Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Basket of Puppies 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:48, 7 December 2009 editShirik (talk | contribs)18,428 edits →Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 21:07, 7 December 2009 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →Oppose: gamerNext edit →
Line 180: Line 180:
#:My heavy use of Twinkle is due to it's speed, automatic notification and easy of use. I didn't realize that it would be counted against me. ] 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC) #:My heavy use of Twinkle is due to it's speed, automatic notification and easy of use. I didn't realize that it would be counted against me. ] 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
#:I have to echo the concerns here -- I really don't understand the logic behind counting the use of a tool against someone when it quite obviously still takes intelligence and understanding to be able to effectively wield the tool. Lack of use of the tool would do nothing except slow the process down, which is beneficial to nobody. --] (]) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC) #:I have to echo the concerns here -- I really don't understand the logic behind counting the use of a tool against someone when it quite obviously still takes intelligence and understanding to be able to effectively wield the tool. Lack of use of the tool would do nothing except slow the process down, which is beneficial to nobody. --] (]) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' If you explicitly go out and fix what you were told was a problem last time around, it means you (whether you realize it or not, whether you will admit it or not) view RFA as a game, and you specifically '''want''' the title "administrator." Absolutely unacceptable--not to mention the fact that this is a self-nom.


=====Neutral===== =====Neutral=====

Revision as of 21:07, 7 December 2009

Basket of Puppies

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/15/4); Scheduled to end 15:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) – Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor who has spend copious amounts of time since last RfA working on the areas which were suggested to improve on Basket of Puppies 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: New Page Patrolling-Speedy Deletion I hope to be able to further my involvement in new page patrolling by being able to delete pages which decidedly fell within the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • Vandal Fighting-Blocking vandals After issuing the appropriate warnings, blocking vandal only accounts and issuing short term blocks for IPs. As well, I hope to be able to semi and fully protect pages from active and ongoing vandalism. (See below for more.)
  • Edit warring-Page Protection I hope to sparringly use the protection features (Semi and Full) in order to help with edit wars. At the same time I will attempt to help mediate in order to solve the crux of the warring.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I am most proud of New Waveland Cafe and Clinic, which achieved Good Article status after a lot of hard work. Additionally, I have do a nightly new page patrol and have been very successful in tagging articles that were clear copyright violations and also articles that were vanity pages. One of the most important contributions I have made, I believe, is browsing WP:ANI for new threads opened in concern of other editors. I have made a real effort to ensure that all parties are notified of the thread by checking for such notification and adding the appropriate notice to their user talk page. I believe this is extremely important as editors should be notified promptly of administrative threads opened in regards to them.
In addition, I feel that this effort of content dispute resolution is one of my better ones. The article in question is extremely contentious and has a previous ArbCom case against it. I was able to gather all the concerned parties together, discuss the disparate views and come to a consensus. I am extremely proud of this.
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: A recent and rather minor conflict that occurred happened when an editor took issue with how I was self-clerking WP:ANI. I took an honest and appreciative look at how that editor viewed my contributions and changed them. That editor told me he appreciated how I quickly made a change and the minor conflict ended.
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
4. You have indicated a desire to both protect pages and resolve disputes that prompt request for page protection. How would you handle this scenario:
  • User#1, a newbie with only 5 edits on a two day old account, changes the release date for an upcoming film. There is no source cited for the previous date or the new edit
  • User#2, a more experienced editor, reverts the change as unsourced, saying he saw the date somewhere but doesn't have the link handy just now
  • This goes back and forth a few times, with snarky remarks in edit summarres, but no discussion on the talk page.
  • User#2 requests semi protection at WP:RPP
A:This is an excellent question and something that I have actually encountered and successfully mediated. First and foremost, constant reverting of an article is disruptive, especially when neither version contains any reliable sources to verify the claim being made. A request for semi-protection by the more experienced User #2 would put the article in a position where the newly registered User #1 would not be able to edit it and only User #2 could, thus leading to a situation where the article would be protected in the wrong version (in the opinion of User #1). In this specific case I would leave messages on the talk pages of both editors asking them to come and comment on a new section on the article's talk page, which would be the area to discuss the issue, present views, provide references and hopefully come to a consensus. If one or both of the editors refused to participate in this discussion and/or continued edit warring even if they were engaged in discussion then I would ask for full-protection of the page. At that point, depending on the severity of the personal comments, I would hand write notes to each editor indicating why we must avoid personal attacks and maintain civility. If the edit-war continued after the expiration of the full-protecting, and if no reliable sources could be uncovered that would confirm any of the positions, then I would hand-write a stern warning about the disruptiveness of edit-warring. After the stern warning, which would include a kind but firmly worded note of the possibility of being blocked for WP:3RR, I would then issue a final warning after which they would be blocked to prevent further disruption.
This situation has played out to the blocking conclusion many, many times on this project. It's something that I sincerely hope to be able to intervene in and help avoid, but I will be willing to make such blocks. I am extremely patient and have a very thick skin and like to think this is something I would do well in.
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
5. You also have an interest in speedy deletion. Two of the more misunderstood criteria are A7, no indication of importance and G1, patent nonsense. Can you please explain in your own words where the line is between indicating importance and not indicating it, and what constitutes patent nonsense and what does not.
A:A7 indicates that the article has not supplied a reason why the topic is notable. An example would be an article about my neighbor which said, "Eddie a guy who picks up my mail when I am out of town." This does not indicate why Eddie is notable. If the article instead read, "Eddie is a guy who picks up my mail and he is a famous politician who won the Nobel Prize in Economics" this would assert that he is notable. Thus, it would not qualify for A7.
G1, patent nonsense, is a description of just that. If an article is created with text that is complete gibberish and not just mistaken for being a foreign language then this gibberish would fall under G1. Random letters, numbers and symbols would be an example of patent nonsense.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
6. 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.Coffee, I don't think you could have picked a better example of a more contentious AfD that clearly lacked in consensus. There were many opinions from many long time editors and administrators on both sides of the issue. As an administrator who would attempt to close this AfD I would have to look very carefully at not simply the number of positions on either side, but very carefully at the arguments presented. This specific case required a strong knowledge of WP:BIO and reading carefully through the reliable sources. Only if the reliable sources truly established notability on their own merits and only if the subject truly passed the notability threshold would I close as keep. In this case a thorough reading of WP:BIO indicated that the subject did not pass the notability test. Having minor references in reliable sources does not achieve notability. As well, using blogs and personal websites as references does not usually help to establish true notability. I believe that deleting was correct, although obviously contentious.
7. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A.The current BLP policy is well-written and emphasizes caution and carefulness in every way. I very much agree with this and believe that due to the popularity of the English Misplaced Pages we must always err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid and it's not a rumor mill. All BLPs must strictly adhere to being neutral, verifiable on all claims and supported by reliable sources. Any claims, conjecture, weasel words and anything that might cast doubt, suspicion or other nasties must be removed. I have created and edited articles of living people and always ensure to strictly hold to those criteria.
Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve
6. Further to Beeblebrox's question. Can you explain why these May SD requests of yours were not valid under the SD Criteria: this A1 ("no context") requestand this A7 ("no indication of importance of a real person") request?
A:Regarding the Diane Austin article, I think that my eyes just didn't see the indication of importance. Had I see that I would sure not have marked it as Speedy A7. Regarding the context one, I think you might want to check the link. It goes to the same article. :) I learned from incorrectly marking the A7 and believe that I will be able to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Sorry, I meant to use this link for the A1 request! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Addihockey10
9. When are cool down blocks acceptable and why? --Addihockey10 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A:I think cool-down blocks are a really bad idea. I don't think they actually cool anyone down and only inflame the situation. If someone in the middle of vandalizing articles or uninterrupted personal attacks then I see no issue with a short preventive block to avoid further vandalism or attacks. However if there is a heated debate I am not in favor of cooldown blocks as they don't cool anything. I highly value dialogue and communication instead.
I understand that tempers can become heated and someone may genuinely feel that their position is either being ignored or otherwise mistreated. Instituting a cool-down block would cause the editor to feel silenced. In turn the editor's frustration would only grow and thus the cool-down block turns into a heat-up block. The consequences can be an editor in good standing with a long history of excellent contributions who feels a lack of trust, feelings hurt and now has a block history where none may have previous existed.
For all these reasons, I feel that cool-down blocks should be avoided unless there is active vandalism or significant disruption that does not respond to warnings.
Questions from FASTILY
10. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
A: In the instances where a non-free image is being considered for use, WP:NONFREE is the policy that governs this process. If there exists an image of a living person that is under a copyright then the image may be used as long as the criteria located in WP:NONFREE is followed. Specifically, a fair use rationale must exist that indicates why the specific image needs to be used and another image cannot fulfill the desired use. In summary, a non-free image of a living person can be used in an article provided the fair use criteria is followed.
11. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Misplaced Pages be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.
A: The licensing policy includes a very interesting and very useful clause, known as the "Exemption Doctrine Policy". This policy allows editors on specific projects to upload legally permitted copyrighted material. There are many clauses, issues and stipulations involved in this exemption policy and they must be adhered to and thoroughly investigated before implementing.
Based upon this policy and the project in question, certain non-free images and content may be acceptable for upload to Wikimedia servers. It is not a violation of the foundation's policies as the policy specifically provides for a mechanism in which such content can be stored and used. The proper attributions must always be maintained and the rationale must be included on the talk page of the content.
12. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?
A:
13. Photos from press agencies (like that of the AP) are predominantly prohibited on Misplaced Pages. Is there ever an instance in which usage of these images is permitted? Explain.
A: Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Images_2 is the policy regarding press agencies and using images. The AP photos are usually prohibited due to copyright laws. However there are times where the AP uses images that are in the public domain, or the image is licensed with an acceptable free license. Also, there may be a fair use rationale for using an image. In this case the resolution of the image would need to be reduced so that it did not harm the AP's profit from the work. As well, in cases of a press agency's photo that contains sourced commentary.
Additional optional questions from Mpdelbuono
14. You claim to intend to work a lot in the CSD area. Could you please, in your own words, describe the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3?
A:A1 and A3 are often confused and there is no shortage of articles being tagged with one when the other was meant. A1 is placed on an article when the article does not identify who is being written about. A good example would be an article that says, "She walked down the street on her way to get coffee." This would be a good candidate for being tagged as A1 as who is being described is completely unknown. A3 is when there is no actual content in the article. If an article contains no text (and hasn't been vandalized), only has a link to a website, consists only of tags or is being used for communication with the members of the article then these articles can correctly be labeled with A3.
Additional optional questions from Laurinavicius
15. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is an action taken by an administrator that results when an editor consistently violated policy. A block can be for a variable amount of time, usually increasing in duration (up to and including indefinite) if there is continued violation. A ban is a community or ArbCom instituted status that indicates a certain individual is prohibited from editing the English Misplaced Pages from any account.
Blocks, a temporary revocation of editing privileges, are a preventative measure, meant to protect Misplaced Pages articles and editors from disruption. A block may be issued to a registered user or an IP editor based upon their edits and contributions. If their contributions violate policy- are vandalistic, harassing, disruptive, legal threats, etc- and they continue this manner of contribution despite being appropriately warned then an administrator may enact a technical measure in order to prevent further such disruption. This technical measure is a block, which prevents the user from editing. When a user is blocked they are notified on their talk page of the reason and duration, how to appeal the block and usually advice on how to avoid further situation.
Users are banned by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee (enforced by administrators), by Jimbo or the Foundation from one article, a class of articles or even the entire project.
Additional optional questions from Gigs
16. You come upon an article about a guy named Robert Smith, who is apparently a CEO of a regional company. There is a poorly written claim in the article that Mr. Smith is a scam artist that has taken lots of people's money. What do you do?
A: Mr Smith's article is a WP:BLP and this policy must be adhered to. Any claim that Mr Smith is a scam artist, stolen money, etc I would immediately remove. If there were reliable sources to indicate that Mr Smith has been convicted of these crimes then the claims can be rewritten in a neutral tone with the reliable sources cited. However, in the absence of reliable sources I would immediately remove the claims and then watchlist the article.
17. You notice a user has blanked an article. What would be your personal process for handling this situation?
A: Article blanking is generally disruptive, but there do exist a small number of reasons why it might be appropriate. If the article is an attack page, blatant copyright infringement or a clear WP:BLP violation then it can legitimately be blanked. In the case of an editor blanking a page I would first go and check the blanked version and then check the article's talk page and history for any edit-summaries indicating why this had happened. I would also drop a note on the editor's talk page. If it clearly fell under the acceptable reasons for blanking and the blanking editor clearly indicated why they took this action then I would accept their reasoning. The article might be salvageable and require userification for a period of time before returning to the article space. In the case of a user blanking an article that did not fall under the previous listed criteria, I would restore the article and issue a level-appropriate warning on the user's talk page.
18. Under what situations would you block a user that hadn't been issued a full set of warning templates?
A:


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
  • Query: As a non-admin, I obviously can't see the candidate's deleted items: Can anyone who is an admin please let us know the number of successful SDs? I can see several unsuccessful SDs, but I would really benefit from knowing the number of successful SDs, as the candidate says they want "to delete pages which decidedly fell within the criteria for speedy deletion" - and this would allow me (and others) to see how the candidate does in judging by the criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, on the talk page of this page, you can see that they've had just about 600 deleted edits. That's usually a pretty good barometer... Tan | 39 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - "while all answers are responses, not all responses are answers" to paraphrase from Babylon 5! Are you saying that the majority of those deleted contributions are successful Speedy Deletion requests? Theoretically, a lot of them could be edits during BoP's early editing career here, on articles that were later deleted. If an admin can say that they have looked at the deleted edits and found that (number) or (%) are successful SD requests, that'd make it a lot easier for me (and perhaps others) to be in a better position to judge how successful the candidate is in SD requests. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
His last 500 deleted edits go back only as far as September, the vast majrity of them are SD taggings, mostly A7 and G11. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Beeblebrox - that's what I was looking for. I'll await BoP's answers to a couple of the questions before making a decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Basket of Puppies, Question 13 is half wrong while 10 and 11 read like you don't understand non-free content policy and are trying to avoid answering the question directly. As a sysop, you will undoubtedly come across image copyright at some point. Perhaps you might like to try again? -FASTILY 02:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
-sigh- Nice try but no dice. Leave me a message on my talk when this RfA is over and I'll give you the right answers. -FASTILY 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Erm...I'd recommend not adding this. That makes question 13 flat wrong. -FASTILY 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Fastily, I understand. I guess my confusion was over the part in WP:NFC that states A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. I felt that this indicated that a fair use of the image would require reducing the resolution sufficiently to make the original still able to turn a profit. Basket of Puppies 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support Dedicated editor who has certaintly improved since their last RfA.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support Though your last RfA was only 2.5 months ago, I don't think that you'll break anything if you have access to a few extra buttons. You're a kind and competent editor whose improvements have been consistent. @Kate (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Per above. You have improved since your last RfA, and I trust that you won't break anything. The thing that should not be 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to no memorable negative interactions, as candidate was trusted enough to be given Rollback Rights, candidate appreciates puppies (Napoleon once said something about people who like dogs appreciate faithfulness, or something to that effect), user has a good article credit under the belt, user has been editing for nearly a year, user has significantly contributed to or created dozens of articles, User:Basket_of_Puppies#Awards is nice to see, at the time of my supporting, no one has commented in the oppose section of this page, and has never even been accidentally blocked, which means NINE reasons I could come up with to support! Bravo!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support balance of evidence suggests a net positive is a more than likely outcome, so worth a shot with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Andrea105 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support You've made some great strides since your last RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support, I can't see any real reason not to trust this candidate; as for his edit count, I passed RfA having made only 2900 edits myself. --Aqwis (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support Looks good to me. Additionally I have no problem with the automated edits percentage that others have, it is not unreasonable especially with all the new tools out there to help with vandalism to have a significant portion of your edits being "automated" when working against vandals... RP459 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looks fine. More than enough experience by any rational standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support Answers look fine to me. A8UDI 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support Have reviewed your previous RFA, contribs look good. I don't see why Automated edits are a problem, and your deleted edits don't appear to be an issue either. I've had over 800 edits deleted through vandal fighting and CSD work. No blocks, no bans.... I think you'd make a great admin. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support opposes not matter to me. — JoJo • Talk • 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support The only thing stopping me from supporting you was Q15 :) --Addihockey10`
  15. Answers to questions are satisfactory, as well as contributions. Keegan (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support, a useful contributor to WP:ANI and I am happy to support this candidate. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support - trustworthy and enough experience. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support: I would never support such a candidate. Not enough time on Misplaced Pages, the high level of CSD work with Twinkle, the state of several of the stubs created without any references at all etc etc. Only 2 months in between RfAs plus use of automated editing make it impossible to support. However I basically like this candidate (must be the puppies) therefore I am going to give weak support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Argh. I hate to be the first oppose for this RfA, especially given the undoubtedly positive effect BoP has had on this project. I just cannot convince myself that this editor is ready for the mop; it's not a matter of there being a "net positive" - it's a matter of me thinking that there is too much of a chance for mistakes to be made. The contributions to admin-related areas I see as superficial - it's as if a lot of clerking, gnoming, and fringe-content has been done, with little "meat". The candidate's contributions give me little indication (Nobody's support notwithstanding) of how they will act in that arena. I typically react negatively towards editcountitis; however, in this case I think several more months of experience and double the edits would give me a better gauge for which to measure the candidate. I encourage other !voters to not vote "per Tan" without doing a lot of research - this oppose is more of a gut feeling than one I can back up with diffs. Tan | 39 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose insufficient evidence the editor understands what's at stake with the content in the encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    What, exactly, is at stake? Gigs (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    Real people and their rights to basic human dignity, perhaps? JamieS93 23:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed, but I was more curious about what Bali meant specifically. Gigs (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Interested in JamieS93's gloomy statement, infringements on "basic human dignity", I examined the list, picked one at random Lois McMaster Bujold - and voila - there are plenty of references. The "problem" there seems to be lack of inline citations. The article is chemically cleansed of contentious info and lack of inline citations for uncontested material is hardly a hot issue threatening basic human dignity. Such alarmist statements show lack of judgment and perhaps young age. Spot cheking some other entries, avoiding obviously ridiculous list entries such as Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie, gives no rise to concern. Pointing to this list as evidence of "a problem" is a farce. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. While I certainly believe that you are headed in the right direction and that you have made some extraordinary contributions to the project, I just don't think you have enough experience to be a sysop. Sure, eight months is a long time, but making roughly 300-500 edits per month isn't nearly enough activity for me to support. Not only that, about 700 of your 3,600 edits are automated. You state you wish to work in anti-vandalism, yet I see you have made a grand total of 7 edits to WP:AIV. Also, I'd recommend being careful when working with images. File:Twinklefirefoxosxscreenshot.png is a copyright violation, deletable by WP:CSD#F9. Coming from someone who intends to work in WP:CSD, I find this rather disturbing. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't seem like much has changed since you previous RfA. I don't mean to discourage you, but I just don't think you have what it takes to wield the mop just yet. Perhaps in a few months and several thousand more edits. -FASTILY 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure about your logic on that copyvio. Firefox and Twinkle are both free open source software, so whose copyright is being violated by the screenshot? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    At a minimum, the wikipedia globe is copyrighted and "All Rights Reserved", Wikimedia Foundation. It is never allowed in free content. Gigs (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    (e/c)While Firefox and Twinkle are both free software, that doesn't necessarily mean that screenshots can be released into the public domain. There's also the Misplaced Pages logo in the image, which is copyrighted. And there are also elements of the OS X interface which AFAIK is proprietary. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose You have only about a year's experience coupled with less than 4000 edits. This would be ok if you were a super-outstanding candidate with a good quality nomination by a trusted user, but the self nom seems a little inappropriate. I'm also leery of anyone who manages to find and add Twinkle to their account four minutes after it was created. With all of these factors put together, I just don't trust you. ThemFromSpace 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    He said in his previous RfA that he had been editing as an IP before he signed up, and may have signed up in part because it was the only way to be able to use Twinkle. -- Soap /Contributions 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, I'll strike that. I still have issues with experience, though. Switching to weak oppose. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    I dunno, I'm just not comfortable for some reason I can't verbalize at this point. For now, I must regretfully oppose. DS (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Actually, I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the right person. Not ready to oppose or support yet. DS (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Very Weak oppose The answers to several of the questions give me pause. Question 15 is kind of wrong about bans vs blocks. I used to think that it's patronizing to ask people these basic questions, but the frequency that they are answered incorrectly has surprised me. Grasp of copyright seems a little weak, but he didn't claim to want to work in images, so I'm not sure all the image questions are necessarily fair. One of the big issues is that he seems to be simply summarizing existing policy without having given them much thought prior to this. His answers don't particularly inspire confidence that he could handle synthesizing the spirit of the policies needed for dealing with edge cases. While none of these are big issues, they are just enough to edge me into oppose. I get the feeling that the more questions he answers, the further I will be driven to opposition, but we'll see. Gigs (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) He amended the answer to 15, it's better now, still oppose for now though. Gigs (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. From a review of his edits to ANI, I get somewhat of the same impression as Tan; most of his edits to the page seem to consist of "clerical" notes rather than adding to the discussion. Decided to oppose after reading some of the answers to the questions. I don't like that BLP apparently didn't come into consideration at all in Q6. Q10 is just wrong; Its generally been accepted that, except in extreme cases like J.D. Salinger, a free image could presumably be created for a notable living person and therefore a non-free one will never pass WP:NFCC#1. I also agree with Gigs that many of the answers seem to just be summaries of policy with no personal twist or interpretation. Knowing the wording of policy is not especially important. Knowing the reasoning for policies is, and from reviewing his recent contributions and the answers to the questions, I'm not convinced that BoP understands the reasoning behind enough of administrative policy and procedure. Mr.Z-man 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    MrZMan, I respectfully submit that my answer to Q10 is technically correct. While the practice may rarely occur, I was asked a very specific question about policy and I presented the mechanism in which it could legally occur. I realize, however, that in practice it almost never happens. Basket of Puppies 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    The answer is technically correct, in the sense that all it really says is "It can be done when policy says it can be done." However, the answer fails to mention that "when policy says it can be done", for all intents and purposes, is almost never. Such an answer could easily be modified to answer any question about when something is allowed. All it shows is that you know what policy applies and where it is. Admins are expected to know more than where to find policy and how to paraphrase it, they're expected to know how to apply the policy and the "why" behind policy. The answers to the questions here do not convince me that you understand that. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose while I had hoped to support, I don't see the level of activity (read, uncomfortable with your level of experience) at AIV, UAA, and RPP as a strong indication, and I'd like to see more experience with CSD's. ArcAngel (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Seems a little too eager for the bit in my tastes. And just not that confident in his experience level. -- œ 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Not now. The self-nomination rationale puts me off. I reviewed some of the articles you created, many cite only primary sources Bryan E. Bledsoe, Yitzchak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life, even no sources Cerebrospinal fluid leak, or were redirected Radiolucency. You obviously need more experience before I would trust you to delete other people's work. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Hi, power.corrupts. I thank you for your feedback. However I hope you won't mind if I offer a minor correction. You indicated that I used only primary sources for some ariticles that I created. I admit that this is the case for Cerebrospinal fluid leak, however Bryan E. Bledsoe uses secondary sources in addition to the primary sources. I have gone to those articles and added references where none or few previous existed. Thank you for letting me know about the missing references. :) Basket of Puppies 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. 2 months between RfAs? Seriously? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per Tan, OlEnglish. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Mr.Z-man and Power.corrupts. GlassCobra 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose While I disagree with Power.corrupts, and consequently GlassCobra (the diffs cited go way, way back) I believe you lack experience, confidence, and maturity. I would recommend more participation in dispute resolution (not necessarily through WP:DR) and more experience with content (not necessarily audited, and not necessarily creating new content). Additionally, I'd recommend you wait longer than 2/2 months for your next RfA. A minimum of 8-9 months would be better. Aditya Ex Machina 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Oppose You seem to be fairly well experienced, but the high level of CSD work with Twinkle concerns me, as does the state of several of the stubs you created (as listed on your talk page). Specifically I mean stubs which you created without any references at all and other issues. Overeagerness (only 2 months in between RFAs?) plus use of automated editing and poor quality in some of your article writing all equals me feeling uneasy. Steven Walling 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    While I obviously agree that the created articles are a concern, I am curious to hear a little more about your objection to the automated editing. I myself have finally begun using Twinkle to do CSDs and AFDs, but it's merely as an aid to speed up the process, and it automatically reminds people, whereas I sometimes forget. Do you mind elaborating? GlassCobra 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    My heavy use of Twinkle is due to it's speed, automatic notification and easy of use. I didn't realize that it would be counted against me. Basket of Puppies 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    I have to echo the concerns here -- I really don't understand the logic behind counting the use of a tool against someone when it quite obviously still takes intelligence and understanding to be able to effectively wield the tool. Lack of use of the tool would do nothing except slow the process down, which is beneficial to nobody. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Oppose If you explicitly go out and fix what you were told was a problem last time around, it means you (whether you realize it or not, whether you will admit it or not) view RFA as a game, and you specifically want the title "administrator." Absolutely unacceptable--not to mention the fact that this is a self-nom.
Neutral
  1. As someone who opposed your last RfA, I'm glad to see you've followed the advice given by me and the other opposers. However I wish we had given you more advice, because I think you could have used some. It's been three months since then and you have more edits than some of the lowest-count administrators, so edit count itself isn't really an issue here. But I don't see that you've done much work in the areas you plan to work on, except in CSD. I don't see much evidence of anti-vandalism work or content dispute resolution, for example. I think that my oppose rationale from last time still applies: you're definitely on the right path, but I don't have enough contribution history to make a proper judgment of how you would perform as an administrator right now. I'm putting this in the Neutral section because I think that if this RfA does succeed that you will be careful and not make any great mistakes (as I don't see you making great mistakes as an editor either), but the concerns above keep me from supporting. -- Soap /Contributions 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    I think you are a fantastic user and I deeply appreciate your determination to resolve issues at ANI. However, your edit count is only approx 2,000. I realize this isn't rationale isn't highly thought of in the RFA community, but I simply cannot support at this time. I am more than open to change of heart in the future to support. A8UDI 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Move to support. A8UDI 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    The candidate has more than 3,200 edits. Timmeh 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't change my position. What will change my position are the candidate's answers to the followup questions. A8UDI 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - You have certainly improved since your last RfA, but the majority of your speedy deletion edits, to what I can see, are automated. Although I am waaaaay anti-automated, I am not opposing because of your quality CSD work that you have done nonetheless, but I can't support because of the percentages of that work. I guess I'll stay here. Good luck with your RfA! smithers - talk - sign! 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    It looks like he mostly uses WP:TWINKLE, which just makes things easier. Each edit still has human thought and judgement behind it. It just makes it so you don't have to manually add tags to user pages and articles. I'm only mentioning this as I think there is a real difference between using Twinkle and using elaborate automated processes like WP:AWB. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    Great edits, but lack of non-automated edits and Q14 don't directly strike me as admin caliber work. If you feel you can expand on Q14 Q9, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. --Addihockey10 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    I have expanded Q9. I sincerely hope you feel my expanded answer is of good quality. Basket of Puppies 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Lol, I fail. Okay, so I meant to say expand Q15. I'm sorry I screwed up... twice.. --Addihockey10 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Changed to Support
  3. Neutral - Heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure if she's there yet. Crafty (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per above. Nothing to suggest this editor would abuse the tools, so normally I'd support. However, I just don't see any sort of substantial experience, and I agree that BoP does seem a bit too eager for the tools. As an aside, the nomination statement doesn't inspire a lot of confidence—it's great that you're enthusiastic, but an admin must never take themselves too seriously. :) Good luck and let me know if you have any questions. –Juliancolton |  17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Basket of Puppies 2: Difference between revisions Add topic