Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Download: 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 01:25, 5 May 2009 editDrawn Some (talk | contribs)5,968 edits →Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 01:28, 5 May 2009 edit undoMyownusername (talk | contribs)56 edits →OpposeNext edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
#Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(]) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) #Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(]) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
#I'm sorry but I must '''Oppose'''. I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:]. My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia. In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time. I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later. ] (]) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) #I'm sorry but I must '''Oppose'''. I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:]. My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia. In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time. I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later. ] (]) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Much too many admins lately ] (]) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 01:28, 5 May 2009

Download

Voice your opinion (talk page) (8/6/1); Scheduled to end 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Download (talk · contribs) – Download is a highly active user I noticed in my wikiwork who has an excellent track record as an editor. After reviewing his history, I have decided to nominate him for adminship.

Download has been an editor since April 2008 and has amassed over 22,000 edits in that time. He has been active in many areas of the wiki, including AIV, CSD, and the user adoption program. Further, he has written and contributed to several articles, including a GA, Linkin Park. Also he has been an active member of the Math Wikiproject and contributes to community discussions.

If selected as an administrator, I believe he will continue his AIV efforts and assist in the other administrative tasks. Download has the requisite knowledge and has shown the skills necessary to be an admin, which is why I am nominating him today. MBisanz 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by GT5162 - Download has a lot of experience in many areas of Misplaced Pages. He is a very polite, mature and helpful user who has helped many less experienced users by adopting them and creating his adoptee's classroom to help new users learn about Misplaced Pages and encourage them to contribute.

If this RfA succeeds, he will no doubt use his administrator rights for the benefit of the encyclopedia. GT5162 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by MC10 - Download is a good-natured user. He apoligizes for his mistakes, has an Adoptee's classroom, has a majority of edits to mainspace, and helped out in the community. He also commonly participates in AFDs, WP:AIV, etc. Also, Download constantly fights vandalism, and will continue to do so, as he states in question 1. By making him an admin, he will further fight vandalism, commit to the connmunity, and be a plus to the admins. MC10 | Sign here! 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words; I accept. -download ׀ sign! 22:21, 4 May 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: Having done work in a wide range of areas on Misplaced Pages, I plan on working in a variety of admin's areas. Having done a lot of work with Huggle and Lupin's anti-vandal tool to combat vandalism, I'd start with WP:AIV - there's always a need for more admins there. I'd also work in WP:RPE and WP:RFPP, watching both pages and dropping by once in a while to appropriately fulfill or deny requests. In the future, I might go in to deletion and sock puppet investigations when I have more experience as an admin. In addition, I'm currently learning JavaScript, so I will try to help any projects that require knowledge in that field. Finally, I'd check Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators for users who are in need of admin help.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I'm quite proud of my 100 and more reports to WP:AIV, and my numerous typo corrections using WP:AWB. I've also had, and will continue, a successful adoption program, in which I've adopted several adoptees and taught them the basics of Misplaced Pages and how to stay away from vandalism. Recently I've also taken to creating articles I've found at WP:Requested articles, creating a plethora of articles (though I'm embarrassed to say that most are stubs). I tend to create articles in the mathematics and music fields, as they are my area of interest and expertise. One of my current projects is helping one of my adoptees create the Vatican City portal, which I hope will turn out to be great.
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've had a few conflicts with either way about notability and what should and should not be included in the article. I tended to be the inclusionist, and usually opted for content, such as Washington State Mathematics Championship, to remain on Misplaced Pages. On the corresponding deletion debate, our friend Uncle G showed us we were both wrong on our thoughts about notability; notability is not subjective. From past experiences, I've learned to take the issue to the corresponding talk page and discuss it rather than immediately reverting. In addition, I've learned to stay away from topics in which I have a conflict of interest.
A few users have also commented on my miscorrections using WP:AWB to articles; I had been miscorrecting the titles of French literature, as shown in this edit. In those cases, I apologized and tried to keep on the alert and stop making those mistakes. I will definitely be more careful in the future, whether or not am an administrator.
4. Question from Ched
Noticing your "Say no to flagged revisions" graphic, I'd like to ask; what your reasoning for being opposed to this? (there's no right or wrong answer for my purposes, I'm just curious about your line of thinking here)
A: Although I didn't get to the voting for the trial in time, my reasoning was that it would be futile to flag every single revision to Misplaced Pages. There simply wouldn't be that many users up to the task. Having automatic flagging, say every 24 hours, only complicates the task. We already have software such as Huggle and Twinkle which are able to patrol recent changes and revert or tag for deletion when necessary. As for adding false information that is not discernable by the patrollers, I believe it could be combatted by those who have the pages watched. Another line of thought is that the implementation of Flagged Revisions might discourage anonymous or new users to refrain from editing. After all, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and any changes made appear immediately. -download ׀ sign! 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An few strictly optional questions from user:Tempodivalse:

5. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content dispute, et cetera.
A: Consensus is when editors come to a conclusion about an editor, a proposal, etc. They don't necessarily need to agree; for example, even if an article met A7, an article's creator and fans would still opt for it to be kept. However, if an editor had an extremely good reason to explain how their thinking went, it'd probably weigh the strength of his/her's judgement. AfD's and others are not a vote; therefore, if editors piled on one point of view, I wouldn't always follow them if the other point of view had good justification. "Misplaced Pages runs by consensus, not by strength in numbers. In conclusion, I believe consensus is when editors justify their opinions about the topic, and the others are swayed towards or away a single opinion in their line of thought. Hope that makes sense. -download ׀ sign! 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Are there any Misplaced Pages policies that you particularly agree with? Conversely, are there any policies you particularly disagree with?
A: Over my time on Misplaced Pages, I've strongly supported the three-revert rule. It doesn't hurt to talk it over on a talk page and reach consensus rather than edit-warring. In addition, it saves memory and bandwidth that could go towards something useful. Verifiability is also a policy I agree with. I do not, however, agree with WP:NOR. Original research can be a very useful source in some cases, especially interviews. One might not be able to find information regarding a person or subject without conducting an interview. For example, The New Mikemoral and I were working on the article Farid Suleman. However, we could barely find any personal information about the subject and resorted to sending letters to Citadel Broadcasting for more information. Though replies never came, original research could potentially be a very important resource for topics.
Question from Steve Crossin
7. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs.) Steve Crossin /Help us mediate! 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
A. One particular example was a dispute regarding whether Math Champion should be banned at WP:ANI. Math Champion had been jokingly vandalizing user pages, including mine. I discussed this situation with him, and he later apologized at the page and promised to stop vandalizing. He's now a good editor, doing vandalism reverting with Huggle. An adoptee, Axmann8, had gotten blocked multiple times for violating WP:SOAP and adding political propoganda to pages. I'll admit I didn't have much to do in the role of reaching consensus with his community banning as I did not approve of his editing; however, I tried to teach him about Misplaced Pages policies and how to avoid getting blocked in the future. -download ׀ sign! 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Questions from Ceranthor
8. I asked this question at another RFA, and I think it should become traditional. What do you think constitutes the difference between a major edit and a minor edit?
A. In my view, major edits are those that add substantial content to the page. This doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but should be something that gives more information to the reader. Minor edits are typo fixes, vandalism reverts, stub-tagging, etc. These don't have much of an effect to the reader; however, tagging them as minor edits would be useful to bots and users who scan the history of the page. I myself, and probably some other editors out there, use minor edits minimally as checking the box is a little bit troublesome. -download ׀ sign! 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Can you name any articles which you have contributed to substantially, and how you benefited them?
A. I'll admit that I'm not much of a writer. I do, however, write a lot of stubs. I have WP:Requested articles and subpages watched, and try to fulfill requests there. Recent articles I've written are Gnomenreigen, Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Amadinda, and others. As for larger articles, I've done some work with articles regarding the Bellevue School District, but I will no longer do so as I have a conflict of interest. In these articles, I added significant amounts of content. I've also done work on Igor Panarin, where I at first expanded and sourced information. -download ׀ sign! 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Question from either way
10.Could you explain the rationale behind this edit? I'm just curious why you would edit an archive three months later to reword something.
A. I really did not like the way I phrased that response, and could not refrain from editing it. There's no policy against editing a comment from long ago, so in conclusion, I could not stop from rephrasing it.


General comments

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16«talk 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


  • While I don't personally consider heavy article work to be an important criterion for adminship, I did notice something strange - in the nomination statement, Download's contributions to Linkin Park are specifically mentioned: but upon looking these up all I can see are two Huggle reverts and one edit in October in which he adds the word "guitar". Have I missed something here? ~ mazca 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's all a bit fuzzy to me as I haven't had any thoughts related to this topic for a long while. Looking at my userpage, I added it to my "Significant Contributions" list somewhere between December and January. I was also confused while looking at userpage previously as to why I couldn't find the content I added to Linkin Park. I do remember that I did contribute a bit to articles about their songs. -download ׀ sign! 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support I checked to see if the candidate was an admin or not. --Caspian blue 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support Very friendly user, who will be an asset with the mop. Good luck.--Giants27 /C 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support by default. I've noticed Download around in a lot of different areas. Always adds insight to discussions. Over a year and 20,000 edits? Of course I'm going to support. I trust download to use the tools wisely. ;) — Ched :  ?  22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Weak support I think this thread sums it up: knowledge of policy is not as great as I'd usually expect, but very coachable when he/she makes mistakes.--chaser - t 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Even though I'm not an editor who believes the count makes the editor, I am truly baffled by the number of this users edit equaling over 22,000 in just a few months. I'm sorry but that completely blows me away. Also, from my experience with this editor, he is nice, civil, and well mannered. And though the user page argument is good, you must also look and see that he has over 13,077 of those edits are to the main space. Without a doubt deserves mop.--(NGG) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Somebody could easily rack up 25,000 edits in a month with Huggle or AWB; surely there's more to adminship than the edit count? –Juliancolton |  23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    According to these stats, 66.82% of Download's edits are automated tools. I repeat that, 66.82%. That is alarmingly high! either way (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    I do plan on working at WP:AIV, which is why I've tried to get more experience with vandalism reverting and reporting. -download ׀ sign! 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    None the less, just because a editor has a large amount on automated edits reverting vandalism doesn't mean that should take for the quality. Reverting vandalism or adding content, both are good work to me. Also, like I said, It's not like I believe the count makes the editor, it's just the number stunned me.--(NGG) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Both good work, yes, but hardly comparable. The point Julian was trying to make isn't that the edits are worthless, it is that with automated tools you can rack them up with little or no thought in a tiny period of time and not have the experience and knowledge yet that such a high number would suggest. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes I see your point. His automated edits amass to over 15,000.--(NGG) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed. Noting that he only had 22,586 edits to start with (with 13,000 in the mainspace) that does leave things rather thin on the ground. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    And about 32.5% of the edits overall are from AWB. Assuming that all of his edits with AWB were in the main space, that's 56% of his mainspace edits. either way (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support – I've seen this user everywhere, s/he is very helpful and friendly, and would no-doubt be a net positive the the project as admin. No major concerns here. TheAE talk/sign 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support As nominator. MBisanz 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Good answers to questions, seems to understand policy and can be trusted. No concerns. tempodivalse  00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support As nom. MC10 | Sign here! 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Answers are satisfactory, seems to have a better knowledge of policy than the opposers seem to suggest. This probably won't pass now, but you will hopefully be an admin one day. Ceranthor 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This user is unquestionably a net positive benefit to Misplaced Pages. He is friendly, welcoming, and readily admits to mistakes. These are the makings of a great admin. I have concerns however about whether he has reached the level of required wiki-maturity yet. There are a lot of edits to his userspace, making me wonder about whether he views this as some kind a social club. There is evidence of some inappropriate behaviour here and there; nothing too alarming. I find the comment "... adopted several adoptees and taught them ... how to stay away from vandalism" really quite odd: it should go without saying that you are not coaching vandals! Anyhow, keep up the good work and don't be discouraged however this nomination goes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    To explain my high amounts of editsto the userspace, other than those to my userpage, is that I have question pages for my adoptees in my userspace. I've had several adoptees which accounts for quite a lot of those edits in the userspace. I won't be discouraged, as advice is always welcome for improvement. -download ׀ sign! 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Quite a lot, yes, but of the last 500 edits to the userspace you have made (and this includes edits to other people's userpages/whatever) I count 121 edits to your userpage, awards page or guestbook. Significantly these 500 userspace edits are in the last month and a half; 17 March through to 4 May. I count 157 to your adoptees pages; you spend almost as much time fiddling with your userpage and assorted other things as you do contacting/helping the five users you were adopting throughout that period. The does rather undermine your "my adoptees explain the amount of time I spend on my userspace" point. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    I really have no idea why I made so many edits to my userpage during that period, but thanks for my advice; I'll work on it. -download ׀ sign! 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but 60% of his edits are to articles and about a tenth of those are to userspace. In the broad scheme...--chaser - t 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the userspace edits and his answer to question four. He seemed to have grasped completely the wrong end of the stick in regards to the poll; firstly the flagged revisions trial is solely for BLPs, and secondly the edits do appear instantaneously to the user who makes them. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. User does not have a good grasp on basic copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines and policies as expressed through his arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Washington State Mathematics Championship, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Math is Cool Championships. He continuously asserts that there is notability, yet, provides no sources. Download also edits consistently in areas where he has a conflict of interest which may be an issue when adding admin tools into the mix. either way (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think that this thread shows a lot of what concerns me about this user and his lack of knowledge, as well as his conflict of interest-based editing (he was advocating keeping a list of names in the article that included his own name). This took place just a few weeks ago; way too soon to show a major change. either way (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    However, the list had proper sources, and the competitions listed are considered notable by me and others. I now try to stay away from COI editing, which is why I have not made a major edit to the article for two or so weeks. -download ׀ sign! 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    "Me and others" didn't provide sources to prove notability. You just kept saying "it's notable, it's notable" even when presented with counter examples. You never provide sources to prove notability. You just insist it exists. Take any of the AFDs I've listed in my oppose. Here's one of your !votes: "Keep High news coverage. -download | sign! 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" (the article has zero sources and you provided none to back up that claim). either way (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose Download has had his account since April '08, yes, but he's really only been active since the beginning of this year, with the vast majority of his edits coming in the last three months. That, combined with the evidence from Juliancolton and Either way, lead me to believe that this user still needs more time before being granted the bit. However, I look forward to seeing this editor again and supporting. GlassCobra 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Sorry, I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy about supporting. This worries me a bit, as well as AWB issues like this, RC patrol issues like this, heavy userspace editing and lack of recent editing activity (before a few months ago), and issues with core policies as demonstrated by the diffs Either way (talk · contribs) has presented. I also wasn't satisfied that you have the adequate skills in dispute resolution to be an admin, and your answer to my question didn't sway my opinion there. Sorry. Steve Crossin /Help us mediate! 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(NGG) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. I'm sorry but I must Oppose. I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor. My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia. In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time. I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Much too many admins lately Myownusername (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. This was very odd, and a bit inappropriate. Neutral for now, though this is only a temporary position. –Juliancolton |  22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Martin's oppose furthers my position. –Juliancolton |  23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Neutral for now thanks to the userspace thing; I can be swayed either way, really. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC) move to oppose. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    I haven't made up my mind yet. Normally I'll default support, but there are a few diffs and concerns I've seen that make me pause and think. I'll wait until my question is answered before deciding. Steve Crossin /Help us mediate! 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose, sorry. Steve Crossin /Help us mediate! 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Download: Difference between revisions Add topic