Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barneca

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Barneca

Final (32/15/0); Originally scheduled to end 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talky) 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nom. I’ve been here since 31 December 2006, with a little over 4300 edits. I think my answers to the questions below briefly explain who I am and why I want the extra tools, but I’d be happy to go into more detail below, on my talk page, or via email, if you want more.

The basics: I started editing for real in March, and heavily in May, but that was interfering with real life, so I backed off a little. I now expect I’ll maintain roughly the level of editing I’ve had for the last 3 months (500-750 edits/month). Recently there have been several occasions where having admin tools would have been quite useful, so I thought I’d give it a go now. I don't know everything about everything, but I'm familiar with enough admin-related activities that I can be immediately useful in areas I'm comfortable, and will be able to help out more places in a few months. If this succeeds, I will make myself open to recall.

Thanks in advance for your consideration, comments, and advice. --barneca (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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: What I've wished I could do recently but can't. I’ve run into several occasions lately where I’ve wished I had more buttons (mostly related to this):

• Blocking vandals and blatant socks myself, especially when socking and vandalism is happening rapidly, rather than report to WP:AIV.
• Quick deletion of attack pages, and deletion of edits giving out phone numbers and personal information, without waiting for CAT:CSD or WP:ANI.
• Rollback of edits from vandalism-only accounts, rather than tediously doing them one at a time. (Yes, I know about the .js tools available to non-admins, but for semi-complicated reasons I can't really use them).
• Review deleted edit histories and deleted material while looking for similarities with other possible sock puppets, especially vandal puppets whos contributions have been almost entirely deleted.

How I plan to use the tools long term. I don't plan to focus on just one area; I like exploring the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia, and will help out wherever I feel comfortable.

• Vandalism fighting. I’ve spent a majority of my time here fighting vandalism old-school style, with over 100 reports to WP:AIV. As far as I can recall, only one of them did not result in a block, which I hope says something about my judgment in this area. It would be faster and cleaner to block vandals myself, as I continue to go to Special:Random pages and watch Special:Recentchanges. I will also help at WP:AIV; now that school is starting, I’m guessing it will resume being backlogged frequently. To be honest, vandalism fighting is starting to lose some of its thrill, but I do think it’s important, it's something I’m happy to continue, and an area where I can jump in right away.
• As some may remember, I kind of stumbled into looking at sockpuppetry. While I don't intend to be some kind of full time internal affairs cop, it is something I expect to do more of. It benefits from slow, deliberate investigation (which fits my style and editing schedule), and I think the practice of using socks to develop a false appearance of consensus is one of our two or three biggest problems. Also, WP:SSP looks chronically backlogged. Admin tools, as described above, would be quite useful. I’m not so much interested in the nightmarish task some people have taken on of tracking the dozens of socks of persistent vandals. I’m more interested in following up on cases I stumble across during vandalism patrol, or just picking a WP:SSP case, looking into it, commenting if the results aren’t clear, and closing and acting if they are.
• I occasionally wander by WP:AN and WP:ANI. As an admin, I’ll do that a little more, in case someone needs an admin’s help. Similarly, I’ll keep an eye on CAT:HELP and CAT:UNBLOCK. In general, anything that needs a little investigation before action, and is generally helpful, is something I’m interested in.
• CAT:PROD and CAT:CSD. I really shouldn’t say this without exhaustively checking, but I think no admin reviewing CAT:CSD has ever disagreed with a {{db}} tag I’ve put up. For vandalism, patent nonsense, and attack pages, I'd like to be able to delete them myself, without adding to the CSD workload. For notability cases, I will seldom speedy an article that I run across myself, and I'll tag it with {{PROD}} or a {{db}} notice instead. I think having two sets of eyes verify something is speedyable for non-notability is good practice. But I’m quite willing to be that second pair of eyes, and delete appropriate cases in CAT:PROD or CAT:CSD. For good-faith new articles, especially by new editors, I'll try to engage them on their talk page as well (with more than a template, I mean), to make the experience less BITEy.
• Maintenance. I think there's a certain obligation to pitch in and help if entrusted with the mop. As I become more familiar with processes at each place, I'll help out with backlogs at CAT:AB, WP:RFPP, WP:3RR, WP:UAA, etc.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A. So far, I’ve been most productive vandal fighting. But also:

• General helpfulness. Dablink fixing, article discussion when I have something useful to say, looking up info in the references and fixing it if it's incorrect, spelling/phrasing fixes, page moves... Just generally wandering around the 'pedia, fixing what I come across that seems to need fixing.
• Mediation/DR. It interests me, and I’ve tried it informally a few times, unfortunately never completely successfully. I’ll continue to try (at least trying to disenflame a dispute is a contribution). What started as a brief discussion of some of the times I tried to resolve a dispute has turned pretty verbose, so for those interested, I've moved it to the talk page.
• Contributing without having a strong POV about, really, much of anything. I'm here because I love the concept of Wikipedia, and find it interesting, enjoy learning new stuff, and enjoy being useful, not because I want articles my way. Long term, I think that POV wars, and the socks and cross-namespace disputes they breed, are more dangerous to Wikipedia than vandalism. While I certainly don’t think you have to come here without any POV at all in order to be an editor or an admin, frankly I think the fact that I don’t have an ax to grind is a benefit, especially if I try to get involved in helping to settle other people’s disputes.

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’ve had three or four conflicts, but nothing I would call major. They're easy to find on my talk page and talk page archive (I've highlighted the section titles in red) if you're curious, so I won't dredge them up again, but I'd be happy to discuss them in more detail if you have a particular concern.

The only true stress I’ve felt was during the whole OWB thing. I wasn't stressed because of what I was doing, but because it got out in public after I was sure, but before I was ready for it, so I felt an obligation to deal with it as quickly as humanly possible, while real life was preventing me from doing so. Basically, Proabivouac saved me. Going forward, I’ll be much more careful to be completely ready before going public with anything like that, and hopefully won’t need bailing out again.

My main tactics if I run into a dispute are:

• Discuss, if the other editor appears reasonable. Frequently one of us will convince the other, or we’ll compromise. Sometimes one of us will give up; that’s OK too. When someone is being polite, I enjoy the give and take.
• Disengage, if the other editor is uncivil or attacking me, or clearly uninterested in consensus. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a time sink.
• Ask for help. You won't see me block someone for being uncivil to me or attacking me. I’m not a huge fan of going to WP:AN or WP:ANI about civility complaints; I usually couldn’t care less if someone insults me on Wikipedia, and favor ignoring them instead. But if they just won’t leave me alone, and it interferes with my ability to be here, I’ll either go to ANI, or to a talk page of an admin that I know is active, to ask for another pair of eyes and some help.

4. (Optional question I’m asking myself) What are your weaknesses, and why do you think they are not serious enough to prevent you from being a good admin?

A. The following:

• AfD. Hardly any experience, and doesn’t really appeal to me. I’m most comfortable looking at PROD and CSD cases, as described above. I’ve been involved in, I think, a grand total of 3 AfD/DRV discussions, and initiated only one. I do understand how it works, and won’t screw the system up as an admin because I won’t get very involved without much more participation first.
• Almost anything to do with images. The only things I know about free-use and IfD is what I absorb through osmosis by reading WP:AN and WP:ANI. If/when I get involved at all, it will be slowly.
• Actual contributions to, you know, articles. This is a weak point. My writing skills are OK, but for me, serious article writing would require setting aside a large block of time and attacking the subject, and my contributions are usually a little more sporadic than that, and it often doesn't fit my real life schedule. Please note I’m not completely inexperienced in this area, it’s just I don’t do it very often, or in very much detail. My biggest writing contribution is to the very short Video Professor, and that's mostly because someone specifically asked me to give it a go. If I run across an article that needs help, I try to improve it in my own limited way. See, e.g., my contributions to Kip (unit), Atomidine, and Ecuador. I personally don’t think that it should prevent me from requesting adminship, as article writing is probably the area where the tools are least useful, and I have had enough conversations on talk pages to, IMHO, understand how WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. affect the actual article writers, and how they affect disputes I might get involved in. But I understand and respect your opinion if it’s important to you.

5. (Optional question I’m asking myself) What about your lack of knowledge about the important admin-related function WP:Fill in your favorite subject here?

A. I'll learn on the job. I won’t do any admin-related actions in any area where I don’t feel comfortable. If the community can review my contributions enough to believe I won’t intentionally misuse the tools, I hope they’ll trust my judgment not to accidentally misuse them in areas I’m not experienced. Plus, if I do something stupid, just revert me.

6. Question by JetLover Can you explain this?

A. Yes. It's related to the conversation I'm currently having with Agüeybaná in the oppose section below. At his request, I'm going to describe the episode in detail, and that will have to wait until tomorrow morning, once I've had a chance to review the emails once more. However, if you're referring to the actual act of asking someone to stay off my talk page, I was trying to disengage from someone who had sent me two very rude emails in response to two polite ones from me (my third email wasn't civil either). It was clear to me at the time that talking to him was not going to be of any use. The "disable my 'email this user' link" part was dumb on my part, because of course he already had my email address. If my reply tomorrow AM doesn't sufficiently answer this, let me know. --barneca (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A (cont'd). I have now discussed this specific question below, in my reply to WJBscribe, with more details on the background on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Question by Daniel Morales In addition can you explain how you handled this case on your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barneca page? You mention here that if you were admin you would have taken certain action, what would have you done? Here is a copy and paste of the comment on your page for voters ......

WOverstreet

I am going to do what ever it takes to defend my alma mater. If I get baned, then at least I know I went down fighting. So many people tear into the University of Florida page it is unreal. I know it isn't an Ivy League School, but I have been posting exactly what my sources indicate. These sources are alittle over the top, however it is positive PR for UF. Who are these people to judge if the rhetoric is not right? If these are sources from a legitimate newspapers & journals, then what is the problem? I think UF deserves ARBITRATION.

Thanks,

Jimmis —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note my message on your talk page said nothing about the University of Florida article. I have not looked at it, am not going to look at it, and know nothing about the University, and don't know who's right. My message was concerning how you've been chosing to deal with it. If you are blocked, you will not be able to "defend" your POV. There are many, many options available to you if you are having a content dispute in an article, such as WP:3O, WP:MEDCOM, WP:MEDCAB, and WP:RFC. Try one of those. But personal attacks, impersonating another editor, and using a sockpuppet are going to get you blocked, with nothing to show for it. With some of the stuff you've pulled today, I'm not sure you wouldn't already be blocked if I were an admin. Luckily, I'm not, so if you just cool off and follow the rules, you can get back to editing. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A Sure, but tomorrow. It's late here. Brief background: I was wandering by WP:SSP, and saw Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WOverstreet, which hadn't been acted on yet, so I took a look. The user's recent contributions showed numerous red flags, including obvious IP sockpuppetry, adding the signature of other users to their own posts, and keeping a list of "People who suck" on their user page. I deleted the list and left a final warning on their talk page, and we exchanged messages on my talk page (what you've pasted above), which was courteous but implied they weren't going to stop disruption. The IP sock had already been blocked for 24 hours by Raymond arritt, independent of the sock report. WOverstreet was blocked a few hours later for 24 hours by MastCell for sockpuppetry and general disruption. When the block was over, WOverstreet started right back up again with the same behavior, and was indef blocked by Spartaz.

What would I have done differently if I were an admin? From their behavior, I doubt there would have been a significant difference in the ultimate outcome. I would have re-blocked the IP sock for a month or so; looking at the contributions, it has always been WOverstreet since it first began editing in June, so no collateral damage was likely. I would probably have waited before blocking the WOverstreet account the first time to see whether WOverstreet changed his behavior after my final warning, but it seems obvious from what actually happened that they would have continued, and then I would have blocked the account for 48 hours. After they started disrupting again immediately after the block expired, I would have done the same as Spartaz, and blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to step in here. User:Daniel Morales is pretty close to a vandalism-only account who appears to be trolling this RfA, with precious few other contributions. Since I've expressed an opinion here, I'm not going to act, but I'd ask an outside admin to review his contribs, his block log, and his input here. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell, but in spite of the user's background, the actual question itself seems reasonable, so I'll just go ahead and answer it. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very nice answer, leaning towards changing to support now. Thanks for the in-depth response. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

8. (Optional question by Kudret abi) In your opinion what is the biggest mistake that you ever made in here? What would you do differently if you were ever in the same situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudret abi (talk • contribs) 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A Kudret abi, If you had asked me this one week ago, I would have said what I said in my answer to Question 3 above; the way I initially handled the accusation of OWB’s sockpuppetry. However, based on all the feedback from this RfA about my argument with Agüeybaná, and trying to look at my edits that day from the outside, as I would look at someone else doing it, I’ll agree that that was my worst moment here. I think I’ve answered your second question in my reply to Walton and Pedro in the "discussion" section immediately above the "support" section, but if you wanted something more detailed than that, let me know. --barneca (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you barneca, it is the nature of mankind to make mistakes so I think it is very important to be able to see one's own mistakes and your answer shows that not only you can do that, but you will continuously keep doing that as you have an updated answer from last week. I gladly support your nomination, good luck. --Kudret abi 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Barneca's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Barneca: Barneca (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Barneca before commenting.

Discussion

• "I really shouldn’t say this without exhaustively checking, but I think no admin reviewing CAT:CSD has ever disagreed with a {{db}} tag I’ve put up." -- I actually checked this, and there was only one, Gator Engineering, which was overturned due to an assertion of permission via OTRS, and therefore you would hardly be expected to be aware of that at the time. That's pretty good work on the CSDs! (Not offering an opinion here, because I don't know the candidate well enough, just offering a data point.) --ais523 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE: I have had many problems with this guy. If this guy becomes admin, he will be repressive to all those who do no agree with him. I do not remember when exactly it occurred, but on various talk pages this person has argued with people, and instead of attacking the argument being discussed, he attacks the person. In reality, having an admin of this caliber would be a poor choice, there are many other wiki editors who would be more suitable as admin. Do not waste a slot on this guy, considering what I have mentioned in addition to his seniority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.136.227 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2007

Formatted and indented as IP !vote. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the same user as User:Daniel Morales, who commented below (based on shared edits here and to Winter Park High School. Both !votes should be stricken as socks. MastCell ^Talk 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very difficult decision. Despite all the discussion, it's still not at all clear what exactly happened between the candidate and Agueybana (Boricuaeddie, as was). Without this issue, I would strongly support Barneca, as he's well-qualified for adminship; however, Eddie is an editor I like and respect, and I need a bit more clarification before I can vote on this RfA. Walton^One 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Walton here, although I have offered my support. I interacted with the candidate during the OWB thing as seen here and he came across as very civil and regrtfull about the whole episode. My other reasons for support are as my statement below. But equally I have interacted with Eddie regularly and very much trust his judgement. On balance I can't see how this can be resolved without more damage, and accordingly my support remains. After all I must comment based on what I can see on Wikipedia. Pedro |  Chat  09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Walton, Pedro, I'm about 1 mm away from beating a dead horse, so I'll make one last quick evidently this is impossible summarizing comment on this, and then assume I've said enough, unless it's to answer a question directed specifically to me.
  • Civility: That episode is not something I'm proud of. We both behaved poorly; I was shocked and hurt by the response I got to what was intended (but not received) as a polite comment; if I had expected an attack (like I get occasionally from vandals), it would have been easy to ignore, but here, I just reacted. Looking back, I do see that in this, and two other cases that haven't been mentioned, my attempt to disengage has been worded as "stay off my talk page", when a more appropriate response would have been "I don't have anything more to say about this", or better yet, just ignore it and not try to get the last word. You can take my word I've learned from this and support (which I think you'll find believable if you look at all of my interactions with other users), or you can ask me to wait a few months so you can see it was, indeed, an abheration by opposing. You can probably guess which one I'd prefer, but I'm fine with either one.
  • Privacy: I never threatened, ever, to publish the emails he had already sent me, and I think Agüeybaná accepts this now (see the talk page of this RfA). I did say that future emails would be, and of course that was stupid, but it was an attempt to get what I considered abusive emails to stop. Again, if I hadn't replied at all, he probably wouldn't have sent another anyway, so ignoring would have been better. --barneca (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only you can make the decision to wait a few months or proceede with this nomination. I believe you when you say you've learned from this. I understand that Agüeybaná feels strongly about this, and as above I trust his judgement and respect his opinion a lot. Equally, I respect the statements by you above, and again refer to the positive interaction we have had in the past. This is, as Walton observes, difficult. On balance I still support your request for the buttons, but I also very much understand the position of the opposers. I'm not sure I can add anything further to this that is of value to your RfA or the communities understanding of the issues here. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor wording on my part; I've refactored above in tiny print to clarify. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• For all the people who are opposing "per WJBscribe": please look carefully at those diffs. The first one looks like someone who's really angered and trying to keep his cool, and who decides to end the conservation (in a slightly blunt manner) rather than to let the situation escalate. The second diff is not a constructive edit, but we all have our occasional slipup, and besides this particular incident, Barneca is a civil and honest editor who would use the tools to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Melsaran (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support; in fact, I'd happily have nominated Barneca myself. He's evidenced the right temperment for the mop, and has the interest and talent to help out at a chronically understaffed but important area (WP:SSP). He's experienced in some admin-related areas, and he's circumspect and judicious enough to learn on the job (as we all do) in areas he hasn't worked in before. He's demonstrated trustworthiness and I have no concerns about mop abuse, but volunteering to be open to recall is a nice gesture as well. MastCell ^Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Excellent answers to questions, especially the self-imposed question #4. Lots of edits to AIV and ANI, will make a good admin. Melsaran (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Confirming strong support vote. Melsaran (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Editor seems to be trustworthy, open and honest. Happy to support, friend. Scarian^Talk 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support After looking (briefly) at some of this editor's recent contributions, I believe Barneca a good candidate for sysopping. Good luck! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support What an incredible set of answers. You acknowledge your weak points, you have being totally candid in areas where you could work on. I have no problems that you are weak in WP:XFD, your reporting at WP:AIV is excellent but above all I believe the clarity and honesty shown by your answers will translate into thoughtfullness and calmness with the admin buttons. This is a model of someone respecting the RFA process and hence Wikipedia. Very Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per honest answers to questions and ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations. Barneca may not be the most prolific article editor, but I think he would make a fine admin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen this editor display exemplary thoughtfulness, and the excellent answers to the questions bolster my impression of him. Certainly trustworthy. Xoloz 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Support I like the honest responses, especially to User:J-stan neutral vote. I cant see any edits that grab my attention as being of concern. Gnangarra 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) further investigating I have found some edits and actions of concern, changing to oppose. Gnangarra 04:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Support as he has the "minimum number of edits"; has done good work fixing vandalism, esp. Wyoming, so could use the mop, and I am certain, will use it well. No concerns. Good answers to the optional quesionts. :-) Bearian 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Although I've read through many RFA's in the past, I've yet to feel motivated to comment in any of them. However, I've never seen such a brilliant, open and honest application before either. Rather then attempting to gloss over any weaknesses, you are highlighting them and openly promising to improve upon them, and watch your step until you do. One can't ask for much more. An example for many, if not all to follow. Kudos. Glancing over your edits confirms ones gut instinct. Good luck. GreenGopher 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. 'Nuff said. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    -- Y not? 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Support Talk page reveals a patient, wise, calmly disposed and knowledgeable user who is not likely to abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Switch to oppose per Sara Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

11. Support, changed from Neutral. Candidate shows a good listening ability, along with the work they've done fighting vandalism. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
12. — [ aldebaer⁠] 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support -- I see no evidence that this user would execute the tools in anything but a professional and intelligent way. --Haemo 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I do not see anything that would lead me to believe he would be a bad admin. Good luck:)--SJP 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support -- I'm going to support. The oppositions aren't convincing and my experience with the user is good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support – I wish my answers were as good.  ;) Seriously, though, you exhibit a great deal of maturity and honesty. Just please make sure you do so all the time, per civility concerns below. — madman bum and angel 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Lacking in Wikispace edits, but other than that: pretty good! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support per Madman. Archon of Atlantis 04:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support This is one of those RFAs that make my head spin. The uncivil comments that are being pointed out at this time by WJBScribe and the comments by Agüeybaná do not seem uncivil to me at all, and I know that I've seen worse, as have most of you here. The amount of opposes right now are strange to me. I urge anyone voting per anyone else to check the evidence they provide and see if it meets their definition of incivility--do not count on the reputation of a username to make your mind up for you. Now with that out of the way, on to barneca: I first found out about barneca during the Old Windy Bear sock hunt, in which he showed his thoroughness, cool head, and ability to handle a controversial aspect. He did well and more admins like him is a good thing. daveh4h 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Looks like an excellent candidate for the mop. I see nothing to concern me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Supurb answers, as above, you receive my full support. Phgao 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Very Weak Support. I'm still uneasy about the situation between him and Eddie/Agueybaná, but I can see he's done his best to explain himself, and is apologetic for the way he acted. Given his long history of good contributions, I'm going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Walton^One 10:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - An impressive edit record. I've been investing my time recently in vandalism and etc., and since it's relatively new to me, he helped me and explained to me some important parts of it. A very friendly and admin-worthy editor! Dh993 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support None of the concerns are unforgivable. Generally a very good contributor. GDonato (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Very good editor, good contributions and the answers to questions including mine are very good. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is not not to make them, but to make sure that they won't repeat and I am convinced that he will be able to do that. Kudret abi 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I have seen Barneca making sensible arguments and I believe he's a mature person and is trustworthy. Will make a good admin the next time, if not this time. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Good luck with the tongue biting. LaraLove 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Believe will make a good admin. Davewild 07:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support While I appreciate the concerns regarding the Agüeybaná incident, I feel the applicant has learned from it and will go on to make a good admin. CitiCat ^♫ 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Bugger it, supporting now. I'm rejecting the Agüeybaná incident as something that will happen again and, I believe the candidate won't damage the project with adminship. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

    Um, do you mean "will not"? CitiCat ^♫ 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

32. Support I honestly believed that I gave my support here a few days ago, but upon checking back, noticed I had not! Whoops! Barneca will make a fine sysop. I think the opposes concerning the e-mail situation are rediculous. I remember Boricuaeddie's RfA, and recall watching the e-mail fiasco unfold and thinking that it was completely in line with the temper-related reasons Boricuaeddie's RfA failed in the first place. Barneca then found himself in the unenviable position of being defamed about a string of e-mails by an editor who was claiming that fully disclosing the e-mails would itself be defamation. That was a no-win situation. Disengagement should have been the course of action pursued by Barneca, and he has aknowledged this point ad nauseum. In fact, he was making this point during the dispute. Holding this against him now simply makes no sense. Hiberniantears 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I see some are supporting per the user's "ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations". I strongly disagree. My only experience with this editor was horrible. During my RfA, he opposed me because of my personal views, but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is what the editor did afterwards: He threatened to publish here on Wikipedia the contents of an e-mail conversation, which is prohibited by ArbCom ruling, replied nastily to my e-mails (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279#Off-wiki harassment), and was very uncivil. This, combined with his completely unsatisfactory mainspace contributions, which I believe plays an important role in the administration of this site, and his almost inexistent participation in some parts of the Wikipedia namespace, make me take this position. However, I truly wish you the best, and, if this RfA is successful, I trust you will be a fairly good admin. --Agüeybaná 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with your version of events, Agüeybaná, but I’m quite constrained in how I can reply, because much of our interaction that day happened via email. I can certainly live with your opposition to my RfA, especially as you seem to have other concerns about me in addition. But as I'm sure you can imagine, I’m also concerned about how others will interpret this, yet I’ve been at a bit of a loss as to how I was going to respond to your opposition. What I came up with is this: I’ll ask people to look at the thread on my talk page and the ANI thread to see how I handled this on-wiki, and if anyone has concerns about how I handled it off-wiki, I’ll address it by describing, in general, detail-less terms, how I view what happened by email. If no one seems to have concerns about the email, I won’t.

   In the mean time, I would ask you to re-read my first email to you one more time, if you still have it, and make sure you really think that what you describe above is what you think I was trying to do. --barneca (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I challenge you to find one mistake in what I said regarding the events that day. If you find something in there that isn't entirely true, I'll withdraw my opposition. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Would you prefer to discuss this here, on my/your talk page, or (in spite of how poorly this worked last time) via email? --barneca (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I would prefer this be discussed here, in public, as your behavior here is also being evaluated by editors. --Agüeybaná 21:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   OK. I won't have access to the emails sent to/from my Wikipedia email account until late tonight. My response will be semi-long; I'll post it on the talk page of this RfA tomorrow morning. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Note: I've now presented my point of view on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   On the link you provided, found here, You (User:Agüeybaná) stated that and I quote "I am afraid that if the information on that e-mail is revealed, it would be defamation and I would probably be forever harassed by other people." What did you mean by that exactly? Since we're discussing this out in the open. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Um, I don't know another way to explain it. The information on the e-mail was confidential and could be used against me. That's what I said, no? --Agüeybaná 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, precisley. It was supposed to be a private matter. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I think the relevant diff is here. Far from "threatening to publish" the email, Barneca stated that he had no intention of publicizing the contents of the email, both because it was against policy and because it would be the wrong thing to do. But realistically, if a user sent me an email that concerned me as to their fitness as an admin, and was simultaneously up at RfA, wouldn't you expect me to oppose on that basis? I don't see anything untoward here. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's what he told you. --Agüeybaná 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, the diff I cited was addressed to you, not me, and Barneca did as he said he would and kept the contents of the email confidential. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Who do you think told him it was against policy? He said that before he threatened to publish it via e-mail. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm asking why you think the E-mail could be used against you. What aspect of the Email would be "used against you"? I'm a bit perplexed with that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   The e-mail contains information regarding my support of a "terrorist" organization, which I think is more revolutionary than terrorist. I think that would have been used against me. --Agüeybaná 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   (←) I have stricken out some of my comments per this. --Agüeybaná 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Your contribs look good in terms of policy knowledge - but I'm concerned by some rather aggressive responses to other users, such as this edit, which seems an unnecessarily personal comment. Also this isn't the sort of response to a talkpage discussion I would expect to see of an admin. Often a great deal of patience and detachment are needed - in both cases you don't seem to demonstrate much of either. WjBscribe 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with your sentiments about the need for patience, but at the same time, if you've never had to ask (or firmly request) that an editor disengage/stop emailing you/stop posting to your talk page as part of a dispute, then you're much more fortunate or patient than I. After all, the first second step in WP:DR is disengagement, so I don't see the second diff as particularly out of line; if anything, it follows the prescribed steps to resolve a dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   WJBscribe, I'll try to briefly address your comments about on-wiki civility. The first second was a direct request that could have been worded more civilly, but certainly crossed no line, and I really don't see it as nasty. The second first was an accurate statement about their qualification to be an admin, which I think was perfectly appropriate, just as I have no problem with Agüeybaná opposing my RfA based on that same email. --barneca (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   And, something I've managed to neglect mentioning until now: I will, of course, try to watch my tongue better in the future, admin or editor. --barneca (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per WJBscibe and Agüeybaná. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose also per WJBscribe. Jmlk17 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per WJBscribe. Absolute serenity would certainly be an unachievable goal for admin candidates, but the diffs provided demonstrate an absolutely nasty, uncivil attitude when the proverbial shit hits the fan that I cannot support in a candidate. The way to deal with those who are uncivil is to be more civil, not less. VanTucky ^Talk 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per WJBscribe. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. STRONGLY OPPOSE: I have read the case with Agueybana, and this is ridiculous. The ethics employed by Barneca are outlandish, and quite frankly, offending. The fact that a E-threat was made to silence a wiki editor in my opinion is a bannable offense, and the notion of Barneca becoming admin is insane. I STRONGLY recommend voters to read through this case, you will see how skewed, unethical, and offending Mr. Barneca is. Also I agree with statements of Wikidudeman, Wjscribe, and the IP user above. While I might sound offending, I am not attacking Barneca's character. I am attacking his decisions made during his span on Wikipedia. Please understand this, and understand it is not meant to be personal no matter how it might sound. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs)

   Comment: This editor's comment should probably be viewed in the context of his contribution history ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc) and block log. I should also note that the IP !vote above is almost certainly a sockpuppet of this user, based on the shared contribs here and to Winter Park High School. This !vote should really be stricken. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yo, MastCell. Check this. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but this comment should probably be indented and struck out then, yes? GreenGopher 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

8. Opposeinvolvement with this shows poor judgement, while an veiled appology was offereddiff where you said I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good. you continued to edit [6] claims about OWB being a sockpuppet. To me that makes your fine statements here unbelievable. Gnangarra 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I feel more experience is needed in Wikipedia space - less than 300 is a little low - and the rather harsh comments made about others make me feel you need a little more time on Wikipedia yet. How about an admin coach? That should polish you up somewhat. Lradrama 08:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per WJBscribe and Gnangarra. Sarah 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Switch to oppose per Sara Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Threatening to post emails on wiki is a really bad idea. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Admins are nothing if they can't remain civil. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Do you really think the candidate can't remain civil? I have not seen any incivility besides that particular incident (which is being taken a little out of proportion here). Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Per WjBScribe -- Y not? 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose Sorry, but resolving to make only 500-750 edits per month is not a good thing for admins. Admins must be able to devote a lot of time to Wikipedia. Marlith ^T/C 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Marlith, I'm sorry to hear that, because I really can't resolve to spend more time on Wikipedia than I do now. (In fact, I'm not even really "resolving" to edit that much in the future; it's what I expect to do, but certainly not what I promise to do.) 500-750 edits per month is 6000-9000 edits per year; that seems pretty reasonable to me. Could you explain why someone can't be an admin without devoting more of their time to Wikipedia than I am doing now? If this RfA continues the way it is going, some more months of participating can at least convince some doubters that the episode with Agüeybaná won't be repeated, but I won't be able to convince you that I'll spend a lot more time here, because I'm sure I won't. --barneca (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    500 edits per month! Wow...just wow. That's addicted. Remember folks, Wikipedia isn't a paid job. And, we Wikipedians have real life obligations...not to mention the f-word (family). Miranda 02:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, admins don't have to be active or have a need for the tools. Tools that are not used frequently do not harm the encyclopaedia in any way. Everyone we can trust with the mop should ideally be an administrator. As a sidenote, 500-750 edits per month is quite a lot. Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. Per Agüeybaná and Marlith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestPointCadet (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    User's only edit. Miranda 02:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    If an uninvolved person (or, better yet, someone who opposed) could review the edit histories and comments by WestPointCadet, and Daniel Morales, and indent if you feel it’s appropriate, I’d appreciate it. I can pretty much read the writing on the wall, but still have a dream that this RfA isn’t 100% sunk yet, and the further the support/oppose ratio gets from 3:1, the less likely it is that editors who haven't commented yet (or who haven't visited again since commenting the first time) will feel the need to do so. --barneca (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

15. Email situation was too recent and worring, sorry. A good candidate who I hope will reapply in the future if this is unsuccessful, but at the moment I cannot support. Daniel 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, leaning toward support. Change to support. Phenomenal AIV work, excellent vandal fighting (from what I see, even without tools like twinkle), but I would like to see more AfD work. I too have limited knowledge of what to do with images - that's ok. We're trying to make an encyclopedia, not a photo album (that's Wikimedia Common's job). But because of the lack of AfD experience, I won't support for now. Try going to AfD an hour or so after the UTC day starts (which in Boston is 8 pm. I assume you live in Boston, due to your edits to Boston and Massachusetts related articles). At that time, there are only about 6 or 7 AfDs, so it's much less intimidating than later on in the UTC day, when there is quite the number of AfDs. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi J-stan, and thanks for the comment. It isn't so much intimidation, as disinclination. I didn't go to AfD in the last week or two to get some quick hits in that area, mostly because to do so right before an RfA would look pretty cheesy. But I'll tell you what, over the next few days I'll go to AfD and chime in on a few open cases, and that will still give you a few days to look them over before this RfA wraps up. I hesitate to take requests from everybody, but if someone thinks there's a particularly interesting/complicated/important AfD and you're curious how I'd respond to that particular one, feel free to point me in that particular direction. However, no promises I'll spend much time there in the future, whether this succeeds or not. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. You seem to have taken my comments seriously, and I find the ability to really listen a desirable quality in an admin. I have changed to support above. I wasn't saying you could have been intimidated by AfD, just that seeing a hundred different discussions going on is a bit much at first, so early in the "day", there are less discussions, so it's more comfortable (for me, at least) to voice your opinion there. It's ok if you don't spend a lot of time there (you have enough experience elsewhere), I just wanted you to have some experience there, just for balance. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

J-stan, following up, I've commented at the first three AfD's in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) (omitting computer-related questions, which would only demonstrate my ignorance of the subject). I'll look through a few more later. FYI, for what I consider cases of borderline notability, I'd probably be considered a deletionist as far as people, companies, and thinly disguided ads for products are concerned, and an inclusionist on most everything else, based on WP:NOT#PAPER. Also FYI, if someone forced me at gunpoint to participate in AfD closures, I would likely (a) Not do it for subjects I'm even remotely interested in, to avoid even an appearance of COI (I'd comment instead), (b) If I see a discussion has a consensus that doesn't violate policy, I'd close per consensus whether I agreed or not (or, similarly, as no consensus if that was applicable, even if I favored the change), and (c) If I see a discussion where i think consensus violates policy, I wouldn't close either way, but would instead leave my own comment stating as much. #::I won't close a debate against policy or against consensus; where they are at odds, I'd leave it for someone more fire-retardant than me. --barneca (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this person becoming an admin for this person constantly erases MY TALK PAGE, even thought there is nothing wrong with it and now I can't put anything up there without it being deleted and everytime i use wikipedia, i get the stupid "you have new messages" box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.3.205 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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.