User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidate3 [edit]

Final (35/17/6); Ended Sat, 29 Dec 2099 14:46 UTC

Candidate3 (talk · contribs) - I guess I'll be bold... I'm Candidate3 , and I've been a Wikipedian for about three months now. I would like to humbly nominate myself for access to the administrative toolbox.

One of my primary areas of activity has been bridging the Wikimedia language and project barriers by moving images to the Commons. I've done my best at unclogging the enormous backlog of Commons images, including maintaining a user script tool to ease the process further.

I've substantially contributed to several GAs in WikiProject U.S. Roads, including Interstate 476 and Schuylkill Expressway, as well as reviewing potential GA candidates. I've also walked the beat, patrolling my watchlist and recent changes for vandalism, reporting it to AIV when necessary, as well as encouraging good-faith inexperienced editors to read up on how to better contribute.

Another area I've been heavily involved in is in deletion discussions; I try to base my arguments on an objective basis, while always keeping the quality of the encyclopedia my foremost goal. I always strive to keep a cool head and assume good faith no matter how hot the debates get.

As an administrator, I would extend my current backlog-clearing efforts to the administrative backlogs, particularly Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and company. I'd keep a constant eye on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. I would also help clear out speedy deletions, expired PRODs, and close old XfDs.

If handed the mop and bucket, I solemnly swear to put them to good use, and make sure not to spill that disgusting brown mop water everywhere! Candidate3 (talk) 07:06, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I would extend my current backlog-clearing efforts to the administrative backlogs, particularly Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and company. I'd keep a constant eye on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. I would also help clear out speedy deletions, expired PRODs, and close old XfDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best contributions to Wikipedia are those to the U.S. Roads WikiProject. I've contributed to several articles on Philadelphia-area roads and highways, a few of which, including Interstate 476, Schuylkill Expressway, and Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania have reached GA status. I have really enjoyed documenting the history of these roads for Wikipedia (especially I-476, which I have fond memories of travelling on as a youngster when it first opened.)
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: Being a frequent debater in XfDs has exposed me to tons of potentially stressful situations, including heated debates, criticism, and accusations of bad faith, and I understand that being administrator will probably increase that tenfold. Nevertheless, I always strive to relax, keep cool and AGF; if the editing gets too hot, I can always walk away from the computer for a while! I understand that Wikipedia is built on consensus, and I'm willing to accept when consensus disagrees with my personal viewpoint.

There have been a couple of conflicts in particular that I have been involved in, including the AfD for and my resulting attempt to merge The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, which was opposed by a couple people; I bowed out after a RfC suggested that consensus was against a merge. Another was the extremely heated Cyrus Farivar AfD and its associated DRV. Perhaps the most heated was an argument on my talk page regarding replacement of the neologism "multiplex," where an editor accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia" and "acting without consensus," though I explained to him that WP:NEO is an important guideline to follow to ensure clarity for the reader, and that I had tried to ensure consensus by gradually rolling out my changes and ensure there were no objections. In all of these cases, WP:COOL and WP:AGF have been my guiding philosophy.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 18:11, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
"The spirit, not the letter" sums up IAR as I understand it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and IAR should be invoked if someone is abusing process to make a point, such as a clearly bad-faith AfD nomination. On the other hand, WP:IAR goes hand-in-hand with its fellow trifecta principle WP:DICK. This project is built upon consensus, and ignoring the perfectly valid viewpoints of others and throwing consensus out the window in the name of IAR does nothing to help improve or maintain Wikipedia. Candidate3 (talk) 18:48, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Optional question from Kotepho:

5.Are there any problems with these four images ? Kotepho 12:50, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ Candidate3 before commenting.

Discussion

  • Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers: This seems to be a reasonably strong candidate and I don't yet see anything suggesting that he's unsuitable. I propose that he should be promoted at the end of this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Why all the oppose !votes based on metrics? Do arbitrary edit counts and time-in-service really tell us anything about a candidate? Aren't there those who within a couple months who have a better grasp of the place than some here for much longer, even some people with the mop? Just some thoughts. Vassyana 06:12, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the strong self-nomination and the clear dedication the candidate has to the project. He seems to have a firm grasp on what adminship means, and a clear plan for use of admin tools. I do not see any convincing reasons to deny him adminship, and therefore call for his reception of admin tools. --Mus Musculus (talk) 20:30, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support — sufficient handling of disputes shows ability to handle the situations often thrust upon a sysop; experience in RCP work demonstrates requirement of Special:Blockip; some more Deletion Debates involvement would be great, but otherwise you're a great candidate and, in my book, it's the quality not quantity of your contributions on the encyclopedia that matter and today, you've proved me right; anthony[review] 07:30, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  2. Support sound candidate, no alarm bells. Would prefer to see a higher volume of user talk edits, but you seem to be polite and communicative and I doubt it will pose a problem. Good luck! – Riana ? 07:51, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  3. Support - Has a reasonable amount of experience and seems to be able to handle disputes well now, I don't think he would abuse the admin tools. Camaron1 | Chris 09:35, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  4. Support per no big deal. Sufficient experience of AfDs, warning and reporting vandals to deal with backlogs. Also willingness to help with images is appreciated. Addhoc 13:06, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  5. Support 'aight. --Infrangible 16:25, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  6. Support - Only 4 months experience and a very low edit count(so what!!)..Goodluck...--Cometstyles 18:25, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  7. Support Edit counts are hardly a good measure of an administrator's abilities, and you have proved exactly that. --Ali 19:36, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  8. Support Although, contra Durin, I favor this form of RfA, I certainly concur in his comment with respect to Candidate3 's demeanor; a brief review indicates to me that he is generally cordial and even-tempered, such that a few (rather old) comments should not be taken as demonstrative of his disposition. He seems well-acquainted with policy and generally to be possessed of the characteristics of moderation and respect for other editors and for consensus that well suit an admin, such that I think one can conclude with much confidence that the net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive. Joe 19:58, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  9. Support. My review of the candidate's contributions history leads me to conclude that he or she has a good grasp of policy. I agree with YechielMan that the "henpecking" comment was unnecessarily negative, but am inclined to view that as a unique incident (I found nothing of the sort in future diffs, but then again, I didn't look through them all) that has not been repeated since and hopefully will not be repeated in the future. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:29, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  10. Support. In spite of the short history, he seems ready and able to help. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:57, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  11. Support I was considering not supporting due to lack of experience, but after reviewing the areas of editing, I noticed a high Wikipedia, user talk, and mainspace talk. This made me support. Captain panda 03:08, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  12. Support Ready to help, and seems very nice. The Phoenix Enforcer(Talk to me) 04:39, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  13. Support to negate the Oppose votes that state inexperience. 4 months of editing at a high level shows interest and consistency. He'll not hurt the project. Kntrabssi 07:17, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  14. Support. The key here is looking at the contributions, rather than edit- or time-counting (although 3 months and 2000 edits is always enough for me) and rather than "henpecking" over one mildly controversial edit in a sea of great contributions. Those backlogs aren't getting any smaller. Grandmasterka 10:28, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  15. Support We need admins, and you seem reliable enough. Adminship is no big deal, after all. I definitely would've preferred a higher edit count and a longer time around, though. —Anas talk? 11:42, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  16. Support. Adminship is no big deal. The candidate obviously understands the place and I have no reason to believe the tools would be abused. Most importantly, Candidate3 has a positive reaction to feedback, advice and suggestions, and learns from mistakes. Seems about exactly what we should look for in a candidate, instead of metrics. Vassyana 12:05, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  17. Support Strong edit history, time matters less than commitment. Monty845 12:59, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  18. Kusma (talk) 13:02, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  19. Support Adminship is no big deal, and the user has demonstrated sufficient commitment to the project already. Answers to the questions are satisfactory. Cheers, Lankybugger ? Yell ? 14:40, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  20. Support- Good experienced friendly editor. Retiono Virginian 15:13, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  21. Support- A bit green, but an enthusiastic editor. No big deal. AKAF 17:39, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  22. Support New, but a willing and so-far capable editor.-- danntm T C 20:14, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  23. Support. I don't see a problem with his "newness", 3 months+ on the project is plenty. 90 days probation is pretty standard in the business world to make sure a new employee has got a grip on the job, I don't see why it shouldn't be plenty here as well - and as far as I can see this user has got a grip on the job. Arkyan • (talk) 22:38, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  24. Support. Thip (this person) seems to have a stronger grasp of Wikipedia's policies, operations, and jargon than your typical 3-month beginner. Thip has been well-behaved over the past 3 months, so I have no problem with thip being given the mop. The Transhumanist 06:32, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  25. Support - I'd prefer to see slightly more experience, but the user seems competent to use the admin tools. The "incivility" highlighted by other editors does not seem particularly incivil to me; I've seen much worse in the past. Walton Need some help? 17:40, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  26. Support This user appears to have just over 3 months of experience, which is plenty long enough really. Lollipop Lady 20:36, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  27. Support: While generally I would enjoy seeing more time around I however feel that this user can be trusted and has not done anything in the past to show that they cannot be trusted. Should make a good admin if not now then in the future.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:11, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  28. Support Good work ethic, and seems to understand the need for better communication. The question is whether he would cause harm with the tools and I see no reason to think such. JodyB 11:44, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  29. Support I don't think he will abuse the tools. Frise 02:09, 26 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  30. Support Experience here is a function of edits, not time. You're experienced. And we need more admins who get stuck into image issues. --Dweller 13:55, 26 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  31. Support. I trust this user not to willingly or accidently abuse the tools. —AldeBaer 04:58, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  32. Support No evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:45, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  33. Support A.Z. 06:29, 28 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  34. Support, he's got enough experience.--Wizardman 01:03, 29 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  35. Support Valuable user Vpopescu 12:31, 29 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose because Candidate3 has had some strained relations with other editors, and it can get on his nerves. Looking at his user talk page archive, he had a long discussion with Daniel Case about using "multiplex" for roads. DC said yes, and Candidate3 said no because it's a neologism. They worked it out, and then on a non sequitir, DC advises him that there was some kind of image problem which he had to fix. Candidate3 responded, "OK, a small mistake, you easily fixed it... what point was there in pointing this out to me on my talk page? Please don't start henpecking."
    Later in the archives, Candidate3 defended a complaint from Jsnell saying that he meant no harm. Candidate3 concluded, " WP:AGF is one of the primary guiding principles of Wikipedia; I suggest you bone up on it yourself."
    Both these incidents happened in February, and I'm sure Candidate3 has improved his use of language since then. But until I see some positive examples to counter these negative ones, I will oppose. YechielMan 08:42, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Diff for incident: Candidate3 &diff=111501482&oldid=111498459 --Shirahadasha 14:34, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    I concede that in the past I may have been a little sharp-tongued when stressed, and I apologize. I have learned to better keep my WP:COOL in the two months since. Candidate3 (talk) 15:32, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think the candidate is on the right track, but I'm not comfortable with his mophood just yet. A few more months will do wonders here. Xoloz 14:25, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I am sorry, but while I accept that this editor has over 2,000 edits with a reasonable number in namespace, I just do not feel that 3 months experience is adequate.--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per experience note above. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:04, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose Inexperienced. -t h b 20:25, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC) Sockpuppet - David Gerard 00:03, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I think this user needs more experience in Wikipedia, even though he is a great editor. I think with a couple more months of experience, and learning more about Wikipedia, Candidate3 will be ready for adminship. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 22:09, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, regretfully. You need a few months more experience on Wikipedia, although you seem like a great, productive editor. Sr13 (T|C) ER 03:56, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Needs much better experience, and is still too young on the site to warrant admin. Jmlk17 06:52, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  8. Oppose As above. Bjrobinson 14:44, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  9. Oppose due to experience concerns, sorry. Keep up the good work, raise the edit summary usage for minor edits and try again in a month or two. --Húsönd 16:39, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - there is simply no substitute for experience. Spend some more time with the project, and come back in a couple of months. You are certainly on the right track. -- Pastordavid 17:34, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  11. Oppose The incivility incidents were too recent to ignore. Regretfully I thus must oppose. Please come back in a few months. Xiner (talk) 02:44, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: 2000+ edits in three months is not even enough for the mop. Come back by the fall and I'll raise it up a notch. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:11, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose. While I think Candidate3 has shown great promise during the last three motnhs, I suggest waiting at least three more motnhs and continuing to contribute as in the past. •••???? • Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose User has not edited anything related to arthritis. If he does this, then I'll support. BUT IT HAS TO BE SIX MONTHS OF ARTHRITIS-RELATED EDITS! --Doctor Arthritis Morbid1 11:46, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    I've struck this oppose: this is this user's first edit to Wikipedia and is clearly not a serious reason to oppose. Gwernol 11:50, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Uh, I think that was a satirical send-up of those who focus on edit counts and edits in a particular namespace. I think Doctor AM should have also mentioned that this candidate has not written a featured article on arthritis either. --Richard 20:27, 25 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Sorry Richard, that's not satire its a (now indef blocked) abusive sockpuppet of a long-term vandal who labels all arthritis-related articles as hoaxes. Gwernol 11:50, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  14. Way too new and inexperienced with the project. —Centrx?talk • 03:32, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  15. I vote oppose. (RfA is a vote, despite what some people want to think, and I want that to be clear.) I oppose this candidate because he has insufficient experience in article writing, and because he nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual units of measurement, when he could have made an attempt to fix it. ???????? (talk) 05:01, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Why are you giving any reason when you believe it's a vote? —AldeBaer 05:21, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    As stated in the deletion nomination, the reason I nominated that article for deletion was that I felt the very concept of the list was POV (with no objective criteria for what makes a unit "unusual"), not because it needed to be cleaned up; I adamantly understand that AfD is not the proper forum for cleanup discussion, and I apologize if it appeared that way. Candidate3 (talk) 05:25, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose User hasn't edited any arthritis-related articles. --Tabersyn30 08:56, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet/SPA vote. WarpstarRider 09:03, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose This user is an inveterate POV-pusher, and has never edited arthritis-related articles. --Hopw-2 10:21, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    See above. WarpstarRider 10:34, 27 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  16. Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication (in both active time and editing) to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. Daniel Bryant 00:59, 29 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  17. Not comfortable with this user at this time. Next time, probably. DS 01:35, 29 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, leaning to support. Your contributions and comments here leave a very good impression, but I prefer admins to have the experience that comes with having made at least 3000 edits - even though, per Anthony above, that may be a mere formality in your case. Sandstein 08:45, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
    Shouldn't that tell you there's something wrong with your 3000-edit requirement? Here's more evidence of that: I've been a Wikipedian for almost three years, and I made my 3000th edit last month, when I had already been an admin for more than a year. Do you think I'm too inexperienced? rspeer / ???ds? 20:15, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. No fundamental problem here, just a little bit of unseasoning and a couple of bits of early hastiness that will undoubtedly go by the wayside with a bit more experience. Suggest coming back in a couple of months and I'm sure everything will be fine. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:40, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  3. Appears to be a suitable candidate; support withheld pending receipt of a WikiProject endorsement per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Seems a good candidate, can't see any reason to oppose but would perhaps like so see longer editing history that would give more experience of the various aspects of Wikipedia. Adambro 17:38, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I am impressed by how quickly you have taken off, but I think that you still need a little more time to amass more edits in a myriad of fields. You show a lot of promise and I agree that admin is "no big deal" (and am hoping others feel that way too when I go for an RfA), but I know I speak for a lot of us here that you need to cross that numerical line to cast that affirmative "no big deal" vote. When that day comes, you'll almost certainly get my support. --Valley2city?? 08:00, 23 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  6. I feel that the editor is experienced enough to obtain the sysop bit, however the sockpuppetry in this RFA has me troubled. Naconkantari 22:08, 28 Dec 2099 (UTC)

Abstain from voting, but wish to comment

  • I choose not to engage in a voting system since RfA is supposed to be a consensus garnering system, which is very poorly served by voting. Please do not construe this commentary as "support", "oppose" or "neutral" since it is none of those. The opposition based on demeanor is perhaps troubling. I suspect the nominee has learned from it, as he indicates in his apology so I'm not sure this should be considered troubling anymore. The lack of time is a non-issue. Similarly, some of the reservations in the supports regarding edit counts in certain areas are a non-issue as well. Not sure why this is a concern. He went through editor review, where a concern raised was edit summary usage needing to be higher. He responded with Candidate3 &diff=prev&oldid=115800677, and since then his edit summary usage has gone up considerably. This shows ability to respond positively to criticism and advice. --Durin 19:31, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
It's not really important, but I don't consider "neutral" to be a vote. Why did you decide to separate your comment from the others? YechielMan 19:52, 22 Dec 2099 (UTC)
While attempting to avoid construing this comment as "support", "oppose" or "neutral", I accidently construed it as "paradoxically confusing and mildly amusing". Hopefully the closing bureaucrat will come up with a different construe. It's always good to have multiple construes. It fosters consensus. --Húsönd 02:04, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
  • Maybe to clarify; I don't find time issues compelling in this case. Same for edit counts. On demeanor, there's perhaps some validity. I do think he's capable of accepting criticism. I'm not voting on the candidate. I'm trying to help form consensus on potential obstacles to adminship. --Durin 13:32, 24 Dec 2099 (UTC)
meta discussion on format of this RfA has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ Candidate3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate3&oldid=1140122599"