Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pats1

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.

Pats1[edit]

Final (40/5/3); Originally scheduled to end 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 (talk · contribs) - In recent months, I have scaled back alot of my editing to focus on the maintenance and improvement of some specific articles, usually politicians, geographical locations, and American football topics. In that time, I have come to know Pats1 as a fastidious fact checker, a committed updater, and a fair-minded vandal whacker. It is my belief that this user would make for both a great everyday admin (RfA closings, blocks, protection, deletions, rollbacks, etc) and a top-notch topical admin, as pro football articles are heavily vandalized and prone to edit warring. As Wikipedia grows both in popularity AND total number of pages, the community needs to seek out user who would not only handle the mop system-wide, but would also patrol topics prone to POV and whatnot. This is exactly what Pats1 brings to the table. He can at once make sure that our coverage of the National Football League is as accurate as possible AND help to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Pats1 T/C 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: WP:AfD, WP:TfD, and WP:RfPP are all familiar processes to me and therefore I would get my feet wet in those before broadening my scope to WP:AIV, WP:ANI, etc. There is also many times where I've had to give multiple level-4 vandalism notices in short spans where with admin tools I'd be able to block when the appropriate warning system had been exhausted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A large part of my contributions to Wikipedia has come from working on WP:NFL. Last spring, I worked with a few other users to create new templates for the project, and, with one of those users, I make daily updates to NFL roster templates to keep them accurate. I have also worked with WP:PATS to improve the New England Patriots and related articles, including multiple single season articles (such as 2007 New England Patriots season). I feel that I am very dedicated to Wikipedia, and save for a few days away from a computer, I've been carefully keeping track of all 1,000+ pages on my watchlist for about 6 months now. I also feel I have maintained a good balance between anti-vandalism work and content improvement on Wikipedia.
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 will readily admit I have been in multiple situations like this. San Diego Chargers is the major one, where I was involved in an edit conflict with a newer user. I didn't follow WP:BITE as well as I could of, and this regrettably resulted in the page being protected for a certain period of time. This is certainly something I have taken account of in my editing in the five months since. In those months, I have also been a witness to a minor content dispute escalating into an Admin's Noticeboard incident. One of the editors involved I do a lot of NFL editing with and I know from outside of Wikipedia, so I was asked to comment on the situation. And through this, I learned more about WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:CONSENSUS than I ever have wanted to (I was familiar with all of them prior to the incident, but had only reported users for 3RR). While I was only involved in the original content dispute and not its escalation and repercussions, I followed the situation closely enough to get a very good understanding of what can happen when editing takes a back seat to flamethrowing and perpetual irrelevant and unnecessary disputes. And while I've unfortunately been in minor conflicts since then, the more I experience them, the more I realize the futility of what I am doing and attempt to de-escalate the situation that I took far too seriously to start off with. Perhaps the #1 lesson these ordeals have taught me is to simply "chill" when things get heated.

Optional question from Joe

4. Have you, at any time during your Wikipedia career, surreptitious used recording devices to gain an advantage in a content dispute? If so, were you simply laboring under an incorrect interpretation of the rules, or are you plainly a cheater all of whose achievements over the past several years must be called into question? Joe 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is. We're just trying to get ready for the Dolphins this week. Pats1 T/C 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I'm long past being in playing shape, and I'm ready for the Dolphins next week. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Ksy92003

5. How strict would you be in regards to dealing with violations of policies such as WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT? Ksy92003(talk) 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It very much would depend on the situation at hand. Newer users would most certainly have to be introduced to all three of those policies before any disciplinary action could be taken against them. Even for more experienced users, unless the infraction was extremely offensive or disruption, I would issue warnings to the party(ies) involved. If the incivility/harassment/edit warring continued pursuant to those policies, then a block would be in order. Pats1 T/C 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good responses. I've got a bit of a surprise to give you :) Ksy92003(talk) 23:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. How do you feel about policies such as WP:COI and WP:AGF? Do you think there should be some punishment for users who fail to follow these behavior guidelines, and how severe are violations of these in comparison to violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, for example? Ksy92003(talk) 06:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that there should be punishment initially for those who violate COI. If it's obvious that a COI is taking place (i.e. a very non-notable person as the subject of a new article, or a user adding intimate details to an article that shares the name of their username), I would delete the article if it's non-notable or tag it if it's notable but needs work to remove the COI parts. If a user persists to add info or create articles that are prohibited under COI, then I believe disciplinary action is appropriate. As far as AGF goes, I will warn users who do not assume good faith to non-vandalism accounts. Since not assuming GF is essentially also violating CIVIL and NPA, the punishments should be on the same level. Pats1 T/C 12:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. When it comes to deleting pages, in which cases should an admin delete it themselves or nominate it for AfD? Ksy92003(talk) 01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it qualifies for speedy deletion, the admin. If it doesn't, AfD. Pats1 T/C 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Kim Bruning

8. What is the policy trifecta. Why did the author pick those policies? Do you agree with them?
Do I agree with the policies themselves? Of course, I'm sure there's not too many experiences Wikipedians who don't agree with guidelines and policies. How and why the policies and guidelines are arranged under "a trifecta" is not important to me. I honestly think that article is rather pointless, and the policies/guidelines should be followed whether or not they're "corollaries" of others. Pats1 T/C 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several experienced wikipedians claim that the 3 trifecta guidelines are all the guidelines you'll ever need - provided you follow them carefully. Do you agree with those people? Why or why not? --Kim Bruning 01:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I feel all guidelines and policies are all important. Some have more core importance than others, but I'd rather spend my time contributing to Wikipedia than philosophizing over which ones are more important. Pats1 T/C 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latter of which is the whole point of having simplified rulesets. ;-) --Kim Bruning 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but going a step further, what's the point of having simplified rulesets, and why would one "ruleset" make the difference over another? Pats1 T/C 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you know all of the wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays by heart? --Kim Bruning 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) also, does this mean you're not a fan of The five pillars either?[reply]
Of course ;). I agree with and know the "five pillars," but just because they're "pillars" doesn't mean they should be followed more than all other policies and guidelines. Pats1 T/C 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough answer, I guess. What's your opinion on m:Foundation issues in that context? --Kim Bruning 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Now I'm just curious though, last question here, I promise! :-)[reply]
Yes, those aren't even policies, but rather what makes Wikipedia exist. Pats1 T/C 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. (A contrived situation that might have happened:) 3 users are all members of special interest group X, and don't see anything wrong with an article. A fourth user comes along and tries to edit towards a more neutral point of view, but is watched carefully by the other 3 who try to trip her up and report her at every opportunity. You see a report on the admins noticeboard (incidents): "User 4 is being uncivil", and indeed she does seem to have become rather antagonistic of the other three. How do you proceed?
On what grounds would the other 3 be "reporting" the 4th for? Editing for a neutral point of view and being uncivil are two separate cases; the former doesn't qualify as the latter. So if the user was being uncivil somewhere else, then appropriate action would be taken, but it wouldn't have to do with the NPOV edits. Pats1 T/C 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical user #4 has gotten frustrated and upset, because (for instance) all of her edits are being reverted. She has become uncivil regarding the page she was trying to edit for NPOV. Perhaps she's started swearing, or perhaps she no longer assumes good faith. The 3 are now reporting her on that basis. --Kim Bruning 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would explain to Users 1-3 why they are in the wrong, remind both parties to hold a discussion if there are editing issues, and remind User 4 about civility. Pats1 T/C 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Do you promise to apply WP:WOTTA in future?
In cases where I feel the reader may be confused, yes. However, that's just a preference by some, not a policy or a guideline. I've never seen this essay before, and I noticed you are the creator of that page. So I'm sure you want me to "promise to apply" it, but no, I will not do such. Not entirely sure how it applies on an RfA either. Pats1 T/C 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; it's a humorous way to ask if you promise to use English in normal conversations. That way, new or irregular users will be able to understand what you are saying, and learn from your example. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll speak Swahili instead ;) Pats1 T/C 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Piotrus
11: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I respect the system that is already in place in regards to removing admins from service. Pats1 T/C 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pats1 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support and Go Pats! He (she?) knows what he's doing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have encountered Pats1 in many places around Wikipedia. They will make a good administrator. Acalamari 21:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Go Pats. Very nice contribs to football articles. I would like to say that you should use edit summaries more often, but you appear to have activated the empty summary notice. Happy administrating! J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - OK, looks good to me. Welcome to the madness. - Philippe | Talk 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nom. Will be a great specialty and general purpose mop holder. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Boo! Nobody likes the Patriots. T Rex | talk 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Very active recently with more than 9000 mainspace edits.Find no concerns in edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Actually, I like the Patriots. And I like Pats1 SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. I've seen this guy around a lot (between him, Alakazam, and myself, we do a lot of work on NFL-related articles. And it can definitely be a hassle keeping POV out, not to mention making sure everything is updated. Anyway, I hate the Patriots and pray every day they don't go undefeated (easiest division), but I like this guy. He's a great editor (hasn't used edit summaries all that great in the past, but he does now). Not a ton of Wikipedia namespace edits, but he understands policy and I think he'll make a great administrator. Useight 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Of course Jaranda/Jbeach56 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as long as Pats1 is willing to admit that Oakland got wicked screwed. :) faithless (speak) 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never! It was the correct application of a flawed rule. ;) Pats1 T/C 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I can agree with that. faithless (speak) 03:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Y not? 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A very good editor who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support He/she's a Patriots fan, and that makes me unhappy. However, he/she's a great contributor, and that makes me happy. And that's better than giving me gas. east.718 at 07:19, 10/19/2007
  15. Daniel 09:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. What are these "Patriots"? Neil ☎ 11:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? :) We're talking about the New England Patriots, sometimes called the "Pats". J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that no outside of Anglo-America really gives a crap about the NFL (their loss, I might add). youngamerican (wtf?) 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the NFL? (I live in New Jersey). -- Y not? 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Yep, no problems. Phgao 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Agree with faithless (speak), though I think the officials should have ignored said rule.  :) -- Folic_Acid | talk  13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Nominee's contribs look really good. This RfA also gets major points for the funniest optional question I've ever read. Well done. GlassCobra 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Appears to be a quality editor and has has learnt from his possible mistakes. Tiddly-Tom 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good editor - even though the Pats beat the Cowboys. :-( Carlossuarez46 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support even though there's all that red -- Sox and edit summaries! Seriosuly, massive edit count and civility counts. Bearian 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support User's answer to my question shows that he would know how to deal with conflicts in regards to incivility and bad behavior. No reason to believe that he would abuse admin powers. Ksy92003(talk) 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Answers to questions are good. They have need for the tools.--Sandahl 02:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - You're article work is absolutely great. Just remember to focus on Wikipedia-space too, especially as as an admin, and please don't neglect the edit summary! Lradrama 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support John254 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak support. I'd like to see more edit summary usage, and some more experience in projectspace, but we sorely lack Real football admins, and my concerns are rather petty, so i support. Wizardman 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 16-0 that is all gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Nothing wrong with this user. Give him the green light. SoxrockTalk/Edits 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support As per it is what it is. Hiberniantears 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Very helpful; would be a great admin. --Brewcrewer 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - support Mrs.EasterBunny 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Great job, I'm surprised you weren't a sysop by now. jj137 (Talk) 02:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - of course. Rudget Contributions 17:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Aside from our strong similar tastes in sports teams, I trust this user. Yanksox 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No one here has ever hated Pats1 as much as I used to back when I knew him on an internet forum. However, he is a fair, intelligent and reasonable editor and a great contributor. Definitely support.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support The oppose reasons don't look convincing to me. Jehochman's link does not convince me that Pats will abuse the tools, and regreatably admins sometimes need to express opnions frankly and frimly. If anything, the link shows Pats can do this. Though an oppose does not need to be supported with diffs, it is hard to give weight to one that does not. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A great contributor to the project and would be a wonderful admin. I have no reason to believe that he will abuse the tools. AngelOfSadness talk 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]

To be honest, I'm not sure Pats1 is ready for admin-ship. Ksy92003(talk) 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Not to badger an opposer, I just think that Pats1 could benefit from your constructive criticism. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ksy92003 seems to be involved in a content dispute that Pats1 has taken an interest in. - Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, it's because of some of the recent disputes between Chris and I. I had said something about Chris, and Pats1 intervenes to Chris' defense. I'm not arguing that Pats1 can't defend Chris if he wants to, but that sometimes it appears that he may become too involved in discussions between other users which it would be better off if Pats1 never intervened. This happened just the day before this RfA was opened, and I don't believe that this is a good way for somebody to behave so close to an RfA nomination. It was too recent that this last occured, and while I do see that Pats1 has contributed greatly to reverting vandalism, I fear that he might have difficulty resolving conflicts, which is something an admin would have to do quite frequently.
I was just about to say this, but I see that Majoreditor (talk · contribs) already touched up on this. I believe that the way that Pats1 jumped into the conversation there wasn't a good decision by somebody who knew they were gonna receive an RfA any time soon. Ksy92003(talk) 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose(now neutral) Let me supply constructive criticism. Pats1 very recently made these inflammatory comments. An administrator should not behave this way. - Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was willing to let those remarks slide until Pats1 re-instated my concerns with his gossip about Kim Brunning. Administrators need to have a thick skin and cannot react this way to such minor, perceived insults. - Jehochman Talk 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Through my interaction, although limited, I've picked up that Pats1 is overly confrontational, something I don't want to see in a prosective admin candidate. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs to support your opposition comment. After doing so, you may unstrike it. — Thomas H. Larsen 03:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I un-struck Maxim's comment. Thomas, please do not strike other users' comments. WODUP (?) 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas, you don't need diffs to back up your statements. Do you see the link at the top of the page? It says voice your opinion. Above's my opinion on Pats1, acquired over a few months. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 12:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, whereabouts was this? I can't recall running into you before on Wikipedia. Pats1 T/C 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More indirectly than directly, I've run it Chris and Ksy many, many times, and I felt that you where a bit confrontational with both of them. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I thought long an hard about this before casting my vote. I vaciliated between Oppose and Neutral for quite some time. In the end, it doesn't look like my vote will make a difference anyway. In any case, I think Pats1 is a very valuable contributor to wikipedia, and certainly a hard worker. I've had many agreements & disagreements with him, but I do respect him as an editor. I do have some reservations about past instances i've seen involving edit warring, comments fights, and what I perceive to be WP:OWN issues. Don't get me wrong, I think Pats1 will make an excellent administrator some day, I just wish he would have a little more time as an editor to work on these things first. Bjewiki 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I abhor single-issue !voting at RFA, so this is some self-hate. The reply above, "just because they're 'pillars' doesn't mean they should be followed more than all other policies and guidelines", is a deal breaker. Policy and guidelines derive from the 5P, or in some cases are codified good practice that does not conflict with the 5P. Foundational policy thus trumps all other policy. Administrators will on rare occasions come across situations in which policies appear to conflict, do not appear to apply, or lead to clearly unencyclopedic results. They will thus required to retrench and make judgment calls based on the 5P. I do not trust the judgment, on administrative matters, of a user who does not understand the role of foundational policy. (On a side note, if this ignorance is not limited to this user, Kim Bruning's questions needs to be part of the 'standard optional' questions.) - BanyanTree 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to strongest oppose in my nearly three years on Wikipedia, per these posts by Pats1. Quoting comments about Kim Bruning and myself, "To me, it seems like they both were part of the creation of those '5 pillars' and 'Trifecta' and such, unwaveringly subscribe to that point of view. I almost got the impression that Kim Bruning was trying to promote his ideology more than ask me serious RfA questions, while Branyan Tree was opposing just to make a point and do the same" and "It seems like they're just two special interests users that have larger goals and won't play a factor in deciding the RfA." While Youngamerican's subsequent advice is quite politic, I'm afraid that the situation is far beyond that. It's been a long time since I've felt this personally insulted on the wiki. Besides the AGF issues, the candidate clearly not only believes that the core policies do not exist (and apparently the foundation page was made for fun), but that those who mention them are part of some fringe group. - BanyanTree 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way. In fact, I do feel the same way myself: insulted. Pats1 T/C 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're insulted that Kim Bruning sussed out that you don't believe the site has foundational policy? Or you're insulted that I pointed out your public conversation in which you portray those foundational policies as fringe doctrines? Could you be more specific? BanyanTree 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both, now that you mentioned it. Because both are gross misinterpretations of what I said. As far as the "fundamental policies" go, I never said that "I don't believe the site has [them]." I never said I don't believe in them. Rather, I said that how policies and guidelines are labeled and categorized is of very little consequence to me. I'm indifferent to whether or not a policy or guideline is a "corollary" of another or whether it's part of the "Trifecta." I'm in no way saying I reject the fundamental policies themselves (as I obviously don't), nor do I reject the way they're organized nor do I want them organized in a different fashion. I just simply believe time could be better spent than philosophizing over which policies are more important than others. They are there to follow and implement. And when did I refer to them as "fringe doctrines?" The only thing I can think you're referring to is when I said that I believe there is some degree of advertising or soapboxing going on here. And I don't think I'm being disruptive in expressing such a belief. When I'm asked if I will "promise to apply WP:WOTTA in the future," an essay created by none other than the user asking the question, I do feel somewhat insulted. It wasn't (as far as I can tell) a joke, but rather an attempt on Kim Bruning's part to advertise/promote his or her ideology in an (to me) inappropriate setting - an RfA. I think the same can be said for Piotrus' question. I just can't see any other purpose on his or her part in asking that other than to recruit me for that cause. Again, if such a program is "completely voluntary" then why would it influence an RfA vote and thus be appropriate as an optional question? So yes, I am a tad bit perturbed when, as I see it, an RfA is subtly used as an ad board or a soapbox. Pats1 T/C 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In Pats' defense, I thought the same thing when I saw that the other user had asked those same questions to several RfAs. It seemed like she was trying to promote her pages in a way that she shouldn't have. I’d never heard of any of those pages either, and I thought they should’ve been taken with a grain of salt. Banyan, to me it’s somewhat curious that you’re immediately coming to Kim’s defense. Ksy92003(talk) 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully, my position is clarified in the edit-conflicted post below. - BanyanTree 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Repeating your words again: "it seems like they both were part of the creation of those '5 pillars' and 'Trifecta' and such, unwaveringly subscribe to that point of view". (Since I wasn't here in 2001, I obviously could not have been part of creating core policy.) Also: "Kim Bruning was trying to promote his ideology more than ask me serious RfA questions." Characterization of core policy as a "point of view" and an "ideology" of a particular user can be fairly described as characterizing them as "fringe doctrine". Your questioning of my word choice comes with mention of "an attempt on Kim Bruning's part to advertise/promote his or her ideology." Kim was attempting to elicit some thoughtfulness as to how you view the policies that you would be implementing, and occasionally extrapolating from, as an admin, which is an entirely appropriate line of query in an RFA. Your lack of comprehension, and resentment at being asked to think in this direction, is illuminating. Admins will on occasion be called upon to make judgments in weird situations where policies appear to conflict, simply have not been written or are being used to disruptive or unencyclopedic ends. I had considered whether you would be the type of person to pass on an issue to AN or a more experienced admin when you get in over your head, but your conduct here inspires little confidence that you would be aware when this happens. RFA is about trust and my trust in your judgment, on issues of moppery of course, is limited to cases where judgment is not required. I'm about as solid as I've ever been on a !vote so this will probably be my last post here, as I don't think I have anything left to say.
    P.S. I'm not particularly interested in Piotrus' query, but it's probably worth pointing out that the WOTTA question was almost certainly a jocular commentary on the density of shortcut-speak in your response to the standard questions. Given the number of jokes, inside or not and including one in question form, by your supporters, jumping to the conclusion that the one joke you don't get is an attempt to recruit you to "a cause" is probably an overreaction. - BanyanTree 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kim's questions may have been a bit irrelevant to some users, but Pats1's response was absolutely uncalled for, and remarkably calculating. "What about just not responding at all? It seems like they're just two special interests users that have larger goals and won't play a factor in deciding the RfA." Wikipedia is not a game of chess, and RFA shouldn't be either. Pats1 seems to be operating under the assumption that his/her "move" should be based on how it'll affect his/her popularity, and that's an extremely dangerous assumption to make. Ral315 » 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain what you mean by "dangerous assumption" to make. Pats1 T/C 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Until someone can explain to me what the 'recording devices' question is alluding to, or explain the inside joke I'm missing. Daniel 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke. Joe was referring to Patriotgate, where the Patriots used video cameras to steal signals from the Jets' coaches. [1] east.718 at 07:16, 10/19/2007
I figured that I was missing some joke :) Support as mandated by my 06:20 comment. Daniel 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral based upon this conversation, which was an outgrowth of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. This thread dealt with an editor who's post-arbitration and who (although he has problems of his own) had also been trolled by a sneaky vandal and a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor for most of his time as a Wikipedian. It's touch-and-go to see whether this person will adapt to site standards and succeed as an editor. One of the most important things we can do right now is to set the right example regarding WP:NOT#Not a battleground so that maybe he'll come around. I have some concerns about giving the mop to someone who steps in with remarks that don't move the situation forward and could be read as flippant. If Pats1 had remained calm and opened a content WP:RFC instead I'd be a lot more confident about seeing him with the tools. DurovaCharge! 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (also applies to Oppose section) The whole Chrisjnelson/Jmfangio/Ksy92003 situation (and the respective ANI's/ArbCom's that went on over the past few months) was what I was referring to when answering Question #3 here. Both Ksy92003 and I have taken steps to put this behind us, and if Chrisjnelson wasn't blocked as he was now, I'm sure he'd also be doing so. This has been occurring at Wikipedia:Editor review/Ksy92003 if anyone is interested in checking it out. Pats1 T/C 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Durova. Your comments in the above-cited conversation weren't helpful. I'd like to think you've put the episode behind you, but I still have concerns. Ad hominem tactics just days before you submit an RfA - what were you thinking? Majoreditor 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In regards to the conversation alluded to by Durova, that is another situation related to the Ksy92003/Chrisjnelson conflicts. A few weeks before that, there was a discussion between Ksy92003, Chrisjnelson, and I that eventually spun off into another skirmish between Ksy92003 and Chrisjnelson resulting in Chrisjnelson being blocked for 1 day by Durova. Both Chris and I, as observers of what had happened, felt the blcok was unjust and this was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Chrisjnelson block by Durova. At that time, Durova gave "a caveat that (she) may refuse to act in the future" and that "(Her) user talk page is not the site's complaints department.". Well, soon enough, Ksy92003 and Chrisjnelson got back into it at Talk:Michael Vick, and Ksy92003 reported an "uncivil comment" on Durova's talk page, the conversation linked to by Durova. This time, despite issuing that warning the last time, Durova went ahead and gave Chrisjnelson a 1-week ban. Now, if Chrisjnelson hadn't been on ArbCom "probation," what he said probably wouldn't have been enough to get him banned. But I still felt this block was in some ways unjust. I certainly shouldn't have let my emotions get the best of me as they did and posted what I did. At the same time, that issue with Ksy92003 on my talk page (I believe was linked to in one of the oppose comments) arose, stemming from the comments I had made on Durova's talk page. I was tweaked enough by the whole thing and wanted to start another ANI discussion, but felt it wasn't necessary and dropped the issue on both my talk page and Durova's. That was when I decided enough was enough and reviewed Ksy92003 in an effort to make peace and end what was only a situation going to hell in a handbasket. Pats1 T/C 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't block Chris for the post that prompted the complaint; I blocked him because shortly afterward he came to my own user talk page and made a particularly crass insult to another editor. Really, how can anyone post-arbitration come to an administrator's user space, tell somebody to grow a pair, and not expect a block? (To non-native English speakers who read this, that's slang for saying a man doesn't have any testicles). I can't remember ever voting oppose at RFA, but with this as the explanation I'm beginning to think Pats1 isn't cut out for it. We need sysops who quench the flames rather than fan them. DurovaCharge! 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting into what Chris did or didn't do and where (as I don't even know myself, I don't have time to follow all that drama), I would appreciate it if you could now offer me some constructive criticism. Pats1 T/C 00:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an essay called Wikipedia:No angry mastodons that talks about strategies for keeping calm and getting positive results. Once an editor gets sysopped you become an authority figure, and some people resent all authority figures on principle. The admins who are well equipped with Kevlar troll-b-gone flameproof suits are much happier than the ones who let themselves get baited. The longer I spend at this the more I'm convinced that's the most important element of being an administrator: remain polite, chuckle inwardly sometimes, and focus on results. DurovaCharge! 01:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Outdent) Good question from Pats and great answer from Durova. I think that Pats has put this episode behind him. Majoreditor 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Durova. I'm also disturbed by this comment but not enough to oppose as long as no other examples of this behavior are shown.--Alabamaboy 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - If Ksy92003 is willing to let this go, so will I. - Jehochman Talk 01:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) flip flopping again - Jehochman Talk 20:04, 24 October 2007 (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/Pats1&oldid=1085556325"