Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Guest9999: 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 20:55, 17 May 2008 editRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits fix my goof← Previous edit Revision as of 21:08, 17 May 2008 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits →Oppose: fixed and repliedNext edit →
Line 58: Line 58:


=====Oppose===== =====Oppose=====
#'''Very strong oppose''' due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], i.e. subjective claims of "]" when community consensus believes otherwise. Other arguments based on consensus-lacking ]. See also ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another. Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but ''he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted''. Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep. One that I did find (]) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete. Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well. Also, some . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) #'''Very strong oppose''' due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], i.e. subjective claims of "]" when community consensus believes otherwise. Other arguments based on consensus-lacking ]. See also ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another. Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but ''he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted''. Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep. One that I did find (]) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete. Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well. <s>Also, some .</s> Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
#:I'd just like to point out that following a discussion my username was , that was in February 2007 and I haven't had any comments or complaints since then. ] (]) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC) #:I'd just like to point out that following a discussion my username was , that was in February 2007 and I haven't had any comments or complaints since then. ] (]) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
#::Okay, fair enough on that point. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
#:Hey, basicaly your opposing cos this guy is a deletionist and nommed a few articles you like for deletion? That's a stupid reason, I disagree with half the policies here on wikipedia and it does't affect my judgement. I'm a strong inclusionist, but I think that's a very bad oppoe.--]]] 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) #:Hey, basicaly your opposing cos this guy is a deletionist and nommed a few articles you like for deletion? That's a stupid reason, I disagree with half the policies here on wikipedia and it does't affect my judgement. I'm a strong inclusionist, but I think that's a very bad oppoe.--]]] 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
#::No, I am basically opposing because he has overwhelmingly nominated and argued to delete articles a tremendous number of which were kept. It is one thing to be a deletionist, but be on the side of the argument that ultimately has consensus more often than not. These are a large number of instances in which his arguments were totally against consensus and thus if he wants to work in closing AfDs, it is a major concern for the community if what we have as evidence of his understanding of inclusion criteria is overly restrictive and counter to actual community consensus. We are not talking about a few articles "I like". MOST of those listed above were in AfDs that I did not participate in. Moreover, many of these nominations were mass nominations for articles with incredibly diverse degrees of quality and importances. Thus much of what I cited as examples were in fact ] time lost that could have ]. It shows a lack of understanding of what ] is, i.e. a combination of genral encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. And again, even when (see ]) he argued to keep, the discussion actually closed as delete. And for the record, I would not merely oppose someone, because they are a deletionist. I have argued and even nominated to delete articles as seen at ] and have even included deletionists on my . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) #::No, I am basically opposing because he has overwhelmingly nominated and argued to delete articles a tremendous number of which were kept. It is one thing to be a deletionist, but be on the side of the argument that ultimately has consensus more often than not. These are a large number of instances in which his arguments were totally against consensus and thus if he wants to work in closing AfDs, it is a major concern for the community if what we have as evidence of his understanding of inclusion criteria is overly restrictive and counter to actual community consensus. We are not talking about a few articles "I like". MOST of those listed above were in AfDs that I did not participate in. Moreover, many of these nominations were mass nominations for articles with incredibly diverse degrees of quality and importances. Thus much of what I cited as examples were in fact ] time lost that could have ]. It shows a lack of understanding of what ] is, i.e. a combination of genral encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. And again, even when (see ]) he argued to keep, the discussion actually closed as delete. And for the record, I would not merely oppose someone, because they are a deletionist. I have argued and even nominated to delete articles as seen at ] and have even included deletionists on my . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:08, 17 May 2008

Guest9999

Voice your opinion (talk page) (19/1/1); Scheduled to end 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Account held for around 16 months, active contributor for 10 months, approaching 5600 (undeleted) edits. I think I’ve made (and learnt from) the biggest mistakes I going to make and have recently found myself editing more in areas where the tools could be of use. Guest9999 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: One area I would I would like to work would be the closing of AfD discussions. Articles for deletion is an area I have been involved during my time on Misplaced Pages and whilst there have been many occasions where my opinion differed from the final outcome I think I have enough awareness and understanding of the various relevant policies and guidelines and enough experience in AfDs to be able to determine what consensus (if any) has formed. I would also like to help out with CAT:PER as I understand (from experience) how frustrating it can be to spot an uncontroversial mistake in an article and not be able to do anything about it – although I realise that this is an area where much caution is required. Additionally I would also hope to help clear backlogs for speedy and proposed deletions. Eventually I would also like to become involved in other areas where the tools could be of use such as the requested move process, requests for page protection and at the 3RR noticeboard although currently I think I might need more experience before working in those areas. I imagine if I had access to the tools I would make more contributions to WP:DRV, WP:RFA and the various administrator notice boards, as the ability to see deleted material and contributions (without having to ask another user) would make it easier to comment in some discussions, particularly those involving material that has been speedy deleted.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: Whilst I am generally pleased with my overall contribution I hope my best work is still to come. So far I have not created many articles and none of those I have started have progressed past the stage of being stubs (examples: Michael Francies, 3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene). In terms of other article content I’m proud of, there are a couple of articles that I think I helped save from deletion or get undeleted (examples: Love That Dog and Howlin' Rain). I think I'm most proud of the (few) navigational templates I’ve created including Template:Toy Story, Template:Nancy Drew, Template:John Irving and Template:Magic Circle. One particular area where I hope I contributed to a positive outcome was with Harry Potter related articles. After being part of - and causing - conflicts early in my Misplaced Pages "career" (see question 3 for more details) I created a list of articles on topics which I thought may not have been notable which led to the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. The outcome of which (as the list now shows) led to a mass clean up operation which has made the subject matter clearer, more cohesive and easier to navigate.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I wouldn’t say that many areas of editing cause me stress, when I first started contributing Misplaced Pages on a more frequent basis I had a tendency to get over excited but I now try to keep a cool head at all times when editing. The biggest conflicts I have been in again came when I first started editing Misplaced Pages more regularly. I decided to propose the deletion of or add notability tags to literally hundreds of articles relating to Lord of the Rings (examples: , , ) as well as making two mass nominations at AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon). Not surprisingly (in hindsight) this attitude did not go down well with the users who spent their time creating, maintaining and improving those articles. Heated discussions with User:Carcharoth (here, here and here) and User:IronGargoyle here and here) followed by a discussion at the Administrators’ Noticeboard (here) led to me withdrawing the AfD nominations and realising that the actions I took were not appropriate to the situation – especially since WikiProject:Middle-Earth was in the middle of an ongoing clean up operation. In that situation I basically backed away and let them get on with it. At the same time I got into similar conflicts over Harry Potter related articles with the mass nomination of several articles at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End and the individual Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter as well as a a deletion review. During this period I got far too excited and did not always act in a civil manner (for example ). In this instance the situation did eventually improve and after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horcrux in which I made some quite patronising comments (for example ), I realised that the way I was acting was not conducive to collaboration or forming a consensus. Instead I then helped start and took part in the collaborative, discussion based effort at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability mentioned above. More recently around two months ago I was involved in a minor conflict with User:Woody due to my then misunderstanding of the speedy delete criteria as they related to non free content (relevant diffs , , , , , , ). I was completely in the wrong, apologised and have since tried to fill the hole in my knowledge that was shown up. Whilst editing Misplaced Pages I think it is always important to remain calm and be civil and that is how I would hope to act in any conflicts I might be involved in in the future.

Optional question from Zginder

4. What do you consider the most important Misplaced Pages policy and why?
A: Choosing just one I think I'd have to say Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules not really because of the ignoring rules bit but because I think it reinforces the idea that all actions taken whilst editing should be made in order to improve or maintain Misplaced Pages. Guest9999 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Trees Rock

5 How Can we trust you with the Mop.
A: I'm not exactly sure how to answer but I'd hope that through my history of contributions in various areas I have shown that I will not intentionally abuse the tools and am unlikely to accidentally misuse them. Guest9999 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Guest9999 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support, see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, per User:Guest9999/Rollback, seems to take great care with his actions, realizes his mistakes, and takes steps to correct them. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support: Looks to be an excellent contributor, why the hell not? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:43, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Has lots of experience with deletions, is a mainspace contributor, doesn't rely on scripts, and is civil. He has made a few mistakes, but is always apologetic and rectifies the error. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I have reviewed a large chunk of Guest999's recent AFD contributions. The candidate had added real value to every discussion they have participated and the only occasion when their recommendation did not mirror the eventual close was when fresh information came to light. This is clearly an insightful editor who does understand our inclusion criteria and who would close AFDs with maximum levels of that illusive clue. What I really like is that all the contributions demonstrated careful attention to detail and thinking through before commenting. Spartaz 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. Seen you around, especially at WP:WPHP. Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Aye Been impressed with this editor whenever I've seen them. Black Kite 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support For knowing what WP:IAR means!!! Zginder 2008-05-17T17:19Z (UTC)
  9. Support - Any editor that is willing to be instantaneously honest, upfront and candid with past mistakes, realize when they've made some errors and take responsibility for them has my utmost respect. I think with this attitude you will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 (T / ) 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Yup. Easy one. No qualms from me. Excellent answers to questions, including question #3 which is a toughy. Nice work, happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support -- per Wisdom89. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong support - Learns from mistakes, very well intentioned, everything this encylopaedia needs in an administrator. Why the hell not? asenine 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Per Useight, good distribution of edits, i like his rollback page, seems like someone who wants to learn from mistakes, wouldnt abuse tools. Self nom doesnt bother me. See no reason to oppose. Good luck. Realist ('Come Speak To Me') 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Definitely meets my criteria. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support -- A particularly strong candidate for the mop. Hell, I thought he was already a sysop! --Sharkface/C 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support good answers, attitude. Honesty and frankness in recounting past errors and conflicts is most commendable. Vishnava (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - WP:WTHN if i'm honest. Very honest and open about past mistakes, plenty of good experience in admin related areas. There is simply no reason to oppose, although I can guarantee you'll get at least one.. Regards, CycloneNimrod 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Mr 9999 clearly has able experience to be a great admin and I have no concerns that he'll abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - Has good record with edits, the rollback page is a definate plus... but the biggest thing is that he is willing to admit and try to fix his mistakes Jsmith86 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - Self-noms usually make me a little uncomfortable, but after reading the existing commentary here and reviewing recent edits, I believe this candidate is "in it for the right reasons." Good luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Very strong support User has proven exceptional ability to stand on own two feet by self nomming even though he knows he'll take flak for it, and not having to hide behind more well known editors, has demostrated ability in the mainspace, and many other areas, and his answers tot eh questions were absolutly brilliant.--Phoenix-wiki 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support – I’m sure that opinion caused a few heads to turn, coming from me :-). I am in full agreement with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I believe Guest9999 has a tendency to express his/her opinions from the deletionest side of the fence. However, every time he/she has expressed their opinion, it has been well thought out – well within policy - logical and more importantly civil. I believe that is what we are looking for inAdministrators not necessarily individuals who agree with our point of view, but individuals who will respect our point of view when it differs from their own, and will judge on all points a view. I believe we have a name for that,consensus I trust you with the tools. Good Luck.ShoesssS 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support: I've been waiting for this one for quite a while. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Very strong oppose due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sycamore Trails Pool, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wade Load, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm, i.e. subjective claims of "not-notable" when community consensus believes otherwise. Other arguments based on consensus-lacking Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of volcanic eruption deaths, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of bestselling novels in the United States, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LJY-Netzer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Schmuck, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banishment in the Bible, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hate sex, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horcrux (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Published alternate histories, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Magical portrait (Harry Potter), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Browncoat, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wooster School, etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another. Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted. Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep. One that I did find (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete. Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well. Also, some seem concerned with the username. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out that following a discussion my username was unanimously deemed acceptable, that was in February 2007 and I haven't had any comments or complaints since then. Guest9999 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough on that point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hey, basicaly your opposing cos this guy is a deletionist and nommed a few articles you like for deletion? That's a stupid reason, I disagree with half the policies here on wikipedia and it does't affect my judgement. I'm a strong inclusionist, but I think that's a very bad oppoe.--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, I am basically opposing because he has overwhelmingly nominated and argued to delete articles a tremendous number of which were kept. It is one thing to be a deletionist, but be on the side of the argument that ultimately has consensus more often than not. These are a large number of instances in which his arguments were totally against consensus and thus if he wants to work in closing AfDs, it is a major concern for the community if what we have as evidence of his understanding of inclusion criteria is overly restrictive and counter to actual community consensus. We are not talking about a few articles "I like". MOST of those listed above were in AfDs that I did not participate in. Moreover, many of these nominations were mass nominations for articles with incredibly diverse degrees of quality and importances. Thus much of what I cited as examples were in fact unconstructive time lost that could have been better spent. It shows a lack of understanding of what Misplaced Pages is, i.e. a combination of genral encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. And again, even when (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) he argued to keep, the discussion actually closed as delete. And for the record, I would not merely oppose someone, because they are a deletionist. I have argued and even nominated to delete articles as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and have even included deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose Per Answer to Q4. Trees Rock 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, I'd consider that probably one of the better responses. Wisdom89 (T / ) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Dude, his answer to both your question and Q4 were absolutly brilliant, we need more admins with attitudes like that. I can't se any reason for the oppose...--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Saying there's no reason to oppose when two editors have offered reasons to oppose is somewhat insulting. Imagine if someone opposed claiming "no reason to support". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Waiting for answer for Q4. Trees Rock 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Er, I'm not entirely sure about your question. What exactly are you asking? --Sharkface/C 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I was all ready to support, even strongly, but after looking at Le Grand Roi's diffs I'm going to hold back on whether I support or oppose, and I'm even leaning toward the latter. Wizardman 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Guest9999: Difference between revisions Add topic