Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richardcavell 2

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.

Richardcavell 2[edit]

Final (20/35/19); Closed by Rlevse at 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Richardcavell (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for administrator status.

I was given administrator status in June 2006 here. I voluntarily resigned my administrator status when a bureaucrat vetoed my contribution in this RfA. Discussion on my talk page can be found here. I was given two extra flags soon after.

The time away from adminship has been good for me. I returned to editing, which always has been my principal reason for participating in Wikipedia. However, I find myself increasingly unable to do certain tasks for lack of administrator tools. In particular, I wish to embark on a wide-scale reorganization of Category:Hormones, if I gain consensus for it of course, which will be practically impossible without administrator tools or a bot. The reason for my self-nomination is the fact that I wish to be up front in explaining my history regarding administrator status.

If people wish to ask me questions about how I would perform as an administrator, I request that you base your questions on real examples from my admin history rather than hypotheticals. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination.
This RfA will fail; I request that the bureaucracy allow this RfA to close as did-not-succeed at the scheduled time. I would like to make a statement here with less than a day to go before this RfA is final. I don't want to clog talk pages with RfA thankspam. Thanks to everyone who !voted, including those who !voted to oppose. I acknowledge that the consensus on BLPs and sourcing has changed considerably since I became an admin in 2006. If it is important to the Wikipedia community that I abide by the consensus on these issues, then it is important to me too. I promise to stick much closer to WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V in future. I can't promise to fix all my past edits - there are thousands of them buried in page histories and it is a major undertaking just to commit to one article - but I have reverted my unsourced change to Josie Parrelli as the start of a new way forward, and I promise to fix my future edits. Thank you - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for many years, and intend to continue doing so. I intend to propose a plan to reorganize Category:Hormones which will require administrator status (or a bot) owing to the tedium of implementing it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The most recent article I have focused on was The Matty Johns Show. Here is a list of pages that I created.
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: You can see my talk page to see my interactions with other users. Here is one interaction that may be amusing in the context of this RfA. The most 'stress' I encounter these days is rapid speedy-deletion tagging of my new page creations. I don't win every one of those conflicts. The goal in any conflict is to focus on the task, which is to build this encyclopedia. If we all focus on the issues rather than the personal conflict, we use our time more effectively.
Additional question from WereSpielChequers
4. I noticed that you have a legacy of unreferenced BLPs among your Early contributions, including one you are still involved in. What is your attitude to current BLP policy?
A: I am glad that those stubs have had references added by others over time. If you look at The Matty Johns Show, John Brumby, Wyatt Roy and Austen Tayshus you will see that I'm paying more attention to references. Of course I am far more likely to use a reference if it is online and still available, whereas there are many notable topics that have not made it to the Internet. Josie Parelli is one example. I know Josie personally and most of the information in my contributions to her biography is from my own personal knowledge. I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it. Her notability may be in doubt, I admit. I believe that BLPs should not contain information that is untrue or unfair. You can see my more controversial opinions of BLP policy here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add some more clarity to this answer for those who have requested it. I created a stub of Josie Parelli in 2006 here. The only other edit that I have made to the page is in June 2010, when I changed her name from Josie to Josephine 'Josie' here. I think I sought online references for it at the time, and I have done today as well, and I can find none that verify that her full given name is Josephine. If I could find an online source for it, I would use it. I changed it because she told me that Josephine is her real name, and it is hardly a secret. I don't think the notion that her name is actually Josephine hurts her in any way. It is not a cause of libel or scandal for her. I don't think that I acted reprehensibly, and if you think that I did, please !vote against this RfA. Those who are concerned about verifiability might like to look at this as well. Richard Cavell (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Phantomsteve
5. From what you said above, you appear to have resigned the bit over one occurence which seems (from where I'm sitting anyway) relatively minor. I have two questions connected with it:
a. Was there more behind the decision that what you have linked to above (i.e. the RfA !vote discussion/striking/unstriking and your talk page comments), and if so would you be willing to elaborate?
A: Yes, I was personally deeply affected by the Essjay controversy. Essjay was one of the users I looked up to years ago. I don't wish to exonerate his actions. However, I felt that Wikipedia's community was ferocious and personal towards him during that time, and I admit that I lost my faith somewhat in the project. My contributions slowed thereafter. You can see a message I posted about it here. I still have some reservations about Wikipedia's way of doing things - some of which I have documented on User:Richardcavell - but my faith in the project has been restored. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b. If you had +sysop and that happened in an RfA now, would your response be the same (i.e. resign the bit) or would you handle it differently?
A: I resigned the bit after a series of incidents that made me feel as though I was growing apart from the project - the Essjay controversy, my subsequent lack of faith in the project and drop in contributions, and my desire to keep contributing as an editor quite apart from the politics. Being an admin and having my admin decisions constantly scrutinised and criticised requires dedication to the project, which I was losing at the time. Having a bureaucrat overrule my !vote made me feel that I needed to make a firm decision to step away from adminship for a while. Those circumstances no longer exist - I now feel much more agreeable to the project - and if a bureaucrat overturned my !vote now and I had the +sysop bit, I would not resign the bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from NuclearWarfare
7. What do you believe the purpose of inline citations is?
A: Firstly, let me say that I am glad that the MediaWiki software allows references to be placed at the end of an article so that inline citations don't clutter the source - see The Matty Johns Show for how I think the source should look. I believe that the purpose of citations is, firstly, to demonstrate that the text is verifiable from some reliable source, and secondly, to allow any person to follow that source to conduct further research or to verify the text. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ? Did you do this in your previous role as an admin?
A: Generally, no, I don't think an admin should formally 'ban' a user from a page or topic. The closest I came as an admin was that I tried to settle an edit war on Khachkar destruction, which resulted in both sides wanting to delete the article, and I tried to prevent the article being deleted. See here and here - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from tofutwitch11
9. What kind of authority (if any) do you think being an administrator will give you? What does being an administrator mean to you?
A: Being an administrator will mean that I have the "authority" (or, I would say, capacity) to close AfDs, speedily delete new pages and block disruptive editors. Those are the main activities I performed when I was an admin, and I expect that that is what I would do if I became an admin again. Having the ability to look at deleted pages, delete pages and move over redirects makes it easier for me to construct new content, and one reason why I want admin status again is to be able to perform a reorganization of Category:Hormones using those abilities. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - Is this really necessary, you did not leave under a cloud as far as I can see. Codf1977 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My resignation of admin status was not 100% voluntary. Adminship and Wikipedia have moved on in the last two years, and I think it appropriate to demonstrate whether or not I have community consensus to be an admin. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    as per Boing (below) - I don't see that you were in any danger of having it removed, but as you wish. Codf1977 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Being desysopped per your own request doesn't concern me. Equally had the same trust in comparison to 2006, so I'll support. Minimac (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've seen a lot of this user's contributions as we both seem to edit Australia-related articles and, having seen his demeanour at WT:AFL and at other AFL-related articles, I think he would be an exceptional admin, even if this was his first time. Not being around in '08, I looked over the reasons why he resigned and I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the fact that he could have simply asked for +sysop back, but has instead decided to go through RfA, shows that he truly has the community's interest at heart and would therefore make an excellent admin. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportGreat user, voluntary desysopping per the reason above is no big deal. Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral per the opposes. Buggie111 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support change from support rationale elaborated below original comment User has earned trust (at least from me). Well versed/exp. Things are very much in the past i feel about resigning. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still support Richard though I cant fully support regarding OR. Whatever is said personal communication is original research and in a BLP; doesnt fit. That is what it is. I stil wish the best for the editor and believe that things can be turned around. Anyway with a few months editing and a re-run here I could fully support if BLP issues are addressed. Richard is dedicated to the project and is rationale. So Im voting moral here. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Although I disagree with some of the things you say on your user page, I see no reason to think that you would not do a good job as admin -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Changed to oppose[reply]
  5. Support Good Track and choose voluntary desysopping which is explained and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why you should have resigned the tools in the first place based on what I've reviewed. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I still hold this to be true, I'm afraid that upon further review of the concerns raised by the opposers, I'm going to have to be neutral. Your disregard of verifiability and original research on a BLP is concerning. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I don't see your comment on that RfA as an issue, I just see it as a little bit discouraging but not to the extent where you should resign your adminship. I hope you will become an admin again and I'm sure you'll be great! --Addihockey10 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the comment didn't have anything to do with misusing/abusing administrator tools; it was simply stating an opinion. --Addihockey10 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Once an admin, always an admin. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always... Nolelover 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NSD, that was one of the worst support rationals I have ever seen. Does Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4 ring a bell?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral per concerns raised. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. For better or worse, I have no litmus tests; nor am I concerned with something that happened two years ago. T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Two years is plenty. I admire this user's willingness to go about an RFA when he could merely approach a bureaucrat, he obviously has the best interests of the community in mind. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Moving to neutral per WP:BLP concerns. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support Could have just gotten the bit back. Not seeing how his opinions on BLPs have been shown to have an impact on his being an admin (of which we have plenty of examples...) Hobit (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak supprt. It seems this is unlikely to pass. I implored you not to resign the bit, and I stand by that. I'm not in-tune with your more "controversial" view points in terms of BLP by any stretch. Having said that I can't parse that this translates into you not being able to use the tools within policy and guidelines (which seems to be the main concern of the opposers). "I disagree with some of your rules but I'll follow them whilst I'm your guest" is my interpretation of your stance - and an admirable stance that is. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. You appear to have been a good admin, and could most likely have got your bit back just by asking. That your attitudes to BLP are now out of sync with community consensus means only that you need to review current policies, and so long as you are willing to abide by those should not stop your re-adminship.-gadfium 05:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral Support this is just a bloodbath that no editor, especially a former adminstrator who gave up his tools in good faith should go through. Withdraw the RFA, heed the concerns of the oppose votes and try again in six months. Secret account 22:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Have reviewed the links, and the accusations of "drama-mongering." Find them to be unconvincing. The resignation likely was not necessary, and the 'crat in question overreacted. That was a long time ago. The editor appeared to be a good administrator then, and will likely make a good one now. Saebvn (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support: Trustworthy and has the right attitude but must deal with some of the concerns raised below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Reasonable editor that would make a good admin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Says he needs the tools for a specific task, I have no problem granting the tools to a trusted former admin. -- Ϫ 10:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Moral support Work on the concerns addressed below and try again in a few months. AniMate 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support for the sake of logical consistency. I don't particularly agree with the way that administrators can simply ask for the bit back after extended periods of time away, but that's the way the system presently works, and as others have pointed out the candidate could simply have done what so many others have done and would now be an administrator again. Thus it seems absurd to punish him for demonstrating some integrity. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support per Pedro. Admins need to understand that their tools are for use in accordance with the policies and norms of the community; It is perfectly in order for an admin to advocate change to policy, and of course to choose where they volunteer their time for Wikipedia as admins, where they participate as editors and where they don't get involved. Based on this RFA and my survey of the candidate's actions I'm comfortable with the candidate in this regard. My question 4 has somewhat derailed this RFA, I've had some involvement in Dashbot's program of gently chiding editors of unreferenced BLPs that they may have long forgotten, and when I asked the question I was hoping for the sort of answer that was one part of the candidate's reply - he no longer edits those articles because he considers himself to have a COI. I'd have been equally reassured with a response along the lines of "I've changed musical tastes and no longer have access to the relevant reference material". It is nice if editors help tidy up their earliest work, but I believe we should judge admin candidates on what they are capable of now. Weak because I suspect the candidate thinks that Adminship endows one with status or authority - a harmless attitude in a non-admin but not desirable in an Admin, also because of the adding of an unverifiable full name to a BLP. ϢereSpielChequers 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Moral Support per the candidate's classy concession statement and acknowledgment of other editors' concerns. 28bytes (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Drama mongering concerns per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3 Vodello (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing the candidate of "drama mongering" seems awfully dickish, but JMO. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose A4 might have been acceptable in 2006, but I personally cannot support any editor today who has the philosophy of "unsourced information in BLPs is OK if it is accurate." NW (Talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it: me neither. Shouldn't all articles (BLP or otherwise) have at least one or two sources upon creation? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per NuclearWarfare. One two three... 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, that signature threw me off for a second. Useight (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I find your opinions on BLP inadequate. Inserting information on a subject you know personally without a source is original research, however true it may be. After all, it is only your word on that; that is unacceptable practice. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I know Josie personally and most of the information in my contributions to her biography is from my own personal knowledge about covers it. Doesn't respect even wikipedia's minimal checks, and could cause harm as an admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per concerns about attitude to BLPs, and use of sources in general, plus circumstances surrounding the resignation. Aiken (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Something feels off to me. I don't know whether it is the issues that surrounded your resignation, or your views on BLP that seem to indicate you don't care about WP:V and WP:VNT/WP:TRUTH. I have seen much good writing and other associated work, but your views seem to directly contradict the 5P. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Concerns with attitudes towards BLP. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose (changed from support) I have re-read the BLP answer: I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it. Her notability may be in doubt, I admit. I believe that BLPs should not contain information that is untrue or unfair. - how can anyone else know it is correct information if it is unsourced and so unverifiable? If you doubt her notability, why should anyone else (who do not know her) think she is notable? Without sources for verification, how can we know what is untrue or unfair? Sorry, I cannot support someone who has such a blatent disregard for the WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:N -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I appreciate the openness but, although it was some time ago, the resignation does not seem to show the maturity and thick skin that I would like to see in an admin Jebus989✰ 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Q4, and prior forfeiture of the tools for the apparent purpose of making a statement - that's not what the tools are for. Townlake (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I was going to go with neutral originally. The tools were voluntarily resigned, and whatever behavior occurred at the time seems irrelevant to me, it's well in the past. But the BLP issue just seems to show a real disconnect with community norms today. Also, I'm wondering how familiar Richard is with our conflict of interest guideline. I don't have a concern with Richard as a whole, but I strongly suggest that he re-familiarize himself with our policies and guidelines before requesting the tools again. -- Atama頭 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to observe that I have largely stopped editing those television articles with which I am personally involved (eg C31 Melbourne, In Pit Lane), because they were indeed causing me conflict. The edit I made to Josie's biography was an en passant. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good, I should probably have posed a question above about COI actually, but your reply here is good enough for me at least. I still have concerns about your BLP stance but I'm always open to changing my mind at RfA, I'll peek in a couple of times to see if anything changes. Overall I still think that you could get the tools back some day, maybe hang out at WP:BLPN to get an idea of how the community treats such biographies these days? -- Atama頭 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw this also, which suggests maybe a misconception about WP:BIO. -- Atama頭 21:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Verifiability should be non-negotiable in articles about living persons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - although you voluntarily gave up your tools, the standards for and expectations from admins seem to have risen considerably in the last 4 years. Based on your answer to Q4 and the note on your talk page regarding removal of unsourced controversial content from Peter Hollingworth, I'm not convinced you are fully aware of our policies at the moment, especially BLP. I'm also unsure why admin tools are needed to reorganise a category, but maybe I've missed something there. I was just checking your contribs and your most recent edit confirms my concerns. Smartse (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, striked the last part of my comment, after realising this was referenced elsewhere in the article. Smartse (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The criticism of Peter Hollingworth had been sourced - though you need to dig through the page history now to find it, and also look at Talk:Peter Hollingworth. I acknowledge, of course, that any negative statements should be sourced and held to the strictest standards. My criticism was more related to the fact that Wikipedia processes were pre-empted by a personal legal threat, rather than being allowed to play themselves out. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I already checked the history and the talk page - the version two years ago was not adaquately sourced. I think that if somebody discusses in the media how their biography is biased or inaccurate that it should be closely scrutinised as it was in this case. I don't see the problem, with it not being done through our own processes. I'd suggest you follow Atama's advice and hang out around WP:BLPN for a while. Smartse (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per BLP sourcing concerns. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - We currently have 24,785 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs, yet this user apparently has no problem adding to that number. VictorianMutant (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose BLP issues. VictorianMutant and NW make fine points as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Attitude towards BLP's and standards of sourcing is unacceptable. Courcelles 05:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, leaning towards strong oppose. Mainly per the rather poor interpretation and usage of our verifiability policy, and not just with regards to BLPs. –MuZemike 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Richard Cavell erred in his reasoning and commentary at that RFA, but that doesn't unduly bother me now. I am concerned about this sentence in the answer to question 4: "I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it." This is not acceptable in Wikipedia, particularly in a BLP. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I see on your talk page that several people respect you and wish for you to be an administrator again, but I think I'm going to have to agree with Axl. If any content is likely to be challenged, it should not be included in the encyclopedia without a citation. What you included is original research, and original research is, by policy, not allowed on Wikipedia, whether it's true or not. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, regretfully. I didn't think the resignation was necessary and said so at the time, and would not have questioned a 'crat re-sysop had that route been chosen. But having read the BLP question on this page, and especially the clarification, I find oppose the only option. The clarification puts forth this as a point to consider; "personal communication" falls way short of WP:RS. If the community has changed, it is toward more strict adherence to BLP concerns, not less, and I expect admins to get that one right pretty much every time.  Frank  |  talk  16:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - per BLP concerns. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:30am • 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - per question 4, especially adding the cite to a personal conversation directly violating WP:V. The approach to this RfA seems to be looking for validation of his methods, but I'm not able to concur. Comment to the closer: If this RfA fails, please clarify if he can still ask for his bit back as if the RfA had never taken place. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will only allow myself to be promoted if I pass another RfA. I will not ask for the bit back if (when) this RfA fails. Whether I am able to do so is moot. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect you for this and I agree with others that if you are willing to commit to following current policies, I would be willing to support in the future. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose (with regret) - I wish I could support you, as you seem trustworthy and to have the right attitude, but your approach to WP:COI and WP:V is completely wrong: unverifiable material should not be added, particularly not to BLPs, and particularly not when you know the subject personally. I advise you to withdraw this RFA, and take the time to understand those fundamental issues; if you can bring your editing into line with Wikipedia policy, I would be willing to support you at another RFA in future. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per Fastily Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. I'm sorry Richard, but a random stab at your creations convinced me that I needed to visit a bigger selection of the 100 on X's tool. The majority are dab pages, some of which in my opinion have dubious function, but I have deeper concerns about your knowledge of the fundamental principles of article creation. I have said on RfA before, that while an impressive creation count is not paramount, I do feel that anyone wanting to police other authors should at least demonstrate goodwill and clean up their own sub standard creations before running for offiec - however old they are. Some of the more striking poor creations are: Peter Taylor (composer); the very short List of Big Band Musicians that hasn't had an edit since it was created 10 months ago, [1], [2], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalsneak, [3], I'm not sure of the usefulness of [4] (maybe there's a guideline I have missed), and [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I only came across two that were reasonable BLP, but they were the work of a great many other editors after the two-line unreferenced stubs you made and never returned to, and I am particularly concerned about BLP stubs such as [12], [13], and this, tagged for notability two years ago [14], and finally the fairly recent bot report at User talk:Richardcavell#Unreferenced BLPs. BLP is one of Wikipedia's most critical issues; deletionist or inclusionist apart, admins need to understand the policies and be objective in their implementation.--Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these articles I created four years ago. If I were to go through my contribution history and rewrite every single article I've contributed to in the style of, say, The Matty Johns Show, it would take me ten years. I had the feeling at the time that it was better for me to start something, and allow others to incrementally improve it. Some of the articles you mentioned such as List of Big Band Musicians and Peter Taylor (composer), I never intended to work on, but had to create them as a byproduct of cleaning up other things. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard, the irony is that while it took me less than an hour to deliberate on your RfA, it would only have taken me another two at most to either rescue, reformat, and clean up the ones that can be salvaged, or to CSD, PROD, AfD, or merge, the ones that probably shouldn't be around. The bot report was as recent as January this year - if you'd only addressed one a week, your articles would have been squeaky clean by now. Now, with your 'experience' as an admin, I feel it's still something you should be doing yourself. A small commitment for someone wanting the bit or wanting it back.--Kudpung (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose You have views that are contrary to current policies; that's absolutely fine. The problem is, you have chosen to disregard the policies and act according to your own views. You know the consensus regarding verifiability and BLPs, but you choose to disregard it. That is not acceptable. By all means, suggest changes to the policies - but if you refuse to abide by consensus in your actions, I cannot support your candidacy. Chzz  ►  16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Unfortunately I must oppose this user becoming an admin due to his views and actions on WP:BLP articles. Sorry.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose for the by now well-known BLP and V reasons. Sorry for piling it on. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Absolutely not. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. There's sometimes leniency, but never on BLP. I'm also appalled that you would think that a "personal communication" would qualify as a reliable source. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Circumstances under which adminship was resigned seem to indicate immaturity. You had one chance and you gave it up, despite dozens of editors asking you to reconsider. This was your choice, and now you must live with it. SnottyWong confer 03:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - "I am nominating myself for administrator status." You clearly do not understand the role of an administrator. Also per above arguments. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, BLP issue is too serious. If there is no source how do we know whether it be true?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per all the people that have said stuff about your opinion on BLPs. While I get that writing about an ancestor without using sources is tempting, it really isn't okay per a bunch of policies. If not for the BLP thing I'd support. Sorry, Mr. R00t Talk 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. This is completely unnecessary.  f o x  12:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Fox, and the circumstances surrounding your resignation bother me. Aiken (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Moved to oppose. Aiken (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment indented after opinion changed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Aiken says it best. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting my !vote Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now, although I might switch to support later, depending on him expounding his BLP statement. Nolelover 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/Moral Support - Just to briefly expand on my !vote, I want to say that my thoughts most match what Begoon said a few comments down. Had Rich just asked for the admin right back, no one would have blinked an eye. As it is... Nolelover 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. (moved from Support) I see a very experienced editor, and an ex-admin who I really don't think had any cause to resign in the first place. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the further details of the desysop incident, I admire the candidate's openness and honesty. And first hand experience of why the occasional Wikibreak is a good thing can only make him a better admin than before, I would have thought -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, I've just re-read the answers, and I'm afraid the "I know Josie personally and most of the information in my contributions to her biography is from my own personal knowledge. I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it" answer has kinda floored me a bit, as it shows either ignorance of or willful disagreement with a crucial part of BLP policy - if we allow that, we have to allow every unsourced addition that anyone claims is true. I'm going to have to stay neutral for now while I think some more, and await any possible further response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, first it was "most of the information in my contributions to her biography is from my own personal knowledge", and now it's just a very short stub and her name - this is too confusing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I find no compelling reason to oppose, particularly considering that the candidate's first sysop nomination passed with flying colors; however, I find the way he voluntarily resigned after getting his feathers ruffled by a 'crat to be problematic. I hope that I'll be able to switch this to 'support' after being convinced that this second nomination comes with a little backbone.--Hokeman (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I've moved here due to the comments brought up in the opposes. Buggie111 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Agree with Hokeman. --Inka888 21:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per the above opposes I cannot support at this time. The BLP issue cannot be overstated and is one of the most important on Wikipedia today. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral -Per issues on BLP, but candidate was still a good admin back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derild4921 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Sunshine4921 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral moved from support per my reasoning above on why I changed my mind. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral due to BLP concerns, but given your past editing history, I'm unwilling to oppose. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. I would support, but cannot in light of your views on BLP. WJBscribe (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moved from support Neutral in agreement with concerns raised with the BLP policy. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral - I can't decide whether you are opposed to BLP policy to the extent that you would ignore it (as appears to be the case in the Josie article) or whether you are simply expressing disagreement with a policy but still willing to go along with it (which would be absolutely a-ok!). I hope that this is cleared up by yourself later, preferably with some evidence to back your statements up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Withdraw the AfDRfA and ask for the bit back while you still can get it back, or withdraw the AfDRfA and don't ask for it back. This is a pointless RfA, and the "mood" of RfA has turned back into a lynch mob, where it will remain for a while until someone else starts whining about how we need many many more administrators regardless of quality. Had you started this RfA last month, you undoubtedly would have been endorsed, but your timing appears to be poor. Oh, and you didn't need to do this anyways, so the fact that you did is a mark of poor judgment. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    do you mean withdraw the RfA?
    Fixed, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thought you'd fix "or withdraw the AfD" at the same time ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm a computer programmer! I only ever fix the first error I find... :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral, would have liked you to have just requested the bit back... I think you would have gotten it back without an issue. But now, you've tied the hands of the 'crats. Don't want to dig in to this to give a "real" !vote one way or another as it appears to be doomed due to BLP issues... but I'm not going to oppose as I think this was unnecessary to begin with. (Which is actually an argument for admin recall/reconfirmation.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral Richard, if you come out with an open and strong statement that clarifies that yes, you accept some of your views were/are mistaken when compared to our policies/guidelines, then I can assure you that my vote will be yours in your next RfA where you prove your commitment to the words through your contributions. Why can't I oppose you now? Because I respect the fact that you were an administrator contributing to the mop-bit. Why can't I support you? Because it would indicate approval, to whatever extent, to your stands on certain issues - and I really do not stand in that quarter. Do consider this Richard. I've seen this community being extremely forgiving. Especially to editors who believe they can come up and accept their issues to the community. If you believe I'm wrong, it's all right, it's your view. If you believe I'm right, then do it. With sincere regards and hopes that I see you as an administrator with us soon. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral You should have just requested your bit back without an RFA. It's bizarre, but true - had you done so, quite possibly, nobody would have blinked twice, and I presume you would have been careful enough with the BLP policy as it is now to not cause any issues. But now you've asked to be assessed again, and BLP issues are enough to prevent me supporting. There's an obvious problem with a system that allows me to say what I just did, and it's not your fault at all - but asked the question I am, in the situation as it is, I can't support. I am genuinely sorry. You've fallen foul of a system that seems, here, to penalise your honesty. I wish I could vote otherwise - but the situation doesn't permit me to.  Begoon•talk 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that he has fallen afoul of the system. He seems to have high personal standards in that he only wants the bit if he has the support of the community. He is effectively carrying out a recall procedure following a long period of non-admin status, without having taken the intermediate step of first asking for the bit back. I highly respect such a course of action—no matter the specific reasons for my oppose—and I recommend that !voters on any future RfA take note of his integrity. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I recommend that it be linked from WP:AOR as a positive example of how to conduct the process. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the points you make, and he should indeed be commended for this. My criticism of the system, I suppose, is that it offers a way around this RFA which he could have taken, and may possibly have avoided the opposition here. I tried to imply that in my answer, but it seems my wording is a little ambiguous. I do have respect for him taking this approach, and my comment was to explain how sorry I was not to be able to support.  Begoon•talk 09:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral. I've seen a lot of good work in randomly trawling through edits, and I have no objection at all to somebody with a past record of creating stubby or incomplete articles - it can even be seen as making opportunities for other editors, as the first step is the toughest, and by creating an article that is good enough to survive new page patrol, you've got it "over the hump". On the other hand I cannot support the implication that "but I know it's true" trumps what the sources say; whch is not just an issue for BLPs, but for articles in general. Apart from the pure vandals, a lot of the folk who come here and make bad changes that get reverted genuinely believe what they're saying - they really believe that astrology makes useful predictions, or that xbox is vastly superior to PS3, or that political party X is way better than political party Y; and this is a problematic approach that should be addressed wherever it is found. Since we do not have a mechanism for ensuring that editors themselves are reliable sources, the only way to build encyclopaedic content is to build it on external reliable sources. On another point, I agree with UncleDouggie above, to an extent; I think that the candidate would have easily got the bit back by asking for it directly; it might be meaningful to say that the "community" scuppered this, but that's just the proximal cause and it seems to be widely acknowledged that RfA is tough these days - I think the root cause is the candidate setting higher standards for themself. Setting higher standards is often good, but we have to accept that there's a chance of failing to meet them (if there's no chance of failing to meet a toughened standard then there's something seriously wrong with the toughening). Sorry for the TLDR rant. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral Has lots of great contributions, but I am concerned about this user's perception of WP:BLP. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:45, 5 October 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/Richardcavell_2&oldid=1177693500"