Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Purplebackpack89

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

Purplebackpack89[edit]

Final (1/20/2); ended 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW —cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,418,972) 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) – Hey, I've decided to put myself up for adminship because we need admins...we've had only a handful of successful RfAs since January 1st; while a number of admins have left Wikipedia. Looking at the backlogs at many tasks, we need more admins. I think I would be an ideal candidate. I've been active on Wikipedia for over 3 years, recently crossed the 10,000 edit threshold, have a clean block log, have had the rollback right for years and the reviewer and autopatroller right for months, have created scores of pages, and have nominated and participated in numerous AfDs, move requests, RFPPs, and other Wikipedia-space issues. So I think becoming an admin would be good for the community Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: RFPPs, move and AfD closures. I already have participated extensively as a nominator and voter in those discussions. I would also point to my patrol log as evidence of being able to use tools, and my longtime use of rollback and reviewer.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created many pages, and have several barnstars for my efforts. I'm proud of starting articles like Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 and Historiography of the United States. I created the article IBM Award, then parleyed it into a DYK and later an FL. I have helped with prioritizing and assessment at the Lv 4 vital articles page(s) and the U.S. WikiProject. I have cleaned up a number of categories, templates and disam pages. I've participated in Wikipedia-space discussions as a concerned editor; often proposing lighter sanctions to ensure community consensus.
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: Yes I have. Most users with a lot of contributions have run-ins with others from time to time. You can see ANI log here; many of it concerned interaction with disgruntled editors (I would note that the majority of the threads against me were started my the same two or three editors). I've learned that sometimes it's best to back away, but on the other hand, sometimes you have to be bold to get things done.
Additional questions from Pol430
4. You mention a desire to work at AFD, please take a look at this discussion and explain how you would close it, with an explanation of your rationale.
A: As of 1:43 PM PDT (20:43 UTC) 3/14, I'd close it as NC or relist. There are compelling arguments from both sides, and nowhere close to unanimity in the vote count. The article has one source; that would seem to be a start on the road to notability, but having a second source that further attests to the subject's notability, and in addition provides more background about the subject, would really help its case for inclusion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4a. As you have indicated a desire to work at WP:RFPP, please explain when it is appropriate for a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
A: Depends on the context. I think that an article being mentioned in the media has to be a consideration for protection, as those often become volatile quickly. So does an article being vital and/or highly viewed. I think that short-term protection (72 hrs. or less) is underutilized; since a day or two or three isn't that particularly long in the scheme of things. Hence why I argued for a three-day semi-protection of Rutherford B. Hayes after it the article was mentioned (with inaccurate information) on TV, combined with it being an important page and having occassional vandalism.
But what I assume you're really concerned about is full protection or long-term semi-protection. Whereas I am comparatively liberal on silverlocks, I am pretty conservative about goldlocks. I think that only in extreme cases, such as being the target of a long-term content dispute or being a very high-profile page such as those related to the U.S. presidential election, should a page be fully protected for more than two days. Goldlocks for any length of time should only be used in major content disputes or high-profile pages; sometimes goldlocks can be avoided by topic-banning or blocking editors.
Silverlocks should always start out with one for a week or two, usually due to repeated and frequent vandalism from multiple IPs or new accounts. The threshold should be a little lower for silverlocking BLPs or vital articles than for other articles. Once vandalism persists after two or three silverlocks of two weeks to three months, it's time for indef silverlock.
Unprotection...Honestly, due to the guidelines I've set out for how I'd protect something, an article that needs to be unprotected would be set with a sunset for the protection. By the time something is indef silverlocked, it's already been pretty well proven that protection is needed. Pages that have been indef protected shouldn't be unprotected without a strong consensus for it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from BarkingFish
5 - In your answer to question 2, you indicated that you often propose lighter sanctions in situations to ensure community consensus. Given that you're now applying for administrative rights on this Wikipedia, would you be kind enough to indicate where your "line" would be crossed in respect of the application of lighter sanctions, and heavier ones where appropriate please?
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but lemme respond with the following
  1. I consider lighter sanctions to include a block of between two weeks and three months; as well as topic or interaction bans. Heavier sanctions are blocks of six months up
  2. Lighter sanctions would be for continual wrongdoing, after multiple warnings, but with an understanding that reform is possible. Heaver sanctions are for very serious offenses (I would limit it to vandalism, pov-pushing, outing and perhaps project disruption or wikiquette), and no indication that a person is willing to reform (particularly if lighter sanctions haven't worked). There are certain things where I don't believe sanctions of any kind are necessary.
  3. If there is community consensus of wrongdoing, but not community consensus for heavier sanctions, lighter sanctions ought to be proposed as a compromise

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I can't say my interactions with Purplebackpack89 have been positive, and he is pretty blunt in his comments, but he's been around for quite a while and has contributed a lot to the project. Perhaps he shouldn't be an admin, but he doesn't deserve to be sitting at 0–18. Jenks24 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. So, when I notice these RFA's, the question I read is Q3, and then do a bit of a dive to figure out if those are the most notable conflicts the user entered into, and if the behavior in the conflict is indicative of average behavior, or if it's an especially good response. In this case, the Q3 is insufficient for me to determine the trustworthiness of the user. If Q3 is answered, in depth, with links and explanations, I will revisit this !vote and comment here. If Q3 is revised and I fail to comment here, please disregard this !vote. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nah. I do applaud you for creating lots of articles, but someone seeking the admin rights should know that referencing them is just as important as creating them. 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note in the ANI thread, there was no finding of violation of policy; mostly just hot air by a disgruntled editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  3. According to to the SUL tool, you are currently blocked on Simple English Wikipedia, and your block log there appears to be quite extensive. While this is not highly relevant to the English Wikipedia, the fact that you have been blocked numerous times there is a bit concerning. There is no evidence suggesting that your attitude has changed. Nor is there evidence suggesting that you have addressed the issues that led to the blocks on SEWP. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you yourself admit that it isn't relevant, why bring it up? There also is no evidence that I have the same attitude here and there; again, clean block record here. I could expound on why Simple English Wikipedia isn't particularly relevant, but I see no need Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regretful oppose - I've worked with this user before and have always found him useful, competant, and courteous, however the SEWP ban gives me pause. The above comments make it clear that the editor does not consider the community decision at SEWP than he has misused the tools he's been entrusted with as serious when asking this community to trust him with even more tools. It's also important to note that the reasons for his ban (canvassing, incivility, disruptive editing) are simply offenses we can't suffer from Admins. Achowat (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I see a lot of good work from this editor, but their comments at question 3 and in this very section give me pause. We need admins who keep their cool, and I'm not entirely sure that's what we would get here. A few months without drama would certainly change my mind, however. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I think that being community banned on another project is directly relevant.  Frank  |  talk  19:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose editor has a poor attitude, especially when questioned about their edits. From the ANI thread that's been linked a few times... "And I'm sorry, but impoliteness isn't a crime." Also, the Simple ban concerns me. Simple is fairly lax on their sanctions; that speaks volumes in my book. --Rschen7754 19:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Good edits, but your attitude does not appear to be that required of an admin on this project. The block at SEW while not directly connected with this Wikipedia, it raises sufficient concern in my mind to say that you should continue as a valuable contributor to this Wikipedia but not be granted adminship. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I am seeing way too many issues that is really concerning. Although, you contribute fairly well to the project, you seem to have attitude issues, not to mention blocks placed and a community enforced ban on another WikiMedia project.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,368,046) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Too many issues relating to conduct, which have been brought up above, for me to be comfortable supporting this user getting admin tools. One of the most important jobs as an admin is communication, especially with new users, and for that conduct and civility is a must.--Slon02 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opppose. The reply to oppose 3 above worries me and having looked at some of the past ANI discussion it seems indicative of the users response to criticism. I am of the opinion that the user is too ready to find ways to justify things rather than realise that someone has a concern and discuss it with them. Alpha Quadrant clearly has a valid concern yet this user has jumped on their statement "not highly relevant" and so appears to feel justified in ignoring Alpha's concerns. Instead of asking Alpha if he had any evidence of him having the same attitude they just say their isn't any. A response like that is not likely to be taken well by a new editor, who may be struggling to explain themselves, and as I feel an ability to discuss their actions is an important part of being an admin I must oppose. Dpmuk (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Concerns with judgement and maturity. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose But Noodynaady's actual ingrate tootle is of come into the garner mauve and thy nice are stores of morning and buy me a bunch of iodines. Keepscases (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose This editor had a dispute with User:Luciferwildcat a while back, and the other editor certainly shared much (or perhaps a majority) of the blame. Several editors tried to mediate, including myself. In my opinion, Purplebackpack89 displayed a combative attitude, seemed to relish the fight, and sought out opportunities for negative interactions with the other editor. These are not the personality characteristics we want in an administrator. I hope that Purplebackpack89 will continue making useful contributions to the encyclopedia, while working on developing maturity and self-control. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Purplebackpack's approach to the community seems to worry me. I am concerned that he is (or has recently been) topic banned from an area: even if it was voluntary, a potential admin should not be getting to the state where a topic ban is necessary. The community block at Simple English Wikipedia is relevant; although it is not here, it displays a worrying attitude towards the community. I would not be comfortable supporting an admin candidate who has had so many continuous problems with the community. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Whilst the answers to my questions demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the use of the tools, I simply cannot overlook the communication issues. A quick check of your talkpage, and other past discussions, brings up numerous examples of disputes with others and demonstrates a blunt, if not combative, style of communication. Pol430 talk to me 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The candidate wants the mop to help out with AfD; their AfD result-mismatch rate is 36.6%, and seems to lean heavily towards the delete side of the fence. More than a third of the time this editor makes the wrong call. A much better AfD result-match rate is required from a potential administrator, and so I haven't dug deeper into this editor's contributions. Josh Parris 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, 2120 delete !votes at AFD (17 16d; 4sd) although the articles were kept is way too much. We don't need more deletionists! mabdul 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    mmh, I removed the 1st April nom; but still too much. mabdul 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but of those 20 you cite, almost none of them were lone deletes. In almost every AfD I've voted delete in, so has someone else. That would somewhat contradict your claim of me being a rogue, lone-wolf deletionist. Also, I've voted in a lot more than 20 AfDs... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Has an incorrect and egoistic mentality. "WP needs me" is false; no WP needs anyone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I think saying "You are banned from another WMF project" is enough explanation. A block is bad enough... Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 01:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - This is not the temperament I really want to see in an admin. Nearly getting interaction-banned is not indicative of somebody who will be able to effectively communicate with angry or disruptive users. On the other hand, your content contributions are good and AFD votes tend to be based in policy, even if they have a deletionist leaning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Though it's been a few years, I had an unpleasant encounter with PB89 over a minor mistake I made about the name of a street--including assumptions of bad faith and borderline incivility. Though I was surprised recently that I agreed with his attempt to AfD Occupy Ashland, I'm not seeing that his temperment has improved much over the years. Although I don't think he will abuse the tools, civility is as important in an admin as other skills and he needs to improve in this area. Valfontis (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (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/Purplebackpack89&oldid=1142573824"