Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Wordsmith

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.

The Wordsmith[edit]

Final tally: (118/2/1) Ended 20:50 1 March 2010 (UTC) Closed by Avi

Nomination[edit]

The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) – I would like to offer myself as a candidate for adminship. My first edit was just under five years ago (4 March 2005), though my activity was quite low and I took some long wikibreaks when my classes took up too much of my free time. I have been active steadily since the end of December 2008. In addition, I am one of the Mediation Cabal coordinators, and mediation/dispute resolution is a large part of what I contribute to the project. I am also the coordinater of WikiProject Star Wars (more or less by default, since the project isn't very active).

I've been considering a run for a long time, because the tools would help me with my day-to-day activities, but I've put it off until now because I felt that I wasn't ready. Now, I believe myself to be a mature, capable candidate with the necessary experience to do the job responsibly. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:45, 22 February 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly, I plan to use the tools for my ordinary activities, rather than having to flag down a passing sysop. I imagine most of my usage will be protecting pages during MedCabal cases, when parties decide to edit war. On occasion I also come across articles that have fallen victim to edit warring or vandalism, and I plan to fix those as necessary. I also plan to work on the backlog that BLP-PROD will certainly have once it is implemented, and to help other backlogs as necessary. I have done some DYK work, and it would be helpful to be able to move the queues along when needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as articles go, my greatest achievement is White Night riots, which is currently a GA (and very near FA quality, I think). The failed FAC stung a bit, but i'm leaving the article alone for now and then i'll eventually revisit it with fresh eyes.
I am also particularly proud of my BLP sourcing drive, which I started not long after the BLP fiasco began. I am proud to say that over 2,000 articles (as of this writing) have been cleared from CAT:BLP as a result of it.
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: As a mediator, it could be said that I welcome conflict and stress. While it may seem a bit masochistic, I enjoy inserting myself into a dispute and helping parties resolve it. As far as how I deal with it, I find that the best way to make progress is to get the opposing sides to agree on something, anything, even just agreeing on what the dispute is about. If they can see that the opposing faction consists of real people who have a legitimate disagreement, not a faceless bigoted swarm, then they're often more willing to begin discussion and negotiation.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. Are chimpanzees allowed to have Wikipedia accounts? Do you believe that they should?
A: If a champanzee really wanted to contribute to the encyclopedia and was able to correctly discern the process for creating an account, then I don't see why we should discriminate based on species. Intelligence yes, genetics no. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Infinite monkey theorem. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 11:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert
5. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?
A:My opinion on IAR is that since rules are made by humans, they're bound to be imperfect. No rule can possibly manage to cover all potential circumstances that could ever come up. Sometimes, the rules just seem bizarre and don't make sense for a particular situation. In that case, you should do what's necessary to help the encyclopedia (within reasonable limits, of course)
Hmm, I seem to have explained what I believe IAR is, and not what I think about it. So, i'll be concise now: if rules were perfect, we wouldn't need it. When IAR helps us to improve the project where the rules fail, its a good idea. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?
A: I haven't yet signed it, and I haven't yet seen what IAR is like from the other side of the admin fence. I think I more or less agree with it in principle, though. If I understand the background correctly, it was created in response to the BLP fiasco. While the first few deletions may have been necessary (though very POINTy), the fact that they continued to do so even after the community had begun discussion, as well as the manner in which they conducted themselves, was, frankly, disgusting. Not at all the behavior I would expect from a sysop, and not at all the behavior I would ever display. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?
A:Seeing as I have never blocked anybody or deleted a page, I can't guarantee that I would never use IAR as a justification for an admin action. I simply don't know how (in)adequate the relevant policies are to everyday admin work, and I expect that to be something I learn on the job. I can promise, however, that I will never intentionally flout community consensus in the manner that several people did during that incident. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Ret.Prof
8. What are the central issues involved re Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC ?
A: If I understand correctly, the current issues are how to make a CDA proposal that is fair and not easily gamed by those with an axe to grind, while simultaneously making it easy enough for an abusive admin to realistically be desysopped. Currently, it appears to be a sort of reverse RFA, but there is some controversy over the threshold needed for a successful recall. Other people seem to contend that we don't need a separate process, since ArbCom is more willing to desysop with community consensus (see User:Craigy144's desysopping here).


9. How would you improve the proposal?
A: I've spent some time looking over the proposal, but I don't know how to improve it. I don't intend to be open to the voluntary AOR process, since I haven't yet seen a set of criteria that isn't easily gamed but also isn't impossible to meet if I actually do screw up badly enough. Since I intend to continue working in dispute resolution, inevitably there will be people who hold a grudge because they didn't get their way. I shouldn't have to be afraid to act because of who I might upset. So, I have no idea how I could improve the CDA process, but if I see a reasonable (and clearly defined) standard pop up i'd be willing to support that. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Coffee
10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. Argh, of course you couldn't let me off the hook for these. For the Shankbone deletion, I participated in the DRV, so I don't think it is fair to say how I would close that particular AFD. However, in general, I would only default to no consensus delete if the BLP was of marginal notability, and one of the following happened:
  1. the article subject expressed a desire (confirmed through OTRS) that it be deleted. or
  2. the article contains unsourced information significant enough that it would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with BLP policy
Since i'm not yet a sysop, I can't see the text of that deleted article. It may qualify for criterion 2 that I set out above, but if it doesn't then I would default to keep in general. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?
A. Contrary to popular opinion, the biggest problem isn't completely unsourced BLPs, as most of those are completely uncontroversial. The biggest problem is the BLPs that contain some sourced, but also unsourced negative information. We have no idea how many of these there are, and they're not easy to track. To resolve it, I will use the tools to aggressively remove unsourced content when I find it and apply semi- or full-protection where necessary, blocking those who are unwilling to comply with our rules for BLPs. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
A. It really depends on the situation. If its something innocuous, like a first name, I might explain the risks to them and ask them to remove it. If it is enough that it poses a potential threat to their safety, I would immediately delete the revisions and forward details to an Oversighter for further action. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
13. What is your opinion about blocking obviously bad faith vandals who have received just one warning? What if the vandal was introducing BLP-violating content? Would your opinion change if the vandal had not been warned prior to your encounter with it?
A:If a user is blatantly vandalising, and has few or no positive contributions, then I would probably block. Again, without a specific case, I can't give an exact answer. In general, though, especially if the vandalism was BLP-related and not in good faith, I would block. If the user filed an unblock request and seems to have "reformed" and/or wants to contribute positively, I would be willing to unblock. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Of course. Wordmith's BLP and mediation work has been outstanding, and has proved to me that he is able to be trusted with the tools. (X! · talk)  · @796  ·  18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; good user, no reason not to. Ironholds (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thoughtful user who's unlikely to abuse the bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No reason not to. Good luck! Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No concerns or reasons not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - A fair amount of experience across a variety of Wikipedia areas, not to mention being a coordinator at WP:MEDCAB. -- Atama頭 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as no one has offered any reason to oppose at the time that I am typing, User:The Wordsmith/Awards are nice to see, candidate has contributed to GA and DYK articles, candidate has never been blocked, candidate is an article creator per User:The_Wordsmith#Pages_I_have_created, but most importantly candidate makes reasonable arguments, which means we have evidence he would close discussions reasonably. Candidate correctly said to delete something that not even I said to keep and that was indeed deleted. When the candidate argues to keep as here, he writes detailed and policy based arguments rather than just voting (incidentally, that discussion would have probably closed as a keep instead of no consensus if legitimate; the nominator and two of the most adamant deletes were ultimately determined by a checkuser to be sock accounts thereby distorting consensus). As my final example, this argument reflects Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state which is also good to see. Thus, in my own experiences, the candidate tends to not be a zealot, i.e. he argues to keep when reasonable and delete when reasonable. Thus, I am joining the pile on off supports bandwagon here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - trustworthy editor and a good mediator. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've been waiting for this for a long time. -- 3 ¢ soap Talk/Contributions 19:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I can't find any problems, and candidate's contributions appear to be of a high quality. Should do well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'd assumed he was an admin already, anyone who has the dedication to take on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx can handle anything Ajbpearce (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Well rounded, solid dyk work. Support Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Per my criteria and ANobody's analysis. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support an excellent candidate, lots of history, will do a good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support experienced user who will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support for sure. Candidate is trustworthy and will make good use of the tools to further the project. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good Track , user has been around 2005 and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per the positive comments above. No concerns whatsoever. I'm most impressed by their mediation work. Swarm(Talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - this is a case where I don't mind piling on.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – I've seen him many times before, and I don't see anything standing out that would not cause me to support. –MuZemike 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Definitely. He'll make a good admin. ceranthor 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No reason not to, and more importantly, many reasons to.  f o x  (formerly garden) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No problems here. Warrah (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Don't see any concerns; user is clueful and will be an even greater benefit to the project as an admin.  fetchcomms☛ 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support for now - but I might reconsider if you waste your time on Q4.  ;)  7  23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry mate, I couldn't pass that one up The WordsmithCommunicate 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...well then now I'm leaning toward strong support.  7  23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - No concerns. Pepper∙piggle 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - No problems here. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. This candidate is a competent, knowledgeable, mature, trustworthy, and capable editor. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, looks good to me, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Tan | 39 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No concerns. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. excellent contributor; solid history. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Only seen good and promising things from Wordsmith. Calmer Waters 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Without hesitation. Fences&Windows 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've never seen any problems with Wordsmith, and see no reason for the candidate not to get the bit, so hopefully... (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So it is written, so it shall be done" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Willing to put in the work to get an article to GA. Shows commitment to the project.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good record.-- iBen (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Mediation is difficult, and I appreciate that you keep going back to help. Liquidluck✽talk 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - looking everything over, I see nothing to be concerned with. I support this motion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Probably my easiest !vote decision so far -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Ready for the mop, everything that I've seen has been solid. Royalbroil 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Prodego talk 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support BLP work has been excellant. Personal interaction has been very productive, clearly ready for adminship. Rje (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Let The Wordsmith proclaim "vi veri universum vivus vici" for he has truly show that the pen is mightier than the sword and that the mop will be used in its time and place. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I have found absolutely nothing that would prevent me from supporting, or even give me pause. Good grasp of policy, good BLP work, excellent work in mediation. Absolute benefit for the project. —LedgendGamer 05:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Excellent BLP and mediation work; I trust him with this. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sure. Blurpeace 09:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Much as I hate to see people intentionally subject themselves to the potential water boarding at RfA, The Wordsmith is an exceptional candidate and worthy of the community's full confidence. High time the mop is given to this admin should-be. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Very capable and diligent editor. The mediation/dispute resolution work is commendable and a definite plus. -- Ϫ 09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support You have the right amount of experience in the areas you wish to work in. This is highlighted by many of the comments above. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. No concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support BejinhanTalk 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Jeni (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've seen this editor a couple of times on my travels and I've seen nothing that gives me cause for concern. I have confidence that he's competent to use the tools in the areas he wants to. Besides, 55 people can;t be unanimously wrong! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 11:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support This editor really has a diverse pie graph. Helps out in every section of en.wiki and (yawn...) has even heelped build a portal! (Oh the pain...) And great answqer to question 4. Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Experience from Mediation Cabal will be useful. RadManCF (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Of course. Great editor, good answers, and the mediation experience will be useful. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: a thoughtful, conscientious editor intending to work in areas where extra admins would be useful. No concerns from reviewing edit history. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Certainly, I can see no reason to oppose, and lots to support. Editor seems clueful, articulate and calm. GedUK  14:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - great editor, no reservations. Wordsmith has a level head and I would like to applaud his dedicated BLP sourcing work. JamieS93❤ 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Sure. Can't seem to find a reason why The Wordsmith should not be an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Excellent background for admin work, supported by concise and honest answers to the RFA questions. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support — no concerns here; good luck dude! Aiken ♫ 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, good answers here, solid editing history; will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Seems to have a constructive attitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Per Qs 5 and 7, good enough otherwise for everyone else it seems. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support — looks good! Airplaneman talk 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Easy decision. GizzaDiscuss © 01:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support: Good answers to questions and great attitude. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Per the answers to my questions.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I see experience, wisdom, reason, and A real wish to improve the project... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support for arbitrator! User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing that is so incredible! Maybe this can be combined with WP:CONTEST somehow? Okip 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. He plucks his eyebrows. (Translation: I thought he was an admin already. In addition to his responses and such being satisfactory, good personal care habits are a plus.) Recognizance (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, with a strong passion. Landslide. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. No reason to believe The Wordsmith will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Per answer to Q4--NotedGrant Talk 08:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support 1,000%, will be a great admin.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - looks good. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Looks good! GlassCobra 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, particularly based on question 4. (Some of our editors may be of another species; on the Internet, nobody knows for certain.) Also, I thought he was one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, very high probability of being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, no problems here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support great editor who will be an asset to the project. The one single oppose is not convincing, quite the opposite. If the only fault you can find is that the candidate argued in a discussion in a way that you disagree with, then the candidate really will make a good admin. A good adminship candidate needs to be clueful, civil, helpful, able to articulate their thoughts and explain their actions - but they do not have to share your philosophy or views. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Doesn't look like a bad editor to me, good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Candidate's adminship will be a net positive to the project. I'm impressed by the high level of reasonableness I see, as well. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I see no problems. RayTalk 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - The Wordsmith is a fine candidate for adminship! — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Only concern is that I wasn't notified that he was running and feel ignored by my Wikipedia friend :( I could have nominated The Wordsmith (not to be confused with Wordsmith) and eliminated that other guy's opposition (Curt something) to self nomination, which he used to put after every RFA.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support, but I just need to clarify a few points. Firstly, notifying your friends that you're running is something that is frowned upon. Secondly, I appreciate the offer to nominate me, but User:Kmweber is currently banned from the Wikipedia: namespace, so he is not able to oppose self-noms. Again, thanks for the support, The WordsmithCommunicate 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support as the candidate does nothing but convince me that he or she will make a good admin -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support. No problems here. Wordsmith is one of the best candidates I've saw at RfA for a while. AGK 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. —Dark 09:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. support Your contribs are outstanding, and you are polite in discussions (I recommend you join WP:OTRS a few months after you become an admin). The only thing stopping me from giving a strong support is that you haven't been active for as long as you have been on WP. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support--Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I'm confident The Wordsmith will make a good admin. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Very good candidate. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support No issues here. ThemFromSpace 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support a very strong candidate, although a bit more mainspace experience would be nice. Still, qualified for sure. Gosox(55)(55) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Sensible answers and good contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Yup. smithers - talk 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Thoughtful and experienced editor; will make a fine admin. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per opinion about BLP fiasco. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support My only problem with Wordsmith is that he's not already an admin. Wine Guy~Talk 09:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose, user is not dogmatic enough with regards to BLPs and fair use images. User has neglected Portal Talk-space - only three edits!. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  107. Support WP needs all the BLP-cleansing help it can get. Townlake (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Excellent contributions. Gobonobo T C 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Great candidate for the mop. Steven Walling 00:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support--MONGO 03:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Disagree with him about quite a number of his views, but he does good work and can reason out his points well enough. Also, fine answer to my question; shows he will utilize common sense when using the admin tools. NW (Talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Good candidate, no problems Frozenevolution (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support excellent concise responses, and not afraid to take a well thought-out minority position nor ashamed to defend it. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Sure. Tiptoety talk 06:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Wordsmith's responses to the opposition seem more than adequate. Congratulations in advance. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - Nothing bad sticks out to me. J.delanoygabsadds 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]

#Pending a satisfactory explanation of this, I have BLP concerns about this candidate. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate's response notwithstanding, I would be interested in knowing how you might have responded to the same RfC. Feel free to move it to talk if you think it's off-topic.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 04:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar's opinion can be found further down the page. NW (Talk) 04:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here (though Lar's particular opinion is probably not germane). --RegentsPark (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's germane - his arguments, or lack thereof, at that page are relevant to the amount of weight I give his concerns here. In this case, his terse response indicates that he is simply philosophically opposed to the candidate's position in that debate; as such I feel completely comfortable dismissing his concerns as they relate to this candidate's likelihood to be a good administrator. Thank you for the diff.--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i've got no problem explaining why I !voted the way I did. The LGBT project tag does not in any way imply that its subject is an LGBT person. If it did, we wouldn't have them on Judy Garland and Jerry Falwell, or hundreds of other articles for people who are not LGBT. The tag even contains a special "explanation" field, to make this idea 100% clear.
If people who read the tag's title neglect to read the rest of it, and make faulty assumptions, that's their own fault. We have a responsibility to make sure anything that we say is accurate. We can't be responsible for things that we don't say (and quite clearly deny, if the explanation field is used). I understand the need to protect our BLPs, but I don't think removing the tag is the best way to do that.
As another potential reason for keeping the tag, BLPs need to be watched closely. The LGBT Wikiproject is one of the more active projects, and they even have their own special watchlist ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Watchlist here) to help keep track of more controversial articles within its scope. The sort of homophobic BLP-violating vandalism that the article is likely to get irregardless of the tag's presence is something that this WikiProject has experience at dealing with. Vandalism is likely to get reverted much more quickly if these editors are able to keep an eye on it, and that means less time the vandalized versions remain visible. Thus, I contend that the most efficient way to keep the article compliant with the letter and spirit of BLP is to put the tag in place. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your examples seem to use the "explanation" field in their invocation, unless I'm confused. Do you have an example that does? What explanation field value would you propose be used in the case of this person? And how would you ensure the correct explanation was used rather than, say "tabloid journalism has persistent rumors about this person being gay", or worse? Finally, why would flagged revisions not be a better way to protect the article from "homophobic BLP-violating vandalism"? Also, am I to understand that you feel that if something is written poorly or unclearly enough that it confuses a reader, "that's their own fault"?? ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Especially if the explanation field was used..." as well as "I didn't even know that field existed, but now that I do I feel it would be a good compromise. As long as we say in the tag that he may or may not be LGBT, it should clear up any lingering BLP concerns." These both discuss the use of that field as a potential compromise, though that second diff isn't currently visible on the page because the entire discussion was archived (prematurely, I think). You are correct that the examples of non-LGBT people with the tag do not use that field, and I don't have an example handy of one that does. Perhaps those should have an explanation as well, but I think that that particular field has not been widely publicized (I didn't know it existed until a few days ago). I can't ensure that a correct explanation is used, because that's up to consensus, but I would only support something that explicitly states that his sexuality has not been confirmed, and that the tag does not imply that he is LGBT.
As for flagged revisions, that might indeed be a better way to help protect the article. However, unless i've missed something, that is not an option that is available to us at this time. When (if?) it gets turned on and a policy established, using it on this article would be very sensible, as would it for all BLPs.
As for your last question, that would not be an appropriate summary of my position. I want the explanation field to make it perfectly clear what the tag does and does not mean. We have a responsibility to make sure BLPs are well-written and clear in their meaning. The only thing that is the reader's own fault is if they choose not to read the tag and make faulty assumptions based on that. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wordsmith: your responses to Lar's concerns have, I think, been quite adequate. AGK 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have not been assuaged, I think the answers are too glib and don't really show an understanding of the underlying issues, but a lone oppose, late in the game, is not going to stop an otherwise successful candidate. My hope is that my oppose will at least cause more contemplation of these issues by The Wordsmith in future. However, it has just come to my attention that The Wordsmith has opposed my steward reconfirmation, characterizing the recent BLP events as a "fiasco" (while I view it as an unfortunate, but necessary, wakeup call) and chastising me for my role in them (a role that I am not ashamed of, even if it was unfortunate that it came to that point), saying that he can't support based on my BLP views, (the irony of that in view of those saying above that an oppose based on a disagreement about views is wrong... is not lost on me), and assuming bad faith in claiming that summary deletion was a misuse of admin power (it wasn't) and worse, suggesting that I might misuse steward powers in future, without any basis whatever for such a claim. I make no apologies for my "extreme and almost fundamentalist viewpoint regarding it" (his words) because, darn it, it is important that we do not harm innocent victims. Dismissing that viewpoint is just flat out wrong. But I've decided to strike this oppose, and just leave the comments, as I don't want even the appearance that I might be retaliating... that's something my opponents do while at the same time accusing me of doing so, but it's not something I myself do. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the oppose for the Steward reconfirmation was because during that incident, you endorsed what I saw as a misuse of sysop tools. Since you did that, I couldn't be certain that you wouldn't endorse the use of Steward tools to further an agenda. I believe that the BLP deletions (the first round, anyway) was probably a necessary agenda to force a discussion, but an agenda nonetheless and the use of tools should not have been endorsed. So to reiterate, it wasn't because of your views (which are not that much more extreme than mine), it was because of the misuse of sysop tools and your sanctioning of it.
That being said, it appears that you will probably be reconfirmed as a Steward, so I wish you luck with that, as well as with your Ombudsman post. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above doesn't seem consistent with what you said in your oppose. Perhaps some clarification is needed? Do you support doing the right thing or not? (Either it was needful, or it wasn't) Do you think Jimbo misspoke when he endorsed the actions of the admins involved? Do you think ArbCom misspoke when they endorsed them? I just can't trust your judgment, and this latest response confirms it. Please do keep in mind, when you become an admin, that the rights of innocent BLP victims trump other considerations. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i'll clarify further. When Kevin started it, he said that he fully expected to lose the tools for it. He knew that what he was doing was not permitted by policies governing use of the tools. He obviously felt that it was necessary, though, which it probably was, but at least he understood that it was a misuse of the community's trust. You, on the other hand, didn't see anything wrong with the tool use in that situation. Sometimes we need to do necessary evils, but you couldn't even see that it was evil at all.
As far as Arbcom is concerned, I think that in hindsight, the amnesty for the initial deletions was probably the right thing to do. However, I think that the motion was poorly worded and encouraged people to continue deleting even though the discussions were bearing fruit, something that they later clarified was not something that should be happening. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose based on rather poor judgement shown over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming; [1]. This was a waste of time, TWS seemed to feel that wasting other people's time was a matter of no importance William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Wordsmith's only involvement was to place an "inactive" tag on the page after 2 months, though I'm probably wrong. JamieS93❤ 20:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, there were several around then. As you noticed, I got the wrong one. Corrected now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 5#Congrats in taking on Global Warming is also relevant here. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That some people are unwilling to adopt a more civil approach to editing, even after attempts at mediation, says more about them than it does The Wordsmith. In the end WilCo wasted very little time on the whole affair - none of those involved did, and mediation was rejected. That The Wordsmith was willing when asked to attempt mediation is a positive point. That those in dispute refused the mediation and are subject to general sanctions based on their attitudes to specific articles is a negative point. The Wordsmith cannot be blamed for the bad attitudes of some of those contributing to climate related articles. Weakopedia (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can get away from the "RfA combat" and biting for a moment WMC has a strong point. It was definitely poor judgement to take this on. However, that was nearly 3 months ago and we have to accept that The Wordsmith is still on an upward learning curve and the involvement in the mediation was genuinely a constructive attempt to try to sort things out no matter if it was a little misguided. Polargeo (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Seems a bit ready for a dispute , this edit for example made whilst this RFA was happening was imo throwing fuel on the fire and I expect from administrators that they try to put fires out, not stoke them up. Also not enough edit history for my liking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting out fires doesn't mean I ignore what I believe to be misuse of sysop privileges. Though it appears that in a few hours I will be an administrator on the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I'm required to protect and defend my fellow admins, even when they're in the wrong. In short: I call 'em as I see 'em. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the look of that thread and especially your comment here. Be glad that it didn't come near the beginning of this RfA and don't get too sure of yourself. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my advice would be, you should take care to realize when you are involved and opinionated in an issue and be careful not to use the tools in such circumstances, neutrality is a key issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good suggestion; I am a strong proponent of WP:INVOLVED, which is part of the reason for that diff you cited. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I was also disappointed in your mediation at Carmen Miranda, which resulted in a 3 2 result. I of course relize that this is about to close as successful but I wanted to comment, as all these names and your as you say "about to become an administrtor on the english wikipedia" 98 percent support, also try to remember sometimes it is the names that are not there rather than the ones that are that are important. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do value your input. After this RFA closes, feel free to bring any concerns you have about me, my views, or my admin actions to my user talkpage, and I will take any advice to heart. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
# Neutral. Huggable, edits per page greater than phi, and uploaded a photo of a TARDIS, but has no account on tk.wikibooks, number of patrolled pages not prime, and don't like signature font. Gurch (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently RfA is serious business and I can't do this (even though it's a neutral, and thus has zero effect on the end result) Gurch (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might have to reconsider my support if he has neglected such an inspirational website. And yeah, the font sucks.  f o x  (formerly garden) 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Neutral - Though you've been on since 2005, you've only really been active the last 14 months. Both in activity and total edits you don't meet my minimum criteria. That said, we need good mediators and if all these people support you, I don't feel like its appropriate to oppose. It looks like you have a good reputation and that's what's really important here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "You've only really been active the last 14 months." Are we supposed to spend our entire lives on Wikipedia before we run for RfA? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally you'll need to have started contributing at minimum six months before Wikipedia was founded if you want to have a reasonable chance. Gurch (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see a minimum of two years activity. Being active doesn't mean living on here, it just means editing regularly, editing articles and participating in other areas. I understand people have other commitments, but I do see having the tools as a commitment to the project. I'm not asking a potential admin to work here full-time, that'd be unreasonable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its fine, I have no problems with a user questioning my experience. I obviously disagree, but you're certainly welcome to your opinion. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that's what this process is about. My concerns aren't enough to oppose, but I need to express my opinion anyway. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my comment was directed more at those who were questioning your opinion than you, to let them know that I was fine with it. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:11, 28 February 2010 (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/The_Wordsmith&oldid=1142506516"