The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Explicit[edit]

Final (73/0/0); closed as successful by WJBscribe at 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Explicit (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, today I want to present to you Explicit (formely known as DiverseMentality) who has been with this project since July 2007. In his time here, he has made more than 30,000 contributions, amongst them 5 good articles and 3 featured lists as well as many improvements to existing articles. Apart from his editing work, he also has also used the rollback tool granted to him to help keep the project free from vandalism and has demonstrated other janitorial skills as well. His deletion related work is quite good and he has shown clue when dealing with files and categories.

Explicit has also demonstrated a great deal of patience and civility when dealing with other users, no matter if he shared their point of view or not. As such, he has shown that he possesses the necessary qualities to become an admin on this project and to help with the tasks that have to be done. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, SoWhy, for this nomination. — ξxplicit 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: If I were granted administrative rights, I would intend to take part in the areas I do now. Since most of my maintenance contributions attain to categories and non-free files, I plan to be prominent in the areas of WP:CfD and WP:FfD. I often find myself tagging files with ((Di-disputed fair use rationale)), ((Rename media)) and ((Non-free reduce)) tags, so I also plan to patrol categories such as CAT:DFUI, CAT:FURD and CAT:RENAME. On a less frequent, but still occasional basis, I would find myself patrolling WP:RPP, WP:AIV WP:RfD and WP:PUF, as I've been around those blocks quite a few times.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions are those of my good articles. I’m especially proud of my contributions to Alicia Keys and Aaliyah. As biographies (one of a living person, one of a non-living person), I found that these two articles were the most difficult to build and maintain, but managed to gain two successful good article nominations.
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: As most editors, I have been in editing conflicts in the past and will run into more in the future. Editing conflicts rarely cause me stress as I’m a very level-headed person and can tolerate quite a bit. The best way to deal with editing conflicts is through the course of civilized discussion, either on an article’s talk page or that of the users involved. It’s always best to get your view across as well as the view of the other persons. From then, all involved should to try to come to an agreement or compromise that will best benefit the page at hand.
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
4 Hypo: An admin closes a hotly contested AfD as "delete" a few hours before the 7 full days for debate and voting have passed. The nom then communicates with an upset "keep" voter that while they disagreed at the AfD: "That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it". Neither the nom nor the closer reveal the unique closeness of their relationship. Closer examination reveals that the closer was the editor who nominated the nom at his RfA, and that the two have a robust working relationship (each is the other's top or near-top talk page visitor). Is that a conflict of interest? And if so, what if anything should be done (vis-a-vis the nom, the closer, and the the article) now that the closer has closed the AfD?----Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: If I read this correct, the closing administrator and nominator of the article seem to collaborate together, or seem to be acquaintances. There may be a possible conflict of interest on part of the closing administrator, depending on the situation. If consensus of said AfD was clearly delete as the subject failed to exert notability (say, a biography of a living person, for example), there may be no conflict of interest at all. On the other hand, if the result of the AfD was a borderline case, the closing administrator may have misinterpreted the discussion which resulted as the AfD as being "delete" because the nominator is an acquaintance. In the latter case, I would suggest that the "keep" voter discuss the result of the AfD with the closing administrator if the discussion did not lead to the consensus deleting the article. If discussing the AfD does not change the outcome—to reopen the AfD for its remaining time of the full seven days or perhaps an extension—the "keep" voter should then head over to WP:DRV, explaining why they feel that there was no clear consensus to delete and leave notifications to the closing administrator, the nominator and those involved in the AfD discussion.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

5. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?
A: See answer to question below.
6. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
A: As far as self-directed violence, this situation isn't something I'm not well aware how to deal with. My first instinct is to bring it up at WP:ANI for attention of other editors and administrators who can handle the situation and learn from there. For violence directed at others, I would remove the offending content again bring it up at ANI. Because self harm or acts of violence are serious cases, contacting law enforcement in both cases should be encouraged.
Additional optional questions from Rschen7754
7. Explain in your own words what a 3RR violation is and how 3RR should be enforced.
A: A WP:3RR violation would be reverting someone else's edits a fourth time within a certain page (assuming there is no reasonable exception). After the third revert, a warning should be issues to all involved editors, reminding them that they are in near violation of 3RR, editing warring is unhelpful and to start a discussion on the talk page. If a fourth revert is done (assuming there are two editor engaging in warring), the result leads to a block on the editor(s) who've violated 3RR. If the case is more complex involving multiple users, full protection should occur and again stress on discussing the issue on the talk page.
Additional optional questions from Rschen7754
8. What is your position regarding editors making poor edits that are not vandalism?
A: Editors making poor edits should be guided into the right direction. Other, more experienced editors should point out to the user of their poor edits and why their editing patterns can become problematic. They should direct and explain to them certain policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:MOS, or the relevant page where the answer to a problem can be found. Experienced editors should try to help improve the poor editing and perhaps suggest the user to be adopted. — ξxplicit 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from Btilm
9. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is a technical restriction that prevents additional damage or disruption of an account or IP address. A ban revokes a person's privilege to edit the project under any entity (accounts or IPs).
10. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: According to our blocking policy, cool-down blocks should never be used. Cool-down blocks are essentially punitive, which would be in violation of said policy, as blocks are used to prevent damage and disruption, not to cool users down (an effect that probably never comes from a cool-down block).
11. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: I think an ideal Wikipedia would contain as much information as possible (which is the goal, no?). I can't think of a subject that receives significant coverage from reliable sources that isn't notable off the top of my head, though I am aware that WP:ONEVENT may make an individual marginally notable. As with the opposite, I find it difficult to think of a subject notable without significant coverage, though I remember seeing one article which lacked significant coverage (which was due to his ethnicity at the time). I remember that this article was a clear case of WP:IAR. I suppose this should be dealt with in a case-by-case basis rather than have a blanket of inclusion and exclusion criteria over a certain topic. — ξxplicit 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
12. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A: I don't have any alternate accounts, but if I created one in the future, I would most likely make it publicly connected to my main account. If, for any reason, a public alternate account is not the best option, I would advise the bureaucrats and checkusers of said account. — ξxplicit 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from AtheWeatherman.
13. Just out of curiosity if you could change one policy in Wikipedia what would it be and why?
A:
Additional option question from Chaser.
14. My only interaction with you that I remember is here. Looking at that thread again, what did you want me to do there? What would you have done the same if you'd been an administrator then? And now?
A: Considering I was the user who filed the first ANI report (and I brought the issue to you after the second ANI report was archived), I would not have taken any administrative action after that for the same behavior as there may be a possible conflict of interest on my part. Since May 2009, the user's edit summaries have improved substantially. The problems of his edit summaries was not that he was using less-than-appropriate language, but the fact that he came across unnecessarily aggressive—leaving edit summaries directed at users (IPs and inexperienced editors) to "go take a shit somewhere else loser" as well as wishing "death to all spammers". The additional bitey messages he has left, in where he hoped a new user would get "banned from 'contributing'" to this project ever again" whose sole contributions were nominating an article for deletion seriously crossed the line. I appreciate that he's trying to abide by the WP:BLP policy, but the manner in which he took was less than flattering. When I left you that message, I would have hoped for a stern final warning at the least. Granted, that IP may have never read that edit summary he had left, but it's the principles (those being WP:CIV and WP:NPA) he ignored that was problematic. His edit summaries are no longer offensive, and I'm appreciative of that, but if he had not changed his behavior, the downward spiral may have gone too far down. — ξxplicit 06:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have a couple of follow-ups. How would it have been a conflict of interest? COI issues aside, would you have blocked him?--Chaser2 (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may have been (but not necessarily saying there would have been) a conflict of interest after the first ANI report. Let me be hypothetical for a moment, if I may: say I was an administrator at the time I warned the user, only to see him receive a second warning from another individual. Had he continued his behavior after the second warning (assuming his edit summaries hadn't improved), I would have probably blocked the user had he continued after the second warning instead of taking it to ANI (and again, this is based on the aggressive edit summaries and messages as provided above, not for cussing). Different scenario: if I was administrator and decided to take it to ANI first, I really saw no consensus to block him, so I wouldn't have. After the second ANI case was brought around, blocking him may bring a conflict of interest on my part as I felt he should have been blocked the first time, so I would have brought up in the second ANI report (assuming I knew about it, because at the time, I didn't) of his unchanged behavior and let the decision lie to another administrator. — ξxplicit 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean now about possible COI and I agree. I still think a block was inappropriate, but this is an area where I think there's some room for difference of opinion. Thank you for helping me explore your views on this old situation.--chaser (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Apologies -- I understand how what I wrote could be misinterpreted. By writing "Hypo" my intent was to convey "please treat this as a hypothetical". I didn't mean to imply that there weren't real-world facts that matched. (Nor was I intending to put a spotlight on the Rjanag Arbitration here, which is what mention of it by me here would have done). And I wasn't in fact asking the person to comment on the actual situation (which is more involved, with more facts). If I were, I would definitely not have referred to it as a hypo. And I certainly had no intent to point to the candidate's response away from the RfA, nor to involve the candidate or their response in the matter in any way whatsoever. I'm simply seeking to evaluate the RfA candidate on an issue that is of moment to me, and which I have thought about, and which I think is a fair conflict of interest question for an admin candidate, as I decide whether/how to cast my vote. Same as, say, a pregnant 18-year-old might ask a candidate his/her view on abortion. As you know, I voted for this candidate after he/she answered the question. Apologies again for any confusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support. Excellent editor who will make a good admin. It's about time. decltype (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Beat the nom Support. From what I see will make a good admin. Has really been all around wikipedia. Valley2city‽ 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support per great nomination statement Regards SoWhy 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Answer to Q3 a bit vague, but seems to be a competent editor. Additionally, plans to work in an area currently understaffed by admins. Good luck, Explicit! GlassCobra 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I've always been impressed by their cluefulness. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support I see no reason to oppose. Rkr1991 (Wanna chat?) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - Fantastic contributions, clear idea of what they would use the tools for. It would take a strong negative to get me to oppose and I don't see even a weak one. -- Atama頭 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support - looks good to me.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. The rather poor nomination statement notwithstanding, I'm happy to support this editor. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support - clueful user with great contributions and a solid record. Yep, he's very suitable for adminship. JamieS93 17:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support I have run into this editor and all I have seen is exemplary work. RP459 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Great editor! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Yep. henrik•talk 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support I too have run into this user and found that the user gave very acurate information when asked. I dont see why there would be a problem giving the admin tools. Corruptcopper (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support because there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. About Time -FASTILYsock (TALK) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Best Candidate in a long time.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support per his great GA review work and only positive interactions with him. Timmeh 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support – Excellent contributions especially in the images venue, where we do need more admins. Same good contribs in the mainspace as well as in negotiation with others. I can't find a reason not to support this user. MuZemike 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Strong Support. Looks good. I especially liked his thoughtful COI analysis in question 14.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support I remember thinking that DiverseMentality would have been a good admin some time ago. Icewedge (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Stephen 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Good editor, deserves the tools. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Can't believe that Diverse is still not an admin. I have never before seen such a cool-headed and good-faith assuming editor like him/her. A great day for the community to provide him with the administrative tools. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Explicit. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Outstanding answers to questions, lots of supports from folks I trust. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support I don't see a reason not to support. Ginbot86 (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support No reason not to trust with the tools. --Coemgenus 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Outstanding work, should be a quality admin. Best wishes, Jusdafax 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Operates in an admin-like fashion all ready, should be fine. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Hell, yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - Trustworthy individual. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support but would expect a more definitive answer as an admin to questions 5 & 6 like, "yes if they were in my province/state/country etc." or "no". Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support No reason to suspect that they will be anything other than a net positive with the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Seen him around quite a bit, no concerns at all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)`Reply[reply]
  36. Support Always been impressed with your efforts. I highly support! Basket of Puppies 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Per nominator and seeing the user around, doing some good things. upstateNYer 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - A great editor. I have run into his comments/contributions a few times in the past and they have all been constructive and kind. Explicit is definitely ready to be an administrator. Airplaneman talk 23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Good grasp of policies. Sole Soul (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. I thought he is already an admin.--Caspian blue 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support. I've seen him around and have no problem with handing him the mop and bucket. Definitely a valuable contributor who will become more valuable as an admin. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support No reason not to. BejinhanTalk 03:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support I like the way you answered my questions.  Btilm  04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support. Impressive number of contributions, but--more importantly--handled the questions very well, and appears to be quite civil and experienced. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Good content work. Theleftorium 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support No issues here. Astronominov 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support Everything looks good to me. Warrah (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support. Good candidate for adminship. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Heh, thought I had already. Anyway, great contributions and I see no reason why to oppose. AtheWeatherman 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Strong answers to questions show that this user knows what they know what they are doing. No problems here. Good luck. ~ Arjun 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support May as well add in my support. I've only seen good stuff from Explicit. Polargeo (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support No problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 龗 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Indented !vote from banned sock of Chzz. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. I could have sworn you already were one. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support per the above notes and per Stifle's excellent reasoning. Razorflame 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Strong Support: You will be a great admin. Thanks for making yourself available for the job - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Great contributor. I probably envy him. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 10:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support A trustworthy editor with a lot of experience. Pikiwyn talk 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support He does a GREAT job, and will make a GREAT admin. QuasyBoy 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support -another easy call: rollback rts., over 30,000 edits; good article work, no issues. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support I can't find anything wrong here. The Arbiter★★★ 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support I am comfortable with Explicit having the tools.--chaser (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Great editor. Airplaneman talk 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Duplicate of #38, indented. Amalthea 09:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whoops... Airplaneman talk 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Looks like a good Wikipedian who I think will likewise make a good admin -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support! Per nom and per good answers to the questions. Color me impressed. I'm sure you'll make a great admin. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support This user has demonstrated an excellent understanding of policy and also has a terrific record of mainspace contributions. I trust Explicit to perform well in the administrative areas they mentioned above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support-Normally I'd provide a rationale as to why I agree/disagree with the points brought up by those in the oppose section...but the section is vacant=D. A good wikipedian who assumes AGF and with 30k edits...he can be trusted.Smallman12q (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Why the heck not?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Obviously. Excellent editor, should have applied for the tools long ago. Will do well. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support Looks like a good candidate to me! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support. Can never remember everyone's new names... bibliomaniac15 22:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Wizardman 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support Looks better than good enough. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Per above.  Btilm  04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (indented as user has already !voted in this RfA, see support #43. — The Earwig @ 04:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  71. Support - Looks great. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support, no reason to oppose. Robofish (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Pile-on Support Definitely! LittleMountain5 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]


Neutral[edit]
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.
Category