I have received several requests on and off-wiki to run for adminship. I am not planning on running as I believe certain accounts could show up and disrupt such an effort and also because I am not sure I want/need the attention that being an administrator would bring, particularly with regards to why I changed usernames. With that said, I believe we should always keep an open-mind and maybe I will think differently down the road (I would not consider running until at least a year since my rename). So, I am starting this page just as an extremely tentative request for feedback from good faith editors.
My approach to RfAs edit
- I do not usually watch list RfAs anymore. I have frequently found discussions in them counterproductive and needlessly hostile. I prefer to make my stance and whether I support or oppose, I make a comprehensive summary. It either convinces others or it does not.
- I do not generally support anyone who would say to delete an article I say to keep. I only participate in so many AfDs and only argue to keep so many as well, i.e. only for articles that are slavageable in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Therefore, anyone who says to redlink rather than transwiki, merge, or redirect even an article I say to keep, I cannot trust and do not want to close AfDs reasonably as presumably they are not adequately considering other alternatives to redlinking. I fully believe that Wikipedia:Editors matter and barring we are discussing something libelous, a hoax, or a copyright violation, if any reliable primary or secondary sources exist, we usually have some other alternative than deletion. I simply will not support administrators who do not demonstrate a willingness to consider such alternatives. Moreover, once ANY editor in good standing requests more time to improve an article under discussion that is not a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, then we expect the community to show them the courtesy to do so on a project that does not have a deadline. That is the real meaning of WP:AGF. We do not say, "Well, I don't think it's improveable, so tough." No, we say, "Okay, take a few months and let's see what you can do!" Wikipedia does not exist only for what we care about after all.
- I consider "cruft" to be downright childish and "non-notable" to be elitist in the "four legs good, two legs better" sense, neither of which makes any practical sense on the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. So long as sources exist, that reality is good enough. Deleting as "cruft" and "non-notable" is nothing more than wanting to impose a limited and narrow-minded vision on the masses and of retaining articles that only these self-appointed policemen deem worthwhile. Thus, we absolutely cannot support admin candidates who use childish or elitist terms to delete things.
- I tend to not support those who waste all sorts of time playing games in RfCs, ANI threads, or starting AfDs rather than helping to improve content. Admins need to appreciate what goes into rescuing an article, for example, if they are going to consider the merits in an AfD to be closed. Devoting disproportionate time to trying to destroy other editors work without doing much yourself (or helping to improve that other editor's efforts) is not helping the project. Hypocritically fawning over one's self while belitting someone else in an RfC or at ANI instead of say welcoming a new user or actually improving an article is similarly a waste of time and server space.
RfA Standards edit
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Positives edit
- Having never been blocked (see below, however).
- Having received barnstars.
- Having contributed to did you know, as well as good and/or featured articles and/or lists.
- Having rescued articles from possible deletion.
- Supporting merging of content during AfDs per WP:PRESERVE.
Negatives edit
- Having been blocked; however, I do take into account if any block(s) was(were) accidental or made in bad faith. I also take into account the nature of the block, i.e. edit-warring is not on par with harassment (edit-warring can and should be forgiven, but harassment and personal attacks, not so much); alternate accounts are not the same as sock puppets, etc.
- Having used weak non-arguments in AfDs, especially WP:JNN, WP:PERNOM, or WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments that mature and serious editors and academics would not use. Generally speaking I will not respond to or humor use of the nonsense non-word "cruft" or elitist and subjective claims of "non-notable" especially as relates to fictional topics due to the failure to come to a consensus over fictional notability (not to mention the strong opposition to even the always disputed general notability guideline). Serious editors never say to delete something because it is "cruft." Thus, I absolutely cannot support administrator candidates whom I have seen use these sorts of non-serious non-arguments.
- Having used rapid-fire copy and paste or templated delete nominations or "votes" across multiple discussions that do not reflect careful consideration of individual article's merits or that suggest nominator/voter is not adequately looking for sources first.
- Having renominated articles for deletion that were previously kept in an earlier discussion. Barring new information has come out proving the article is a hoax, renominations after a previous discussion ended in "keep" are disruptive and pointed. Once an article is kept, we should either focus on improving that article or if anyone does not wish to help in that effort, then he or she should move on. Renominating an article that has been recreated after a discussion closed as delete is fine, but not if any previous discussions closed as keep, again, barring the one aforementioned exception.
- Still wanting to delete an article even when sources have been provided that assert notability and verify the article's contents. Not having an open-mind and sticking to a deletion stance is immature and unbecoming of editors, but especially administrators who should be open-minded to efforts to build our project. A good way to determine who is here for the good of the project and who is trying to adhere to a biased agenda is to see who still wants to delete something when sources are presented to them.
- Calling opponents who have different ideological or philosophical stances "disruptive." I have found that in my own experiences most of those who label you "disruptive" are actually themselves disruptive and need not be humored as making a serious or honest allegation. "Disruptive", as with "non-notable," "cruft," and "indiscriminate," is a term frequently used by pointed editors and typically does not reflect the general viewspoints of the community at large.
- Supporting in an RfA per an or the oppose(s), i.e. "per various arguments laid out in the Oppose section," "that down below," or "counteract some of the frivolous opposes." RfAs are about the candidates and not the other editors in the discussion. Similarly, when numerous editors in good standing have outlined reasons to oppose, saying to support per "no reason not" or "Why not?" In both cases, these types of supports essentially violate WP:DICK, should be and are discounted by any self-respecting bureaucrats, and just reflect poorly on the character of those making them.
- Being more concerned about process than content, i.e. being more concerned about having an AfD play out rather than allowing for a merge during the discussion in instances when a merge location exists and the content under discussion is not a hoax, libelous, or copy vio.
- Having committed adultery (in the off and hopefully unlikely chance I see an admission somewhere...). I view those who cheat on spouses as weak and traitorious and if they can betray and lie to a spouse (someone with whom they presumably "love(d)"), they are not to be trusted or forgiven by anyone else.
- Being blind to obvious harassment and/or stalking (yes, these are the terms I am using, because I am a fan of hound dogs and do not want to equate them with bad people) of other editors and worse yet excusing it, especially when flat out lying to do so. Again, this is an unforgivable behavior. Mentally stable people do NOT obsess over/fixate on others and certainly not when they start to take things off-site. As such, my new approach to such accounts is largely to Wikipedia:Deny recognition. At best they will take the hint and give up or move on to their next victim. They might also obsess harder and continue following me, but I figure eventually others will take notice. At worst, they will get so miffed that they are being ignored they will escalate to a level that involves serious intervention. Wikipedia must do everything it can to make sure things do not get that far.
- I suppose the following probably goes without being said, but I am being comprehensive here, so anyway, I despise pedophiles and would never support one as an administrator. I am also not a big fan of rapists. I also find beastiality disgusting as well. I guess to each his own on many things, but not when it comes to minors, unwilling participants, or animals. And you know, my feeling towards harasser/stalkers is similar, i.e. say if more than one fellow editor identifies a problem of another editor (A) with another editor (B), it should be an automatic that the editor A be required to leave editor B alone or be blocked. That should just be a given here. Once multiple editors in good standing tells someone to stop and he or she continues, then editor A has become disruptive and obsessive and must be blocked immediately.
- Being immature which could range from swearing to being amused by toilet humor.
- It is also probably not good on such a diverse place to have racist or sexist admins. As far "ageist" goes, well, I suppose people mature at different ages, i.e. we have encountered some spectacularly immature adults here and elsewhere. Perhaps what is key ability to handle the stress of dealing with those you will encounter who are hostile about being blocked and/or having their work deleted?
- Prodding or nominating an article for deletion without checking for sources prior to templating per WP:BEFORE.
- Immaturely trash-talking editors on such sites as Wikipedia Review in a manner that would likely result in a block if said on Wikipedia.
Comments regarding block log edit
The biggest scarlet letter I have is of course my block log, but I believe it can be easily explained:
- Block of 01:32, 8 November 2006: This block was three years ago. As my recent AfD contributins suggest, I do not rapid-fire copy and paste in AfDs anymore and ardently oppose when others do so. I believe I have grown considerably from the mistakes and ignorance of how I edited when I began and I am incredibly careful not to edit while logged out anymore. Any checkuser could confirm that looking at say my main home IP, they will notice that after Durova unblocked me in 2007, I was incredibly careful not to edit with IPs. Moreover, some IPs and accounts that were in 2006/2007/2008 alleged to be mine were not and as such did not show up on any of the four checkusers done on me from 2007 to 2008. Only two accounts have ever come back as confirmed as mine.
- Block of 05:44, 11 April 2007: Using this tool, you can see that my checkuser confirmed alternate account was never used in the same discussions as my main account as a sockpuppet, i.e. in a disruptive or unconstructive manner. After a friendly email correspondance with Durova, she ultimately unblocked me.
- Block of 01:20, 26 June 2008: This block was undone 23 minutes later and after an ANI thread concerning the block, the blocking admin has not edited since then.
- Block of 18:50, 7 September 2008: Blocking admin has exercised WP:RTV and is no longer an admin. Although allegedly vanished, the person behind the admin account has at least twice trash talked me and made false accusations off-wiki that spilled over on-wiki, including her violating the RTV by using an IP to harass me. Moreover, the so-called edit-warring was when I was in the process of cleaning out my userspace in preparation of vanishing an account with whom I had past disputes started a beating a dead horse/pointless thread that disrupted my effort to vanish. I have shown a couple trusted editors evidence of what I meant by the real world harassment, which should substantiate the urgency at the time. The "edit-warring" was with others who themselves were in effect edit-warring as well, were not neutral parties when it came to me, and were trying to derail my attempt to leave. If necessary, I can show diffs of incivility and personal attacks from those on the other side of that "edit war."
- Block of 04:24, 15 September 2008: Chaser unblocked less than an hour later. Also, regarding the account that came back as "likely" me, see here for the only three pages edited by both accounts. I have over 30,000 edits now and in the cases of both my confirmed alternate account and the likely one, we have only edited a handful of the same pages and never in a sock like manner.
- Block of 05:11, 15 September 2008: A username block when I was temporarily renamed to random hex digits, which was undone when I was renamed to "A Nobody."
- Block of 01:58, 5 February 2009: Obvious mistake undone a minute later.
Questions for the candidate edit
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would like to help to transwiki deleted articles to other wikis and to delete obvious hoaxes. I would avoid closing any AfD that is not a WP:SNOW close. I would stay away from BLP issues, page protecting and unprotecting, and issues involving image copyrights. I would absolutely not block any user with whom I have a clear dispute in the past and would be willing to list those I would not block in an actual RfA. I would only block in cases of obviously disruptive or imflammatory usernames or in cases of clear ongoing vandalism after appropriate warnings, but again, not if any of these were editors with whom I have had disputes.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have welcomed thousands of editors and posted many smiles and other friendly messages on editors' talk pages. I feel proud of these contributions in that they help to make editors feel appreciated per Wikipedia:Editors matter and Wikipedia a friendlier place in general. I have also rescued numerous articles for deletion, helped contribute to a couple of Good Articles (I say "helped," because others deserve more credit in both cases than I do), and have even contributed several times to WP:DYK. In addition, I have made thousands of small edits to clean up grammar and format. All of these I feel proud about, because it means I have helped to build the free and paperless encyclopedia that strives to be the sum total of human knowledge, which I believe is a worthy contribution to humanity in general.
- 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: More often than I wish. Most of those with whom I have had conflicts have turned out to be part of sock farms or have been blocked for incivility. I have dealt with it in a variety of manners. In some cases trying to offer some kind of nice gestures whether it be a friendly userpage messages or offer of assistance. In others, I suggested we avoid each other. In worst cases, I have sought administrator intervention. In a number of instances, these conflicts have been confusing, i.e. at the same time that say I respond to multiple editors in an AfD, I will have a few editors change from delete to keep due to my comments to them, while others accuse me of badgering. The same for RfAs. So, what does one make of that? It works with some, but not with others.
Those who would be willing to support me in an RfA edit
I would only run for adminship if I believe I had a realistic chance of it passing. Therefore, please indicate below if you would be willing to support me in an RfA. I am only interested in determining here who would support me in an RfA as I do not want a page in my userspace to devolve into some kind of attack page. Obviously, I would not hold anyone to their support below in the event of an actual RfA. If this list gets over 100 supports, I might give it a whirl, but not until 6 February 2010 at the earliest and maybe not until say 13 October 2010 (the two-year anniversary of my rename and four-year anniversary of when I started editing).
- --—Cyclonenim | Chat 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- --LittleMountain5 Happy Easter! 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- --I would be glad to support you. However, you don't need to conduct this type of a survey. If you want to run for RfA, just go for it. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- --Me too, as Wiki is the encyclopedia for everyone. All I could ever advise is being a bit more succint in responses... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- echoing michaels comments. Ikip (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You do a lot of brilliant work, esp. at WP:RfA. Defaintly - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Most certainly, AN. Sorry I'm late. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support of course. You have done a lot of work for wikipedia. I can't think of anyone that would make a better administrator than you. Dream Focus 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I would. Acalamari 20:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Most definitely. You do excellent work. I must admit I thought you were already an admin. Metty 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would definitely be willing to support you. — Oli OR Pyfan! 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)