Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TerriersFan

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.

TerriersFan[edit]

Final: (38/6/7) ended 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

TerriersFan (talk · contribs) - Here, I am nominating one of the most consistent contributors to Wikipedia. This Wikipedian's attention to Wikipedia is constantly growing, just last month his edit count was 1318 for the month (his total edit count is over 7000, 5000 of which are mainspace edits). Aside from his numerous changes to Wikipedia, he has also uploaded 15, beautiful, high-quality pictures, and created 16 highly-notable Wikipedia articles. There is so much more to be said about this Wikipedian, but I would like to keep this entry concise. If you would like to see pictures he uploaded, barnstars, etc. please do so on his user page. --eskimospy(talk) 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am delighted to accept this nomination. TerriersFan 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see being an admin as rather like the role of a maintenance engineer - doing tasks that keep the Project running smoothly and making life easier for editors so that they can get on with editing.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to look out for backlogs that need admin tools and tackle those. For example Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is a case in point.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I specialise in fully sourcing my articles so that is a general feature that I am pleased with. Specifically, I was quite pleased with 2007 UK petrol contamination because it was written and kept up to date as the events happened and has a photo I took especially for the article also Derrick Lonsdale which was a one-line stub I noticed as up for AfD. This required intensive research under the time pressures of an AfD. Nesh is worthy of mention since it is the only complete account of this unusual word currently published.
I have carried out a great deal of work on the Taxicab series of article and categories. Before I started work there was a large number of disparate articles, many not categorised. By the end there was a coherent hierarchy, starting with Taxicabs then going down through Taxicabs around the world and then down to articles on individual countries such as Taxicabs of the United Kingdom, Taxicabs of the United States etc.
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 have had edit conflicts in the past but I have learnt, through experience, how to avoid and defuse them. Now, if I get reverted, I take matters too the talk page to see if I get support. One method that is particularly effective is to involve a third editor and I find a fresh viewpoint often produces a resolution. I don't allow editing Wikipedia to cause me stress - if that is liable to happen I take a break.
Question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
Generally complying with rules is important for the smooth running of the project. However, rules cannot encompass every scenario. In my view this provision is there as a back-up in case complying with a rule harms the project. Consequently, I expect this provision to be used seldomly and only in such circumstances where it is necessary for the well-being of the project. TerriersFan 11:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:YechielMan
5. As a follow-up to question 1, do you expect admin work to be secretarial or adversarial? You pointed to image backlogs, which are mostly perfunctory deletions, and there are other secretarial tasks such as WP:RM, WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:CFD. There are also adversarial tasks where you might run into some resistance or annoyance: WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:DRV, to name a few. Can you be specific about what kind of admin tasks would interest you?
I spend a fair amount of time on WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD now and would intend to keep on top of any backlogs in both. I also propose to deal with closing AFDs. I am not expecting to get heavily involved with WP:DRV, WP:AIV and WP:ANI in the early stages until I have had some experience as an admin but would tackle them in due course. I expect admin work to have a high secretarial content but potentially adversarial situations will arise. I would expect to defuse/minimise those by giving carefully reasoned arguments for my decisions and always being prepared to discuss matters but still being firm and decisive when necessary. TerriersFan 11:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from MacGyverMagic
6. If the image in Derrick Lonsdale is one you took yourself, then why is it tagged as a "fair use publicity photograph" and why doesn't that page say where it comes from?
MacGyver, I think you misread the nominee's answer above. He doesn't say he took the Lonsdale photo himself. He says that he took the photo for 2007 UK petrol contamination himself, and that Derrick Lonsdale is also one of his best WP contributions. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion; Butseriouslyfolks has summarised correctly. TerriersFan 11:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from GRBerry
7. Much of the concern resolves around your understanding of image copyrights and our policies thereon, and your only specifically declared area of interest in using the tools is in this area. What contributions in this area would you point to to demonstrate that you can handle tricky and disputed cases in this area? (Diffs/links, please.) GRBerry 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the Lonsdale picture in September when I was relatively inexperienced and I forgot I had done until this RFA :-( It was a mistake, one I would not make now, and I should be disappointed if my application founders on one mistake made some time ago. In my professional life I have had much experience in mediation and I believe I have skills that are transferable to Wikipedia and applicable to resolving disputes here. TerriersFan 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jreferee
8. Forty of the forty-two images that you have uploaded since June 14, 2006 still remain on Wikipedia and the two that were deleted were deleted seven months ago. Even with your overall 95%+ success rate of uploading images and 100% success rate of uploading images over the past six months, there still seems to be some concern that you presently do not understand Wikipedia fair use image copyright policy as well as you should. What does the sentence "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy mean and would you please provide some diffs of your uploading fair use images per the 'no free equivalent' statement (if you have any). Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For individuals, the application of this policy effectively means that the subject is deceased so I would point to George Hirst. TerriersFan 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Pascal.Tesson
9. Apologies in advance if the question seems loaded (doing my best). Given your involvement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools do you intend to get involved as the closing administrator for school-related Afds? Pascal.Tesson 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a loaded question and an entirely fair one. I have a track record in involvement in schools AfDs and it would be quite imappropriate for me to close any so the answer is no. TerriersFan 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from DESiegel
10. What do you feel about Wikipedia:Process is Important. How important is process in your view of Wikipedia? DES (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:PI is an important statement though the page itself could do with some editing down (we want folks to read it and more conciseness would help in that). Process is essential due to the nature of the Project - thousands of people from all sorts of background implementing a common project need to work within a clear framework or there will be chaos. Plainly process mustn't compromise the Project. However, in event of difficulties with the application of processes, it is better to fix the process rather than ignore it and I haven't yet, and frankly don't expect to have to, applied WP:IAR.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. TerriersFan is a source machine. We both frequent Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, and I've seen him turn half-baked little school stubs into well-attributed, policy-compliant articles through the use of research and citations. Also, although we often find ourselves on opposite sides of the inclusionary/deletionary fence, I've always known him to be civil and patient with those of differing viewpoints. I'll let other people analyze his edit counts; based on my personal experience, his quality contributions entitle him to the extra buttons. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support although I would like to see detailed response on question 1 to show user's full appreciation of the subject matter. On a off-topic note, I think putting vote count at the bottom of the page is enough. It will force users to at least glance through the answers by the candidate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support As Butseriouslyfolks.--eskimospy(talk) 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Answers show a willingness to help out anywhere, which is key. Mainspace contributions are above reproach. I see no reason why not. And "Fan" in the user name shows character.--Tractorkingsfan 06:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, obviously. As a side point I'd like to add that I'm not happy with the tally being moved from the top, but I realise that's a result of ongoing discussion, and isn't the candidate's fault. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Terence 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Everybody should be an Admin no matter how many edits they have made just as long as they have never vandalise Wikipedia...Good Luck..--Cometstyles 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support. Excellent contributor, though answer to question 1 is pretty weak and leaves some questions as to why this user really needs admin tools. However there's no reason to oppose the nomination or suspect that he'll abuse the tools. Arkyan • (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - This user is proficient in what they do, some small problem areas, but they are doing a wonderful job, and surely they must be half decent if they got put here? Twenty Years 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This candidate looks like someone who should have adminship. Captain panda 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Simply as a matter of credentials, this candidate more than meets my expectations. I'm worried about the copyright issues, and about the sparse answer to Q1 (which my as-yet-unanswered follow-up question was intended to elucidate). Deep down though, when I ask "Is candidate likely to abuse the tools?" I answer no. So I'll support unless further adverse arguements are made. YechielMan 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This user has made some excellent contributions and I greatly support his nomination. I have been a contributor of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for some time now and his contributions to the project are outstanding, he is both articulate and civil in the discussions and often includes new deletion proposals. I think overall the user will bring a level of civility and depth to the admin community and especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. LordHarris 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great contributions. --Agha Nader 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support I find the concerns of opposers very much valid although not quite enough so to oppose myself. Pascal.Tesson 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Adminship is no big deal. I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user would abuse the admin tools. Frise 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. support Why not? doesnt seem to have any major flaws. So I support. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportTerence 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, duplicate of #6 above. GRBerry 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support There are few Wikipedians who have been as thorough and determined to add sources and improve articles. Growth in participation over the past few months seems to bode well for a role as an admin. Alansohn 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good editor, with concise and good edit skills. Great pictures, and good job on the mainspace. Jmlk17 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Opponents raise some good points: not all decisions have been perfect, not everyone shares candidate's inclusionist approach, particularly for schools. However, on the whole, candidate has a good record of spot improvements bringing articles closer to snuff showing thorough work with good attention to detail, consideration for policy, civility, and helpfulness to the project. There is every reason to believe that candidate will prove an asset with the ever-growing backlog of administrative work. --Shirahadasha 01:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks good. the wub "?!" 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, anyone that wants to tackle image backlogs gets an autosupport from me.--Wizardman 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I am surprised and somewhat disappointed with some of the opposition. It seems unfair to pillory a good editor for a single mistake. As far as I can see he is a civil editor capable of painstakingly accurate edits and attention to detail is needed in an admin. I would rather have an admin who is mature enough to admit a mistake, and has learnt from it, rather than someone who claims never to have made one! BlueValour 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: I do not see anything wrong with this user. Seems to be a great contributer to the project and plenty of experience. Should be a good asset as an administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - per BlueValour: As far as I can see he is a civil editor capable of painstakingly accurate edits and attention to detail is needed in an admin. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. His recent contributions seem to show that he does understand policy. I think he should get the extra buttons. -- DS1953 talk 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. All of his problem images are in the past, and he has acknowledged there are prblems with many of those images and their use here. He has also indicated that he won't be using admin tools to participate in image-related discussions, though I hope that's only until he better understands the section. I don't think he'll abuse the tools, and I think he'll be an asset as an admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support John254 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support He and I have been known to have differing opinions about school articles, but I consistently find his edits appropriate and helpful to the articles, and his opinions reasonable and not dogmatic. He supports school articles by improving them, which is much more effective than mere argument. DGG 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Seems trustworthy and likely to overcome any mistakes. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Nothing in the opposition leads me to believe he will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support without prejudice. --Infrangible 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support As Davewild--Spobmur 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Answers to questions resolved my concerns about image policy. Mike Christie (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as a result of the Rooot exchange - I want admins to step in to stop edit warring and he shows that he is prepared to. Bridgeplayer 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak support While I am concerned about the copyright policy issues, there is a proper place for fair use (and logos/crests such as this one are a perfect example. Responses on AfD issues seem reasonable. The answers to questions 4 and 10 encourage me. DES (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support The candidate's answers with respect to PII and IAR evidence the judicious temperament, deliberative demeanor, and respect for the community and the consensus thereof that are quite auspicious in a prospective admin. As Mike Christie, I have (essentially) no unallayed image-related concerns, especially because I think it plain that, qua admin, TerriersFan will act only whereof he can be sure he knows; his contributions seem to make clear that his judgment is, on the whole, quite fine, and I trust that he will not partake of tasks with the policies relevant to which he is not well acquainted and that he is well able to appreciate where any policy weaknesses might lie, such that I am quite confident that the net effect on the project of TF's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. A very strong editor. The candidate needs to bone up a little on images and copyright policy. This small deficiency isn't enough to dissuade me from supporting, as I get the impression he will refine his approach in this area as well as overall. I hope I do as well if and when I start working on images. The Transhumanist 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support User would benefit the project from having the use of admin tools. Catchpole 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Serious concerns have been raised about this candidate's understanding of image copyright issues. We are a free encyclopedia and this is basic to Wikipedia, anyone who hasn't got that 100% isn't suitable. Address these concerns and I'll reconsider next time.--Docg 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per concerns about copyright policies. The candidate's image contributions are a mix of nonfree content used in circumstances that do not seem to me to be consistent with our nonfree content use rules, and free content that by rights should have been uploaded to the Commons. For example, while school crests may seem like a positive addition to the article on a school, they are not necessary, and adding them is not, in my opinion, necessary to the article. I have grave concerns about promoting someone whose attitudes toward nonfree content seem so loose, especially when this candidate has declared an intention to focus in this area if promoted. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per both above. If you intend on working in the most backlogged categories, you must know image policy, since that's where all the backlogs are. Will you abuse the tools? No. But will you misuse them? That is quite likely, until you get more experience with the things you'll work on. -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. He is indeed a source machine, as Butseriouslyfolks correctly cites, but all too often the blizzard of sources he provides for school stubs are blatant trivial mentions and seem far more oriented towards towards fighting the Keep-All-Schools corner on AfDs than otherwise. I'd be less concerned if there was evidence of significant work to improve school articles that weren't under threat of AfD, or evidence that he supported deletion of school articles which didn't satisfy the requirements of WP:V, but as it stands there's reason for concern over nominee's willingness to apply Wikipedia policies in an neutral fashion, sans preconceptions.  RGTraynor  17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this point that I am delighted to explore with you. I am happy to offer All Saints Catholic School, Dagenham as an example of a school article that I have improved that has not been in an AfD. Of late, there have been so many schools articles put up for AfDs (and I have no complaints about that but am merely stating it as a fact) that my school editing time (and since I edit many articles other than schools I can only spend so much time per day on schools) is fully taken up with those schools up for AfD. If I look to source a school article (and I source a minority of those up for AfDs and only those that I consider have some notability) I add the sources that I can find. Some will be significant, some more trivial, but it is up to the other commenting editors whether the package of sources is sufficient for the article to be kept. If editors view all the sources that I add as trivial then they will still give a delete view but I can only recall one article that I have sourced up that has been deleted recently. There are many schools articles that are not sourceable, I do not seek to keep those and certainly do not wish all schools articles to be kept and, contrary to the position of some inclusionists, do not argue even that all high school articles should be kept. TerriersFan 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I can't find a single contribution to IfD, zero edits to Image talk namespace, one surviving edit to the Image namespace. In otherwords, essentially zero image related contributions. When asked specifically for evidence of ability to handle tricky and disputed cases in this area, he provided no evidence on Wikipedia. All this could be ignored if he intended not to work in this space (as was done for this candidate that has subsequently continued mostly avoiding images), but not when he explicitly wants to work in the space. This risk of misuse of the tools is too high to give them to him. Could be changed to neutral if he was intending to stay away from images. GRBerry 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had used images as an example of an area where there is a significant backlog. I now accept, in view of the opinions expressed, that my involvement would be inappropriate and I am happy to give an assurance that I would not get invovled with images. There is plenty of useful work to be done elsewhere. TerriersFan 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral. The decision to avoid need not be forever, but you need to educate yourself and participate in discussions for a while before you undertake significant administrative activity in an area that you don't know. GRBerry 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - I am learning a tremendous lot from this RFA, both about my strengths and weaknesses, that will enable me to address my weak areas and hopefully, build on my strengths. TerriersFan 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per image issues. Naconkantari 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Ignores consensus when he does not agree with it and will give unnecessary reversion warnings to protect his personal position. He has little respect for the community as a whole as he is excessively combative and engages in edit wars to stifle dissenters. Rooot 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you offer some diffs as evidence for your objection, please? (aeropagitica) 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rooot (talk · contribs) has almost only made edits to the page Virginia Tech massacre and has been warned by a number of users, myself and TerriersFan included, about his unilateral actions. I suspect this may be related to his opposition here. Will (aka Wimt) 12:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this seems a response to this warning I placed on his talk page after I found out that he had removed the same substantial material here, here, here and here. A subsequent message, here, that I received is also relevant. TerriersFan 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of indenting out this oppose as there is strong evidence that it is a response to a conflict that has no relation to the RfA. Pascal.Tesson 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Amarkov. Image problems must be resolved before candidate can be trusted not to misuse the mop. Xoloz 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm not convinced he knows the image copyright policy, but I'd be happy to support if he promises to stay away from it or sticks in the work to educate himself. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral the picture of Derrick Lonsdale is taken from a website [1] and is clearly a replaceable fair use image, so should not be used on the article per our image policies; on his userpage TerriersFan's claims to have created the Derrick Lonsdale article, which isn't true. I am also concerned about this edit which was reverted by a vandal-bot - the candidate also removed the bot warning claiming in the edit summary it was "nonsense". I went through many of your last month's contributions and there's a lot of good work there, but I am yet to be convinced I trust you with the tools. I am open to persuasion otherwise, though. Gwernol 10:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point about creating the Lonsdale article is not that he made the first edit, but it seems that TerriersFan identified the original version as a copyright infringement and was responsible for creating most of the existing content after this was removed, so the claim seems fair enough. --Michael Snow 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some great points, thank you. The Lonsdale image was a mistake, I have removed it, and learnt from it. To be fair to myself I didn't claim to have created the Lonsdale article on here (and I have clarified my user page) I said "which was a one-line stub I noticed as up for AfD". What happened with the Oberon article was that there was crash while editing the article that blanked the page and, as you will have seen, immediately uploaded an improved version. TerriersFan 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - considering his answer to Q1, I'm disappointed that Image:Derrick_Lonsdale.jpg is a replaceable fair use image for a living person. Even if TerriersFan had included this image for a good reason, there isn't a fair use rationale to explain. Addhoc 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose, per Doc, Kelly and Gwernol. --Guinnog 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral while I don't require you have every little bit of copyright policy, you need more experience in image use.-- danntm T C 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral as described above at my switched opposition opinion. GRBerry 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Trusted user, but its not clear that he understands policy as well as he should. I do not understand the 'oppose because he incorrectly uploaded an image seven months ago' positions. -- Jreferee 18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral as per User:GRBerry and pending an answer to Q10. DES (talk) 16:23, 23 April 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/TerriersFan&oldid=1151011120"