively promoting diligent users who can help out on specific tasks, allowing perhaps the wider adminship to focus as they do on the broader range of admin-space/XfD areas. We clearly should be supporting Davidgothberg in his technical work of keeping the yarn threads attached to our mop handles ! David Ruben Talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nomination from Nihiltres
I've had experiences with David here and there, and each time, I find a user who genuinely wants to improve the project, and uses imagination and skill to achieve that through useful templates. I doubt that it can be argued that he does not have experience; his specialty extends even to MediaWiki space, where he has, in the talk space, nearly as many edits as myself. I must note, of course, that he is not merely a specialist; his edits in mainspace include contributions with the WikiProject Cryptography. I'm convinced that granting him the mop would be quite helpful - he is often on hand with template improvements, and I can certainly see him fulfilling roles updating templates and reducing backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests (indeed, the mere lack of need for him to make his own {{editprotected}}s will reduce backlog :p ). He has created and uploaded a number of images to help illustrate the cryptography articles; it is clear that he knows how to work with images, or even move them to Commons where desirable, a subcategory of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that is perennially backlogged where he could be of great assistance. I trust this user; I hope you will confirm that my trust is justified. Nihiltres{t.l} 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: He, after such a presentation? Then I guess I have to accept. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Updating and handling protected templates. And responding to edit requests for such templates and moving template documentation to /doc subpages and so on. I might also do some image handling. Such as moving images to Commons, which involves deleting the image at Wikipedia. I guess there are many more tasks that I will discover when I read up on the things that admins can do, although I think template land will continue to keep me way too busy. So yes, I will probably be a specialist and not a "well rounded admin". But personally I think we need specialists too. After all, specialists usually are or become experts at what they do, and their work means that other admins get more time to do other work. (And don't worry, I am a pedant so when I try a new task I usually read up carefully before I try it.)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Although {{ambox}} is the most widely used of the templates I have made I don't consider it my best contribution. Instead it is the line wrap handling templates {{nowraplinks}}, {{nowrap begin}} and their helper templates and CSS class, and the how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling to go with that. I like that kit since it was a hard to solve problem and I think I solved it well. And I feel I got to finish the job and document it well too. Another smaller thing I feel is extra nice is the diagrams I made for public-key cryptography. Back when I was teaching computer security I was surprised of the lack of good diagrams in the literature explaining public-key cryptography, until I tried to make some myself. It took lots of experimenting until I had diagrams that my students understood the right way. (Note, I have not been involved in the text in that article...)
- 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: Yes. For instance the very first article I created (back in 2004 when I saw a red link to it) was Filmjölk. It immediately came under extensive attack so I gave up on it and I even left Wikipedia for a time. However it taught me one of the nice things with the wikiprocess: Over time other editors made it better and in the end the attackers gave up, and that brought me back to Wikipedia. Since then I have on several occasions on purpose employed that strategy. That is, instead of fighting alone, leave the article for some time and let other editors come in and voice their opinions. Although I am a very social and talkative person I am not good at handling the stress related to conflicts. That is one of the reasons why I mostly have spent time editing crypto articles, making diagrams and programming and documenting templates. In those areas we are mostly friendly geeks and thus conflicts are almost non-existent there. And those areas happen to fit well with what I am good at. I guess handling conflicts will not be one of the admin tasks I will work with.
Optional Questions from Vivio Testarossa
- 4. When should cool down blocks be implemented?
- A: I assume this mainly means blocking a user that is involved in heated debate on a talk page? Well, my experience from "the real world" is that forcing one or several of the parties in an argument to shut up usually doesn't solve anything. It just provokes them even more, since it kind of is a way to censor them. It either makes them come back more angry, or makes them leave. Sure, they might seem to behave when they come back, but they will hold a grudge that might pop up on later occasions. And if they leave, well, scaring away editors is not what we should do. Besides, I am a strong believer in the right to freedom of speech.
- Of course, since this seems tricky I also took a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy and its talk page. But that doesn't clarify very well if "cool down" covers disruptive edits in articles or not. But I assume disruptive edits go under the other heading named "Disruption" and thus are another thing. Anyway, WP:BLOCK clearly states: "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of 'cooling down' an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation."
- --David Göthberg (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from ArcAngel
- 5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
- A: Well, I had to look that up at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Seems "ban" means the decision/process to ban an editor. While "block" is the tool (technical means) usually used to enforce a ban. So it does not denote any difference in length of time. That is, if it is decided to ban an editor for 2 days, then that would technically be performed by blocking that user for 2 days.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
- A: Well, I have seen that one before, and I think it is flawed for several reasons. The place to complain is administered by the admin himself (his talk page). And he has the right to set the rules and even move the discussion to a separate page. And the petition time is time limited. It basically is as flawed as the "official" procedure to complain about admin abuse. But it has at least one forgiving factor; it at least tries to be simpler to use than the official procedure. Regarding if I should add myself to it? No idea, I have to think about that for a while. Adding myself to a procedure I find flawed feels wrong, on the other hand if that is the least flawed procedure then that might be the least bad option.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
- A: Yes, I find that it would be a conflict of interest if I myself blocked that user. Among other things I would probably no be able to fairly judge if the user should be blocked and for how long. And it would be a clearer message to the user if some other admin did the blocking. And since I probably won't be using the blocking tool since I am a specialist I would anyway consider myself too inexperienced to use it in such a situation.
- But I should perhaps note that it would take a fair amount of vandalism to my user page before I would ask for a block. After all, it is so easy to revert. But I would warn that user and start to watch that user's other edits. A weird thing is that the few times so far that someone has "vandalised" my user space were done by admins.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
- A: Well, you could be meaning the foundation issues or the five pillars. Those two sets overlap a lot. But the way you state the question it sounds like you mean policy pages and then its not easy to answer, since many or perhaps all of them are important and depending on situation different ones of them apply. But on the other hand you cold mean the one thing that we always have to keep in mind, admins are not "rulers" or "lords", we are just here "to serve". Then of course I have my own little policy: "Think and test before you act."
- --David Göthberg (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
- 9. Approximately how many times have you been Rickrolled?
- A: Well, I haven't been actually Rickrolled on the Internet. Although back when I was teaching a platoon of teenage boys and girls in the Swedish Army to march they thought I was so funny that after their first week they wrote a song about me. Then they called me down to the courtyard and sang the song while they marched in advanced patterns across the yard. Much more advanced than I had taught them. Everyone at the regiment was very impressed, including me. I think that goes to show that it is more efficient to handle people in a fun, encouraging, pedagogic way than to use the tough drill sergeant style. Perhaps no wonder I teach dancing as a hobby nowadays. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from MBisanz
- 10. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
- A: Most of them I was aware of. But these are the tools I had not heard about before: Granting rollback, bulk rollback via &bot=1, similar account name creation (I didn't know there was an account name creation filter) and viewing Special:Unwatchedpages. And regarding policy for all those tools: I have not yet read much of the policies for using admin tools. Since up until yesterday I thought specialists didn't stand a chance here at RfA, so I wasn't planning on becoming an admin. So this nomination came kind of suddenly. But I have known for a long time that I would have daily use for some of the tools: mainly protection, unprotection and editing protected pages (templates in my case).
- 11. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that their a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
- A: Maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see why the ip-block-exempt flag should affect my decision to block or not block the user. As far as I understand it the ip-block-exempt flag is just a technical solution to allow a normal user who happens to be on the same IP range as some vandals to continue editing. And if he claims to be a "trusted user" I would probably respond that that should mean he is an "experienced user" and thus should know better than to misbehave. For me it is worse when experienced users misbehave than when beginners misbehave.
- 12. How do you feel about the Admin Coaching program? Would you be willing to coach interested users once you have some experience with the mop?
- A: Well, in a way I am already coaching other users. That is, I help them to learn more about template programming and related tasks. I always like to share my knowledge. (Don't we all? This is Wikipedia after all.) And I will continue doing that. But doing general admin coaching will not be for me, since I am a specialist. But if you have any "students" that want some lessons in "template handling for admins", send them over to me. And I'll spend some hours (or much more if they like) on IRC with them sharing what I know. Now that was an idea, perhaps I should offer that service over at WP:ADMINCOACH?
Question from User:Wizardman
- 13. Do you plan to handle updating WP:DYK as an admin? If so how should the update be done?
- A: Oh, I love the "Did you know" section on the main page, it is very addictive. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I do not have the main page as my start page when I enter Wikipedia. Since then I tend to spend way too much time reading articles pointed to from the main page. And partly for the same reason I am not likely to spend time working with WP:DYK. But I took a quick look at the instructions over at WP:DYK and they seem clear. Although they involve many steps and protecting the image etc, so it seems one must be very careful when doing the update. (And anything related to the main page should be done with extra care anyway, since it has such high visibility.) (And yes, I know how cascading protection works, I've experienced it several times when fresh admins have protected templates and then by accident used cascading and thus protected the transcluded /doc page for the template too.)
General comments
- See Davidgothberg's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Davidgothberg: Davidgothberg (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Davidgothberg before commenting.
Discussion
- I will go on record now and say that the three opposes (at time of entry), by three editors I have an enormous amount of time and respect for (Dusti, Cameron and Tiptoey) are, well, poor. The candidate clearly stated in Q1 that he will be specialised and has a specific need for the tools. I'd be darn certain he'll probably never delete an article or block a vandal to be honest. Opposing due to a lack of experience at WP:AIV, C:CSD or similar in this particular case is simply creating a narrow perspective of what admin tools are about and perpetuates the big deal mythology. The guy needs the tool set for, IMHO, purely technical reasons and ain't going to harm the encyclopedia in using them. Net Positive Pedro : Chat 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A huge ditto to that Pedro. Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand RfA, the question we ought to be answering is, do we trust the candidate not to abuse the tools? The opposes have not been based on any such principle. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we can be sure that he'll never delete an article or block a vandal. There is likely to be a time when he becomes bored with template work (possibly very many months away) and decides to explore other areas. I'm sure he will still use the tools wisely then, but a lack of admin-related experience isn't a factor that should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course, Epbr. We can't be sure he'll never block a vandal. Or delete an article. I suppose we'll have to trust him to make sure he's doing it right if/when he does. Isn't that what RfA really is? Do we trust User:X to use the tools appropriately? I do. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said Pedro, hmm....okay, I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and this is one of those times. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit the nominee has a vast amout of experience in the areas in which he would like to use the tools. However, the nominee will, should this nomination be successful, have access to all the tools. In my opinion nominees should thus have at least a small amount of experience in all areas. Yes, even in the areas they do no intend to use! Below four edits in AIV, really is (again, IMO) too lower count for me to support with a good conscience. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we can't give out just part of the tool set, and your argument is totally valid and strong because of that. I just personally feel that in this particular case there is enough evidence that although the candidate only needs one bit of the tools, we can assume from their contributions that if they were to venture into other areas they would tread slowly. In a broader sense, I wonder if we (by which I mean all RFA commentators, including myself) are starting to become obsessed with having a "well rounded" contributor rather than an understanding that the tools are merely technical and at times we must remember that RFA candidates only require them for technical reasons - which is what I see here. However I also respect the understanding that the tools come in one box, and this candidate cannot truly demonstrate current W:AIV (as an example) knowledge through contributions and your oppose is fully justified. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm coming in late, and I'm threading this improperly, as it's not directed at Pedro, but I'm a little flustered over any reasoning for opposition on this one. I wonder why nobody has addressed the nominee's concern, which he has stated at least once: why aren't admin candidates drilled this harshly about protected templates, since that falls into admin privileges as well? This is all that the nominee wants to do. Unless the MediaWiki software allows some other method, or the Foundation changes their policies, he pretty much hit a brick wall. Right now, any work he would like to do requires a double work-load. Yngvarr (c) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I thought the question about protected templates was rhetorical: we trust that admins won't get involved in high-risk template programming unless they know what the hell they're doing. By extension, the same could apply to any admin tool. Generally in RfAs we care about the commonly used tools, but the larger point is that we need to pick trustworthy people to be admin, not just people with only one specific skill set. Darkspots (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit the nominee has a vast amout of experience in the areas in which he would like to use the tools. However, the nominee will, should this nomination be successful, have access to all the tools. In my opinion nominees should thus have at least a small amount of experience in all areas. Yes, even in the areas they do no intend to use! Below four edits in AIV, really is (again, IMO) too lower count for me to support with a good conscience. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said Pedro, hmm....okay, I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and this is one of those times. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course, Epbr. We can't be sure he'll never block a vandal. Or delete an article. I suppose we'll have to trust him to make sure he's doing it right if/when he does. Isn't that what RfA really is? Do we trust User:X to use the tools appropriately? I do. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we can be sure that he'll never delete an article or block a vandal. There is likely to be a time when he becomes bored with template work (possibly very many months away) and decides to explore other areas. I'm sure he will still use the tools wisely then, but a lack of admin-related experience isn't a factor that should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand RfA, the question we ought to be answering is, do we trust the candidate not to abuse the tools? The opposes have not been based on any such principle. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is drawing to an end: Thanks everyone who commented and voted. It has been a weird experience. Oh, and I did get a bunch of good laughs from your voting comments! So hugs to all and see you out in template land or wherever we bump into each other.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Davidgothberg's excellent work with the recent Wikipedia:ClickFix problem, in which he quickly produced the {{px}} template fix, demostrates why he should be an Admin. He was unable to add it to several templates because they were editprotected, and he is now unable to directly maintain it because the template itself is now editprotected! I had this page on my watchlist so I would not miss this RfA if it ever came up (Is this too early to support? This is the 1st one of these I have supported!). GameKeeper (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nom Support - I initially was thinking of nominating David myself;
I may yet add a co-nom(done, second co-nom). His work in templates is really great; I'm currently working with him on {{pp-meta}} and have done a bunch of {{editprotected}}s for him, and he has my confidence through that. Yes, he'll be a specialist, but the need is justified and the trust, I think, is there. Nihiltres{t.l} 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Support - As per my co-nom (sorry Nihiltres, I had previously so offered this, but you're welcome to be a 2nd co-nom !). Has a need, the considered care in what he would do with a mop tool, the courtesy that we expect of those granted additional powers and certainly my trust not to misuse the other implements in the broom cupboard. David Ruben Talk 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom support - One of the most resourceful template coders I've met on Wikipedia. Certainly he deserves never to see MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext again. Happy‑melon 09:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have to say some of the headings on your talk page made me a little worried. I've investigated, quite thoroughly, and there is in fact no concerns. None at all. Specialised reasons for needing the bit, but no concerns at all on accidental misuse - you are clearly a supremly competent coder, and your work here has been incredibly beneficial to WP. Pedro : Chat 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An experienced and trustworthy user with very clear reasons to be an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My reason for supporting is encoded in the following message: "V fgebatyl fhccbeg gur rkvfgrapr bs fcrpvnyvfg nqzvaf naq jubyyl erwrpg gur arrq sbe jryy ebhaqrqarff". Jon513 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, thanks! Since most who read this page probably are not crypto geeks like you and I: That sentence was encrypted using ROT13 and says: "I strongly support the existence of specialist admins and wholly reject the need for well roundedness" --David Göthberg (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a good future admin to me. Best of luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak support and the primary reason why this is weak support is because I'm too lazy right now to do my homework right now... I like what I see, but before giving full support I'd have to review you closer.Balloonman (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've followed up at least some of what Pedro is referring to above, and see no problems either. And obviously giving you access to edit protected templates is a huge net positive. Good luck as an admin! Darkspots (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Without question or hesitation. Specialists welcome! backs away slowly in awe of your work and dedication... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong technical user. Definite benefits of letting him have his own mop and not having to bother others for theirs. Gwguffey (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A trustworthy and knowledgeable user. As Wikipedia becomes ever larger and labyrinthine, then Admin specialization will become a necessity. Polly (Parrot) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I used to view the absence of admin related areas as an absolute detriment to the candidate, however, after considerable mulling and understanding where and how the user wishes to use the tools (along with trust), I feel there shouldn't be a problem. I still would have liked to at least seen WP:AIV, but I'm going with my gut here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely The candidate's answers to questions show him to be thoughtful, honest, and trustworthy. Based on his template work I'd say he's less likely to abuse the tools than he is to improve them. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree all little admins need not do all admin tasks. Little David do templates, 'Zilla do rest! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- -- Naerii 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will not block good-faith contributors without prior discussion, and will not protect pages just becuase he doesn't think they should be edited: good enough for me! ➪HiDrNick! 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - While there are areas that need improvement (such as WP:AIV, which he has a litt under 4 edits to) I think that he can be trusted with the tools, and will ask when he is unsure whether to use them or not. (Changed from oppose) Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support don't see any cause for concern in the users conduct or in the opposes listed below. Guest9999 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - is civil, can be trusted with the tools & will be a valuable administrator in chosen area (CAT:EP). --BelovedFreak 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe adminship is for all trustworthy and proved editors. The fact that he doesn't have much administrative activity record should not be held against the candidate. Pundit|utter 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gee, sounds like you can't go wrong here. A very qualified editor, working in a specialized area who needs admin access to continue working. Even the self-assessment of probably not being a well-rounded admin is reassuring, as it only reinforces the impression that this candidate knows what he is doing, and wants to contribute at a higher level than what normal registered users have. Yngvarr (c) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Provided the Q1 answer is honest, and I have no reason to believe it isn't. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above by the guy from whom I took the code for my signature-> Pewwer42 Talk 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will make good use of the tools. --Sharkface217 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent reasons for having the tools. I trust this user to know his limits and to test the waters carefully when trying admin functions. Risker (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, solid candidate, obvious need for the tools (well, one of them, anyway), and no reason to believe that he's abuse the tools if they were given to him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support, asset to the 'pedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly needs some of the tools, and will use them right for what he wants to do. I furthermore have confidence based on his general experience that he he wants to try working elsewhere, he will do so carefully and be an asset to us there also. DGG (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User will make good use of tools. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs a little bit of work, but has the basics for an administrator hopeful. David seems well acquainted with the responsibility of the tools and may use this RFA as a learning curve for future, potential work. Rudget (review) 10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support valuable and committed contributor. Shyamal (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid. Trustworthy. Careful. Honest. So what if his use of admin tools will be narrow initially... κaτaʟavenoTC 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've found David's work on Wikipedia:Line break handling particularly helpful and have recently become aware of his ambox contribution. I suspect I have but a limited appreciation of his work thus far and I'm wondering where next I'll find some constructive presentation-enhancing work in which he's played a significant if not seminal role. I've no doubt that whatever administrative privileges he finds himself using -- regardless of whether they're many or few -- will be used well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has been around since Sept 2004.No concerns as per misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support In this users long "career" here he has shown no signs that he will abuse the tools. That is my main reason for supporting him. I do see the fact that he is not experienced in admin areas as a concern, but when a user has not other problems then it is not enough for me not to support him. Good luck!--SJP (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent user. SpencerT♦C 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't see anything to say that he will abuse the tools. The lack of experience in the usual admin areas would normally be a concern, but his trustworthiness and stellar work in the template space show a clear need for the tools. I trust, also, that he will not get in over his head, and that he will ease into use of the tools in other areas slowly; he does have good judgment. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Completely agree with Pedro in the discussion section. This is a specialized candidate who can only benefit from gaining the tools; his work thus far has been more than exceptional. I feel confident with his overall knowledge, and suspect that he will not take any actions that he feels are out of his range without asking for help. GlassCobra 02:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User seems worthy of community trust -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support His need for the tools is obvious, and it seems clear that he has no intention of participating in the areas he doesn't fully understand without taking the time to learn about them first.--Dycedarg ж 03:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support For a coding specialist those are some really well thought out answers! MBisanz talk 07:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He is trustworthy. Good luck. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good luck and great work. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, like the answer to my question. Wizardman 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Normally I'd like to see a few more edits, but after reading the answers to the questions and Davidgothberg's talk page, I have no worries about the mop. I'd love to see more admins who are so committed to reading instructions before acting! :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I can't see any reason to oppose. MrPrada (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An extraordinarily capable Wikipedian who will put the tools to judicious use. Not the slightest risk in this case.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 09:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support pending users keeps his/her word and will not participate in unfamiliar areas without requesting help from an expierenced admin. Good luck Davidgothberg. Dustitalk to me 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely no concerns here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for a good person. SilkTork *YES! 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to no memorable negative experiences with candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- —Dark talk 09:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's done great work on templates and will be a trustworthy admin. --CapitalR (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great work on English wikipedia. I can't vouch for his personal web page. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks ok to me. I can see that this candidate has a real need for the sysop bit in dealing with high-risk templates which have been fully protected, etc. IMO, there's nothing wrong with highly specialised admins and AIV work is absolutely not a prerequisite to adminship. S/he will be just fine ;) - Alison ❤ 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent example of a 'non-standard' Admin candidate. Spinach Dip 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen him around, good user. John Reaves 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no-matter which area Davidgothberg specialises in, I'm sure he will be a good admin. Lradrama 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seem him around. iMatthew 2008 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will be an asset as an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In short, somewhat mixed. I can see the argument in favour of giving greater reign in the area of updating and handling protected templates. David is someone you want on a technical project, someone you can trust in his own spear, a productive work horse and likable person. Take him out of his comfort zone, give him something new especially none techy and my impression is that he would struggle. Still you require a whole mixture of people in an admin team and without knowing what is really required in the mix of admins(someone send me info please) then I support this request for admin. SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All signs point towards a great admin in the making! I'm glad to support. TheProf - T / C 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Acalamari 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck Yeah Support Krashlandon (e) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shell-Shocked Support This guy created ambox??!!! Also, he's a great editor. ;) Thingg⊕⊗ 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong oppose I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate has extensive and compelling need for exactly one of the tools (editprotected), and in an area in which there is no possibility for admin participation (CAT:EP). There is no requirement for admin candidates to participate in all or even some of the 'mainstream' admin-related tasks. We have hundreds of admins who participate in AIV, but I would guess that less than a dozen regularly work CAT:EP. The only consideration that I can see is whether the candidate can be trusted not to misuse or abuse the tools with which he is unfamiliar, and I have complete faith that he will not do so. Happy‑melon 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, over the years I have reported vandals at WP:AIV, pages at WP:AFD, images at WP:IFD, categories at WP:CFD and more or less all of them got blocked, deleted or moved etc. I have also successfully defended images at WP:IFD (or perhaps that was on Commons?). Of course, I have followed procedure and first tried to talk to the vandals and put several warning notes on their talk pages. And I have moved images to Commons. And I have worked CAT:EP from both sides, that is admins have come to me and asked me to help them fix protected templates they don't understand. Then they temporarily lower the protection level to semi-protected so I can fix it and then they raise the level when I am finished. And I have always spent time answering questions from new users. And I have been involved over at WP:MOS and its sub pages. And I have done code, documentation and support work at MediaWiki talk:Common.css, MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css and the other skins and related pages. And I worked around the clock for some weeks last summer to achieve consensus and then took part in writing the guideline WP:AMBOX. And I wrote the how-to guide WP:NOWRAP. And I have done work in the "Help:" namespace. (But that is not visible since the help pages are from Meta so I edit them there or edit the "Wikipedia specific help" which shows up as edits in template space.)
- But the last year I have mostly been too busy with coding, documenting and answering questions about templates (support work) that I had not had much time to patrol articles. Nowadays I have to prioritise since I am in the situation where I have to choose between handling a vandal, or answering a question / fixing a problem with some template that is visible on anything from 3,000 - 330,000 pages.
- That I currently have to edit most of those templates by "remote control" is time consuming both for me and for the admins who have to respond to my {{editprotected}} requests. And it means that bugs in such templates can sometimes be visible for days on thousands of pages while I wait for the {{editprotected}} request to be handled. Bugs often inserted by a drive by edit by some admin who did not test the code in a sandbox before adding it. By the way, since admins get to edit protected high-risk intricate templates, why aren't questions about their skills in template programming asked here at RfA?
- --David Göthberg (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr! Seriously though, brevity is a virtue that I imagine you will find very useful as an admin. Summarising the above for someone like me would be great practice! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I know, I was rambling there. Unfortunately brevity has never been one of my skills. But I aim to get good at it at around my 50th birthday.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr! Seriously though, brevity is a virtue that I imagine you will find very useful as an admin. Summarising the above for someone like me would be great practice! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Camaron on this one. The user has little or no admin related activity, and also admits numerous times above, that before he could answer a question, he had to look at the policy, showing he has no knowledge of the criteria or policy (which seems to be pretty important). I think if Davidgothberg wants to be an Admin, he should get his feet wet in some/most admin areas and learn more about Wiki policy. Dustitalk to me 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)I will relent on this, per the discussion below. Since the user has in fact said that he/she will not participate in unfamiliar areas, I feel better about giving him/her the tools. Moving !vote from oppose to weak support. Dustitalk to me 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Or, to put it another way, he's competent enough to realise when his knowledge is lacking, clever enough to find the appropriate policy information, and honest enough to tell us that he had to so do. I don't see how this translates into "bad admin". Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above, not quite enough admin related experience here and to be honest the answers to the questions show it. Tiptoety talk 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Changed to support, reason for !vote was, (like Pedro put very well) poor. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The issue in the matter is that he isn't familiar with policy and has to look policy up. Most (hopefully all) admins are familiar with Wiki policy and should be. He needs to familiarize himself with policy before becoming an admin. Dustitalk to me 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate has extensive and compelling need for exactly one of the tools (editprotected), and in an area in which there is no possibility for admin participation (CAT:EP). There is no requirement for admin candidates to participate in all or even some of the 'mainstream' admin-related tasks. We have hundreds of admins who participate in AIV, but I would guess that less than a dozen regularly work CAT:EP. The only consideration that I can see is whether the candidate can be trusted not to misuse or abuse the tools with which he is unfamiliar, and I have complete faith that he will not do so. Happy‑melon 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Probably trustworthy, but I'm afraid I can't support candidates without admin related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Without the massive weight of the nominators, I would probably oppose. Clearly the user is skilled, has been around the Wikiblock, and is trustworthy. However, with the attention we give to policy knowledge on other RfAs, I'm not sure why people are overlooking it on this one. Having to look up the ban/block question? Sigh. I just think that a few days of policy study prior to this RfA would have made a prime candidate. That said, the answer to Q3 was spot-on. Tan | 39 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He did say, above, that if/when he ever decides to venture away from his specialized (and much appreciated) contributions, that he would follow his "pedant"-ness, meaning read first, ask first, then do. Whilst I normally agree that "well-roundedness" is more appropo and more commonly supported, his reassurances sold me. And answering an unfamiliar question with "I had to look this up" is proof that he won't wander willy-nilly into tools he's unfamiliar with. I'd much rather a candidate "look up" an answer to an unknown question than just jump into an answer. In fact, when someone "just answers quickly" without looking it up first, he/she is generally opposed for that more readily. I can find nothing in this particular editor's prolific history to suggest that he would even misuse, let alone abuse, the tools. (and I'm positive you're not suggesting that either). Just my thoughts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the answer to Q8 supports my neutrality, so to speak. Admins should not have to "look up" basic policy during their RfA - policy knowledge is de rigueur for other candidates, this should be no exception. Tan | 39 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you actually mean Q5, but that's a minor detail. Certainly administrators should on no account make use of tools which are controlled by policies with which they are unfamiliar. I'm not particularly well versed in WP:BLOCK myself. But as you can see, I've never been to Special:Blockip in my life, except to have a look around when I was exploring all my shiny new cleaning tools. A candidate who intends to use a tool, but is unfamiliar with its associated policy, is cause for serious concern. A candidate who is unfamiliar with a policy, but has no intention of ever enforcing it, is (IMHO) of far less concern. A candidate who is unfamiliar with policy, but doesn't intend to use the associated tool, and reads up on the relevant policy anyway, is of no concern to me whatsoever. If you trust the candidate to use the admin tools only where he is familiar, or prepared to become familiar, with the relevant policy, then I don't see any reason why an incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia's rulebook is a problem. Happy‑melon 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with an admin candidate having to look up a policy. IMO, nobody can know all of the rules/policies, the important thing to me isn't that they know everything, but that they know enough to find what they need.Balloonman (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that we should let someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy because they are telling us they will look up a policy before making a decision? We don't have time for that here, as sometimes an Admin needs to make a split second decision. By letting someone through who has to go look up a policy before answering a question is a poor decision in my view. Granted, most admins don't know everything about all of the policy's, however, they are familiar enough with them to answer a question without looking them up. Dustitalk to me 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the candidate is indicating that, since their knowledge of certain admin-task policies is incomplete, he will not participate in those areas unless and until he is familiar with the relevant policy. In the areas where he intends to operate, Davidgothberg's knowledge of policy and process is already extensive; in the areas where his knowledge is lacking, he has little or no interest. So there will never come a time when he has to "make a split second decision" (and I incidentally disagree that any admin should or does ever have to make a "split second" decision) based on incomplete policy knowledge. Happy‑melon 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dusti, I have yet to make a "split second decision" as an editor, let alone an admin. WP:TIND. And to quantify this particular editor as someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy, is quite frankly wrong and rather harsh. You are entitled to your opinion, though, even when it's wrong. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit that maybe the above comment was harsh, and I apologize if it comes across as such. My only worry with this RFA is that other users have been criticized because of incompetence in some admin related areas, and that caused the RFA to fail. Are we making an exception here? Dustitalk to me 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The exception appears to come from the fact that the candidate has made it clear he doesn'really want to participate in those areas for which he is being criticized in lacking knowledge (and made it clear even at the beginning of the RFA). There are admins who don't participate in AIV or RPP, should they be called to task as well? Yngvarr (c) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, Yngvarr. That's the difference to me as well. I have yet to make a single post to AIV that I recall, or block anyone based on an AIV report, I would hope that doesn't lead to my desysopping. If I ever did decide that's what I wanted to do, I would like to think that I would read up first....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The exception appears to come from the fact that the candidate has made it clear he doesn'really want to participate in those areas for which he is being criticized in lacking knowledge (and made it clear even at the beginning of the RFA). There are admins who don't participate in AIV or RPP, should they be called to task as well? Yngvarr (c) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will admit that maybe the above comment was harsh, and I apologize if it comes across as such. My only worry with this RFA is that other users have been criticized because of incompetence in some admin related areas, and that caused the RFA to fail. Are we making an exception here? Dustitalk to me 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dusti, I have yet to make a "split second decision" as an editor, let alone an admin. WP:TIND. And to quantify this particular editor as someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy, is quite frankly wrong and rather harsh. You are entitled to your opinion, though, even when it's wrong. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the candidate is indicating that, since their knowledge of certain admin-task policies is incomplete, he will not participate in those areas unless and until he is familiar with the relevant policy. In the areas where he intends to operate, Davidgothberg's knowledge of policy and process is already extensive; in the areas where his knowledge is lacking, he has little or no interest. So there will never come a time when he has to "make a split second decision" (and I incidentally disagree that any admin should or does ever have to make a "split second" decision) based on incomplete policy knowledge. Happy‑melon 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that we should let someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy because they are telling us they will look up a policy before making a decision? We don't have time for that here, as sometimes an Admin needs to make a split second decision. By letting someone through who has to go look up a policy before answering a question is a poor decision in my view. Granted, most admins don't know everything about all of the policy's, however, they are familiar enough with them to answer a question without looking them up. Dustitalk to me 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be the first time and last time I ever say this :), but maybe my concerns were wrongs. (*sigh*) My main concerns were that the user seemed inexperienced. I apologize for being mistaken on this user. I have spend some time now looking through user contribs and this user seems like he would use the tools fantastically. I wish him good luck and hope that maybe one day, I will be able to follow in his footsteps with a successful RFA. Good luck and keep your head up!!! Dustitalk to me 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the answer to Q8 supports my neutrality, so to speak. Admins should not have to "look up" basic policy during their RfA - policy knowledge is de rigueur for other candidates, this should be no exception. Tan | 39 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He did say, above, that if/when he ever decides to venture away from his specialized (and much appreciated) contributions, that he would follow his "pedant"-ness, meaning read first, ask first, then do. Whilst I normally agree that "well-roundedness" is more appropo and more commonly supported, his reassurances sold me. And answering an unfamiliar question with "I had to look this up" is proof that he won't wander willy-nilly into tools he's unfamiliar with. I'd much rather a candidate "look up" an answer to an unknown question than just jump into an answer. In fact, when someone "just answers quickly" without looking it up first, he/she is generally opposed for that more readily. I can find nothing in this particular editor's prolific history to suggest that he would even misuse, let alone abuse, the tools. (and I'm positive you're not suggesting that either). Just my thoughts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Bedford
Final: (82/4/5); ended 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Bedford (talk · contribs) - There are plenty of reasons why I am nominating Bedford for adminship. First off, we know how often T:DYK gets backlogged. Bedford's a frequent DYK contributer already, and having him as an admin would give us a sorely needed set of hands there. His article writing ability is great as well, writing, well, a lot of them. He's contributed plenty to all namespaces (including over 1000 portal edits), and has done well in all namespaces. Quite simply, he's a very solid candidate who would be very deserving of adminship. Wizardman 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am delighted to be seen as a potential administrator. I accept the nomination.--Bedford 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Mostly work on DYKs, especially in promptly updating those to be seen on the main page. I am also interested in cataloging the images we have, and seeing which ought to be moved to commons.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have created and bought three portals to featured status (Portal:Louisville, Portal:Kentucky, and Portal:Indianapolis), and have helped on the Portals related to astrology and the American Civil War. I also assessed 10,000 articles during WP:Military History's 2007 drive, allowing that WP to better oversee their interests.
- 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: If one hasn't gotten into conflicts on Wikipedia, then I wonder how much they were involved. Different worldviews make for a better online encyclopedia, but it also means conflicts. I find it best to treat each case individually, relying on past experiences to shape future actions. If things get too heated, then its time to find outsiders to meditate, assuming good faith whenever possible.
Optional Questions from User:Wisdom89
- 4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
- A- I would first leave a message to that user, asking him to please refrain from sockpuppetry. If he continues, I would confer with other admins, as something needs to be done to stop sockpuppetry. If I was a long-term admin, I would feel free to place a short-term block, to wake up the editor that what he's doing is wrong. A short-term admin must carefully balance that he should not be afraid of his power, but he must also be sure not to overstep his bounds, much the same way a 2nd Lieutenant must be careful to start his career smoothly.
- 5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
- A- As a fellow admin, I must respect other admin's decisions. If it is still open for comment, I'll leave my two cents so that a better consensus can be formed. If ArbCom rejects the case, I will respect that decision unless something that was overlooked was so wrong, in which case I will confer with a more experienced admin, and ask his opinion if ArbCom may have gotten something wrong.
- 6. What is your opinion/interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances would it be appropriate to invoke it?
- A- It is like the adage "There's an exception to every rule". In a way, it is like amending the Constitution, allowing a way to improve Wikipedia that was not forseen. However, if rules are being ignored without reason, and are disruptive, then action must be done to stop this.
- 7. What is your opinion of WP:AOR and would add yourself to it?
- A- AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event.
Optional questions from MBisanz
- 8. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
- A. Having been an editor for almost three years, I have come across many of the terms previously; most were self-evident to begin with. Bulk rollback via &bot=1, MediaWiki namespace, Similar account name creation, and Viewing Special:Unwatchedpages I have not dealt with much, if at all, but I see no trouble in grasping them.
- 9. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?
- A. I think it is a useful tool to have; anything that is copyrighted or libel needs to remain off and stay off Wikipedia, but that which was deleted just to unseen importance should be remain handy in case something unforeseen occurs.
- 10. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that they're a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
- A. I would definitely rethink about blocking. With so many schools and libraries offering internet, it is a fine line about whether or not an IP is disruptive. If I am in doubt, I will do nothing for the moment, but will keep further watch. If a more experience admin is available, I'll ask for their take on the situation.
- 11. How do you feel about the Admin Coaching program? Would you be willing to coach interested users once you have some experience with the mop?
- A. I have coached new users for a long time now, especially if they are working on objects relating to Southern Indiana. Having been a substitute teacher, and a seminar speaker, I feel that I can should coach those willing to be coached, and accept coaching if it is deemed necessary.
- 12 You appear to be lacking in Help talk and Mediawiki talk edits, will you agree to rectify this extreme deficiency when your an admin?
- A. If it is part of the admin job, I will be sure to begin rectifying a lack of experience in those affairs. To be honest, there is so much to do on Wikipedia, that things will be overlooked, and they were.
Optional questions from Tiptoety talk
- 13. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
- A: Cool down blocks have an habit of inflaming passions more than actually cooking down hotheads. If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block, especially since it is possible that the account was hacked. But in general, they are too be avoided if at all possible.
- Cooldown blocks should never be used. --Charitwo talk 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of the policy being there; I just left a pinky finger in the door. As a newbie admin I would never do a cool down block on my own, but instead would just briefly mention it to a more experienced admin as an idea. Maybe it is because I just did an answer on IAR that I allowed for the pinky to exist.--Bedford 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cooldown blocks should never be used. --Charitwo talk 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Cool down blocks have an habit of inflaming passions more than actually cooking down hotheads. If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block, especially since it is possible that the account was hacked. But in general, they are too be avoided if at all possible.
- 14. When should an article on the mainpage be fully protected and why? What about semi?
- A: Fully protected if its a edit war where one or both sides exist of established users; semi-protecting if the edit war is due to unestablished users causing the edit war, with few if any established editors doing the warring.
- 15. You see another admin has deleted an article for violation of WP:BLP, but upon some research find that the content was in fact true and all the article required was a few sources, how would you handle it?
- A: I would ask the admin his reasons for deletion, and if he knew of the sources. Assume good faith, after all. If the admin in question is amiable, then restore the article, but making sure to add credible cites to the controversial text. If the admin is not amiable, then ask a senior admin, and maybe the coordinator of the WikiProject the article relates to, their opinion, and work from there to the benefit of Wikipedia.
Optional question from VegaDark
- 16. Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?
- A:
If the IP is from an household computer with a history of vandalism, then it can be indefinitely blocked. If the IP is from a school or public library, then it should not be indefinitely blocked, although a block up to a few days may be warranted. IPs from dorms or internet cafes should be handled on a case by case basis, with admins conferring that an indefinite block is needed, and no indefinite blocking if there is no consensus. - A2: Indefinitely blocking IPs should be avoided, due to many changing dynamically. Blocks ranging from a few months to 2 years are preferable. Occasionally there is a need, if it is due to an open proxy/zombie computer.
- A:
More optional questions from Tiptoety talk
- 17. When should you not provide a user with a copy of a deleted article?
- A:
- 18. What investigative actions would you take when looking into a report filed at AIV?
- A: I would make sure the user was sufficiently warned. Then I look at the users edit history, to see if there is any hope that this user could be a constructive user, or whether it is actually a violation of 3RR or sockpuppetry so the user can be handled in the appropriate way.
- 19. When should you SALT/create protect an article? What type of content would you SALT more than others (if any)? How long would you SALT it for and why?
- A: If an article is constantly recreated after an AfD, or if vandals keep recreating a disruptive article, then it needs to be salted. I would never preemptively salt an article; only salt if it is constantly being a problem. A controversial figure that does not meet notability standards, or if an owner of a business keeps restoring an article aboutn themselves, would seem likely candidates for salting I would ask senior admins how long an article should be salted; 3 months sounds a likely beginning time to salt.
- 20. What is the difference between a username hardblock and a username softblock? Under what circumstances would you apply them?
- A: A hardblock would be used for a username that is blatantly disruptive, whereas softblock are for those that may have a legit use. A username such as "JimboWalesisSatan" should be hardblocked, whereas the name "JimboWhales" could be softblocked, in case someone who's actually named Jim Bo Whales joins Wikipedia and wants to use their real name (although I would definitely encourage a different name)
- 21. If a user comes to you saying they would like to take a wikibreak and want to make sure they do not edit during that time so they ask for a 2 week block. How would you reply?
- A: I would have to decline, as typically we do not use the block feature. However, I may mention the Wikibreak Javascript, depending on the user.
- 22. How would you handle an un-block request?
- A: I would ask the admin who blocked the user why they did the block, and inquire if he changed his mind, to prevent wheel warring. If the admin who block does not wish to change their mind, I will tell the person who wishes to be unblocked that they must go to ArbCom.
- 23. When should you block a user from using the email feature?
- A: If I see complaints that the user is harassing or spamming other editors with the feature, I should give a short block of the feature, and ask the user for his side of the story. If the problem continues, blocking just the email may not be enough, but I will make sure to get advice from senior admins.
Optional question from balloonman
- 24. Now that you've played twenty questions, do you know the answer?
- A: Yes, the answer is "I now know what it's like to go through a college fraternity hazing". ;)
Question from King Vegita
- 25 - What criteria do you look for in whether an article should be deleted or kept? I am not speaking of obvious ones, but the questionable ones: where it can be improved, but is not up to standards in its current version. KV(Talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: We have so many articles that are only a few sentences and no refs, that I'd hate to delete any. As long as its not an obvious reason to delete (copyvio, libel, obviously nonnotable), I'd allow it to stay, but make sure it is given the correct stub and give it a WikiProject, marking it for attention.
Question from VanTucky
- 26. On your user page, you say that your specialties are history and geography, and go on to call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression". Can you tell me why using this name (except in reference to itself) in the American Civil War article would be inappropriate, and how would you deal with a contributor attempting to insert it? VanTucky 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Elkman
- 27. The Ice House on Little Muddy Creek in Morgantown, Kentucky is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It housed large blocks of ice that could be used to cool things down. Do you think that this usage of "cool-down blocks" is appropriate? Does the fact that the structure is now in ruins indicate that these "cool-down blocks" are now technically and functionally obsolete?
- A: Considering the time that they were used, I would say they were appropriate as long as the lake/pond from which the ice was chipped from was noted as a clean source of water. With the invention of modern equipment, these kind of cool-down blocks are mostly obsolete, although some regions outside North America may still see such constructions as useful if they are still lacking in 21st Century equipment.--Bedford 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Bedford's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Bedford: Bedford (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bedford before commenting.
Discussion
Dear Candidate. Your answer to Q16 is a little concerning, and well, broadly wrong. I'm not going to withdraw aupport, as your Q1 states the areas you are interested in are not related to the block button. But I would urge you to read WP:BLOCK and the various sub-pages when this RFA passes (which it will). Pedro : Chat 07:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was answering from the impression I have gotten in the past; I stand corrected. Like you said, I have interests other than blocking to be an admin, and should I feel the need to block, I will ask advice from senior admins before doing such a thing.--Bedford 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Strong support as nom, plus for having to go through an absurd amount of questions. Wizardman 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to see that Wizardman was playing a late April fool on us all. :) Seriously though, good candidate. Acalamari 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great content work, active in lots of different areas. More like these please! RxS (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Slightly concerned from your user boxes that you state you are "drug free". Rampant alcohol and drug abuse is a side effect of being an admin here, so best of luck with keeping that up... In seriousness, great contributions, clean talk page and a desire to work in the less common areas - particularly updating DYK - that's great news. Pedro : Chat 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. A clean talkpage, good archives, firm knowledge of policy, more than qualified even for edit counters, a wealth of encyclopedic contributions. And to top it off, a nominator that always gets it right. Happy to support, good luck! *hic* he said as a drunken admin...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - highly worthy candidate. Bedford has shown adequate skills in a diverse range of areas from my various encounters with his name. Good luck, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great communication, great work in the areas he wants to be active in. Only negative is that he's a Reds fan. ;-) No problems with the mop here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While there is a lack of some admin-related activities (AFDs, CSDs) I trust that he will stick to his area of expertise until he is more familiar with other areas. Jon513 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- very dedicated article writer and works well with others. Some people complain that potential admin candidates aren't good at writing articles, but Bedford is the exact opposite. Just don't stop writing articles about places on the National Register of Historic Places and about other places in Kentucky. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks as if this editor has done some great work in the past with DYK. Also number of edits is great, edit summary is alright. Would be a great asset as an admin. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - great editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No reluctance in my mind. Trusted, proactive. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support More DYK mops are always needed. --Sharkface217 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen Bedford's work and he has helped me out a few times. He's a great writer and contributor. Full support. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support — Maxim(talk) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking good. Dlohcierekim 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great editor, very prolific and diligent. I liked the answers to the questions, every single one. User has experience in the areas which he wishes to work in as an admin. Good stuff. You have my support. I definitely do not foresee any issues or problems down the road. Good luck with the RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. That's A LOT of DYK. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Darn it, finally someone I can't oppose for lacking Cat talk, Template talk, or Portal talk edits! MBisanz talk 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Lots of diverse experience; looks trustworthy as well. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everything here appears to be in order. That, and I am desperate to support an RfA. SorryGuy Talk 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – all that needed to be said, has been said – see above. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 01:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My answer is Yes. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 01:56 4 April, 2008 (UTC)
- Support per answer number 7!Balloonman (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel there is any reason not to trust this valued contributor with the added tools. Valtoras (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No reason not to trust. And a side note. 23 questions in six hours?!?! -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on my observations at Wikipedia:Portal peer review, Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates and Template:Did you know. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the candidate, Oppose the number of questions, many of which prove nothing about how the candidate can be trusted to use the tools effectively. Contributions show a good editor. Regards, EJF (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Wisdom and Anon'Diss. Anthøny 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clichéd support, I seriously thought you were an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Detailed answers to the questions, and a solid contributions history leave us with no doubts as to whether this editor is ready for the mop. Five Years 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Another fine Wizardman candidate. :-) Lradrama 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A very silly number of questions, considering the disposition of this user. Superb in many areas and can communicate well. I would ask the candidate to read up on blocking though. Rudget (review) 10:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Bedford is a great contributor, has been a huge contributor to Wikiproject Indianapolis, and is tireless in his efforts for the next DYK. Rack him up already! -- JTHolla! 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the nominee is definately someone looking to improve the encyclopedia rather than constantly wear it down and scare away newbies. He appears to be someone who will be very thorough and willing to look at a whole situation and improve it rather than simply take one side or another. He also appears to be bluntly honest, which is a good thing, can't always trust a diplomat or politician. KV(Talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Feel he wil make a great admin, also glad to see he's from Indiana!!! Dustitalk to me 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid. No worries. I also agree there are simply too many questions. Questions pertinent to the candidate are fine, but generic questions should be limited. A browse of the candidates history usually reveals more than the answers to the questions. SilkTork *YES! 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pretty good editor which I think will make good use of the administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - serious, trustworthy editor who's improved the encyclopedia and will continue to do so with administrative tools. Biruitorul (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor, all those DYK's?! - Milks Favorite Cookie 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Naerii 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fine 'pedia builder. net positive.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support - Beford is a great contributer and wonderfully responsible. I am surprised he is not already and admin. He has been very kind and helpful to me and other new users in helping to improve wikipedia! Charles Edward 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and block anyone bureaucratic enough to ask 10 freaking questions at RFA. --Rividian (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy and reliable. The question is not whether he needs adminship. The question is whether Wikipedia needs him more with the buttons. Pundit|utter 23:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (changed from neutral). Not particularly because of the new Q16 answer (which I feel was somewhat lackluster), but per your response to Pedro in the discussion section of "should I feel the need to block, I will ask advice from senior admins before doing such a thing". I do think you will make a good admin, but knowledge of the blocking policy is important, and even though you don't anticipate blocking anyone at this time, most users come accross an occasion every now and then when it is needed. VegaDark (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. jj137 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Has been around since May 2005 with over 4800 mainspace edits.There is nothing that the user will misuse the tools and his/her track is outstanding through not fully convienced why the tools are needed.Not needed for some merely writing featured articles or DYK but more needed for Vandal fighting,deletion and other admin areas but assume that he will get into it after getting the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, despite my concerns with your answer to question 57 - or was that question 58? :) Seriously, the candidate is a trustworthy and hard-working encyclopedia builder. Majoreditor (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds all good Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, sensible user, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. My sympathies to the candidate also for the ridiculous amount of questions they've been compelled to answer. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support - while this user hasn't participated in the traditional admin areas, he requests the tools for DYK updating. I expect that Bedford will read the applicable policies before using the other buttons (most sysops will eventually). His contributions do not lead me to think that the extra buttons will not be safe in his repertoire of available tools. -MBK004 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Valued contributer. --Bhadani (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell yes. God forbid he hadn't memorised a policy he'll never need to use. Seriously, what's the sudden lust for CDB questions...why can't we ask every candidate something like "in what order should the relative DYK pages be changed?" and oppose them if they make a typo? Oh, wait. Because that'd probably be over the heads of the vast majority of people who oppose per CDB. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He will be of valuable service around WP:DYK. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good editor; wll make a good admin & be valuable in the DYK area. See no reason to oppose. --BelovedFreak 10:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great work but DYK ...you'd make a great admin? (had to ;p) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Industrially strong support Excellent, calm, thoughful, reliable, cool-headed editor. He will make a fine admin. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great admin choice! HoosierStateTalk 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, tremendous contributor to DYK, and an asset to Wikipedia. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support: A good user who could definetly use the tools, there's no doubt there. The only thing that concerned me was your answer to Question 13. Cool down blocks should never be used, and on this it is unconditional. Never ever should be used. Apart from that, everything seems fine here. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. BTW, has this candidate answered more "optional" questions than anyone else in RfA history? (The record for fewest optionals asked or answered is zero, in my RfA, although the community more than made up for it during the ArbCom election.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate will be a good addition to the current roster of well qualified administrators. SWik78 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We can always use more hands at DYK, and I'm impressed at the candidate's tenacity in the face of so many questions. GlassCobra 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good history, and good work handling so many questions.-- danntm T C 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Known this user for some time and I consider that any statements made here have to be understood against the background of his judgement. I do not think Bedford will use the tools rashly or without contemplation. Victuallers (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A solid candidate; will make a good admin. --Liempt (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Long-term editor with solid contribution history and good work around DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He will make a good admin, of this I am certain. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Wizardman. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Having worked some with Bedford on Indiana articles, he would make a fine admin. Not using the tools is not reason to deny them. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I missed this RfA! Guess it doesn't really matter now, it's gonna pass, but here's my support. Great editor, fellow member of the MilHist project... Tan | 39 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good contributor who appears to have a mature outlook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I really think this editor with not abuse the tools. I like his answers a lot! iMatthew 2008 10:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will be an asset at DYK as an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good luck :-) TheProf - T / C 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong oppose I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? I know this is exactly the same post as above but I have exactly the same problems with both of them: I am going to have to add these criteria to my rfa requirements! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact the user does not need the tools is a good thing, there is no reason to see why they will misuse them. It doesn't seem this user will use them to harass other users or push their POV onto articles. Admins may use their powers without using them on a regular basis, nor on a work schedule. You don't need to do grunt work to be an admin, though those who do are certainly important. Since adminship isn't of a limited quantity, we shouldn't look at whether or not he needs the tools, only if they will be used positively when used. If he never uses the tools, Wikipedia is not hurt in any way, shape or form. KV(Talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DYK IS an admin-related task though, Cameron. Adminship isn't limited to just the obvious for where it's needed. Wizardman 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also also agree with the concerns raised by tiptoety. The answer to Q16 contradicts policy. And that particular question is one of the most asked (and easiest, in my opinion) ones. Had he partaken in some RFA's prior (as my RfA requirements page recommends!) to submitting his RFA he would have been able to answer this easily. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like saying an A+ fourth grader won't make a good fifth grader because he doesn't know his multiplication tables. His answer contradicted policy. You pointed it out. Now he knows the policy. So what is your opposition now? -- JTHolla! 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems it must be "challenge Cameron's oppose day". I believe the nominee should have read up on policy matters before coming to RFA. The answer he gave (to me) indicates that this is not the case. --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but Bedford didn't nominate himself, or ask someone to nominate him. He was just nominated. So I don't think not having studied for his Admin final should really be held against him. Especially considering the below post from KV -- JTHolla! 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original "challenge", though I considered it discussion, was about the fact that he wasn't already doing a bunch of admin work as is. Though I will follow up on your second point: seeing as he has no intention of using his admin powers for blocking, not knowing that policy he never intends to have to use is a bit pointless. No one is an expert in all Wikipedia policy, that's why Jimbo Wales stated that WP:IAR was always policy, though no one considered it such. So long as he's willing to read up on issues and consult the policy and other administrators before acting, his prior knowledge of specifics is a non-issue. Besides, the question asked his stance, not what he would do. One can disagree with a policy but enforce it, or not enact what they'd rather have, all the same. KV(Talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems it must be "challenge Cameron's oppose day". I believe the nominee should have read up on policy matters before coming to RFA. The answer he gave (to me) indicates that this is not the case. --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like saying an A+ fourth grader won't make a good fifth grader because he doesn't know his multiplication tables. His answer contradicted policy. You pointed it out. Now he knows the policy. So what is your opposition now? -- JTHolla! 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also also agree with the concerns raised by tiptoety. The answer to Q16 contradicts policy. And that particular question is one of the most asked (and easiest, in my opinion) ones. Had he partaken in some RFA's prior (as my RfA requirements page recommends!) to submitting his RFA he would have been able to answer this easily. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DYK IS an admin-related task though, Cameron. Adminship isn't limited to just the obvious for where it's needed. Wizardman 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact the user does not need the tools is a good thing, there is no reason to see why they will misuse them. It doesn't seem this user will use them to harass other users or push their POV onto articles. Admins may use their powers without using them on a regular basis, nor on a work schedule. You don't need to do grunt work to be an admin, though those who do are certainly important. Since adminship isn't of a limited quantity, we shouldn't look at whether or not he needs the tools, only if they will be used positively when used. If he never uses the tools, Wikipedia is not hurt in any way, shape or form. KV(Talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - I have changed from neutral as I really do not see much improvement in the way of fixing some of the questions in regards to blocking, specifically Q16. I also understand the IAR can apply to blocking, but do not really care for your answer to Q13 as policy does state that cool down blocks should never be used and I do not feel that your reasoning behind why you would implement one is justified. Along with the concerns raised above by Cameron (which I agree with), I must oppose. Please understand that I recognize all of your great DYK work but feel that admins need to be well rounded, especially in the most common admin ares (blocking, deleting, ect...). Tiptoety talk 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I rarely if ever comment on an other persons opinion on Rfa’s. However, I have to say I can see, Bedford point to Question 13 “Cool Down Blocks”. I have seen and been involved in situations where two well-intentioned editors are involved in a content dispute and an edit war breaks out. Of course we state the users are blocked under the 3RR rule. However in reality, is this not a "cool-down block"? ShoesssS Talk 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In question 13 Tiptoety asks "When should cool down blocks be used and why?", and part of this users response was "If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block..." Wikipedia policy says that cool down blocks NEVER should be used. The response to question 13 makes me think this user would misuse of the tools by blocking people so they have time to cool down. Your first answer to question 16 bothers me as well. You said that it is okay under some circumstances to give IP's and indef block. That answer makes me think you would give an IP an indef block, which again, would be misusing the tools. However, you have done lots of positive things for the encyclopedia. Please continue:-) Also, if you don't get the mop, improve yourself and try again:-)--SJP (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." As stated in policy it seems that "cool down" blocks are just "not a good idea", and not "forbidden under all circumstances". Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose First of all, the ignorance of the very straightforward rule about cool down blocks (never is pretty unequivocal, it doesn't include any maybes) is disconcerting. Second, your broad inexperience in many common admin tasks and areas (AIV or XFD). Last, anyone who says that they have not once been in a conflict of some kind is either lying or is too inexperienced to make a good admin. Dealing with conflict, either your own or as a mediator, is inevitable whatever area you choose to work in Wikipedia as an admin. Combine a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of actions such as blocking, with a lack of conflict resolution experience, and I don't feel comfortable knowing you'd have the tools. I say go through admin coaching and get some experience outside the mainspace, and I'd be ready and willing to support. VanTucky 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI never said that I have never had conflicts on Wikipedia. Heck, one of those supporting me is someone I did have a brief conflict with a few months ago. Reread what I said.--Bedford 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and am I to understand that you aren't going to answer the question I asked about NPOV above? If so, add that to my oppose rationale. Your use of divisive, regionally-factional language doesn't exactly promote harmonious editing, much less inspire my trust when it comes to upholding NPOV. VanTucky 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Blocking policy says: "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." It doesn't use the word "never". Bedford's answer was: "Cool down blocks have an habit of inflaming passions more than actually cooking (sic) down hotheads." (I'm assuming he meant "cooling down".) I think he's demonstrating a good knowledge of the rationale behind cool-down blocks, and that he's aware of the consequences of what might happen. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't put quotes around the word never for a reason, but it means the same thing to me. "Should not be used" is also unequivocal. And again, it's not just a blocking policy. It's a combination of things. I honestly do not feel comfortable knowing this RFA will pass and he will have the tool to block me or enact a protection, however good a general contributor Bedford is. VanTucky 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI never said that I have never had conflicts on Wikipedia. Heck, one of those supporting me is someone I did have a brief conflict with a few months ago. Reread what I said.--Bedford 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral for now - You look like a great editor, but per your answer to my question I can not support at this time due to lack of an understanding of the blocking policy.You say that "If the IP is from an household computer with a history of vandalism, then it can be indefinitely blocked" - This is incorrect. IPs should almost never be indefinitely blocked, the fact an IP is static certainly doesn't mean it can be indefinitely blocked. Additionally you say "If the IP is from a school or public library, then it should not be indefinitely blocked, although a block up to a few days may be warranted". This portion of your answer concerns me as well, specifically the "up to a few days" part. Just today I blocked a school IP for a year, which is perfectly within the norm of blocking procedures (although fairly rare to block for this long). For first and second blocks a few hours or a few days is appropriate, but after that block lengths should generally increase exponentially, usually going from a week, to a month, to 3 months, to 6 months, and then a year, or some similar variation thereof. That being said, you do still seem like a very good editor that would most likely make a very good admin otherwise, so I will consider switching to support after you read Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses (and perhaps Wikipedia:Blocking policy) and change your answer appropriately. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A sensible editor with good judgement, but some wider experience in admin related areas would be preferable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, for now, while I request an elucidation of the imho overly restrictive interpretation of WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL in the answer to Q 22. Note: my concern isn't that it demonstrates that he isn't up to date on the ins-and-outs of policy; its how he demonstrates it. The answer seems to show excessive deference to a single other opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't the reference to ArbCom signify the exact opposite? Meaning that he has little deference to a single opinion, whether it be the original blocking admin, or his own opinion? -- JTHolla! 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the question is why even not knowing the block policy, hi instinct is not to contact the other admin, discuss it, and if sure the block is wrong/was excessive, unblock, or modify the block. (If unsure, kick it to one of the noticeboards for discussion.) That is, in the end, the only low-intensity check we have on a theoretical abuse of the block button, given WP:WHEEL. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that was his instinct. Heck, he even mentions WP:Wheel, "I would ask the admin who blocked the user why they did the block, and inquire if he changed his mind, to prevent wheel warring." Then mentions kicking it to ArbCom. -- JTHolla! 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. But WHEEL protects the unblocking admin, not the blocking admin, and for good reason. I'm concerned that his instincts don't take in the difficult job of saying "no, on this one you're wrong" without kicking it to ArbCom... --Relata refero (disp.) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that was his instinct. Heck, he even mentions WP:Wheel, "I would ask the admin who blocked the user why they did the block, and inquire if he changed his mind, to prevent wheel warring." Then mentions kicking it to ArbCom. -- JTHolla! 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the question is why even not knowing the block policy, hi instinct is not to contact the other admin, discuss it, and if sure the block is wrong/was excessive, unblock, or modify the block. (If unsure, kick it to one of the noticeboards for discussion.) That is, in the end, the only low-intensity check we have on a theoretical abuse of the block button, given WP:WHEEL. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't the reference to ArbCom signify the exact opposite? Meaning that he has little deference to a single opinion, whether it be the original blocking admin, or his own opinion? -- JTHolla! 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning on Support: Waiting for an answer to #17; otherwise, keep it up. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, at least one of the replies given are misleading in it's detail. Saying that some of the questions are beyond me so it doesn't surprise me they are testing, so for quickness to reply, I'm going with neutral. SunCreator (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Redfarmer
Final (27/19/13); ended 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Redfarmer (talk · contribs) - Redfarmer has been editing regularly for the past seven months, and has made over 7,000 edits since his first in November 2004. His admin related experience has included placing hundreds of speedy deletion and prod tags, contributing to hundreds of AfD and IfD discussions and making over 50 reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. His article writing involvement has included taking Last of the Summer Wine to Good Article status and creating several other articles. He is a civil user who handles disputes well and has an excellent knowledge of policies and guidelines. Redfarmer is ready to be trusted with the tools and would make a great admin. Epbr123 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Redfarmer (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statement regarding userbox: I have not yet addressed the issue of the userbox on my user page regarding my lack of religious beliefs because no one has bothered to ask me personally about it and it seemed that most of the accusations were vague. However, the fact that someone has now found a page I tagged for speedy that happened to be about a Christian organization and implied it is "proof" of my bias towards Christian articles, I feel I must now respond. I do appreciate those so far who have realized it is just a userbox and the fact that I personally may not be completely NPOV does not necessarily imply my editing is POV.
I do have a history with Christianity. I was involved in an extreme right wing church during my teenage years and became involved to the point I was willing to sacrifice everything I had for it, including my identity, my money, and my school. I deconverted in 2000 after reading the works of Bertrand Russell. I did hold a grudge against the entire church for many years for the mental abuse I suffered at that particular church which has taken much time and therapy to overcome. I no longer hold said grudge, much due to the influence of my first philosophy professor, a man who was not only a charismatic professor but a Presbyterian minister. He once told me that he did not believe a person could be a true Christian unless they had systematically questioned their beliefs and knew exactly why they believed what they believed, not just believe in it blindly. He taught me that not all Christians were evil. I will always respect him for that and now even have a healthy curiosity of religion, especially Islam, due to his influence.
Yes, it is true that I am an atheist. I don't like using the term to describe myself, however. I agree with the philosopher John N. Gray when he expressed the belief that, because atheism is naturally connected to theism, the first will fall into disuse as the latter does (assuming we are correct that humans will eventually move away from religion, which is, admittedly, extremely controversial). I chose the userbox I did because I felt that it was a simple statement about how I felt on the issue without having to label myself "atheist," "humanist," or whatever else. I prefer to define myself in terms of what I do believe in: I am a Rylean and Wittgensteinian influenced philosopher with just a touch of Russell and Nietzsche added in for good measure. I may yet give up the userbox because I have not sufficiently decided if this is a battle worth fighting.
I often read articles on religion on Wikipedia but rarely edit them. In the case of Christian articles, I am afraid that, were I to edit such articles, my POV would indeed be slanted, towards the fundamentalist viewpoint that I knew as a teenager. I leave the editing of such pages to people who are more knowledgeable than I am overall in such matters.
The Christian article being used as evidence was eligible for speedy deletion under A7 because it was about an organization which did not assert its significance. That is why it was tagged; no other reason. What the person who quoted that article did not quote is this IfD discussion where I advocated keeping an image illustrating a Chick tract because the nominator seemed to have an agenda beyond advocating the image be deleted, referring to Mr. Chick as a "bigot," which, irregardless if it is true or not, is inappropriate in a deletion discussion. Mr. Chick may advocate the values I gave up eight years ago. However, he is notable and the article and image, I felt, were of encyclopedic value and, therefore, I felt it my duty to express my disapproval of such a nomination. To quote Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am extremely proud of the Last of the Summer Wine article. It was in horrible stub shape when I first started working on it and I knew it would be hard to tackle, as there is little information on the show online. I actually purchased an out of print book off Amazon to work on the article and was overjoyed when it reached GA status. Eventually, it will reach FA. :) I'm also proud of Category:Looney Tunes shorts and Category:Merrie Melodies shorts. These were two early projects of mine I started because there was almost no information on Wikipedia at the time differentiating between the two types of Warner Brothers cartoons--everything was grouped together as Looney Tunes at the time. I'd like to think I'm partly to thank for there being a much better quality of article for these cartoons now.
- 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 can't say I've been in any edit conflicts in the past per se that I haven't been able to resolve through discussion on the appropriate talk page. In fact, I've never had to escalate an edit disagreement to WP:RFC or arbitration. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I will disclose a few conflicts I have had in the past:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome: Yes, those of you who have been around for a while will remember this one. I was accused of coining my own term and popularizing it on Wikipedia. I honestly did not. At the time I created the article, in 2004, I did not understand Wikipedia's policy on neoglisms. If the same discussion were held today, I would vote delete myself. I have since tried to remedy some of the pages I've created when I did not understand policy by bringing them to AfD myself, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Profaci.
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment: I initiated this request for comment because the injunction the arbitration committee had issued was being applied and misused in cases it was not entirely clear it should be used in. It was also clear that there was a mentality going on that, once one person accused a particular AfD of being covered under the injunction, others followed without investigating the facts. There was also one particular user who was implying there was consensus for applying the injunction as he saw it, when talk page discussion clearly indicated there was no such consensus. I hoped this RfC would help everyone get on the same page as far as the injunction went and I'd like to think it did. The only thing I know now I should have done differently was notify the user who I felt was implying consensus where there was none and let him know he was being discussed.
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 5: I strongly disagreed with the speedy deletion of three foreign language articles on the sole basis they were in a foreign language and subsequent recreation in userspace without being listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. While I was accused of process wonkery, I still disagree that I was as I do not believe the spirit of WP:USER would allow for the listing of articles on PNT from a user's userspace unless it was that user which did it. Moonriddengirl was wonderful during this and I learned from her that, in the future, I should give the user in question the benefit of the doubt and go to them before I post at WP:DRV. I also learned to live with the outcome because, while I may disagree with it, it would only hurt the project in the long run to push the issue further.
- With the exception of the first one, I'd like to say that my only conflicts have been when I felt it would be for the good of the project and that I always try to hear all sides of the story. I'm never afraid to admit publicly when I'm wrong, no matter how horrible it may make me look. I do tend to be a person who believes process would be followed, but never to the detriment of the project.
Optional Questions from Cambrasa
- 4. Can a "Criticisms" section ever be justified in a good Wikipedia article? If yes, under what circumstances?
- A: That's a very interesting question for me, especially in light of the fact that my chosen field of study is philosophy, which, other than very early philosophy, is largely criticism of previous philosophy and criticism of such criticism. I believe that it is very possible to justify criticism sections so long as such criticism has been published (not OR) and, ideally (although not necessarily), has also been commented on in other secondary sources. The danger with criticsm sections is that they can degenerate into OR fast. For example, when I was doing the bulk of the work on the Last of the Summer Wine article, I was forced to remove some criticism which seemed valid but I could find absolutely no supporting evidence for in secondary sources and appeared to be OR. On the other hand, an article like George W. Bush, it would paint an incomplete picture of the subject to not include criticism he has received on his handling of the economy and the Iraq War, which, thankfully, such criticism is abundant in secondary sources. I believe it's a fine line and you have to evalutate on a case by case basis.
Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
- 5. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia?
- A: Ninety-nine percent of the time, in cases such as this, the ends do not justify the means, and they certainly did not in this case. I don't consider myself either an inclusionist nor a deletionist as I think there are times when you should include and times when you should delete. On one occasion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals displaying homosexual behavior), I initially voted delete but, as further comment progressed, I felt that the nom was probably bad faith, coming from someone who had an axe to grind with gay people. As it was a probable bad faith nom, I took another look at the list and the reasoning for the people who were disagreeing with me, turned off my laptop for the evening, and thought about the matter over some TV. As I told some of the individuals involved, I still was not completely comfortable with the the list, but I felt what they were saying had merit. In the case you pointed out of the sockpuppets, I would have voted speedy keep as bad faith nom. Whether these articles belong on the encyclopeida is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is that someone is abusing the system in an attempt to circumvent our processes and policies. If they should, indeed, be deleted, I or another editor could go back later and nominate the articles. There is no deadline, and the only time I feel articles should necessarily be removed as quickly as possible is when they are either copyright violations or blatant attack pages or in violation of WP:BLP.
- 5.b The above indicated accounts were used in hundreds of AfDs and in many cases in wasn't determined that they were socks of each other until after the AfDs had closed. As you can see I am updating the number of sock accounts that voted delete in "popular culture" related AfDs along with the previously included accounts. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code references in popular culture. It closed as delete with 7 for delete, 4 for merge, and 3 for keep; however, at least 2 of the deletes were determined to be sock accounts. So, my question is in part what now? Just leave the AfDs as closed deletes, which means that their tactics "won," or should we revisit any AfDs in which a number of the sock puppets participated and likely influenced opinion?
- A: No doubt in my mind that the issue should not just be allowed to rest. If even one of these articles was closed as delete because of a user who has abused policy, there needs to be an investigation, possibly using WP:DRV, WP:RFC, the arbitration committee, or a combination of the three, to determine just how far these abusive accounts have influenced the outcome of the AfDs in question. I would put my personal feelings aside, even if I thought these articles should be deleted, because I'm painfully aware I can be very wrong at times. I'd rather see an article I felt should be deleted kept in process than see the article deleted through the use of abuse.
- Thank you for the fair and reasonable answer. I have switched from "oppose" to "weak oppose" and am considering switching to neutral (I just lectured and so am collecting my thoughts now). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: No doubt in my mind that the issue should not just be allowed to rest. If even one of these articles was closed as delete because of a user who has abused policy, there needs to be an investigation, possibly using WP:DRV, WP:RFC, the arbitration committee, or a combination of the three, to determine just how far these abusive accounts have influenced the outcome of the AfDs in question. I would put my personal feelings aside, even if I thought these articles should be deleted, because I'm painfully aware I can be very wrong at times. I'd rather see an article I felt should be deleted kept in process than see the article deleted through the use of abuse.
Question from King Vegita
- 6 - What criteria do you look for in whether an article should be deleted or kept? I am not speaking of obvious ones, but the questionable ones: where it can be improved, but is not up to standards in its current version. KV(Talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: If you don't mind, I'd like to answer this question using an example of an article I personally rescued from deletion, Cathy Barry (AfD). The very first thing I did was notice that I did not recognize the subject, which was not surprising considering I know next to nothing about straight porn. I saw there was a previous AfD discussion which was closed no consensus, so I read through the previous AfD to see why some people voted keep previously. I then scanned through the article and the immediate concern became that the article was simply not well written as it made passing mention of awards without really elaborating on the notability of the awards. This made me ask the question: did the subject appear not notable because they failed WP:PORNBIO or did they appear not notable because the article was badly written? I began immediately to question the awards: if the awards were notable, this indicated to me the subject would pass the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Any one of these things would have been enough to raise a red flag in my mind but all of them together indicated to me I may be looking at a notable subject. Even if these red flags weren't there, however, I still would have proceeded to the next step, searching for sources. This was difficult at first, as the porn industry often saturates search engines to get more hits. I got around this by searching for the name of the award. Upon finding the award, I read some about it and realized it was the British porn industry's equivalent to an Emmy. I took this information as well as information I found from several other sources and incorporated it into the article. Eventually, even the nom had to admit she was notable. Although this would probably not have worked in the case of a porn star, I also have other methods I use to search for sources on a subject, such as journal databases (JSTOR, EBSCO/INSPIRE Databases, and Academic Search Premiere). Alexa can also come in handy, although I prefer my journal databases to it.
Optional question from Animum
- 7. Boxers or briefs?
- A: Briefs. I'm glad someone asked a non-serious question on April Fools Day.
Optional question from MrPrada
- 8: An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep (which amount to WP:ILIKEIT, and none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?
- A: From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." If the only users who vote to keep were voting on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT and I was closing admin, I would have no choice but to close as "no consensus" since we only look at the strength of the argument. The nom by itself would not be considered a consensus, even if it were valid. I would strongly recommend to the nominator he consider nominating again and possibly even watch it myself to see what happens. My feelings on whether the nominator's rationale is valid or not should not be considered in the absence of a clear consensus one way or the other based on policy.
General comments
- See Redfarmer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Redfarmer: Redfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Redfarmer before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Plenty of good work so far, willing to listen and learn, good judgement on articles for deletion. docboat (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for providing diffs, however the book mentioned is published by Paramount Pictures, and so I think Redfarmer's 'vote' was correct. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher is irrelevant. It shows that it was considered encyclopedic by someone. Besides, I only linked to one of the many Stark Trek encyclopedias out there. If you check here, you'll find ones that are more secondary source in nature. Maybe I could have picked a better example from that extensive list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no reason not to trust this candidate - Their speedy deletion work is pretty accurate, good participation in WP:AFDs (some of those diffs were a little eyebrow raising, but nothing that I find alarming), good article work, nice project space contributions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Changed to neutral per Pedro. I found the archived talk pages to be vastly troubling - user also doesn't seem to like communication. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- In answer to an unwillingness to communicate, I would ask users to keep in mind as they look through my talk page archive that I am one of the few editors who prefers answering on the other user's talk page unless they specifically request that I do not. What looks like unanswered queries are, in most cases, answered. Most such queries are from users who think I personally deleted their article because I placed the speedy, prod, or afd tag on them. Redfarmer (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Looking pass the minor mishaps one can see participation in plenty of admin-related areas...Good luck! --Cameron (t/c) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pedro's concerns caused me to do quite a bit of investigation on the speedy issue, and I can't say I agree. About 1 out of 50 (2%) of the speedy noms in the first 300 or so are blue linked. Yes, one was requested as an A7 when it wasn't eligible. The Caveman Williams thing is a judgement call, IMHO -- I can see both views. More than half of the rest were speedily deleted after Redfarmer's request, and then recreated. I can hardly hold that against him, unless we expect him to watchlist every article he requests a speedy on. (I do that personally, but I'm weird that way.) I also checked out the communication concern brought up by another opposer. There were a few cases where Redfarmer let another editor answer the question (but the questions were answered) on the questioner's talk page. But when Redfarmer did answer the question, the answer was well thought out, relatively complete, and helpful. All in all, I think Redfarmer will be a net plus having the mop.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was on the fence, but Redfarmer answered Q6 in a way that can only be described as exemplary! Definately someone who looks into things rather than act on a whim; I feel I can trust this user with such powers. KV(Talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major issues here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything jumping out at me, that is really that serious. No reason not to trust. We all make mistakes. SQLQuery me! 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Answers to questions were superb. Deletion history (from what I can access) looks fine with a few minor mistakes, which we've all made before. If anyone here is perfect in their history, speak up and I'll strike this line. Userbox opposition is relevent, not relevent, in either case I don't see it as affecting this user's responsiblity as an administrator. I see a responsible user who leans on the deletionist side of the fence for the right reasons. Tan | 39 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfect! Strike that line, Tan!. Oh, wait...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to the questions, no reason to mistrust. MrPrada (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, deletion history does not look unreasonable to me. No reason to believe user would abuse the tools. The George W. Bush AfD proves this user has a sense of humour, which I think is very important in an admin. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. Don't think they'll abuse. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This took me a while. First, I read balloonman's, Roi's, and Pedro's comments, and started editing the "oppose" section. Then I stopped, having realized I hadn't read anything you wrote above or looked myself at your contribs. The answers to your questions are superb (and getting Le Grande to switch from strong oppose to neutral is no small feat! :-) I convinced myself to look further. I've come to the conclusion that you will be an asset to the admin group. Your userboxes don't bother me. Their userboxes. I disagree with most of them, but meh? I would recommend getting rid of them, admin or not, as they are not worth the trouble. Your deletion history doesn't bother me, you do more good than harm, are willing to work to save articles, are willing to apologize for mistakes, and are willing to change your opinion if shown an error in your logic or !vote. The MfD in particular doesn't bother me (other than being too soon). The subpage, in the end, should be deleted, it is spam, the article as written is insalvageable because the subject matter does not meet WP:WEB, and had I noticed the MfD I would've said so. Also, according to this diff, the user is working beyond COI, it's actually a blockable user as a multiple person account, run by a committee that is focused on getting their article in mainspace. Only other contribs of this COI multi-editor seem to be adding linkspam. You made a good faith nom (albeit too early) that was snow kept with !votes by the editor that userfied and Obuipo Mbstpo among others. To sum up, your answers above are clear and precise, your CSD/AFD trackrecord looks fine to me, more positives than negatives, and the MfD passes. You stated quite clearly above that your personal beliefs/opinions, both in real life and on wiki, won't affect your admin duties. I believe you. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Genius answers to questions and extensive contributions force me to Support. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no reason to oppose. Good luck! TheProf - T / C 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Reasonable responses, solid editing history (I'll get there in about ten years!). I can't believe that people would oppose an admin request because of a userbox that discloses a position that the user holds. Wouldn't you rather know what views a person brings into wikipedia than not? --RegentsPark (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Being a little rough around the edges doesn't concern me. This editor has the potential to be a good admin and the best way to polish those skills is to use them. I find the opposes largely unconvincing, and the hand-waving about his anti-god userbox being "offensive" is preposterous. I am unaware that being politically correct is a requirement for the admin bit. Arkyan 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good answers, I see no issues in his history, and all the opposes are for completely moronic non-issues. - Bobet 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Bobet, moronic is not the politest of ways to evaluate the opinions of other editors. Please consider your wording. Pedro : Chat 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a co-supporter, I agree with Pedro. Not necessary, not helping your cause at all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you both for taking the time to read the support section, and thanks for the concern. However, that's the word that most accurately and concisely sums up my thoughts regarding the reasons given in the oppose comments. Sorry. - Bobet 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think their point is, Bobet, that I might think someone is an asshole. That's the word that most accurately and concisely sums up my thoughts regarding their personality, but in the interest of tact, civility and overall maturity, I don't use it. Tan | 39 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I didn't feel the wording was necessary to get my point across, I wouldn't have used it. And please note I'm commenting on the comments, not the people, who as far as I know, are all very reasonable. But even reasonable people can make stupid arguments. And if you have further comments for me, please use my talk page so you won't clog up the rfa, thanks. - Bobet 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think their point is, Bobet, that I might think someone is an asshole. That's the word that most accurately and concisely sums up my thoughts regarding their personality, but in the interest of tact, civility and overall maturity, I don't use it. Tan | 39 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you both for taking the time to read the support section, and thanks for the concern. However, that's the word that most accurately and concisely sums up my thoughts regarding the reasons given in the oppose comments. Sorry. - Bobet 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a co-supporter, I agree with Pedro. Not necessary, not helping your cause at all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Bobet, moronic is not the politest of ways to evaluate the opinions of other editors. Please consider your wording. Pedro : Chat 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The deletion concerns are not harsh enough (IMO) to warrant opposing. Captain panda 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing I can feel seriously concerned about when compared to candidates considerable merits and abilities. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Kbdank71 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I'm saddened that religion proves a divisive issue again. I trust the editor's objectivity on editorial issues. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I opposed him on other grounds than his religious beliefs---when I opposed I felt the criticism lacked merit---but when I contemplated it further, I realized that end the people who are opposing him on this particular user box are not doing so because he is an athiest. I mean if he had a user box that simply stated his belief system "Athiest" or even "I don't believe in God," then nobody would point to the particular user box. The problem is that he chose a user box that not only states his position, but insults people who's position is contrary to his own. Despite this being pointed out to him, he continues to use a user box that denigrates those who do believe in a higher power.Balloonman (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But yet no one has asked me in my questions above how I feel on the matter. I have not responded so far because all that people have been doing are throwing a bunch of vague accusations and innuendos at me regarding my perceived religious beliefs which would be completely unjustified if you actually knew me. I don't respond because no one has asked me how I feel rather than accuse me. Redfarmer (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I opposed him on other grounds than his religious beliefs---when I opposed I felt the criticism lacked merit---but when I contemplated it further, I realized that end the people who are opposing him on this particular user box are not doing so because he is an athiest. I mean if he had a user box that simply stated his belief system "Athiest" or even "I don't believe in God," then nobody would point to the particular user box. The problem is that he chose a user box that not only states his position, but insults people who's position is contrary to his own. Despite this being pointed out to him, he continues to use a user box that denigrates those who do believe in a higher power.Balloonman (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to weak support following this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but are you saying you'll support because he said he's support you if you go to RFA?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith. It most likely has to do with the sincerity of the statements and the fact that the candidate is not disgruntled with a difficult RfA experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as I am not all that sure that I really want to be an admin at this time (I have already turned down two offers to nominate me by other editors). Rather, I am pleased with his answer to the question I posed above and I also found his post on my talk page incredibly friendly and civil. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept this, when I saw it My reaction was negative, but I'll accept your response with no hesitation. And to Wisdom89. AGF. I did. That's why it was a question and not an accuation followed up with a nt on his talk page noting i'd asked him a question. AGF works both ways my friend.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but are you saying you'll support because he said he's support you if you go to RFA?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no worries about the tools being misused and I think the 'pedia will benefit if the tools are given. I also like admins to be logical, and therefore I take comfort from the very userbox others are complaining about below George The Dragon (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Per answer to question 7. —Animum (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answer to question 5, and to balance one of the "you show no respect for my belief system" votes. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support KleenupKrew (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Weak opposeper unconstructive AfDs: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Mothers in Disney films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Mothers. Per nom "votes", joke nominations, not acknowledging articles were improved during discussions and changing opinion accordingly, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I'll acknowledge the George W. Bush one is an April Fools joke, and if my nomination must fail on the basis of that, so be it. However, it sounds like you disagree with my reasoning on AfDs more than disagree with my content as a whole. I am confused as to how you see the List of lost ships of Starfleet, Dimension X, and Plaza Isabela AfDs as being unconstructive, especially the last one, where I provided clear reasoning that I believed the shopping mall to be non-notable but the plaza in Spain to be notable. Redfarmer (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see too exclusionary of participation, i.e. an overly limited understanding of Wikipedia. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. We are a diverse community of editors on a paperless encyclopedia with incredible disk space that per its First pillar is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and even almanacs. Per our First pillar, on article on ships of Starfleet is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Trek, of which published books exist. What's good enough for a paper encyclopedia is surely good enough for a paperless one. We also rely on donations from people with diverse interests. So much effort to delete articles that are factually accurate and that have a clear interest from our editors and readers as well as an unwillingness to change an opinion once an article is improved and new sources are found is disconcerting. Admins should be able to acknowledge improvement during AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, in all fairness towards me, I do change my opinion.[18][19][20][21] I also did work on [22], [23], and [24]. Also, most of the "per nom" votes I cast were very early on in my participation in AfD. Also, I would never unilaterally use my admin powers to delete an article I thought should be deleted which there was no such consensus on. I would rather no consensus it than delete it. And regarding the Star Trek, I am a bit of a Trekkie and know more about the show than I like to admit to my friends. In fact, I used to own the book you cited. It's actually a primary source as Okuda was a crew member for both TNG and DS9 (and VYG if I'm not mistaken). Regardless, I would not have deleted the article if there was no consensus in that case. Redfarmer (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is had you taken the same amount of time spent nominating the articles for deletion or arguing to delete them that others spent finding online sources sufficient enough for the articles to be kept and/or the nominations withdrawn, the AfDs would not have even been necessary in the first place and time and energy would have been freed up by all participants in those discussions to make further improvements to other articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, in all fairness towards me, I do change my opinion.[18][19][20][21] I also did work on [22], [23], and [24]. Also, most of the "per nom" votes I cast were very early on in my participation in AfD. Also, I would never unilaterally use my admin powers to delete an article I thought should be deleted which there was no such consensus on. I would rather no consensus it than delete it. And regarding the Star Trek, I am a bit of a Trekkie and know more about the show than I like to admit to my friends. In fact, I used to own the book you cited. It's actually a primary source as Okuda was a crew member for both TNG and DS9 (and VYG if I'm not mistaken). Regardless, I would not have deleted the article if there was no consensus in that case. Redfarmer (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see too exclusionary of participation, i.e. an overly limited understanding of Wikipedia. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. We are a diverse community of editors on a paperless encyclopedia with incredible disk space that per its First pillar is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and even almanacs. Per our First pillar, on article on ships of Starfleet is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Trek, of which published books exist. What's good enough for a paper encyclopedia is surely good enough for a paperless one. We also rely on donations from people with diverse interests. So much effort to delete articles that are factually accurate and that have a clear interest from our editors and readers as well as an unwillingness to change an opinion once an article is improved and new sources are found is disconcerting. Admins should be able to acknowledge improvement during AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll acknowledge the George W. Bush one is an April Fools joke, and if my nomination must fail on the basis of that, so be it. However, it sounds like you disagree with my reasoning on AfDs more than disagree with my content as a whole. I am confused as to how you see the List of lost ships of Starfleet, Dimension X, and Plaza Isabela AfDs as being unconstructive, especially the last one, where I provided clear reasoning that I believed the shopping mall to be non-notable but the plaza in Spain to be notable. Redfarmer (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose based on "anti-God" box in profile. Being an atheist is fine; being blatantly disrespectful towards religious people is not, not for an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "anti-God" is not the same as being disrespectful towards religious people. You can disagree with someone's view and still respect them. If you want to ban administrators simply because they have strong political and religious beliefs, you may aswell ban "anti-atheist", "pro-life", and "anti-capitalist" admins as well. Also, if you read the label it says "I don't belive in myths and superstitions" not "I dislike people who believe in myths and superstitions" and I assume the crossed out God simply means that this user does not believe in God, not that he hates religious people. Cambrasa (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the crossed out God sign to be merely a joke, and one that I know some of my very religious friends find amusing, not disrespectful at all. DDStretch (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to defend his having an athiest box on his page, I have no problem with that. In fact, when I first saw the oppose, I thought, "That's silly, it will be discredited by the 'crat." But that is not what he has. When the box declares, "I don't believe in myths or superstitions" then it becomes insulting to those who do believe in God. To carry on your comparison above, a person could have a user box declaring themselves to be Pro-Life, but if the box then goes on to declare, "I don't believe in murdering unborn children" then it becomes more than a statement of a stance. Or "anti-capitalist: Get your money grubbing hands out of my pockets." Ok, that might be more humorous, but hopefully you get the point. Or how about the difference between, "This user is a Lutheran" and "This User is a Lutheran: the Pope is the whore of babylon." Again, I would have zero problem with an Athiest box, but it is a different thing to decry another person's beliefs.Balloonman (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are much worse "pro"-religious boxes out there. much worse. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that's to the point that I made above. There is a difference between a user box that identifies a person's beleif, and a user box that advocates a position. There are just as offensive of political statements and even sports related boxes. And I would have a problem with any of them. This isn't the first time that offensive user boxes has come up as part of a RfA discussion and it won't be the last.Balloonman (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are much worse "pro"-religious boxes out there. much worse. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to defend his having an athiest box on his page, I have no problem with that. In fact, when I first saw the oppose, I thought, "That's silly, it will be discredited by the 'crat." But that is not what he has. When the box declares, "I don't believe in myths or superstitions" then it becomes insulting to those who do believe in God. To carry on your comparison above, a person could have a user box declaring themselves to be Pro-Life, but if the box then goes on to declare, "I don't believe in murdering unborn children" then it becomes more than a statement of a stance. Or "anti-capitalist: Get your money grubbing hands out of my pockets." Ok, that might be more humorous, but hopefully you get the point. Or how about the difference between, "This user is a Lutheran" and "This User is a Lutheran: the Pope is the whore of babylon." Again, I would have zero problem with an Athiest box, but it is a different thing to decry another person's beliefs.Balloonman (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the crossed out God sign to be merely a joke, and one that I know some of my very religious friends find amusing, not disrespectful at all. DDStretch (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "anti-God" is not the same as being disrespectful towards religious people. You can disagree with someone's view and still respect them. If you want to ban administrators simply because they have strong political and religious beliefs, you may aswell ban "anti-atheist", "pro-life", and "anti-capitalist" admins as well. Also, if you read the label it says "I don't belive in myths and superstitions" not "I dislike people who believe in myths and superstitions" and I assume the crossed out God simply means that this user does not believe in God, not that he hates religious people. Cambrasa (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose this user is so much of a deletionist that it isn't even funny---it's quite scary. Of about 3/4ths of the edits I reviewed were CSD related and the article building is nominal at best. A quick review of his edit history will show tons of CSD nominations and you haveto look for something else! His involvement with names appears to be limited to his new page patrolling. I fear that if he were promoted to Admin that his policy would be to delete first and ask questions later. There is little, if anything, to indicate that he understands and appreciates the wider wiki-community. Sorry, I cannot support.Balloonman (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have much chance to review your edits earlier today, so I came back. And I'm even more convinced that you are not ready for the mop. First, the AfD joke page for George Bush doesn't display much maturity/judgment considering that you were going up for RfA at the same time. Second, you misuse G1-blatant nonsense. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Blatant nonsense is not for articles such as this or this. But it's your use of A7 that has me concerned. There are multiple articles where you've used it to get things deleted that aren't eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Perhaps the most concerning deletion that I found was for a Christian organization. First, it is not eligible for A7 deletion. Second, it raises serious concerns about your bias. Personally, I can't see any category for speedy deleting that article---its not even blatant advertising. Perhaps your nomination of this article was more influenced by your views on the subject as expressed in your userboxes than the article itself? Then I looked at your user talk edits... of your past 500 edits, I would guess that 450 of them are generated by twinkle and another 30 are pretty generic. Finally, one would be hard pressed to find activity from you that didn't stem from CSD. WAY TOO DELETIONIST. (NOTE: since non-admins can't review deleted edits, I created a page which captures the text of some and that is what is linked here)Balloonman (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who is as active at CSD will have made this number of minor mistakes. A misunderstanding of the word "nonsense" isn't that serious, and I can't see why the Christian organization wasn't eligible for A7 deletion. It's hard to tell whether you think he needs more experience at CSD or less. It's better that he's made and learnt from these minor mistakes before becoming an admin. He does actually have article writing experience, having written a GA and saved articles fom deletion during AfDs. And he certainly wouldn't be the first admin to participate in an April Fools joke. Epbr123 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links I provided were just a sample, there were a number of other questionable issues. As for the Christian organization, it makes a couple of claims at notability-granted they are weak and unreferenced, but the article should at most be AfD'd. But here were plenty of other cases that I could have cited... of course the fact that he over relies upon Twinkle (virtually all edits are via twinkle) indicates a person who doesn't give enough of his own thought into what he does.Balloonman (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who is as active at CSD will have made this number of minor mistakes. A misunderstanding of the word "nonsense" isn't that serious, and I can't see why the Christian organization wasn't eligible for A7 deletion. It's hard to tell whether you think he needs more experience at CSD or less. It's better that he's made and learnt from these minor mistakes before becoming an admin. He does actually have article writing experience, having written a GA and saved articles fom deletion during AfDs. And he certainly wouldn't be the first admin to participate in an April Fools joke. Epbr123 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have much chance to review your edits earlier today, so I came back. And I'm even more convinced that you are not ready for the mop. First, the AfD joke page for George Bush doesn't display much maturity/judgment considering that you were going up for RfA at the same time. Second, you misuse G1-blatant nonsense. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Blatant nonsense is not for articles such as this or this. But it's your use of A7 that has me concerned. There are multiple articles where you've used it to get things deleted that aren't eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Perhaps the most concerning deletion that I found was for a Christian organization. First, it is not eligible for A7 deletion. Second, it raises serious concerns about your bias. Personally, I can't see any category for speedy deleting that article---its not even blatant advertising. Perhaps your nomination of this article was more influenced by your views on the subject as expressed in your userboxes than the article itself? Then I looked at your user talk edits... of your past 500 edits, I would guess that 450 of them are generated by twinkle and another 30 are pretty generic. Finally, one would be hard pressed to find activity from you that didn't stem from CSD. WAY TOO DELETIONIST. (NOTE: since non-admins can't review deleted edits, I created a page which captures the text of some and that is what is linked here)Balloonman (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this MfD. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I now agree that MfD was a mistake that I regret. Redfarmer (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you should wait more to fully understand how Wikipedia works, our policies and uses. Snowolf How can I help? 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was honestly having a bad week, took it out on a user who is a probable COI, and have since apologized to the user. I had honestly forgotten about this one or I would have disclosed it myself. Redfarmer (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The apology might have been a little more meaningful if you had apologized BEFORE it was brought up in your RfA.Balloonman (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny that. As I said, I had completely forgotten about the issue. Redfarmer (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was honestly having a bad week, took it out on a user who is a probable COI, and have since apologized to the user. I had honestly forgotten about this one or I would have disclosed it myself. Redfarmer (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you should wait more to fully understand how Wikipedia works, our policies and uses. Snowolf How can I help? 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I now agree that MfD was a mistake that I regret. Redfarmer (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on Keepscases reasoning. This is not just a statement of atheism, but is a highly disrespectful slap to anyone who has a belief system. To me, this reveals a very apparent WP:POV which will color the candidates behavior in performance of duties (and adherence to WP:NPOV, which is not just a guideline, but a policy and a pillar of Wikipedia). Yngvarr (c) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As someone who is very religious, and who is working on the reinstatement of religion-based articles currently, I am not offended in the least by the image. People have different perspectives and even someone who thinks what I believe is complete nonsense has their right to an opinion. If you are offended that he states he doesn't believe in God, it seems more that you have a problem tolerating his belief than him tolerating yours. KV(Talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Heaven help us if Wikipedia degenerates into a US-typical "I believe in God and am against abortion, therefore vote for me" type of idiocy. We are assessing the suitability of a candidate for administrative work, not assessing someone to see if their religious beliefs are compatible with whatever someone else thinks. But let us leave the filtering out of such comments to adult burocrats. docboat (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvarr, I am taken aback at the idea that a proud ahteist can't be NPOV. If Redfarmer's "slap" reveals his POV in editing, then please cite particular diffs to back up your claim. Show us where exactly Redfarmer's atheism has gone against NPOV. Kingturtle (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And heaven help us if a !voter who posts an oppose is not demeaned for their opinion, because this is exactly what my !vote is. That is directed toward docboat's statement above. When I read that userbox, the words "does not believe in myths and superstitions" jump out at me. For those who do have a belief system, these are not mere myths and superstitions, and to callously class religion into the same category as Bigfoot or Friday the 13th shows a little disregard. As for the suitability for the candidate to perform admin duties, shall I point out that the candidate needs to comply to NPOV, even if he (?) not only disagrees with whatever he is dealing with, but adamantly opposes it due to his own point of view (as is the impress I get from the userbox in question). Yngvarr (c) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate must edit articles in a NPOV manner, they must back up NPOV when it becomes an issue, but they need not be NPOV themselves. Your opinion was attacked, as to be expected in a debate of any sort. No personal attack was made by anyone. And I would note that believers in Bigfoot might be offended that you believe their belief is lower than yours. In the end, let's look at the user's actions, not the user's beliefs. KV(Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong agreement alll of this, including the notion that we should be looking at users' actions and not their beliefs. Furthermore, we should not indulge in speculations about future behaviour based on guessed-at attitudes and beliefs in one small area of a person's entire belief system. DDStretch (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting off track, I think, so I shall make one last comment, and if the discussion wishes to continue, the more appropriate place would be on the nominations talk page.But as for the indulgence in speculating about future behaviour, I'll just point out oppose #3. Yngvarr (c) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong agreement alll of this, including the notion that we should be looking at users' actions and not their beliefs. Furthermore, we should not indulge in speculations about future behaviour based on guessed-at attitudes and beliefs in one small area of a person's entire belief system. DDStretch (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate must edit articles in a NPOV manner, they must back up NPOV when it becomes an issue, but they need not be NPOV themselves. Your opinion was attacked, as to be expected in a debate of any sort. No personal attack was made by anyone. And I would note that believers in Bigfoot might be offended that you believe their belief is lower than yours. In the end, let's look at the user's actions, not the user's beliefs. KV(Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And heaven help us if a !voter who posts an oppose is not demeaned for their opinion, because this is exactly what my !vote is. That is directed toward docboat's statement above. When I read that userbox, the words "does not believe in myths and superstitions" jump out at me. For those who do have a belief system, these are not mere myths and superstitions, and to callously class religion into the same category as Bigfoot or Friday the 13th shows a little disregard. As for the suitability for the candidate to perform admin duties, shall I point out that the candidate needs to comply to NPOV, even if he (?) not only disagrees with whatever he is dealing with, but adamantly opposes it due to his own point of view (as is the impress I get from the userbox in question). Yngvarr (c) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As someone who is very religious, and who is working on the reinstatement of religion-based articles currently, I am not offended in the least by the image. People have different perspectives and even someone who thinks what I believe is complete nonsense has their right to an opinion. If you are offended that he states he doesn't believe in God, it seems more that you have a problem tolerating his belief than him tolerating yours. KV(Talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the MfD mainly. Too recent and the lack of AGF is indeed worrying. Snowolf How can I help? 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am just flabbergasted; nominating the Bush article for deletion mere hours before accepting an RfA nomination shows mind-bogglingly poor judgment. You're free to hold any opinion you want, but we're a neutral encyclopedia, so check your opinion at the door. (For the record, I don't care about the userbox; people should be given some leeway on their userpage. But when you take your personal views into the mainspace, then I have a problem.) faithless (speak) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never a tag placed in the mainspace; it was entirely done in AfD as a April Fools joke. Redfarmer (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does makes it less egregious, but that sort of thing is inappropriate for the projectspace as well, April Fools' Day or no. The timing was incredibly bizarre (just before an RfA), and was an astoundingly bad decision. There are probably few who believe more strongly in userspace freedom than do I, but if Wikipedia wants to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, we must take ourselves seriously first. faithless (speak) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only a lighthearted attempt to make something of April Fool's day I think. After all, we are a good community, so we need people with a good sense of humour. I do agree however, that such a disruptive April Fool is not something a potential admin should be doing when he should be working hard on admin-related ectivities. But, please, a user who tries to be fun for the amusement of the rest of us shouldn't get a hard kick in the shins for it. There's nothing like a word of caution on the talkpage; I think we should let him off this one...just ;-) Lradrama 08:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can appreciate everything you said, Lradrama, and had I seen it when it was live, I probably would have had a small chuckle and moved on. I wouldn't even bother leaving a warning on the user's talk page, as it was clearly a light-hearted attempt to add some fun into editing. What makes me oppose isn't the act itself or the political views it reveals, but rather the incredibly poor judgment shown by doing this mere hours before his RfA. I will say that if Redfarmer is given the tools, I highly doubt he would abuse them. However, to support I'd need to see proof that he can be trusted, and this is the exact opposite of that. Cheers, faithless (speak) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree. It would be one thing if he had made the april fools joke even a week before running for RfA. He could have always said, "I didn't think I'd be running for it." But putting up such a joke mere hours before an RfA was not wise. He had to know that it would come up during the RfA and if he didn't the question becomes why not? Many people take a vacation or on their best behavior leading up to and during their RfA because they don't want to get into a dispute during their RfA, they know to keep their hands clean.Balloonman (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can appreciate everything you said, Lradrama, and had I seen it when it was live, I probably would have had a small chuckle and moved on. I wouldn't even bother leaving a warning on the user's talk page, as it was clearly a light-hearted attempt to add some fun into editing. What makes me oppose isn't the act itself or the political views it reveals, but rather the incredibly poor judgment shown by doing this mere hours before his RfA. I will say that if Redfarmer is given the tools, I highly doubt he would abuse them. However, to support I'd need to see proof that he can be trusted, and this is the exact opposite of that. Cheers, faithless (speak) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only a lighthearted attempt to make something of April Fool's day I think. After all, we are a good community, so we need people with a good sense of humour. I do agree however, that such a disruptive April Fool is not something a potential admin should be doing when he should be working hard on admin-related ectivities. But, please, a user who tries to be fun for the amusement of the rest of us shouldn't get a hard kick in the shins for it. There's nothing like a word of caution on the talkpage; I think we should let him off this one...just ;-) Lradrama 08:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does makes it less egregious, but that sort of thing is inappropriate for the projectspace as well, April Fools' Day or no. The timing was incredibly bizarre (just before an RfA), and was an astoundingly bad decision. There are probably few who believe more strongly in userspace freedom than do I, but if Wikipedia wants to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, we must take ourselves seriously first. faithless (speak) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never a tag placed in the mainspace; it was entirely done in AfD as a April Fools joke. Redfarmer (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Roi and seresin for attitude in deletion related debates. Sysophood would not be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While I took your AfD nom of George Bush for exactly what it was (a Fool's Day joke), I don't see much else of benefit of the doubt reasoning to be able to support you with the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Sorry I cannot support your nomination. You have low mainspace edit i.e. only 2416 [25]. All you mainspace edits are in Last of the Summer Wine i.e. 401. The next article in which you have contributed significantly is Law & Order with only 35 edits. Individual article edits are low. You are not enough experienced in article building. I have to oppose here, will support after seeing some more article work from you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - Some of the articles I have been seeing you create breach NPOV by large amounts. That is a worry, and so is this, which I found. A well meaning editor, but these issues and your low number of mainspace edits worry me enough to oppose you in your bid for the mop and bucket. asenine t/c 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was creating articles from WP:AFC requests. One of them did need the tone cleaned up. However, neither qualify for speedy. Redfarmer (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you (asenine) provide examples of articles created by the nominee that breach NPOV? It would be helpful for others. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming the user is referring to Dee (porn star) and August (porn star), two articles I was creating from AfC requests at the time he posted his oppose, as he tagged one of them for speedy deletion per G11 seconds after creation in spite of an assertion of importance. I hadn't realized how POV one of the articles sounded before I posted it and, within five seconds of posting (and responding with {{hangon}}), had cleaned up the tone of the article. Redfarmer (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above, and needs to do some more article writing and then I will support you if you're ready. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - mostly per all the above. I do not like that this user is an extreme deletionist, would like to see more admin related contributions (CSD tagging is find though) and having a controversial userbox in your userspace really rubs me the wrong way. All of these little things add up to one big thing and force me to oppose. Tiptoety talk 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Balloonman, Casliber and Tiptoety. EJF (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Sorry, I just can't. You seem like a good user, but the MfD mentioned above and the userbox concerns me. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too many rash decisions it seems, and a very imulsive user. I'd suggest an admin-coach for him. That'll smooth off the rough edges and make him a good candidate. Lradrama 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the cited MfD and the lack of editing outside of deletion-related areas. -- Naerii 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per multiple issues noted in the comments above.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. After weighing all the comments I found the opposes to be quite significant, and I'm uncomfortable with having this user as an admin. Wizardman 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I read the concerns raised, including lack of communication. I noted Redfarmer's comment about mainly talking on other user's talkpages so I looked through Usertalk history and found a long list of speedy deletion tags, often 2 in the same minute - and very little in the way of actual discussion. When I got to this dif I felt uncomfortable that someone would speedy tag such a page within the very minute it was created, even though there are assertions of notability and references. The culmination of the concerns by others along with my own research lead to my oppose. I can't see how any of these concerns are moronic! SilkTork *YES! 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I've vacilated on this a lot. Plenty to like, but the candidate has made some dodgy C:CSD calls (amongst many good ones) and the contents of archived user talk are worrying. Proding articles with under construction tags, a dubious WP:UAA and WP:AIV report, and some basic errors in creating AFD's. Nothing glaring, just a combination of little things that lead me to think a little more time would be beneficial before having sysop tools. Pedro : Chat 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your comments and, once this is over, either way, I would appreciate hearing from you on what I can do to improve. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro, I've combed through the candidate's project space contributions, but most of the WP:UAA reports I see filed seem fairly accurate and justified (mostly promotional, and users that were active). Could you provide diffs to the ones you find troubling? I might be missing something here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing with WP:CSD. Sorry, I know I should do this myself, and I have, but I guess I'm not seeing it...Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the UAA thing was an article title, so ignore that. My fault. The csd stuff is pretty clear if you look at the number of blue links remaining where the candidate has notified the article writer. I admit there's a tack of good CSD requests too, but it just seems that the candidate is a little to focused on deletion. I'll try and get some diffs but [26] is one and this [27] was not an A7. I've ammended my neutral to just read neutral now, I'm not convinced I'd oppose but I feel unconfident supporting. Pedro : Chat 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your comments and, once this is over, either way, I would appreciate hearing from you on what I can do to improve. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Pedro. Excellent user and trust the nominator, but the oppose above is worrisome. Rudget. 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - For now I suppose - Per Pedro. I checked the archived talk pages, and it worried me. See above. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral at the moment. I tend to agree with Pedro's points about a little more and slightly broader experience being helpful. DDStretch (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm definitely on the fence. On one hand, he has done quite a bit of work in admin-related areas. However, the CSD and AFD problems worry me, as do the talk pages (as Pedro put so well). I can't oppose on that, but I don't feel at all comfortable supporting. I'll keep an eye on this to see if anything changes, though. Some more time would be the best remedy, and I look forward to seeing you back here in a few months if this doesn't succeed. :) Best of luck, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Oppose per AfD, MfDs is worrisome, but there are other aspects of good. This user indicates to me that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes, and will likely learn from this RfA, pass or fail. I am undecided and am likely to remain so, so I claim neutral. — scetoaux (T/C) 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but when you are a pass judgment and add critical maintenance templates on articles as much as you do, then you really ought to do some work in actually building articles (or saving articles) before taking on the position of adminship. Without such experience, you will appear to be an authoritarian policeman admin who hunts down people, instead of a peer contributor admin who helps people. The George Bush AFD nomination was of course an April Fool's joke, but that joke is not funny anymore; I have seen it several times earlier, and it gets tiresome. Posting it just hours before accepting an RFA was not very smart. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC). Switched to neutral after a review of the candidate's answers. He has clearly more experience with article writing than I thought. Some concerns over the use of speedy tags, but they are relatively mild. Withdrawing opposition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral – Yes, I wimped out – I always hated neutral opinions in that they serve no purpose. However, this time I make an exception. I believe Redfarmer will cause no intentional harm to Wikipedia and most likely will be a true asset. More so, the nominator in your case, is an individual I hold in high regard and respect their opinion. However, my concerns lie in the area of experience. Yes, you have been around since 2004. Nevertheless, in reviewing you edit history 6,000 of your 7,000 edits has been in just the last 6 months. Sorry to say to me, that means just one thing, mindless reverts. Alternatively, to say another way, vandal fighting. Is this job needed, absolutely yes. Do you need administrative tools to do this job no. In my personal thought process, when I express an opinion to support or oppose an individual for an administrative position, I ultimately look to what decisions they will make on the calls that could go either way. Moreover, sorry to say, you have not been involved in any of those situations where I can make a fair judgment. Hence neutral. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Pedro makes a good point. SpencerT♦C 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Spencer! You have "oppose" in bold face, but are in the neutral section. Is there an error? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to
neutralper this edit, although I am almost considering switching back to "weak oppose" after seeing this as a support "rationale." I do not want to hold Redfarmer responsible for what someone else posted, but at the same time I do not think it right for incivility to play a role in a possibly successful RfA. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] - You can of course do what you wish, LGRDC, but please also keep in mind that 2+ other editors immediately jumped on Bobet for that particular "language choice". IMHO, it shouldn't reflect on your opinion of Redfarmer, whatever that ends up being. He has Zero control over who edits here and who adds their "personality" to the discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is largely my feeling as well, which is why I am just staying with neutral instead. While I am disappointed with some of Redfarmer's past edits as indicated in my initial "oppose", he did answer my questions in this RfA reasonably and made at least one other subsequent edit to the project that greatly improved my opinion of him and earned him recognition on my list of nice Wikipedians. I just do think it important that we discourage incivility as much as possible. I have seen plenty of posts from editors that I strongly disagree with, especially in AfDs, and I have resisted calling their edits "moronic" or any similar term no matter how tempting it may be to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree wholeheartedly that incivility should be discouraged. If I found Redfarmer to be guilty of as much, I wouldn't support. The editor that uttered those words, as you agree, isn't the one under the spotlight here. So, to stay neutral/support isn't "rewarding" incivility in any way shape or form. Glad you agree! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is largely my feeling as well, which is why I am just staying with neutral instead. While I am disappointed with some of Redfarmer's past edits as indicated in my initial "oppose", he did answer my questions in this RfA reasonably and made at least one other subsequent edit to the project that greatly improved my opinion of him and earned him recognition on my list of nice Wikipedians. I just do think it important that we discourage incivility as much as possible. I have seen plenty of posts from editors that I strongly disagree with, especially in AfDs, and I have resisted calling their edits "moronic" or any similar term no matter how tempting it may be to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Enough demonstration of various judgments that lead me to be wary of supporting at this time. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning support per Pedro. Speedy deletion is one of the areas of admin work where care and good judgment are essential; although any deletion is reversible in seconds, an inappropriate speedy may drive away an inexperienced user who is confused as to why their new article was deleted, and may never even be noticed or brought to DRV. It is therefore essential IMO that an administrator should fully understand WP:CSD, and, in particular, should not interpret CSD A7 too broadly (as Redfarmer did in [this diff cited by Pedro above). I won't oppose, though, because this candidate is a good editor with a broad range of experience, and the vast majority of his speedy taggings are absolutely fine. I also don't give a damn about his atheist userbox. WaltonOne 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Neutral Would like to support, but a perusal of the objections the opposing side raises just keeps me from doing so right now. I will almost certainly support in your next RFA. Jmlk17 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I dont know. I think he should edit the mainspace more based on his contribs. Nothing444Go Irish! 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikixpert
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related requests
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.