Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Remember the dot (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 6 February 2008 (update count, fix formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Remember the dot

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/1/0); Scheduled to end 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember the dot (talk · contribs) - Wizardman nominated me for adminship back in October, and the nomination was closed as "no consensus". After my last RfA, I asked those who opposed me to elaborate on their concerns. Many declined to respond, several expressed support for me after the fact, and one has been indefinently blocked for sockpuppetry.

I would like to make a fresh start. (In other words, let slip the dogs of war... ;-) Remember the dot (talk) 17:04, 6 February 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: I would like to help out with blocking persistent vandals, carrying out protected edit requests, and image deletion. I have had quite a bit of experience in all of these areas. It would be especially useful to be able to see deleted revisions of images transferred to the Commons without proper licensing information, so that I could add the correct source and licensing and prevent the image from being deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am happy that I helped get Opera (Internet suite) (nom) up to featured article status. I also created the PNG crusade bot to assist in the automatic conversion of images to the PNG format when it is beneficial to do so, removed newbie traps such as {{Copyrighted}} (nom), {{Permission}} (diff), {{fair use}} (nom), {{Fair Use}} (nom), and {{FairUse}} (CSD G6), assisted in the development of a JavaScript script to improve the display of transparent PNG and SVG images in Internet Explorer 6 (IE7, Firefox, etc. do not need the fix), and have uploaded many images to the Commons for use on Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: There have been several. Typically a discussion ensues and we come to an agreement. For example, at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Oct 2007#Internet Explorer fix for PNG transparency and again at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Nov 2007#PNG fix disabled there was long debate and compromise about the PNG workaround script for Internet Explorer 6.
I strongly oppose using administrator privileges with the intent of forcing the result of a discussion one way or another. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

4. What about you as a candidate has changed or improved from your last RfA? Have you addressed the concerns raised previously that caused your prior nom to be unsuccessful?
  • I have enabled the prompted edit summary preference.
  • I have installed twinkle which automatically adds edit summaries for common tasks.
  • I have gained a greater understanding of WP:IAR and a greater desire to simply do nothing when enforcing policy as written wouldn't do us any good.
  • While I have jumped the gun on making protected edit requests in the past, I have resolved to be more careful about this in the future. Specifically, I will ask for comments before creating new pages in the MediaWiki namespace or making significant changes to templates, especially changes that would break backwards compatibility.
—Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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?
Discuss the issue with the administrator who removed the material. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. You have said you will not add yourself to administrator recall. Is this still true?
I have no objection to administrators who make themselves open to recall. I am not going to add myself to this particular category, however, if a user wished to run me through RfA again and I received less than 25% support, I would give up my adminship. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. In your last request you asserted that as an administrator you would not delete non-free images that lacked a non-free use rationale. Is this still your view, particularly in light of the Foundation initiatives taken in this direction? How do you view the speed-tagging of faulty rationale images by BCBot and the subsequent deletion by script-wielding administrators?
It regularly does more harm than good. I could see myself deleting images tagged with Template:Non-free fair use in, but not images tagged with the more specific fair use tags. If an image is uploaded in good faith and meets the policy, it's counterproductive to delete it for not explicitly saying that it meets the policy. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A WP:BAN "is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to 'edit this page' does not apply to banned users." A WP:BLOCK is a technical method to prevent users from editing Wikipedia. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Unlike bans, which are enacted by the community, blocks are enacted by individual administrators and may be overturned by other administrators. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Which Charles do you like the best? Why?
A: I have a friend named Charles ;-) —Remember the dot (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Mønobi

10. If an article is deleted per CSD#A7 and then recreated, can be deleted again per CSD#G4?
A. No. WP:CSD#G4 applies only to material that was deleted because of a deletion discussion. Also, if circumstances have changed and the reasons given in the deletion discussion are not longer valid, it would be inappropriate to delete the material again. For example, if an article was nominated for deletion and deleted due to lack of notability, and the topic has since become notable, then it would be inappropriate to mindlessly delete that article again under WP:CSD#G4. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Remember the dot before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - As per last time. Rudget. 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported last time. I still think that Remember the dot is a good user. Acalamari 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I know it sounds lame but the issue for me last time was edit summaries and that seems to have been addressed. Ronnotel (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. No problems here. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support an excellent and intelligent user who clearly supports our free content policies. Most of the opposition last time was, in my opinion, based off an unfortunate and unfair misrepresentation of The Dot's views. --JayHenry (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Another great editor soon to be an admin... κaτaʟavenoTC 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This is one of those editors I'd see around and just assume he/she was an admin, which demonstrates that I, and the community, already trust this user. нмŵוτнτ 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, just like last time. :) GlassCobra 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - solid candidate who knows policy well. Will be good with the extra tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've editted with him and trust his judgement. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen his participation in Wikipedia and I'm impressed. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems very dedicated to Wikipedia and vandal control. Wexcan (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great user trustworthy. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Q9 Strong support. Passes level 3 of my criteria. Excellent user. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Trustworthy. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Understands policy, seems trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, poorly considered recall conditions. Reading these again, you are saying that if any single editor wished to restart an RfA you would allow them to do so? And in that RfA you would consider it a "pass" and retain your tools if you received 30% support? That can't be what you mean, that's both illogical and unworkable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wouldn't just let people run RfA after RfA against me. There would have to be a period of time between each one, and I would manage that by approving each one. I do not want to be desysopped due to temporary concerns or because a bunch of people decide to jump in and say "I hate you." This is the reason for the high level of opposition there would have to be against me before I would give up adminship.
    Really though, I don't think it will ever come to that. Are there any specific areas where you think I would not do a good job as an administrator? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't support somebody who argues that an administrator can continue in their post if they have lost the support of a large majority of the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Recall is optional to begin with, I don't see the logic in opposing for an optional "option". Mønobi 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is what the conditions reveal about Remember the dot's attitude to the community that trouble me. If 70% of the community think you should resign, I think you should resign. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say if it takes consensus to sysop, it should take consensus to desysop. All the major decisions we make are per consensus. This shuold be no different. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral pending answers to questions, particularly #4 and #7. Majoreditor (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just wait till he's answered the question? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have done so now. :) Rudget. 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased with his answers and am going to support. Majoreditor (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Remember_the_dot_2&oldid=189594711"