Calabe1992 (talk·contribs) – I have first seen Calabe1992 last summer while I was reverting vandalism and he/she reminded me that a vandal has the right to remove warnings from their talk page (as long as they don't abuse it). This user appears to be a heavy vandalism fighter and has been actively involved in nominating vanity pages for speedy deletion, as evidenced in his CSD log. Now that he/she appears to have shown improvement since the first RfA, I think it's time for him/her to have the mop based on experience. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank you, and accept. Calabe1992 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the community's response to this RfA. Am I disappointed that a joke modelled after what was once featured content ended up being a turning point, absolutely. None-the-less, I respect the community's views, and will return at another point in time. Calabe1992 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I mainly intend to deal with the numerous aspects of vandalism, such as protecting pages, warning users and blocking the absolute vandal-only accounts, as well as working with CSDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I just like to solve problems. I don't see the point in coming here just to vandalize, disrupt, or offend others. With the declining rate of editing, I would rather someone just be a productive editor. It feels good to help out a new user who is having trouble. I enjoy pointing them in the right direction.
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: Obviously. One such example was back when I was rather inexperienced with rollback - I used it to revert someone who was going against consensus but not vandalizing, and had it revoked. I discussed the situation with Reaper (who shortly thereafter restored it) and then took much more time to study policy. I intend to continue taking criticism constructively - if I misstep or make a decision that probably wasn't the best one, I want to know about it so that I can rectify it and will not repeat it later.
Additional question from NHRHS2010
4. What do you feel like you have improved since your unsuccessful RfA?
A: I've worked to not only address the issues raised there, but also improve my overall editing. I have a much better knowledge of policy, and I'm less quick to "pull the trigger." I want to more thoroughly review or address something before making a decision on it.
5. Can you please show us the three articles you think you have done the best work on?
A: This is the tough one for me that I knew would come. ;) I've never been heavy into article/content creation, and it's really not a big goal. Maintenance issues aside, I've primarily worked on music-related articles (such as Skillet (band)), and therefore most of my content work lies there. I've created a few music articles for individual songs/singles as well, which are visible here.
6. You notice an editor using rollback to revert the good faith edits of other editors, the rollbacks include informative edit summaries and don't look like edit warring, what if anything should you do?
A: Well, if they're using true rollback, the only edit summary would be something like "Reverted edits by Some Person (talk) to last revision by Another Person", which would not be helpful at all. In that case, (and as long as they hadn't been notified before) I would politely inform them that rollback is not to be used for that purpose. If they had been notified and/or were blatantly misusing rollback, I may consider revoking it as long as they had enough warning. On the other hand, if they're using Twinkle's rollback, I would hope that they would use the AGF function, which would explicitly state that the edits were good faith. What I would do would probably vary depending on the case (such as if the edits they were reverting were editing mistakes, I would not see an issue).
7. Editor A and Editor B are edit-warring over a userbox on Editor B's talk page that says "This user is proud to be White and proud to be Nerdy." Editor A keeps removing it with the edit summary "Racism is not permitted on Wikipedia" and Editor B keeps restoring it with the edit summary "Leave me alone!" Both have reverted 7 times. As an admin, what do you do?
A: I don't see racism in that case. I would see racism if the user stated that he was proud not to be black. Therefore, I would state that to User B. Addition/correction: I would inform user A that it didn't appear racist, but may let user B know that he could be a little more civil than just saying leave me alone.
8. Are block evasion and ban evasion the same thing?
A:Way different. A block prevents an account or IP from editing. Block evasion occurs when the operator uses a different account or IP to get around it. A ban is a formal revocation of the account operator's rights to edit the encyclopedia or a specific part of it. Contributions from site-banned users who evade the ban may be reverted without explanation, because the community has determined that the issues with the user outweigh the benefits of their contributions.
9. Would you feel comfortable opening an ANI thread about someone who's not purely a vandal?
A: A pure vandal generally wouldn't be reported to ANI anyway, as that would go to AIV. So, absolutely, yes, I would open an ANI thread about a non-vandal.
10. You say that non-vandals should go to ANI. What is your opinion of discussing potential issues on their talk page first? If the user is a valued but long-term problematic user, would you (assuming you are uninvolved) make blocks yourself? If you did some reverts in a dispute, and you highly disagree and believe the user is disruptive, would you use ANI?
A: For the first part, well, if I felt there was an issue that may be ANI worthy, I would absolutely discuss it with the user first. If I was able to resolve it myself, their talk page would be the place to do it. I would turn to ANI if I felt that the community's help would be needed. For the second part, that would depend on the case. Obviously a block would only be made to prevent issues the user may be generating. For the third part, if there was a content dispute, I would discuss the issues rather than revert, and then consider dispute resolution in an appropriate manner for the case.
12. This is actually a tough question. Discuss the durations, parameters, and your rationales for the following actions:
Page is recreated every two or three weeks for the past few months, by non-autoconfirmed users. You create-protect.
A user has persistent problems with personal attacks one evening, using all-caps. You decide to block.
A user with less than 500 edits has engaged in his/her second edit war, and you block.
There is IP edit warring for the very first time on a page, with reverts once per hour. You decide to protect.
An IP range 2001:db8:abc:def::/64 is vandalizing and you decide to rangeblock (a /64 in IPv6 should be treated like a /24 in IPv4 for the purposes of this). There are about 10 vandals in this range, and the vandalism involves profane language. The IP range is registered to a mobile hotspot.
A user keeps violating NOTTHEM on their talk page but have >10,000 edits. You decide to change the block settings, and the initial block was 24 hours.
An LTA attacks someone's talk page. You decide to protect.
A:OK, I'll probably go one at a time here. ;) 1/ Create-protect only by sysop, indefinitely, because it was repeatedly recreated (only if notability couldn't be established, of course). 2/ Would probably block for around 12 hours for a first time offense, in order to stop them from continuing. Block would be longer for a repeat offender. 3/ I would first review the length of the first block (if applicable), and would probably issue a block that would be slightly longer than that (if the first block was 24h, the second block could be 31h). If they hadn't been blocked before, probably a 12 or 24h block would work. 4/ I would restrict the edits to autoconfirmed for somewhere in the 12-24 hour range (as long as no autoconfirmed accounts were involved, of course). This would force the IPs to take it to the talk page. 5/ Considering the IP is a hotspot, it would likely be the same person performing it. I would block for around 24h to prevent them from continuing. Once the 24h expired, others could edit. If they came back after the block, I would block longer, because obviously the person is returning. Anyone else who needed to edit could request an account. 6/ I would revoke their talk access for the length of the block and explain my rationale on their talk page. 7/ Well, if a LTA is attacking someone's talk page, I would first block the LTA's new account. I would only protect the page if the LTA kept coming back under other accounts/IPs, and the protection would be autoconfirmed only for 12-24h (depending on history of attacks).
13. In your answer to question 7 from 28Bytes, you said that you would inform Editor B that you do not believe Editor A's userbox demonstrates racism. Both editors have violated the three revert rule, although one was using it to undo edits on his user talk page, and that editor is the one you claim is justified in following his course of action. What would you do next? Would you implement blocks on either, or be content just to warn?
A: I had mistyped my answer to that (got the user letters mixed up), and then I believe we edit-conflicted. But anyway, per WP:3RR, a user may revert changes to his user space as long as they are not violating userspace guidelines, which in this case, they wouldn't be. I would probably stick with a warning for the user who had been removing it, unless of course they continued, at which time I may consider blocking them temporarily for edit-warring.
14. You have come across an editor that has blatant advertising on their userpage. What would your first action be?
A. Well, a self-promoting or advertising userpage would fall under G11, so I would speedy it as such. My next step would depend on the user's history, and potentially their username. If their username isn't promotional, and they don't seem to have other advertising history, I may notify them regarding the advertising policy. If their username was promotional, I may use a softer block against them. This would let them know (without biting them hard) that their username was not acceptable, and promotional editing is not allowed regardless of their username. If the account shows blatant intent to advertise even after warnings (such as if they're repeatedly recreated a promotional article in the mainspace), I may block them for a advertising-only account.
Additional question from NHRHS2010
15. I decided to patrol Recent Changes for a little bit and noticed that one of my high school classmates was on Wikipedia to do vandalism. You beat me to reverting this vandalism, and according to his vandalism, his brother has a crush on this girl who is roommates with one of my female friends who attend Duke University (I have no idea how they know each other, it's just a small world). If you catch someone you know in real life vandalizing Wikipedia, then what would you do? What you have a talk with him/her in real life or would you stay on Wikipedia to deal with his/her vandalism?
A. Hilarious! I edit completely anonymously (no one in "real life" knows my username here) so seeing someone that I know vandalizing would not change how I handled the situation one bit. I would never even reveal to them that I was the one reverting them.
16. Have you ever tried to resolve a content dispute between other users, where you were uninvolved? If so, how did it go? (And if possible, please provide a link to the discussion.)
A: Yes, I have stepped in when coming across content issues. When I do so, I stress the issue of not edit-warring (I frequently will make a null edit instructing them to please stop) and instead taking the issue to the talk page. I have dealt with some rather aggressive editors, such as one who attacked an IP for removing an inappropriate list entry that the user had added. I instructed the user at my talk page to stop attacking the IP, and that if a person doesn't have an article, they should not be added to list articles (in general).
17. I notice from your edit history that you leaped in as a vandal fighter almost from Day 1. Have you ever used or are you still using another screen name to edit Wikipedia? If so, please list this name or names. This should be one of the basic questions asked of every candidate, in my opinion.
A: Vandal-fighting was what primarily inspired me to actually join the site. I didn't like seeing that people were coming just to disrupt it (and many times, in such petty ways). I believe I may have made a small number of IP edits before creating my account, but the IP appears to have changed (my current IP has no edits). Of course, I have never used any other account, other than my alt account listed on my userpage.
This is my alt account, if you're wondering. Calabe-alt 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Wow, considering it's such a widely known product, I'm actually quite surprised by that article, and not in a good way. Much of it is in a list format, and most of the references are based on information from the company itself. Are there some helpful external links, yes, but I certainly couldn't rate the article more than a two or three at most. Some independent, reliable sources to replace the first party ones would be a good start, but some more detailed history of the product and how it was concocted and distributed would make it much better. A brief look at a few of the articles in the Unilever template that's on that page didn't look too promising either.
19a. Please describe your understanding of the differences between a user who is "indefinitely blocked", and a user who is "banned".
A: See the block evasion/ban evasion question above. An indef-blocked account is not able to edit the encyclopedia. A ban is a social revocation of a person's rights to edit. It may be indefinite or a set length of time, and may be the whole encyclopedia or a specific topic/section.
You haven't quite answered my question. It's good that you know the difference between block evasion and ban evasion. I'm asking you about the differences between the types of restrictions. To be honest an answer like "indef-blocked account is not able to edit the encyclopedia" is wholly simplistic and gives me cause for concern that you don't understand the core difference between a block and a ban. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not quite sure of much more there is to explain. A ban is a social constraint that applies to all editing (good-faith or not) and may be enforced by blocks. Any contributions in defiance of a ban can be reverted without question. Calabe1992 18:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19b.In your opinion, should users who have been "indefinitely blocked" have their otherwise-good-faith contributions, such as that to an RfA for example, struck out? Why or why not?
A: Good faith contributions? Absolutely not. But personally, I don't feel that the contribution from the indef-blocked user below was made in good-faith. The user is not in good standing as he has been blocked for personal attacks and multiple account abuse, and also left no rationale whatsoever as to why he was opposing. Had he left a valid rationale, I would feel it was good faith and wouldn't think twice about it. Note that I personally never scratched the comment - I asked my nominator what the process was in cases like this, since I wasn't aware.
Do you believe it should be struck? How do you define "in good standing" (your own words)? Someone who has been blocked for personal attacks (i.e., not related to content) can be in perfectly good standing. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In good standing" can apply in different ways - in this case, it was a user who was blocked specifically because they were only being disruptive. Their edit to this page came in the midst of deliberately making disruptive edits elsewhere, which would lead me to wonder whether they were acting in good faith here (if they left a valid rationale, then they likely were, but they didn't). If this wasn't my RfA, I wouldn't like seeing a vote in a case like this work against a candidate. Calabe1992 18:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20a. In my humble opinion, the biggest problem on Wikipedia is Biting the Newcomers. Can you remember any instances where you helped a new user who was not obviously vandalizing, when you could have just as easily Twinkle-reverted their edits as disruptive? It's okay if that user never became a constructive editor, it's the thought that counts.
A: Sure. Here's a user that I helped from a couple of weeks ago. I found him editing the sandbox, so obviously there wasn't anything remotely disruptive to revert, but I do like to help out newcomers regardless. What I've really pushed for in many instances is situations where a Template:Uw-npov1 or similar may apply, to instead use something like Template:Welcomenpov, which in my opinion is less "warning-like" and more welcoming.
20b. A less severe but related issue is the over-templating often employed by vandal-fighters using tools. Do you recall any instances where instead of templating a new user, you instead left them a personalized message explaining exactly what they did wrong?
A: Yes, I have absolutely used a non-templated message for a new user, although admittedly among nearly 13,000 user talk edits (and being unable to restrict a search to new users only) I'm not immediately spotting a specific instance. Will dig and get a link ultimately.
21. Please defend this blatant WP:BLP violation where you call Hermain Cain an idiot. Do you think Wiki's BLP policy allows for this type of behavior? Do you feel justified, or do you admit it was a mistake? Is this something which Wiki could potentially face legal consequences for?
I want to point out the candidate's current user rights prevent him from viewing the content of the link above.Salvidrim!
But are there any inaccuracies in the content of my question? I know enough from the oppose comments below (context) and my concern is how he justifies this action. So unless Dennis Brown et al is wrong below, then I am correct here. — GabeMc (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: (edit conflict) I appreciate the comment about visibility, but I know the content of the link. I actually never called him an Idiot, but joked that some of the content was already covered there. Was it the right thing to do? No. Did I do it intending harm? No. Do I regret it? Obviously. Considering that the previous AfD at Sarah Palin (shown below) was actually featured in the April Fools section, I didn't feel that the community felt that strongly about it. I do know now, and obviously wouldn't repeat anything close to it (if I hypothetically were an admin on the next April Fools Day, I would delete ones like it, because it's what the community consensus points toward).
I've issued some comments regarding the above issue and this RfA as a whole. You'll find them here.Calabe1992 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just looked at the RfA, and didn't find it funny. Having said that, I find a lot of professional comedians are not funny either. I feel absolutely certain that Calabe won't be doing anything like that again, and don't plan to change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
22. Given the Herman Cain incident (from less than a month ago) where you violated WP:BLP by implying that he was an idiot, do you think you could remain neutral should a political content dispute arise? Since you are clearly not pro-GOP, will you be obviously biased against topics related to the republican policy? What if edit-wars occur at articles related to liberal or democratic agendas? Will you tend to side against the GOP?
Nominator support. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 22:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm OK for sure, but if this request is granted I'd advise the candidate to stick to routine maintenance, and let threads about experienced editors' conduct at ANI alone for other admins. I do not see how content work is relevant to a candidate's qualification for this job if he/she stays out of such situations.--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I've been stalking this user's talk page for some while, and I can certainly see his passion about vandalism-fighting. He has also shown that he is competent at doing so. As his earlier experiences with removal & reinstatement of the Rollback privilege demonstrate, this editor is able to take criticism, admit mistakes, and grow from it, which is a surprisingly rare and highly valued quality. Salvidrim! 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It just makes me think that vandal-fighters don't get adminship for the surprisingly irrelevant reason of "lack of content work". If they know WP:INVOLVED and how to fight obvious disruption, I don't see how every tiny bit of the featured article criterion is relevant.--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly agreed. The qualities of a content contributor who writes or actively improves articles are not necessarily those of an administrator. Some editors have both but it should by no means be a deciding factor. Salvidrim! 22:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And one of the very few things I detest about the current consensus appears to be that differentiation between vandal fighters and dispute settlers is "unnecessary bureaucracy" (hello! As our site grows that's inevitable), even without technical differentiation.--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - More admins willing to handle anti-vandal tasks is always welcome. I find it depressing how people who are perfectly capable and willing to take these roles are rejected because they haven't met the enormously demanding standards of having written dozens of articles and never made a mistake. Would like to see this nomination succeed. --Pstanton (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Calabe1992 is a great editor and I've had good experience with him when at WP:UAA. I believe that granting him adminship will help step up his efforts into getting rid of the vandalism that plagues the project. Khvalamde : Holla at me 00:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the best non-admins here on the project: adminship to Calabe is long overdue. Bmusician 01:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's okay, I am a he. ;) Actually, language rules say that you should use "he" if you don't know a person's gender. Calabe1992 01:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Maybe more experience creating content would be desirable, but in my experience there aren't enough admins on Wikipedia tackling vandals and other problem editors. Calabe is clearly very good at this, appears to be an excellent editor and therefore deserves to have the appropriate tools at his disposal.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Shows good judgement, doing an excellent job in the CVU, which is the most important in my opinion. Improved a lot since last RfA. [Also has a 1992 in their username.] --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I'm concerned about Calabe's willingness to go to WP:ANI; however, one doesn't need admin rights to go there, and I don't see any reason to suspect that Calabe would misuse admin tools if granted them. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support because I see, as someone active on recent changes, a slow and sometimes very slow response to AIV reports, mass IP attacks on BLPs and general editor harassment from vandal-only-four-times-warned-already. More admins willing to operate in the RC arena is good and the candidate is qualified. QUTalkQu 08:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Lack of content creation in a potential vandal fighter doesn't bother me. Given the areas in which Calabe1992 intends to work, I think he's eminenently capable of using the tools correctly; his CSD tagging seems sound, and a sampling of his anti-vandalism edits convinces me that he can do good work in this arena. More importantly, he's shown willingness to take criticism on board and improve accordingly; that's a big plus in my book. Yunshui雲水 09:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support. Lacking content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl¤[Talk] 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, this is an RfA, not an FAC, so content work is essentially irrelevant. Candidate's edits show a good understanding of policy, a use for the tools, and a strong likelihood that they will be used properly. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 13:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The concerns regarding the empathy an admin candidate should have toward content editors are very important. Content editors are the ones who make Wikipedia better, as opposed to fighting decay, and deserve everyone's respect and thanks. Where I disagree with the oppose !voters is that I think an admin candidate can have a proper amount of respect, deference, and empathy towards content creators without having actually done heavy content creation work themselves. Absent evidence that the candidate has a lack of respect for content editors, as opposed to having chosen to do other work, I don't see this as a reason not to support. Monty845 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm support. Calabe has clue and knows policies and guidelines. I had hoped they would produce some articles and make some substantial content edits before running. I understand they're involved with AfC a bit and that's a good thing; it helps make for a more well-rounded editor. Still, I've suggested Calabe run and I'm not backing down, though I hope that they will do their best to make themselves more aware of the importance of content production and of an admin's possible roles in enabling that production. Also, I'm a huge fan of singular they, and while Calabe may claim to be male, I have no evidence of that--nor do I wish to see any. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Tentatively, pending a satisfactory answer to my question 17 above. Based on what I see, this is a dedicated vandal fighter almost from the egg. That's what the tools are for. Clean block log, no indications of assholery. I'm a little........... stunned...... that an editor with such a lite content creation history was accorded Auto-Reviewed status, but since all Administrators have that by default, that's nothing other than a minor head-scratcher. To repeat myself: the administrative tools are primarily anti-vandalism devices and this is a dedicated vandal fighter. Concern about content creation shortcomings seem to me to be misplaced. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support clearly a competent user who's familiar with his limits; my god, this isn't access to the nuclear football, people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find "baton" to be a better analogy. No-one would have an in-principle objection to the people that maintain order carrying them, but in the wrong hands they can cause damage, even if used within guidelines. —WFC— 03:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support: Editor in good standing, good history of anti-vandalism work. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Keepscases (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot more vandalism slips by recent changes nowadays because people like the oppose voters are scaring the vandal fighters all off the site. Consider this a protest support. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 23:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I understand the opposition to Calabe1992's candidacy due largely to the fact that he is not a prolific content editor. However, content editing is not the only skill one needs on Wikipedia, and is not the only skill one must have to become an administrator. Yes, it would be preferable that a candidate be more well-versed in article editing, but this project could not remain afloat without the contributions of editors like Calabe1992, who spend their time on ensuring that Wikipedia functions smoothly and properly. This editor clearly demonstrates (both through answers to questions and via his track record) a great understanding of policies, and granting him access to administrative functions would give him the ability to continue his outstanding work and to apply it to even broader areas of this project. dci | TALK 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I have seen Calabe1992 effectively reverting vandals in many articles. AIV needs this user's well-honed vandalism-fighting skills. I also don't subscribe to the notion that someone has to be an article creator before they can use the tools. Being an admin is like being a trade apprentice. Assuming few are born to be admins, the rest learn on the job. The idea here is to avoid making big mistakes, no matter if you are an admin or not. Calabe's record is good to excellent in that regard. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I echo Wizardman's concerns, I don't find article creation and content work to be necessary for an admin and have no issues with editors who choose not to engage in content production and merely assist those who do. +sysop is meant to be not a big deal. SnowolfHow can I help? 08:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The creation of an BLP-attack page in a misguided attempt at an April 1st joke shows lack of judgement and immaturity. SnowolfHow can I help? 22:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - We always need more clueful admins working on vandalism. Contributions on the content level are immaterial to one's fitness for adminship, in my view. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not really concerned about the lack of content creation. I think the candidate's competence is sufficiently evidenced in other areas and I have no issues with their communications or temperament. Pol430talk to me 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - One of the Best counter vandals out there, would make good use of the tools. Achowat (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Dennis. I don't think content creation is necessary for an admin who has a clear use for the tools and will do quite a bit of good with them. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - meets my standards: in particular - is a Yeoman Editor, and has rollback and reviewer rights. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adminship is no big deal. We need to grant the tools to people who can be trusted to use them responsibly, so that we'll have rexperienced editors with the capability to perform some maintenance work. Calabe1992 would make good use of the sysop flag. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wikipedia needs content creators. It also needs gnomes, educators and bouncers. If the content creators have to spend time fighting vandals and deleting rubbish, that's fewer articles being made. As an analogy, how many music or literary critics have anything other than minor achievements in their field of interest? Here, we have periodic spells of deleting articles created by sockpuppets of someone or other who's banned. If content creation is the be-all and end-all, why don't we welcome them? Calabe has, from what I've seen, enough nous to use the tools wisely. The tools come as a set, as do barbecue tools and the functions on a digital watch. I've never needed a lap timer (except once when I found I couldn't work it anyway...) or that thing with the two triangular spikes. Calabe will use the admin tools in his/her area of expertise, and learn to use them in other areas. We do tend to specialise. Peridon (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. OK, I've thought more about the things I was saying in the Neutral section, and I've been looking more over the candidate's contributions. What it comes down to is whether I trust Calabe1992 to use the tools wisely in carrying out anti-vandalism work and not use them to venture into unknown areas, and my answer is yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. You have good answers to the unusually large number of questions people have asked you. I trust you know your own strengths and weaknesses, or you wouldn't have made it this far as an editor. I would say the same about my support votes in every other RfA, but wanted to make it explicit this time because this RfA is right on the very edge. ☮Soap☮ 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support based on a review some of the candidate's numerous AIV reports I am prepared to trust him with a block button. Content creation is simply irrelevant for the vast majority of admin work, especially countervandalism stuff. Not only do you not need an extensive history of content creation in order to block vandals properly, but even if you do have an extensive history of content creation it won't make you any better at blocking vandals. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of asking politicians for the price of a pint of milk. Obviously the candidate will have to be careful not to do admin work in areas they don't understand, but that's common sense and is required of all admin candidates since no-one is an expert in everything. Hut 8.5 21:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I have only ever created one article in my entire career - it is six sentences long and I created it only a few months ago. That St Paul chappie had something to say about needing a whole set of different functions to keep the organization working. We need to recognise that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support great vandalism fighter. I would trust him with the extra admin tools, especially the block button. -- Luke(Talk) 03:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pending question 5, I'm one of those people who think some content work is needed in order to fully understand adminship, unless they have a special skill that the tools are required. I don't see the case here. Secretaccount 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm not impressed with question 2/5, the main article he mentioned Skillet (band) was almost all consisted of reverts and very minor fixes, not to mention that article is a massive unreliable source and broken link mess (not really his fault), but should have been maintained in their watchlist, being considered as a BLP. The articles he created are mainly one sentence nanostubs. I really want to see much more content writing here, as I don't think you fully understand some of our main policies, especially with our guideline using reliable sourcing, which always leads to WP:V issues. Promising candidate, but not ready for adminship. Secretaccount 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) this user is indef-blocked NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unstruck. Please do not strike votes when you are the nominator, and especially when the user is not a sockpuppet, whose votes can be safely removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost makes me want to start a proposal to give double weight to those who actually give constructive advice with their rationales.--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each oppose vote already gets 3 times as much weight as a support vote, so I don't think that would be a great idea. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 04:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also would've proposed the same for neutral and support !votes.--Jasper Deng(talk) 04:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bureaucrats are not vote-counting robots. →Στc. 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Q5, where you stated that most of your content work lay in music articles, I picked the one you had most edits to and examined your edits.[2] If that is "most of your content work", then it, even when put together with the microstubs you created, is insufficient. →Στc. 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was looking back through my contribs, noticed this, and then saw this, which was deleted as an ATTACK PAGE, against a living person. Hell no. →Στc. 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the benefit of non-admins reading this, the nomination (which was clearly intended as a joke) read "acted in a self-defeating and significantly counterproductive way, which is already covered at Idiot". Calabe1992 did make one further edit to prevent a bot from restoring the AfD template on the article. Speedying that as an attack page was, in my opinion, a bit excessive. Hut 8.5 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will second this, and unrepentantly state that anyone who seriously considers that an attack page needs to come down from their self-righteous soapbox detailed at Point 6; seriously, get over yourselves. That Herman Cain did some remarkably stupid things is a very well-known fact. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no difference if it was a joke, it showed poor judgement (barely three weeks ago) and it violated BLP and NPOV. Also, when you are an encyclopedia, you are not covered by satire/parody, and it is assumed, from a legal stand-point that your information is fact, or that you are claiming it is fact. There are all kinds of "jokes" that editors get blocked for regularly. — GabeMc (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intent is absolutely relevant; BLP is meant to prevent making factual assertions about people, not to prevent people from occasionally expressing a negative opinion on someone. As to a "legal" issue, there is none. If it's a joke, it's a joke, and as I said it's not a factual assertion; the medium doesn't matter. You may want to reread your law textbook (not a lawyer, but law and my field, history, go hand in hand so I know it fairly well). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. While content creation is not an absolute for me, it becomes a great concern when it seems to be lacking entirely. Calabe1992 says "I've never been heavy into article/content creation, and it's really not a big goal", a concerning comment in terms of how he would operate as an admin. While I'm not one to require a GA or FA to get the mop, you should at least have some experience in the research, writing, and revising process. The fact that he doesn't see that as important makes it very unclear how he would interact with other editors in intense disputes, where he may have to make a discretionary decision. Yes, he has some minimal article creation, and some reverts on a few particular favorite articles, but the lack of focus in this area, in literally any degree, does not make me feel comfortable supporting. Essentially, without involvement in a content-creation process, I have little direct evidence of how the user collaborates with others. For that reason, I will oppose. Lord Roem (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The project is about content, not vandalism fighting. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Now strong oppose, content concerns aside, the BLP violation "jokey" AfD brought up in oppose #15 below is very, very concerning. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to reply here to all of the above comments (aside from the one with no rationale created by a now indef-blocked user). I have not made it a serious goal to become a heavy content creator because I don't see that my strengths would lie there. The additional time I would take doing it would not benefit the project near to the level that I'm able to while performing maintenance duties instead. I was somewhat inspired from a line in WP:CASD regarding speedy deleters (but one that I feel applies to multiple other types of maintenance users), "Speedy deleters are a necessary part of the project. Without speedy deleters, the project would be overrun with vandalism and become impractical. If all of the productive editors suddenly quit working on Wikipedia, the site would still be useful for years to come. If all of the new page patrollers/speedy deleters suddenly quit working on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be worthless in a matter of days. Speedy deletion is thus an absolutely necessary part of the project—when done right!" Calabe1992 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What?... Content and fighting vandalism are one in the same, or could someone explain to me how the project benefits from vandals running amuck falsifying and defacing articles? We need administrators who can take care of these anti-vandal and maintenance tasks. I find the statement that those users who focus on fighting vandalism of Wikipedia aren't engaged in what "the project is about" pretty insulting. --Pstanton (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Pstanton, a content editor is fighting vandalism and copyvio nearly everyday. This candidate's complete lack of content work makes him an unsuitable choice to wield admin power during content disputes. Much of the work of a content editor is sourcing and paraphrasing, which remediates copyvio. — GabeMc (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I applaud this candidate's excellent track record on fighting vandalism. If it were possible to give this candidate restricted access to the tools, so he could use them purely to address vandalism, then I'd be supporting. It's not: admins have broad powers to do lots of things and they also have tenure, in that it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a bad one. Therefore, before I can support, I need to see evidence of the candidate's experience in a broader range of situations: I need to see either discussion-evaluation skills or dispute resolution skills used in practice, in discussion areas when dealing with good faith editors rather than on vandals' talk pages, and I also need evidence of one serious attempt at building content just so I can be confident that the candidate understands/sympathises with the various problems facing content contributors.
That last remark from the candidate appeared while I was composing my !vote and it strengthens my position on this, because the candidate focuses on speedy deletion. I'm someone who's tangled with patrollers in the past while trying to create content, and I'm definitely not going to support access to any kind of speedy deletion tool for someone who's never been on the receiving end of it.—S MarshallT/C 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's akin to saying that one can't become an umpire in baseball if they haven't played the game first; while it's true that some umpires are former players, the one who's been voted best umpire in the league, Jim Joyce, isn't. While I thoroughly agree that there are many issues with NPPers, I also think part of the problem is the extremely dogmatic approach taken by some who want to correct it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. It's not equivalent to anything in baseball, and a Wikipedia admin is not an umpire. And I'm less than thrilled to be told that I'm "part of the problem" or that I have an "extremely dogmatic approach". In fact, I take strong exception to that whole remark.—S MarshallT/C 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, or else you wouldn't have expressed your view in the first place. You can choose to take a different view on it, but I will say that if you want to do something like AE my analogy holds up. And I do have an issue for blanket opposition to anyone who doesn't meet an arbitrary standard for "content creator", though I'll freely acknowledge in hindsight that I read a little further into your initial comment than I should have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose 35 edits =/= major content work. Come back once you have at least one DYK, GA or B-class article --Guerillero | My Talk 17:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DYK, GA or B-class article work doesn't mean that the editor is better at admin work. Yasht101 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that is true, a person need a certain level of real work in the mainspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people should have broader content work then 34 edits in one article. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you, Guerillero (mmmm how that rolls off the tongue), commented on my comment, I'll comment on the comment on your comment: Guerillero is correct, at the very least in principle. Someone who is good at article work is, IMO, prima facie better as an admin than someone who isn't. I have enough faith in Calabe to look past that, since I've seen their work plenty, but I can't criticize Guerillero for judging differently. It's been said often enough (at least on my talk page and in various RfAs) that RfA candidates need to have done content work; obviously the community, myself included, deems this important. I believe that Calabe is more than just a vandal fighter, hence my support. Guerillero, do you play bass? I need a solid drop-tuning bass beast for a Sepultura-style wiki admin trash metal band I'm putting together for Wikimania 2012. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know if Guerillero does, but I do, and Paulo Xisto is one of my favorites (and I can also do a good Max Cavalera and Derrick Green impression). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Calabe's vandal fighting is incredibly good and should be commended. I get the feeling that, if he could block some users in certain cases, he would do it well. I have, however, two concerns. Firstly, as has been mentioned, he has incredibly little experience in content creation. If Calabe were to stick completely to anti-vandalism and nothing else, this would be less of a problem; however, adminship is universal and such a promise at an RfA is essentially meaningless. Some experience in article creation is necessary for a large amount, if not all, of admin work. Lack of article creation would have been less of a problem if there was evidence of very good communication and dispute resolution, but that seems to be lacking too. Indeed, when working with anti-vandalism, especially when deciding whether or not to block a user, the ability to discuss things with other people is of the utmost importance. Dealing with AIV reports and RPP, an admin will often have to discuss things with other editors and an admin needs to be able to both communicate why they have taken certain action and to help other users work collaboratively. Good experience in dispute resolution or other areas of communication would have nullified the content creation issue. However, with little experience in content creation or active communication, I cannot support. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 19:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding note that I agree with ItsZippy, as addendum to my oppose above. DR experience, absent significant content contributions would suffice. Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although you are correct with that statement, my really short investigation showed that Calabe is only doing RC work. He will/would get big powers/much tools after a successful RfA and he can simply change his interest. This doesn't mean (of course) that xe will do a bad job then, but he will have defacto no experience in the "new field of interest" - and the real problem is - that if xe is doing a bad job, it is really hard for the community to get his/her admin rights revoked. mabdul 15:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you only found work at Recent Changes, you didn't investigate thoroughly enough. And I don't have any interest in dramatically changing editing patterns should I become an admin. Calabe1992 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess, why I haven't !voted until now. It was only a really short investigation. mabdul 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A regretful Oppose I have seen some of your work and some of it has been great. Unfortunately, I am not very impressed with your answers as they are a bit vague. I also think that you are not quite ready for being an admin after looking at your stats. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Per ItsZippy. Blocking can be a contentious action and some experience with the interaction processes here would be desirable first, IMO. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose, largely per S Marshall and ItsZippy. I'm not much of a content creator myself, but in my personal opinion, if one has few content contributions, it should be made up for in another way, such as participation in dispute resolution - generally because doing either helps the potential admin understand the perspective of editors who write and expand articles. WIthout this, a potential candidate would potentially be unable to put themselves in the shoes of another editor before deleting their article. I don't have a sense that the candidate would necessarily do a bad job as an admin, but on this occasion I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Sorry. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 09:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - To function as an administrator you should at least have some experience in the research, writing, and revising process. Also a protest oppose to balance out User:Wizardman's protest support diff - Youreallycan 18:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ~ Calabe is almost completely lacking in content creation and inexperienced in the research, writing, and revising process. Admins need to first learn the process of consensus building, source checking, and editing a page, ideally to FA status. Also, per Secret's oppose above, the Skillet (band) article he mentioned as being proud of is an awful mess, which shows me that he cannot tell the difference between a high quality article and a low quality one. How will be be able to make proper determinations on deletions, based on his idea of an article to be proud of? From S Marshall's oppose above, "I need to see either discussion-evaluation skills or dispute resolution skills used in practice, in discussion areas when dealing with good faith editors", ditto. Calabe1992: "I've never been heavy into article/content creation, and it's really not a big goal." — GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I'm ABFing here, but this vote reads purely retaliatory, given that Calabe opposed GabeMc's RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it suspicious too, considering GabeMc has zero edits to anyone's RfA's other than this one and his own. ☮Soap☮ 16:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't link the two, necessarily; it's not what occurs to me immediately on reading this oppose !vote. Also consider that a "true" retaliatory !vote usually comes immediately after the user notices the action instigating the retaliation — Gabe has a few hours' contributions (albeit mostly to his RfA) between Calabe's !vote to his, and this !vote here. Also seems generally slightly more well-thought-out than a simple retaliatory oppose. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, the main image at the Skillet (band) article is a dead center shot of what is no doubt copyrighted artwork that would not pass FA, if it wrongly got through GA. So he wants to delete articles, yet points us to a possible copyvio that he didn't catch as an example of work he is proud of. Also there are about ten tags, bare urls, and dead links that need fixing. "I've primarily worked on music-related articles (such as Skillet (band)), and therefore most of my content work lies there." But he has done a total of only 34 edits to this page, 34! That's his "content work"? — GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to be blunt, but if you don't think I can tell the difference between a bad article and a good one, you didn't read the question regarding the I Can't Believe it's not Butter article above. I linked to the article you mentioned because it happened to be the one I had made the most edits to, not because it was one that I had done extensive re-working at. Calabe1992 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind blunt myself, I'll take blunt over passive-aggresive anyday. I just mean, if the article to which you have contributed the most yields only 34 edits, then you actually havn't done any content work at all IMO, nearly zero. And I'm curious, if jasper at al see this, why isn't this badgering if what I was doing is/was/will be again I'm sure. — GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S., why did you ignore my comment about the possible copyvio? — GabeMc (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your comment, FYI. Feel free to value content work, but when it becomes heated, that's when it becomes badgering. Now, I don't see why you're arguing against his ability to delete, when he knows CSD very well - which means he must know what notability and verifiability is (for criteria A7 and A3, respectively).--Jasper Deng(talk) 03:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jasper, he pointed to a possible copyvio in an example of work he is proud of. Double standard? — GabeMc (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say I'm proud of it. I personally have never examined that image either. At glance, I don't see why it couldn't have been taken by a fan in the crowd, who subsequently uploaded it. Calabe1992 04:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the bulk of your content work is at a page where you havn't even examined the main image? And you don't see any possible copyrighted works of art in the picture? — GabeMc (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Big if, I noticed immediately. Jasper, don't you see it? — GabeMc (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All he needs is a NFCC fair-use rationale. It really isn't obvious and is really not relevant to routine maintenance. But seriously, though, since we each only get one !vote, this is what I call ad nauseum.--Jasper Deng(talk) 04:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(major edit conflict) Not the bulk, just happens to have the most edits, some of which are reverts. But I'm failing to see how pretty much every concert image taken from a fan dead-centered from the stage could avoid being questioned for a possible copy-vio if your concern about that image was the standard. Calabe1992 04:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image on the banner behind the band is no doubt copyrighted, as are the three logos in the image as well. Neither FOP nor de minimus would apply. — GabeMc (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why haven't you nominated it for deletion? 28bytes (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(indent reset) I would actually say it's at least questionable whether that is a copyvio, and probably not. The artwork is clearly not the focus of the shot and is incidental to it, and is also partially obscured by the elements that are the focus of the shot—the on-stage show. By your standard, a photo of a person wearing a T-shirt with artwork on it would be a copyvio, even when the T-shirt is not the focus of the shot. It doesn't actually work like that, and even if it did, it would be so questionable that I certainly couldn't fault someone for not seeing it that way. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't know about the origins of the picture, but if you take that logo being there as a copyvio, you'd have to ditch most pictures of cars in streets, not to mention any scene with a big M in the background, or showing anyone wearing anything with a designer label across it. Peridon (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an argument to be made for a variety of copyright issues with that image. However, none of those arguments are particularly obvious, image copyright issues can be extremely subtle. I would say that an average editor, or even an average admin, exercising an appropriate amount of diligence, would likely fail to identify the potential copyright issues with that image. (and this discussion hasn't even hit on one of the best aurguments for a copyright problem) Monty845 16:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, what can I say. Would the image pass GA, or FA, which is what I based my reasoning on? Unless image reviewers there are ignorant and/or arbirtrary, the image of the "wrapped head" is the center of the pic, having foreground musicians does not remediate this to my understanding, again, gained at GA and FA. As far as logos, yes, they do need to be blocked out sometimes, havn't you ever seen this on TV, when they blur a t-shirt logo to avoid infringement. As possibly needs to be done with the Marshall logos as well, though vague, they are readable, and I doubt Marshall expressly wants to be connected to Skillet. Monty, what possible copyvio are you reffering to? — GabeMc (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the amount of paid advertising and sponsoring on TV, I would imagine that that could be to avoid giving a free plug to some rival product. Firms that have logos on T shirts would be unlikely to complain about them being seen on TV. There's always the possibility too that the blurred out T shirts have something rude on them. Peridon (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It is not really possible to deal with vandalism properly without realising what proper editing is, and there is no way to obtain such knowledge without editing. I have not yet found one instance when Calebe left a personal notice on a users talk page: he just leaves the form notices from Huggle. Now, I too use form notices when it meets the situation adequately, such as routine vandalism:the form is enough to send the necessary message; but if the editor seems well-intentioned I try to do more at least occasionally. I don't think he's qualified to deal properly with vandalism. He does a good job of spotting it, but his manner of dealing with it is heavy-handed and has the effect of showing new users the worst side of the encyclopedia.
Consequently, he doesn't recognize proper edits, or ones that can be rescued. As one quick example, where see [4], where Caleb reverted the proper addition of Lincoln's birthplace to one of the splits from the main Lincoln article. . It is sourced properly in the main article on Lincoln. I consider this abusive of a well intentioned editor, and just the sort of thing that makes people think us stupidly bureaucratic. (The ideal response if he thought it necessary would have been to look at the main article himself and add the reference)
Another is [5]. The user intended to enter a redirect, and didn't know how. Rather than helping by doing what was intended, Calebe nominated it for deletion as empty. And, of course, he left the form notice for the user, instead of telling them how to do it right
or see User talk:Roghue. Several people left personal notes for similar errors, trying to actually be helpful. Calebe left only a form.
Of course, these are only isolated errors. But he's been doing so many that even one or two day adds up. One of the advantages of leaving a specifically oriented personal note is that it forces you to look at the actual problem. I do not see he has ever done that. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not perfect, never claimed to be 100% right absolutely 100% of the time. If someone can point out to me that I made a mistake somewhere, I have no issue reverting myself. Calabe1992 16:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose Attack pages aren't cool. Period. (Plus all of the other aforementioned concerns.) LoganTalkContributions 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was most certainly not an attack page; quite apart from the fact that people are allowed to express their personal opinions here, stating that Herman Cain acted in a counterproductive way is far from an "attack"; I can give you innumerable sources which say that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While you're at it, please find innumerable sources that also called him an idiot and explain how WP:BLP (which is a policy) does not apply to AfDs. →Στc. 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 run a google search for. 2; personal opinions aren't BLP violations, as they represent nothing but one person's opinion on something. It's not an attempt to say something as a fact, it's giving one person's point of view in a discussion on a website. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One and only reply to the Herman Cain thing. That AfD was inspired by a previous Afd at Sarah Palin that was featured in our April Fools section. I'm not here to benefit myself in any way, only the site (in fact, I edit anonymously, how could I benefit myself?). If that one single attempt to give someone a laugh is enough to change the entire community's opinion of me, make it clear here, because I'll willingly withdraw this request if that's the case. But I personally cannot believe someone speedied that as an attack. Calabe1992 00:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, are you saying an admin should blatantly disregard WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and not be expected to answer for it? Do you think calling Hermain Cain an idiot is funny? This shows immaturity, and a lack of respect for BLP, and an inability to remain neutral. — GabeMc (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The AFD Calabe modeled his after was also a BLP violation, so I have deleted it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, I would agree with a withdrawal at this point. The Herman Cain AFD, while not exactly an attack page, was certainly a BLP violation and highly inappropriate. I am relatively certain that this RFA is going to rapidly go south at this point. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and had already indented my neutral and not added an oppose. I advised a withdrawal because I am positive that by morning this will be an utter bloodbath. (And laughably enough, if this weren't an RFA, possibly deleted as a G10 due to the number of personal attacks and insinuations.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I endorse S Marshall's points, but would nonetheless like to try to explain it in my own way.
A good admin not only knows our policies and guidelines, but has a good feel for the potential implications to the project of applying them. It doesn't bother me that you have little interest in working on content in the long run, but having spent such little time giving it a go, you cannot fully appreciate the impact that applying the letter of a policy or guideline can have. While the spirit should and often does prevail, I have seen a lot of admins going astray by doggedly sticking to the letter to defend their position. It is literally impossible to remove the tools from such people for repeatedly doing this, regardless of how obviously poor a decision or series of decisions are. Without enough of a content record to be satisfied that you understand the potential impact of your actions, and without absolutely no relevant checks and balances in the system, I have no option but to oppose. —WFC— 03:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretfully oppose - I really hate to oppose a vandal fighter, because that's some of the most critical admin work and there is a withering number of admins that are comfortable doing vandal blocks. And I think that vandal fighters don't receive the credit they should. But I'm just worried about the amount of experience with policies, the lack of content work, and lack of handling admin-like tasks. At some point Calabe will be a good admin, but I don't think it's time yet. Some of the reasons people above are opposing reinforces this idea, and as does the quick second RfA. I just don't think there's a broad enough foundation yet. Shadowjams (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry but your CSD tagging is not yet good enough. Looking at the candidates CSD log the very first example is for a company that produced multiple well known computer games - tagged as A7 despite an unambiguous assertion of importance. Admittedly that was in December but looking at the April tags I checked the first two A3s - both tagged after exactly one minute. We don't need that sort of biteyness at NPP. I only checked three - hopefully some of the others were better. As for the content contributions, I'd be OK with some evidence that you'd added referenced reliably sourced material, as I do think that is a basic skill that all admins need to master. I don't think that admins need to have or be involved in our audited content, feel free to give an example of that as I didn't find it among you most recent edits to Skillet. The April Fools joke is troubling, there are fine lines in such matters, but proffering my own efforts as an example it is possible to have an April Fools joke without impacting mainspace or breaching BLP. ϢereSpielChequers 07:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have concerns regarding your maturity as evidenced by the Herman Cain AFD. Any user considering that acceptable should not be granted the tools, in my opinion. SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Salvio sums it up well with respect to my own thoughts. — Ched : ? 13:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Seems to routinely violate WP:AGF and act without any understanding of the topic in question. Apart from other examples found above, see this or that. Warden (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got some nitpicks with the answers to questions 6 and 7 but not enough to oppose over yet. Then again, on the other hand, I don't see enough to move me to support at this time either. I could be convinced either way as this progresses along. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had mistyped part of question 7, corrected for what it's worth. Calabe1992 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The parts that concern me specifically are the last sentence of your answer to question 6 (I hope you don't mean that you wouldn't see an issue with using true rollback on editing mistakes) and how you say you would deal with editor A in question 7. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, obviously true rollback would not be for that. I was saying that using the Twinkle "AGF" button for mistakes would be suitable (along with a valid summary). Calabe1992 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you aware that you can leave a custom edit summary even using true rollback? (even if rarely done) What if someone uses true rollback on a series of mistake, but leaves an appropriate edit summary? Monty845 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still not what pure rollback is for, per WP:RBK#When to use rollback. Quoting that page, "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning." In other words, use Twinkle's tools (or standard undo, for that matter). Calabe1992 02:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not aware of that, but it seems to be more hassle to do than it's worth. Still, so long as someone leaves an appropriate edit summary I don't see what difference it makes which reverting method they're using. Still, my nitpicking on that question was resolved to my satisfaction by Calabe's reply. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's true, but per the actual rollback policy, it wouldn't be permitted. I personally have never used the summary function for pure rollback, as, like you said, it's just wasting time instead of using another tool. I always use either the revert or AGF revert in Winkle Twinkle instead. Calabe1992 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The next line of WP:RBK reads The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Certainly a frequently overlooked part of the rule. Monty845 02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with that, considering I overlooked it! Heh. I personally have never seen an edit made with this method; does the edit summary even hint that "rollback" was used, or can the user type what they want? Calabe1992 02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess with this, it isn't necessarily obvious that rollback is used, so I wouldn't have any issue with it. Basically the same as undoing. Calabe1992 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To note that I do not reflexively oppose all candidates. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could have said that at my RfA, lazy bones. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - per the near-universal lack of any edits besides vandalism rollbacks, at which he is highly prolific. No evidence of drama-mongering or disruption, on the other hand. Depending upon his programming abilities and knowledge of regex, EFM might be a better tool for his use. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. I'm here provisionally, because I'm finding this one hard to decide - I'll explain my thinking in case I can't make up my mind, so at least it might be of some use. I asked Q5, but I don't ask for a great deal of content contributions, like new articles, GAs, DYKs and all that - in fact, I'm not a great content creator myself. On the other hand, I think it's important for admins to have some understanding of the content creators' perspective. So I generally look for at least a reasonable amount of gnome work in a candidate - so for example, when they're doing NPP and RCP, I like to see things like wikification, copy editing, spelling, grammar, formatting, fixing up refs, etc, in addition to vandal whacking. But, here I see a very good and clueful vandal fighter, and in principle I approve of the idea of vandal-fighting-only admins - but we only offer the whole package in one. So, at least for now, I'm really not sure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. I've been on the fence on this one, and I think I'll stay there. There's lots to like about this candidate, including his valuable anti-vandalism work, and the prompt and courteous answers to the optional questions that display a decent if not in-depth familiarity with many of our policies. But I feel a little more time learning our core content policies and guidelines such as WP:RS is needed before giving him the keys to the janitorial washroom. Specifically, this response to an editor PRODding an article creation disappoints me, as it suggests little discernment between "sources" in the sense of a link to a webpage and reliable sources that can and should be used to build an encyclopedia article. This would have been the perfect opportunity to show the naysayers that despite modest content contributions, there's a core understanding of WP:RS there, and that opportunity was missed. Nonetheless, I think the candidate's done great work in other areas, and look forward to supporting once his editing experience is a little more broad. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my choice of words was probably not the best there, as personally I don't think that particular PROD (and its removal by me) is a great representation of whether or not there are enough reliable (and third party) sources for that article. There's not much to cite there and actual sources were really not what I was intending to point at while removing the PROD. What I was more pointing at was that the subject did get covered by a wide range of other outlets - not necessarily ones to cite in the article. Calabe1992 04:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, are there reliable sources for that article? There aren't any in the article now. My concern is that we see that a lot in AfD discussions; a link to a Google search with the claim that somewhere in those piles of search results there are usable sources. Googling is easy; separating the results into usable and unusable piles is a little bit harder. Not a lot harder – it's not rocket science – but well worth doing, I'd think, especially once someone's already made the claim that no such reliable source coverage exists. It was a golden opportunity for you to demonstrate that you can identify reliable sources, and you didn't take it. 28bytes (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. This is a tough one. The user should be highly commended for his anti-vandal work; I think anti-vandal work in general is under-appreciated on Wikipedia, and Calabe does it very well indeed. I am not the type to absolutely require content creation from an admin, although it would be nice. The thing that most concerns me is that the candidate does not appear to have engaged in that much collaborative discussion, as could be shown by content creation, dispute resolution or similar areas. My reasons for this are similar to ItsZippy's in the oppose section above. This is not enough for me to oppose outright, as I think the project would undoubtedly benefit from more vandal-fighter admins, and I am sure Calabe would continue to work at the high standard that he has been doing. Adminship is not just limited to one area, though, and I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting someone without a good track record of collaboration with other editors. If I could find any evidence of this kind of interaction then I might be persuaded to support, but for now I will remain neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius♫ 04:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I don't know enough about the candidate to support (and don't have the energy to dig through all his contribs), but I want to register my disagreement with the idea that he shouldn't get the mop owing to a lack of content creation. Looking at our current admin corps, there are some pretty good admins who haven't created much content, and some people who are great at writing content, but not so good at using the mop wisely. So count this a "protest neutral", I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - parking here until I have time to fully investigate. At the moment I'm concerned by DGG's example above - a new user with a little over 100 edits was given a warning template when, in my view, the proper thing to do would be to add a welcome template. No one can possibly know anything until they've been welcomed and are given the relevant links to policy. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Per discussions above (I have been voting Neutral for years, man.)--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward Oppose — While I like this user's anti-vandalism experience, I'm troubled by his lack of experience collaborating with other editors (through content creation and/or dispute resolution). I am not one who thinks every would-be admin needs to meet a FA/GA quota, but I've come to see the value of having at least some content experience in order to have a well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia as a whole. I'm also disturbed by the "April Fool's joke" BLP; in a written medium like this, we all need to be particularly careful not to say or do things that may have been meant in jest but which some other people could honestly misinterpret as being offensive or in bad taste. I may find this candidate more attractive a few months from now, after the BLP thing has had time to blow over (assuming no new missteps take its place), and assuming the candidate can show us some more effort at becoming well-rounded. — Richwales 06:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral While the candidate has assisted me before with removing vandalism, the concerns raised are not entirely dismissible. I do not doubt he would make good use of the tools, but additional care is required when wielding such tools. I'd like to see a bit of a more nurturing stance with newer editors, but the candidate's judgement may make a rare slip, but the candidate's actions are good and serve a purpose to keep Wikipedia running. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.