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

FT2[edit]

Final (56/12/3); Ended Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:09:51 UTC

(Note: some time after the RFA had closed, it was noticed that contributors Taxwoman diff, Runcorn diff, Brownlee diff, Osidge diff, R613vlu diff and Holdenhurst diff, were each sockpuppets of Runcorn. This was established in May 2007. The tally without these would have been 56/7/3.)

FT2 (talk · contribs) – I came across FT2 only a few weeks ago, while collaborating on a policy page. It was one of these cases in which you find a Wikipedian that cares about the project, does not mince words, is proactive in finding common ground with others, does not hesitate to give credit to his fellow editors when due, and you wish you could came across more like him.

It picked my curiosity and checked FT2's work in our project and was quite impressed. I would say that with over 14K edits and almost 2K edits in the Wikipedia namespace, this user is not only a well-rounded editor, but one that understand policy and helps shape it.

FT2 has an excellent grasp of our dispute resolution process and is not shy in getting his hands dirty and jumping in to lend a hand in controversial articles (those that many editors avoid like a plague.) See his list of project contributions. FT2 is also a member of the Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project.

A Wikipedian since July 2004, FT2 deserves the support of the community to become a sysop.

Note: FT2 withdrew a self-nomination back on June 20, 2006, given concerns expressed about lack of use of edit summaries, an issue that he took to heart since then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Nomination accepted, and thanks to Jossi for the kind words. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My main interest is to help the project run smoothly. That means, from an editors' point of view that if some tools are limited in access, then requests for help get attended to quickly when asked. As mentioned to the nominator:
"It'd help a lot with the vandalism and protection/unprotection requests I have to ask others to do right now, and probably let me be more involved in deletion/undeletion work. Mostly though, it'd mean that when something's not right, or a problem's reported that needs admin type work, it'd be possible to help rather than just agree its not right and dump it on someone else to do it."
Cite from original self-nom:
"[T]here's times users want a hand, when it's not running smoothly or there's problems, and I'd like to have it in my ability to be more responsive, if the help they need requires protection or short term blocks, or faster response to vandalism. That [kind of situation] turns a lot of editors off, so anything that makes editing less antagonistic, is probably a good thing. In between times I'm sure there will be a lot of housework - deletions, undeletions... I'm not expecting to be using admin tools all the time. But the few times it's appropriate, and other things have failed, it's often nice to be able to help, instead of just tell people to post a request and seek help from others."

I'd anticipate helping with dispute and disruption type chores, the kind which frustrate well-meaning editors and provoke spiralling problems - 3RR, vandalism, RFPP, deletion type matters such as CSD and AFD, things like persistent personal attacks that sometimes happen in edit warring where level headed calmness can often help calm things down, and so on. I've been helping with such chores as far as my current access allows, in general with good results. I've also spent considerable time cleaning up after vandal socks of blocked users and had to pass the mop to others on the follow-up actions.

Additionally, checking the admin backlog, I'd definitely wish to be accessible to editors looking for admin help over possible sock issues, as thats something that is often messy, very disruptive, heavily discourages good editors, is instrumental in many conflicts, and which I've got a lot of experience at doing already. (Note: Some cases might not be possible to fully check out without further RFCU, an access which isn't widely available for good reasons.) I might well watchlist that page for requests. Is there a "suspected sock page patrol"?

Separately, I don't know how genuine the need is, but if approved, count me in on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks; I don't know how much it's a genuine problem, but if it is, then I'm on the list on principle to discuss/lay out/action such matters carefully and neutrally as needed -- and draw a line on (un)acceptable conduct where needed. There's nothing as wrong as causing well-intending people to be apprehensive of doing the Right Thing.)

Last, although not strictly a sysop chore, I asked a while back if theres a need for clerk work since this is often messy "backroom" stuff that doesn't get any glamor but does need doing; it's again all about cleanup of mess so others can get on with their stuff better.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My activities are summarized and linked from my user page. There's a number of them and that's probably the best place to review my contributions. I keep two separate subpages, for the times I've made significant article contributions and project contributions. Some of the feedback from other editors is on my user page.

It's hard to pin down "most pleased", but the ones that tend to please me are those which were in some way an achievement. Reorganizing or writing an article to resolve a dispute is satisfying, but some articles feel more like achievements. The ones that come to mind include... well, I look at the list, and think that's just the articles with major work done... it's a haul to read through it. I'm going to just pick project contributions because that's easier, and just one or two article areas.

  • Project contributions: -- Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:About reworking, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view refactoring, and Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control were four project areas I'm specially satisfied with. "Reliability" and "Editorial oversight" are key articles that will get heavy use from people seeking to understand, critique, comment or analyze Wikipedia, and the two cover some seriously needed topics both internally and externally. To write an article on reliability and have it accepted "as written" and pretty much zero significant editing and almost no dispute for many months, when there are so many POV warriors and people wanting to find fault, is also quite good feedback. WP:NPOV is also one thats hard to get approval for major refactorings, and I feel the policy page (and hence editors) has benefitted a lot from the cleanup. WP:ABOUT is our main summary of Wikipedia for newcomers, commentators and the world, so that one felt very important to get organized into better order. Links to before/after for these are available at User:FT2/Project contributions.
  • Article contributions: -- I still feel very pleased with my early work on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. This was massively researched and cited, becaue of the subject's controversial and heated nature as an then-current event, and within days of the US election was one of the most useful or requoted online resources available. Despite huge POV warfare, the core writing I had done was not seriously challenged, and it overwhelmingly survived two AFD attacks. For a brief period it was a front page article and also I was told, one of the most referenced sources for information on the controversy from other websites. And yet, it was encyclopedic, and neutrally put together. I'm also pleased with some articles which were hard to do well, such as the cited biography of danish porn star Bodil Joensen, the bringing of Cultural and historical background of Jesus (co-authored) from mediation into a stable shape, and various articles on unusual lifestyles and sexuality. Links to the articles I've significantly worked on are at User:FT2/Article contributions; please ask about specific articles if examples or diffs are needed.
  • Other: -- The main thing I'm pleased with, and I rate as much a contribution as any article, is the number of users who had frustration or confusion, or belligerent co-editor problems, and whose articles I have helped, or disputes I've helped resolve. There is nothing quite like finding oneself able to help someone to overcome a problem so their good intentions can continue unabated, and it feels good to be able to help clear others way for them. That, and the sheer range of areas I've enjoyed.


3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
I've never been the target of conflict, or involved in wikidrama, in any way that I'm aware of, other than by a couple of vandals who were later blocked or banned, and a few editors who didn't approve of emotive subjects or wanted me to agree on censoring Wikipedia content or other non-policy issues. I have responded to perhaps a handful of users who had serious comprehension issues when it came to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:STRAWMAN, and WP:NPA, but have never found it necessary to be other than WP:CIVIL and courteous in return. Cites and pointers to these are available for anyone on request to see how I handle myself under pressure. Most of them resolved easily one way or another. I didn't see a need or benefit in being other than calm. Sometimes firm and definitive, but always calm and neutral.
I wrote Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, and I think it's good advice. There's a fair number of people whose, in their wish to contribute, need to remember three key words..... balance, community, and purpose. I don't have a problem drawing a line, or stating policy, I don't find there's a need to have a tantrum or coronary in order to do so though.
The only major Wikistress I've ever had was mild one-article burnout on documenting one of the cases for Arbcom. Not surprising since this was a major sock/meatpuppet ring with some 10-20 accounts in use. I took a break from that article Dec 2005 - May 2006, and returned when the mentors independently realized most of the users were socks and blocked them. This page RFarb entry#documentation of blocks and socks which just documents the sock issues, never mind the content and attack issues, may explain why I burned out a little on it :) A few mentors came close to burnout on that group too, before the culprits were ultimately blocked.

In the last couple of months I've had to deal with COI based conflicts on Farmers Insurance Group, potential policy change conflict on WP:COI (where Jossi and I met), a POV vandal (semi-protection obtained), and a new editor who was incensed at the explicit content within the canine reproduction article's copulation section, which to him was "venial", "crap", "garbage" and "smut". I explained, and let others explain, then posted RFC rather than get into revert warring, to ask for further help explaining, when it became clear he wasn't interested in listening.

Overall, there's no real good reasons or need for being hot headed over words and issues. I didn't become a hothead over this, which went on viciously non-stop for almost a year, or any other case to date, so I doubt that's in my crystal ball. A partial list of dispute work is available at Project contributions#Disputes and dispute resolution, and comments by editors whose disputes I've helped sort out is available at User:FT2#Feedback: Life in the hot seat.


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I like the thorough and thoughtful answers to the questions and a review of your recent contributions backs up Jossi's assessment. I see you were blocked for 3RR recently but that was (correctly) reversed as a mistake. I look forward to having you in the ranks of admins, Gwernol 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support good candidate with a firm grip on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yuser31415 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support ok, I take on board the edit summary comment. This is trivial in the face of this editor's vast numbers of contributions to all aspects of the project, and his obvious depth of knowledge thereof.--Anthony.bradbury 23:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No problems here. Requisition one mop from general stores immediately and start swabbing the decks. (aeropagitica) 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Supporting good candidate. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - we all need to learn to be more level-keeled, and cool-headedness is a valuable trait for an editor or admin alike. Plenty of mainspace, wikipedia, and user talk edits, so I'm happy we have a communicative user who doesn't only do RCP or chores. A good find mate, thumbs up for you. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JorcogaYell! 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - no serious reason not to, excellent edit summary now. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, per Jossi. Changed my mind after seeing the COI incident. see below. Crum375 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Fantastic answers to the questions, great contribs., seems extremely dedicated...get the man a mop.Ganfon 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I can't see any reason to do otherwise.--CJ King 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Anyone who puts boxes around answers to questions to make it easier for viewers is a true admin. Lol, but seriously...Great answers, great contributions, great user. Nishkid64 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. You have a pretty broken up edit history, but you contribute everywhere, have great answers tothe questions, and there's no readon to deny you. --Wizardman 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good user, no reservations. James086Talk | Contribs 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Michael 07:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support More than qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Terence Ong 11:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Long long overdue. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support You're much more than qualified for adminship. Great answers! ← ANAS Talk? 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support My first experience with FT2 was in the context of an acrimonious conflict with Cheese Dreams. At first, FT2 seemed to be working with her, but then I began to wonder whether she was just trying to drag him in on her side, or whether he was sincerely trying to mediate a conflict he did not understand. No matter - my conflict with Cheese Dreams was resolved through appropriate channels and I immediately discovered that FT2 was a very thoughtful, constructive collaborator who takes our core policies (e.g. NPOV and NOR) very seriously and is committed to adding relevant content to articles. My point is, for reasons that I think FT2 had nothing to do with my initial experiences created in me a very strong bias against him but countless acts on his part since them have long overcome that bias. He is well-intentioned, accommodating, hard-working, and principled ... a great combination of virtues for an admin. I endorse enthusiastically. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a response to an RFC, which happened at a time when the whole idea of editor focus and AGF on the article had been replaced by accusation and counter-accusation, as sometimes happens in heated disputes. Matters becoming sorted out (including a ban on one person RFArb1 RFArb2), the various policy-related points and central article questions were then more able to be listened to, and the article was cleaned up; Slrubenstein and I have worked jointly on a few religion-oriented article discussions since. (e.g., [1] and [2].) FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I can see nothing holding back the award of the mop here. The Rambling Man 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support—Wikipeditor 2007-01-13
  24. Support. No question about that. Rettetast
  25. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support :) Cbrown1023 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per the strong nomination and the excellent answers to the standard questions, which are among the best I've seen in a long time. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Joe I 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. TLDR support hehehe (742 edits to Zoophilia?? Holy crap!) - crz crztalk 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--MONGO 13:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Changed to oppose. Zaxem 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support without a doubt. --Conti|✉ 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Bwithh 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Excellent candidate; absolutely trustworthy. Xoloz 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Imageboy1 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Guinnog 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Fantastic user. I worked with him during the User:Ciz issue on Zoophilia, and one thing that stuck out for me about him was his overwhelming degree of sanity and levelheadedness. I have seen users level the most rude and crude personal attacks against him, and FT2 has never lost his cool. Give him the bucket and mop, already! ♠PMC♠ 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Seems like he'd be a good admin. -Will Beback · † · 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - no reason to oppose to be found... --T-rex 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support based on my experiences with the user. Voice-of-All 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Joe I 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Duplicate with #28 -- Avi 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support - I've had recent dealings with this editor, and like him very much. I would elaborate, but everything has already been said. NinaOdell | Talk 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, not just as a good friend, but also as an editor impressed by a lot of the work he's been doing. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. jni 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Per above, and nom I agree that FT2 will make an excellent sysop and should be granted the tools. Somitho 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I think one of FT2’s best qualities is his ability to be calm and handle issues carefully and appropriately. He also has strong principles, (as the nominator said) a good grasp of policy, patiently explains things, and has a strong presence at helping on real disputes. When we first met (and when I first came to Wikipedia with little understanding of how it worked) I started to lose my cool with someone who was being unreasonable. FT2 used the proper channels and procedures to deal with this person that was eventually banned. I was impressed with his ability to handle the situation and try to get policy followed and consensus for ages despite the 'flames'. He finally asked for other editors agreement for arbitration, all without becoming emotional or losing sight of things. Over time I have learned, by example and from him, how to use Wikipedia and synergistically work together with the community in a better way. I have sought his council and help when working on articles (see article on PETA). It seems from the link above that he has made many excellent project contributions which were adopted and accepted, showing his strong understanding of our policies. (I don't think the COI item below is an exception - see this comment). I believe he has been a valuable part of the Wiki-community and in my view he would make a very helpful and considerate admin.--Steele the Wolf 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - problems with COI are not enough to not give this user the bit. He/she would not misuse it; in theory, admins have no greater say over policy discussions than nonadmins, so it's a mute issue anyway. I don't see any opposes explaining how user would misuse tools. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Regardless of whether he's right about COI, FT2 is certainly not being unreasonable or quarrelsome. Overhasty at worst. In everything else, an excellent candidate. He had enough respect for the privilege of administratorship to withdraw earlier - I think he'll use his authority wisely. Λυδαcιτγ 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I really don't like the COI changes one bit ... but if we disqualified anyone with whom any of us have ever disagreed, we would have a mighty small list of admins. --BigDT 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I agree that redirecting an article without even bothering to discuss it with the regular editors is very bad form and very bad manners, but I think FT2 has learned from that experience and won't repeat it. And the COI edits really didn't impress me either, but aren't enough to convince me to oppose. I've reviewed a lot of FT2's other contributions and I can't find anything that makes me think that s/he cannot be trusted with the tools and so I feel happy to support this candidate. Sarah 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Not perfect (who is?) but courage and initiative to address difficult and important issues, good communication skills, willingness to redress mistakes, commitment to project, sufficient knowledge of its workings. Tyrenius 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Proto::► 15:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I must oppose because of FT2's misleading answer about conflict. I draw his attention to Talk:Tie and tease.--Taxwoman 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the suggestion is that the candidate's answer to question 3 is misleading based on the cited page, I respectfully disagree. I have reviewed the talkpage you link to and I see a civil and reasonable exchange of views, just as things are supposed to work, rather than an example of "conflict" or "stress." Newyorkbrad 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. In my understanding, RFA's have always been about the comunity's assesment of the judgement of the candidate. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest prevents me from affirming this user's judgement at this point. -- Avi 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose (changed from support) per Avi. I think that having a strong WP:COI to protect us against outside special interests manipulating WP for their own purposes is crucial. By diluting the policy with admin related matters I think we are weakening one of our core protections and I totally agree with the Arbs that chimed in (they see these attacks every day). I cannot support an admin candidate that feels otherwise, sorry. Crum375 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Avi.--Runcorn 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Even if the case mentioned by Taxwoman was not a conflict, it seems to me that it suggests that FT2 is not fully aware of how to improve the encyclopaedia. This is a serious flaw in a potential admin. - Brownlee 09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not so sure if you're experienced enough if it takes you ten edits to get an AFD nom straight [3]. Given the other opposition here I think you need more experience. >Radiant< 13:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose due to inappropriate edits to the COI guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Firm oppose due to completely unacceptible comments on COI, and per Taxwoman. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect absolutely your right to oppose and I don't mean to hector you, but I agree with Newyorkbrad on this. Which part of the candidate's contributions to Talk:Tie and tease seemed unsatisfactory to you? --Guinnog 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose I assume WP:AGF by those who don't agree with Taxwoman, but those involved saw it as a conflict, and FT2 has not dissented or apologised, nor has he commented on the relevant talk page.--Osidge 17:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Newyorkbrad and Guinnog, I'm hoping to hear eventual clarification of which aspect of my comments on Talk:Tie and tease are considered conflictive. Once that's clarified as per requests, that'll help a lot. She almost certainly either watches this page, or knows that clarification is being asked for here, so patience is probably best until she is able to revisit this page or the talk page and clarify her perceptions, because any assumption I might make on the minimal information I have right now, could readily turn out to be unhelpful. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Avi. - R613vlu 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose In the case of the Tie and tease article, FT2 deleted all the content without prior discussion on the talk page on the grounds of tidying up. When Taxwoman challenged him, he cited policy to justify his case. Either he doesn't understand the policy or he was trying to pressurise Taxwoman to back down. Either of these would be a fatal flaw in an RfA candidate.--Holdenhurst 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that heads-up. Having dug into it a bit, it turns out that bad faith wasn't involved, either by Taxwoman or myself. My own tiredness late at night seems to have led to a mistaken edit, that (not being on the talk page everyone referred to) was not immediately obvious, so neither I nor others above could take note of it. It was a pretty simple item, which reviewing the above information and the information provided above by Holdenhurst has helped to clarify (thanks :) ). In essence, three short, unreferenced, informal articles with almost identical subject matter were merged, to allow coverage of the subject matter more thoroughly in one more comprehensive article. All three relate to essentially the same sexual practices whereby in erotic play, there is enforced denial of (usually male) orgasm, combined (normally) with simultaneous stimulation of sexuality. Explanation was clearly and openly described in the edit summaries [4] [5] [6]. The existing contents of all articles were fully respected, especially of "Tie and tease", and brought inclusively into the target article [7] [8]. One of the two (Ruined orgasm) was accepted, and one merge (Tie and tease) was reversed. Since there had been at least one view against merging, I accepted the evidence of objection, and some ten days later posted a brief 3 line explanation of the value of the merge, and asked simply, if anyone had a strong or reasoned objection to merging them. This was done in a consensus-seeking style [9]. There was an good quality if short non-contentious debate (as noted by Newyorkbrad and Guinnog), clearly discussing policy-related points, which is visible on the talk page. Although there's a good case the merge was a beneficial idea, after my second and third posts [10] [11] reviewing the benefits and article scopes as compared to the views within WP:MM for merging very similar articles, it was clear there was overall objection. So without any pressure at all, I didn't feel the need to ask again. It's pretty clear on a close look (as noted by others) that the talk page discussion was reasonable, unpressured, and respectful to all. The characterization of this as a "conflict" was therefore puzzling.

    Having some idea at last where to look for the "conflict", and looking closer, it's now clear how that view arose. This was a 3 way merger. Three edit summaries noted the content was being merged into one more comprehensive article [12] [13] [14]. The fourth edit summary, to "tie and tease", inadvertently didn't make this clear, it just described the edit (inaccurately) as being a plain overwrite with "redirect" because the two articles "covered essentially the same area" [15]. Likewise I left a note on Talk:Ruined orgasm to clarify what I'd done for other editors of that article [16] but by the same oversight I didn't leave a similar note as intended for the editors of "tie and tease". That probably caused Taxwoman to believe the subject had been impromptu blanked for no good reason losing valuable information on the subject. In fact as a merge of two very similar articles, it had been carefully treated as a merge before the redirect, to ensure the content was respected [17]. That omission of clarity in the edit summary and the omission of the normal explanatory note was my mistake, and I accept responsibility for it, now it's clearer what was going on. If that was the cause of her mis-belief that there had been a simple blanking/deletion for no good reason of a valid article, then I accept the mistake and apologize for the mis-explaining edit summary which led to that understanding. There was no editorial conflict on the actual talk page, hence the puzzlement, but there was a mistake of clarity in the one edit summary out of the four, that likely explains why Taxwoman was led to feel aggrieved as she did. From her viewpoint it would have looked like an abrupt blanking/redirect, followed by an immediate forceful merge proposal when rejected. My excuse, if any, was the time - around 2 am here [18] - and that I was working on multiple articles together of which one most likely slipped through the net of clear explanation. It doesn't happen often that I omit an explanation of a significant edit such as a merge or refactor. Usually when it's likely to be useful, that's something I am very careful about. (eg: [19] [20] [21] [22].) Also, when there is doubt I usually ask (eg: [23] [24] [25] [26].) This is a clear example of how communication and miscommunication lead to disputes, even with a simple mistake, but regaining communication tends to fix them. I hope, explanation given, that Taxwoman will accept it. Obviously the right to oppose is hers, and for my edit summary description error and non-posting of the usual talk page comments that would have explained it better, I accept the negative consequence it led to on this occasion. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: note also left for Taxwoman [27]. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. (Changed from support.) Per Crum375, Osidge and Holdenhurst. Zaxem 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral per various concerns raised in the Oppose section. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral -- I wouldn't usually remark "neutral" on anyone, but in this case, I feel it's important. The concerns raised in the oppose section mirror my experience with FT2 at WP:3RR... basically, that he's a bit too hasty to make significant changes to important pages. However, he is totally reasonable in a discussion. I would support, but I think hastiness in an admin is not a good thing, and I wanted to make the point to FT2 that he should be careful in the future. Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Regardless of the merit of the added content, major changes to extant guidelines should always be discussed in advance on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Neutral upon further review. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by candidate

With the RfA coming towards an end shortly (and I have to head out now), and most of the comments probably made, I figure it's appropriate whatever happens in the last few hours, for me to try and reflect on the positives and negatives that have come out. I felt it more important during the RfA to listen, than talk myself much (one's either appropriate or not for a role, and others are the best judge). RfA is a pretty good way to find what your friends and others really think. The positives, I appreciate. It's good to know that others feel that way. Two negatives came up. The one with "Tie and tease" - now that it's clarified what went on, it's clear the mistake was mine. I think that explaining and checking when a bad edit was perceived, would have cleared it up faster, but I'm glad it was sorted out in the end.

COI, I think is more a case of perspective, and perhaps in retrospect it should have been discussed even though no change of the actual COI requirements was actually made. In retrospect the two "sides" were - 1/ COI should be left as it traditionally started, as addressing self/organizational-promotion only (WP:COI began life as a guideline on vanity articles), and my concern which was: 2/ COI is a term that others look at and have expectation what it should cover. Wikipedia regularly comes under fire for alleged questionable self-regulation and admin power-tripping, by third party commentators, and those comments sometimes end up in the media where others will read and believe them. A media article that reports Wikipedia has strong coherent internal COI will reflect well on us, and one that notes them as apparently absent or minimized may reflect badly. So it's worth referrencing in WP:COI that Wikipedia does have policies related to all forms of COI, since that's what the title implies to readers. Wikipedia is neither small nor marginal any more, so (as with all large undertakings) poor communication and flaws will be noted. People notice apparent flaws in major things more than minor ones.

A significant part of my project work has been cleaning up and authoring project documents which help establish Wikipedia as more credible, more transparent and better explained (WP:ABOUT, Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control, cleanup of WP:NPOV, and so on). In this area, most contributions have been accepted and adopted; the discussion on COI has become more mild now that the issues of concern are clearer, and hopefully that will be sorted out too some time soon. Apologies if I pushed a bit hard, but it didn't seem very controversial to add to the main page covering COI, the information that we had other policies and guidelines seriously addressing COI too. I accept the correction - espcially from Mangojuice and Audacity and a couple of others - that this and a couple of other projectspace edits were possibly a bit hasty. It's a fair comment.

As there are lessons for me, there are lessons for others too, I think. Both the above were made worse by needless assumptions of bad faith [28] ("smells of a rather insidious attempt", "sneaking in", "these people") and [29], where it could easily have been asked directly what the motive was, rather than assume. The other were two worrying comments on WP:COI that implied that editing a guideline might have been out of order specifically because the contributor was not an admin, or that it was 'not unreasonable' because the contributor was on Request for Adminship at the time [30] [31]. Although admins have more experience, all editors seem to be considered of equal standing in respect of mainspace and project-space work [32]; hence adminship as a basic janitorial service. Comments like that fuel arguments, and also fuel the impression that admins consider themselves "higher", and expect to write the rules for "others", and that's got to be a mis-impression that's not allowed to be given.

That said, whatever the outcome, thank you to all who put in time and thought to give me this feedback. I appreciate it. If anyone still has concerns, advice, or suggestions for improvement, even after the RfA, please let me know, even if the RfA is already over. I've tried to address the main ones here. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[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.
Category