Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feezo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Feezo[edit]

Final (47/1/6). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Feezo (talk · contribs) – I've been a Wikipedian for more than six years, during which I've tried my hand at most aspects of the project. For the past three months, I've found a niche in new page patrol, tagging more than 500 articles for speedy deletion with >99.8% accuracy. In January, I requested an editor review, in which I received both positive feedback and constructive criticism. I've done my best to live up to the praise and improve in the areas that needed work. I believe I now have sufficient knowledge and experience to use the administrator tools to benefit the project. Feezo (Talk) 09:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to continue my new page patrol work, which has included making reports on UAA and RPP. I believe I have a perfect accuracy rate on such reports and requests, and would enjoy keeping a watch on the noticeboards. I also have moderate experience on AfD, and would also be willing to help there from time to time as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Contentwise, I'm most proud of Perl, which I raised to GA. I'm also pleased with USS Bellatrix (AKA-3), which was one of my first substantial content contributions. But removal of inappropriate content is just as important as content creation. I keep a perpetual eye out for vandalism, libel, and copyright violations, particularly on new articles. I also take pride in the fact that I never practice "drive-by tagging". If an editor takes issue with a tagging, I am always willing to explain my rationale, and to change my mind if a good case can be made to keep the article — this has resulted in articles being saved and improved, e.g., Flevans Timothy Corrigan (interior designer).
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 gotten into a few conflicts, the records of which can be found on my talk page. I would prefer not to single anyone out as an example, but when disputes cannot be resolved through direct discussion, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution are always the next step. Seeking out neutral third parties is critical to resolving conflicts, and also serves as a way to ensure that one's own opinions aren't too off-base.

Additional question from Inka 888

4 If you were an admin, would you ever block a user without warning? Inka888 10:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Expanding — regular vandalism, copyright violations, and personal attacks don't merit immediate blocking.[reply]
A: Yes. There are cases where this is absolutely appropriate, for example, an obviously compromised account, or a user revealing certain kinds of non-public information. Expanding: a user who discloses another editor's home address without their consent should be immediately blocked. An account that is being used for rapid automated spamming or vandalism should be immediately blocked. An account in obvious violation of WP:UNP can be blocked without warning. Enforcement of Wikipedia:General sanctions can also include such blocks. Regular vandalism, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc., do not merit immediate blocking.
Additional question from 28bytes
5. Some editors below have expressed concern about the low amount of editing activity in 2009 and 2010. What are your thoughts on this?
A: I totally understand their concerns, so here's the missing context: In 2008, I transferred from community college to a four year university. This was a wonderful, exhilarating experience, but also very, very time consuming. The result was effectively a wikibreak, but at no point did I consider leaving the project. I did and continue to believe in Wikipedia's mission, and I am here for the long haul. One other note — since Hokeman suggested mentoring, I should mention that I considered this back in 2006, and participated in the admin coaching project at User:Feezo/Admin coaching.
Additional question from Coffee
6. What is your understanding of WP:BLP, and what further protective measures (if any) would you like to see the project implement?
A: It's an important policy. Inaccurate biographies do more to harm Wikipedia than inaccuracies in most other types of articles. The BLPPROD process was an important milestone for the project, and I use it regularly. I'm impressed by the progress made by WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. As discussed at the village pump and this RfC, I support the proposal of requiring autoconfirmation to create new articles, which would likely reduce the creation rate problematic biographies.
Additional question from Lambanog
7. Please explain "default to keep" at AfDs. What Wikipedia policies or guidelines, if any, apply to the rationale?
A: "Default to keep" has roots in Wikipedia:Consensus, since future consensus is more difficult to reach when the article has been deleted. I've seen "no consensus" keeps subsequently gain near-unanimous support for deletion. The idea generally makes sense, since harmful material in an article should be removed according to other policies and guidelines anyway. Once that's done, there's no urgent reason to delete what remains before the next nomination. There are exceptions. WP:BLP should take precedence regarding biographies. For example, when deciding whether to keep an article on a crime victim, particularly a minor who is not otherwise a public figure, the default should be to delete.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. With 6 years and over 9000 edits (over 7000 active edits) to the site, I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Longterm user with a clean block log, and from the batch I checked very accurate and fairly cautious CSD tagging. I haven't looked at the GA but the combination of you having one and also being active in an area that demonstrates a need for the tools makes you in my opinion a fully qualified candidate. The low activity levels in much of 2010 don't concern me in the slightest as I consider your activity in the last four months indicates that you are back up to speed with the community. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Buick, WSC, and the self-nom statement. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - This RfA is a bit premature, but I have no concerns that this user will abuse the tools. S/he will do a fine job. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support After more than two years of inactivity, a few more months of editing before an RfA would be ideal. Still, if everything looks good I suppose there's no harm in it. Swarm X 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support I really don't want to pile on the Neutral section, as I voted Neutral on a lot of RfAs in the past. I think you're in good standing, so this is the reason why I support this nomination. I'd like to see a slightly longer answer to Q4 though... I think your Q4 answer is good enough. Minimac (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. An editor who has done good work for a number of years decides to return to active editing and wants to help out by taking up the tools. Excellent. Contributions over the last few weeks alone demonstrate that the candidate is competent, proficient in the application of relevant policies, and has the right temperament for the job. I would point to the excellent record of speedy deletions, good AfD contributions ([1] and [2]), and seeking a third opinion to resolve conflict with another editor. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per WereSpielChequers. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per most of the above, and the quite reasonable answer to question 5. 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support wiooiw (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Lower levels of activity are not a convincing reason to oppose to me -- what counts is trustworthiness as measured by past experience on the project. Wikipedia is something we do in our spare time, and the amount of free time we all have naturally fluctuates. That's not a reason to consider someone untrustworthy. Steven Walling 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I would strongly suggest that the candidate slows down with their A3 work, as a look through Feezo's deleted contributions reveals a number of A3 tags placed within 5 minutes of article creation. Apart from this, though, I see a courteous user whose new page patrolling is quite accurate.  -- Lear's Fool 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. See no problems, though agree that slowing down on the A3 tags would be better conduct. 10 minutes minimum, I would suggest, in the absence of the article being disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No reason to think they would abuse the tools, meets my criteria Pol430 talk to me 11:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Moved from 'oppose' because 1. I've been able now to see their content work. 2. Their highly concentrated work on page patrolling is going to be a huge asset that I hadn't considered before, 3. I'm satisfied with the expanation for the long absence, and 4. Because adminship is a matter of trust and while nobody is perfect (especially new admins), I have absolutely no reason to suspect that he would abuse the power of the bit. I still maintain my comments below that broadening their sphere of activity would be a plus. Kudpung (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Yes, I'm confident I can trust this person. Orphan Wiki 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good luck. Jessy T/C 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support He'll be fine. WayneSlam 21:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per WereSpielChequers, trustworthy user. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:49am • 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support—I can trust you with the mop. You did say you wanted to work at RFPP, where nearly all of your requests are from within the past two months for create-protections; however, page protection is relatively straightforward. Another thing to nitpick on: while reviewing some of your recent CSD nominations, I think it would have been a good idea for you to request the suppression of the content in Vvithurshan (which I have done). When a minor gives out personal info, it's best to render it inaccesible even to admins. Airplaneman ✈ 03:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support. I looked at all of the aspects in my view that an admin would require (responsible user, no vandalism, no edit warring, etc.). You looked great until I saw huge gaping hole in your contributions where nothing had happened for long periods of time. I'd put my money on this guy being a decent semi-active administrator, but not on being the best person in the world. Good luck. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 06:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – I trust this user with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 06:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Four months of recent activity is enough activity for me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. We certainly need more hands on page patrol, and these look like good hands. I'm not too bothered about the long-ish quiet spell, as there are more than enough edits over the past few months for me to check - and I see no problems -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Give him a mop and carry on at new page patrol - we need the help! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Whilst I echo the comments above re: new page patrol, I'm very impressed with your handling of accusations here, where you remained helpful in the face of a difficult editor. The fact you went on to ask if you could improve on how you handled it at your editor review ensures my support WormTT · (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Feezo has good contributions and a good understanding of policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Thoughtful answer to my question. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Experienced, trustworthy editor. -- Ϫ 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Top notch PassaMethod talk 11:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Sure thing, no problems with this candidate. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Good edits, good answers to questions. One two three... 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support' after a review of contributions. Saw a great deal of level-headedness in the handful of Talk discussions I wandered through. --joe deckertalk to me 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support A good editor, another well deserved mop to be handed out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support All indications are positive and gain my confidence. I have good expectations which I suspect will be exceeded. My76Strat (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No red flags. --Banana (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support Nothing great, but nothing bad. I wish the nominee didn't disappear, since we don't need admins leaving all the time.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I went through the candidate's edit history pretty carefully, and I think that I see a net positive here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No concerns. Juliancolton (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Has good answers to questions and a great amount of edits.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 23:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support The user's contributions to New Page Patrol speak for themselves and he would be a valuable addition to Speedy Deletion as an admin :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: A "before the bell" support. User is "go for mop". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No reason to oppose. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 09:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose (moved to support) You've been with Wikipedia for a long time, but also with long periods of extremely low activity. I've just gone through your last three months edits of around 400 - 500 a month and they seem to be almost exclusively connected with New Page Patrolling and the associated user talk templating. While your page patrolling is excellent, I see little else that meets my my criteria for adminship. I would like to see more content contributions, and participation in policy and other semi-admin debates that demonstrate a knowledge of the functions of sysop. I think you need to broaden your experience in areas that you can get as close to as possible without needing the tools, and I'm sure that if you focus on these areas and with the same success as your page patrolling, you will soon be ready for adminship if you edit regularly. --Kudpung (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not now. I was actually weak support at first. And sorta feel "neutral". So this is a pretty "weak" oppose. Really, I think you could do fine, but would like to see a little more work from you. Have done a little more research: read talk page, read user page, looked at the editor review, looked at Perl article (relevant diff of month-long improvement [3], read the spinout of the Perl article, looked at the ship article. Basically, I would prefer a bit more content creation and participation in the project. Pretty similar overall rationale to Kudpung although with some nuance differences. The GA is decent work, but looking over it, it was a save, not one where you built the majority of it. There were a few places where you added refs (that sorta tells me new content was coming in, not just a re-org). The ship article had no sources (fine, I guess on the copyright, but not showing synthetic creation.) Just a little more work in the "making something" mode would benefit you to understand what we are doing here. Then back to cleaning away rubbish at NPP. I don't care too much about the break in service. We have people come and go all the time. A better solution for the concern of inactive sysops would be term-limited adminship (would also make the moderators more a class of normal users, returning to normal citizenship after a term). As far as spending time in admin-lite areas to merit the tools, I don't always see this as a need. Someone like the two RFAs below(or say Sandy or Tony) where it is obvious the user is life-seasoned and capable of synthesizing and thinking, I don't need them to show some specific mop-handling skills...I would feel confident with them in the corporate work world in all kinds of staff assignments and some buttons on WP don't bug me. They can figure out both mechanics and norms of usage. For someone who is mostly a "janitor", perhaps it is a little more important to do some of the admin training work first. Net, net: actually pretty positive on you (liked the CSD linked essay from your page). Just do some more contribution first. Please.TCO (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi -- maybe I'm misreading it, but your oppose actually, as you say in closing, reads to me as "actually pretty postive", as you put it. Are you sure this isn't better parked in neutral, all things considered? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah...it is a pretty fucking weasely caveated oppose isn't it? TCO (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TCO, do you ever support RfA candidates? :P Swarm X 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vastonily and Fae pass the bar. They have added enough referenced content. (I agree with your joke though, and no worries, I was making fun of myself, too.)TCO (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, although I was indulging in self-deprecation, the oppose is a considered one, based on the research and reasons in my post.TCO (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per my standards, specifically the lengthy gap of activity prior to the most recent burst. I will investigate further and observe the discussion for some time, but my initial thoughts land me here. Good luck! Strikerforce (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral A veteran Wikipedian with a long-term near dormant period in 2009 & 2010. Since December 2010, while there has been some terrific work at NPP, there is little else to demonstrate that you are ready to be a sysop. I would suggest mentoring and strengthening your credentials. Based on what I see in your body of work, you will someday be a top-drawer administrator.--Hokeman (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per above neutrals, and gap in edits. CTJF83 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Q4's answer could be more comprehensive. Also, Flevans is not what I'd call "improved". Pretty solid candidate, but I find myself agreeing with Hokeman above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's not the best example, but it did turn out to not be a clear candidate for speedy deletion. Anyway, since two people have commented on it, I will expand my answer to Q4. Feezo (Talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still missing sockpuppets and the like :). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I could quote the relevant section of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, but I don't have much to add to it. The rest of the criteria are relatively straightforward. Unauthorized bots, socks, open proxies, public, and vandalism/spam-only accounts may be blocked without warning. Feezo (Talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I (Moved to support) join this discussion with a neutral bias. When information gives good reason, I will enunciate that reason under the appropriate header to the regards engendered. My76Strat (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I though you quit, man? TCO (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. Strat decided to reconsider retirement upon the request of 49 editors, including Jimbo. See their talk page. Swarm X 09:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No one tells me about these polls. Belated support against My76Strat leaving, obviously. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some confusion, followed by crystal clarity. I don't perceive any good reason not to continue, and have been thoroughly convinced there are none. I did want to say that my initial observations are predominantly positive and my inclination is leaning towards support of this candidate. I feel in the absence of a smoking gun, the full remittance of my regard will append under support. My76Strat (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Per above. Baseball Watcher 22:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now, leaning oppose. Answer to my question is insufficient. One can argue WP:Consensus is neutral and WP:Burden gives clearer guidance raising a cloud over the whole rationale for default to keep. Lambanog (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One could. But WP:BURDEN is a particular case of WP:VERIFY, which certainly doesn't apply to all deletion discussions. AfD is intended to produce consensus for an action, and without consensus, shouldn't the result be to take no action? Feezo (Talk) 05:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verify is a powerful theoretical argument here on Wikipedia based as it is on a pillar. WP:Consensus is of the same class but is not explicit. I believe there is another policy that is. Identify it. Lambanog (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VERIFY applies to all articles of course, but it is not usually the driving issue in AfDs. I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly, but I take it you object to the current standard practice of "default to keep"? Feezo (Talk) 11:57, 22 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Feezo&oldid=1088281724"