Redthoreau (talk·contribs) – I first came across Redthoreau whilst I was checking out recent reviewers and looking for potential admin candidates. I believe that Redthoreau has the tenure and contributions to satisfy not just my relatively lax RFA criteria, but also the current expectations at RFA. Redthoreau does not have a wholly unblemished history here as it includes some editwarring blocks in 2008, however they are now almost two years ago, so I would hope we can all agree to treat them as historical and accept them as time expired. I enjoyed reading Che Guevara, was impressed at Redthoreau's cluefull and knowledgeable comments at Talk:Che Guevara, and hope you will all share my appreciation of this candidate's work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I accept. Opening Statement: I am currently a Veteran Editor II with 15,500 edits, 3 years of editing experience, and around 900 pages on my watch list. I also already possess both reviewer and rollback rights. Additionally, in the spirit of full disclosure, my personal Wiki philosophy can be seen on my user page --> here, while those Wiki policies that I find most valuable can be viewed throughout my ---> talk page. I feel it is also important to mention that although I can often be critical of varying aspects of Wikipedia, I do deeply believe in everything Wikipedia stands for. I would compare it to the way that one constructively critiques a family member out of love for them, and not malice. As an academic with a Ph.D., it is my goal that one day Wikipedia will be viewed as being as reliable as the peer reviewed JSTOR journal articles that only graduate students usually have access to. Likewise, I fundamentally believe that access to knowledge is a human right, and regardless of this RFA, will remain committed to the success of the overall Wikipedia mission. Redthoreau-- (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2010 (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: If given the privilege and responsibility of being an administrator, I envision myself using my newly gained "abilities" in an array of ways. Some of these would include semi-protecting pages that are repeatedly victimized by obvious vandals/trolls, moving pages over redirects, and hiding and deleting offensive page revisions (which I believe reflect poorly on the project). Additional areas that I envision myself working on would be granting rollback rights, protecting deleted pages, helping with administrative backlog, addressing copyright problems, and patrolling speedy deletion requests. Down the line, after I have garnered the requisite amount of experience and knowledge as an Admin, I may feel comfortable deleting and restoring pages, and as a last resort - blocking ips or editors for blatant vandalism. Of note, I have thoroughly read the WP:ADMINGUIDE & WP:ARL and feel that I can be trusted with the wide ranging spectrum of responsibilities. Redthoreau-- (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have made minor edits to thousands of articles; however as a historian and researcher with a specialty in Latin American history and politics, I initially began editing articles related to the Cuban Revolution – and even more specifically Che Guevara. As such, some of my "best contributions" would be my extensive work on the following articles within the Che Guevara related sphere of influence - such as: Che Guevara, Guerrillero Heroico, Che Guevara in popular culture, The Motorcycle Diaries (book), The Motorcycle Diaries (film), and Che (film). During my first year, I almost exclusively edited within this realm as I believed the Che related articles were severely lacking attention and depth. It then sort of became a "domino effect" as I would be reading a book on the topic for one article, and come across material that would be great in another one of his other related articles. Moreover, because of my personal nature to engross myself within a topic until I feel that I nearly know everything there is to know about it, it was hard to venture out to other articles - (an unfortunate preoccupation I have since corrected). On the opposite end of the political spectrum, I have also made a considerable amount of edits to both Glenn Beck(along with his Restoring Honor rally) and Ayn Rand – with future plans to work extensively on Ralph Waldo Emerson & Henry David Thoreau(my favorite author, hence my username).
My primary interest is Latin American history and/or history of the political left in general – with a side interest in the contemporary political right. As such, I edit a good number of articles within these areas. However, I often stray into random articles with no tangential connection at all to the aforementioned topics. For instance, I am a firm believer that an article's "External Links" section should contain an array of multimedia links if possible - such as slideshows, images, video reports, interviews, interactive web pages etc (and often work on this area of many articles).
Furthermore, and it may sound cheesy, but I believe some of my "best contributions" have taken place not on articles, but on article talk pages. I believe strongly that the key to a good article, is a well organized and active talk page (ideally, staffed by veteran editors who are knowledgeable with the material) – and so I have made a large amount of edits both to the layout of TP’s and to general discussions about the articles in general. My penchant and propensity for verbosity also leads me to give lengthy and referenced talk page comments, which are sometimes ironically better referenced than even the article in question. For instance, I would invite any one to read through my recent responses on Talk:Che Guevara and through the same talk page’s archive (my distinctive red & yellow signature isn’t hard to miss) --> here. I believe these demonstrate both my patience and commitment to building a well sourced Encyclopedia. Lastly, the following two links feature truncated --> "Praise" and -->"Thank You’s" that I have received from a wide array of Wiki editors. Redthoreau-- (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: To be perfectly honest, my first year in Wikipedia (07-08) featured sporadic conflict with a small handful of editors. Before I really understand how Wiki worked, I made the mistake of jumping right into a string of contentious and politically polarizing article topics, which resulted in me receiving several blocks for 3RR violations (including 2 in my first month). I didn’t really understand the expected decorum of Wikipedia, and thus became frustrated when my contributions were removed – especially when writing on a topic that I was very familiar with. When I look back at my editing behavior I realize I was wrong, as I would stubbornly let myself get frustrated and thus entangled in repetitive edit wars. Of note, many of those who I was edit-warring with were later banned for an array of reasons (such as socking, pov pushing etc) - but that still does not excuse my actions. Of importance, my primary "nemesis" during this first year was the one-time prolific User:Mattisse, who I later reconciled with and established a friendly relationship with after she awarded me a barn star of peace – for reaching out to her. I believe this specific situation with her is symptomatic of my developing Wiki maturity, and emblematic of the "new" and restrained Redthoreau who emerged over the last two years. Sticking with the realm of Wiki editors - User:Coppertwig, who I have worked with since the beginning and now consider a friend and Wiki mentor, also assisted me immensely – by showing me how to calmly edit with patience. Another editor who I came in fleeting contact with early on in my Wiki journey, but since have voyeuristically observed and admired from afar, while trying to model myself after, is User:jbmurray - who I believe embodies the type of editor I am striving to become. Lastly, if granted admin rights, I intend to learn the ropes by working closely under the tutelage of User:WereSpielChequers - who has proven to be extremely helpful in preparing for this overall nomination process.
To conclude, since my occasionally turbulent first year of editing, I have not only learned how to temper my Wiki actions, but through a string of successful collaborations and mentorship opportunities with more experienced editors, gained a better understanding of how to successfully work together with editors who possess divergent views on controversial topics. I can also say that many of my former "edit warring rivals" later became allies, who I was able to work well with (as it is in my nature to seek compromise if possible). I would compare the 2 year old block situation analogously to a naive youth’s criminal record, which is usually expunged in adulthood, as not to become a life-long burden to employment. Importantly, I also recognize that as an Admin, I could never use my privileges to gain an advantage in a dispute in which I am involved. Redthoreau-- (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. In question 1, you made mention of "hiding and deleting offensive page revisions." Please clarify what types of revisions you would or would not delete.
A: Per WP:REVDEL, and more specifically Wikipedia:RD2, I would adjust revision visibility to remove "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" such as smears, slurs etc. An administrator who I have noticed on my watch page that is frequently committed to this is User:NawlinWiki. If granted admin status, I would seek out his/her advice on assisting with this task. For instance, frequently I will see ip users include racially offensive remarks in their drive by vandalism edit summaries, which (if allowed to stand) I believe reflect poorly on our overall mission. Redthoreau-- (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. In your Wiki-philosophy section, you state that registration should be required to edit articles. Would you care to expand on this a bit?
A: Sure SarekOfVulcan and nice to meet you. To be honest I didn’t come to Wikipedia with this view, but achieved it through my 3 years of editing. There are a myriad of variables that led me to this personal belief. For example, countless times I have seen controversial articles fall into decay when open to ip edits, and only achieve stability and a higher quality upon receiving semi-protection. The rationale in my view being that if someone values disseminating the information enough, that they will willingly take the relatively minor step of registering a user name or proposing the edit on the article’s talk page for a registered user to include for them. Moreover, I believe that millions of registered wiki users work far to hard on creating a quality Encyclopedia, to allow random drive by ip editors to besmirch the Wiki "brand" with the various sophomoric vandalism that you will occasionally get (almost exclusively) from ip non-registered members. Lastly, on principle, I believe that it shouldn’t be easier to edit a trusted Encyclopedia article with 100,000 views a day – than it is to post to a random message board on the internet. In Wiki’s early genesis, I believe the ability for ip edits had merit, however now I believe that the number of articles and quality has reached the point where the project could add this minor level of selectivity – that in my mind prevents almost 95 % of blatant vandalism – and thus save editors countless amount of hours that could be used more effectively towards constructing better articles. As an important caveat, I would add that this is just my personal "philosophical" stance, and not something that I would push to establish as an administrator. Redthoreau-- (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. An edit war has broken out on a biography of a lower-league football player. An editor has inserted information to the effect that the footballer is under police investigation for the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl. The information is sourced to an article by a reputable national newspaper. The editor is reverted by an administrator. The administrator posts on the article's talk page saying that it is unacceptable for a biography of a living person to contain untested allegations of serious criminal conduct. The administrator argues that the newspaper may have broken the law or committed defamation. The original editor, who added the material, gets immediate support from three uninvolved editors on the talk page. They argue that it is not wikipedia's place to second guess the reliability of sources that have been accepted to be reliable for all purposes. The editors accuse the administrator of acting outside WP:BLP, arguing that there is nothing in that policy precluding the inclusion of the material. The administrator says that the material is unwarranted and harmful to the living person, that BLP overrides consensus, and the material can wait until the police investigation has concluded. The administrator therefore continues to revert the information when it is included by the four other editors. The four other editors make one or two reverts each to re-insert the content, while the administrator reverts the additions six times within a two hour period. The administrator requests the page's protection at WP:RPP. What would you, as an uninvolved administrator, do in respect of RPP request and the dispute generally?
A. Hello Mkativerata, and thanks for the interesting hypothetical. There are many issues of importance with this situation. (a) If the footballer is "under investigation" then that claim should have multiple reliable references (one wouldn't be sufficient, as outstanding accusations, require strong sourcing per WP:Verify & WP:Fringe). (b) Wiki is WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:BLP does not protect living individuals from having unflattering aspects of their conduct reported, as long as those allegations are worded per WP:NPOV, not in violation of WP:Undue, and sourced to multiple WP:Reliable sources. It should also be made clear which news organization is reporting on the "allegation" and not read as if Wikipedia is endorsing the validity of the charges. (c) I would hope that a fellow administrator would not engage in 6RR in 2 hour period, and instead seek WP:RPP after reaching 2RR, as admins are not above the WP:3RR law. (d) If the admin chose this course of action, then I would probably contact them first to hear their side of the story - then possibly protect the page for 24 hours - while additional references can be sought, and perhaps more neutral wording be established - that the admin might agree to. Hopefully the other non-admins would be active as well on the article's TP towards reaching a WP:Consensus on the matter. (e) If I am unable to get agreement on the issue, and it remains intractable - then I would probably seek advice from other admins on what course of action to take. As I don't pretend to have all the solutions. (f) Lastly, in theory, and out of caution, if a solution can't be found that is amicable to all/most parties, then I would lean towards not including the allegation until it is commonly reported throughout the mainstream media. Wikipedia is not here to "break the news", but to report on it after the fact. Redthoreau-- (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Your answer to question 6 above did not mention what action you would consider taking against an administrator who blatantly violated the WP:3RR rule. Could you clarify this, and would you approach the situation differently to an anonymous IP editor, or perhaps a regular editor without administrator privileges? Parrotof Doom 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A. Hi Parrot, sure. Obviously there is a great deal of missing context to the hypothetical (such as the admins history, the other users history, the ips history etc) - which is why they recommend politicians stay away from incomplete hypotheticals. But since I always criticize politicians for dancing around questions, I am attempting to honestly answer everything regardless of potential pitfalls. As for your question, of course an ip, regular user, and admin should in theory be judged entirely equally - however, I am too honest of a person than to pretend (bullshit everyone here) that this always happens. For me personally, I would strive to give the ip as fair a hearing as possible vis-a-vi the admin – and for that matter the non-admin registered user (who I think are the crucial backbone of Wikipedia). I personally would probably stay away from blocking a fellow admin in this instance, but I would certainly seek guidance from more experienced admins as to whether a ban is necessary - and if so, let them do it. As someone who respects the work that admins put in, and the grueling process of RFA (that I am experiencing at present) I do think they at least deserve a second look from another admin, before I block them outright. If my "politically incorrect-Wiki" honesty costs me more support, then so be it. But remember this the next time you grow weary of clichéd and robotic answers. Redthoreau-- (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Your answer to question 6 above did not mention any of the administrative boards, but instead discussed the steps you would personally take to address the situation by direct discussion on the article talk page. In a dispute that has reached the levels indicated by the question, what do you think is the role of WP:BLPN, WP:ANB, and WP:ANI? I notice in this connection that you have made almost no edits in WP or WT space. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A.
9. What is the relative reliability of those editors who have advanced degrees and say so as compared to those with such degrees but who do not say so? What is the relative reliability of those editors who give their real names as compared to those who do not? Are either of those questions related to the reliability of those editing under pseudonyms as compared to those using their ip addresses? DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closing Statement: I would like to withdraw my nomination.
It just seems to me like no editor should have to go through such verbal abuse in order to be awarded a "volunteer job". The RFA process to me encourages groupthink, stifles intellectual debate, and allows an open forum for any old former grudge to take pot shots at a nominee - who is expected to smile and turn the other cheek out of "civility". To spend 5 hours responding honestly to questions, and then have drive by editors dismiss your candidacy based on the "Myspace-iness" or layout of your TP is not only insulting - but makes a mockery of the whole "job interview". Toss in the fact that editors can apparently throw out political accusations with no proof, and impugn years worth of work with a flippant one-liner - and the whole process winds up as one large clusterfuck. Users keep throwing around this idea of a "hell week", as if it is benefit to make the projects seemingly most veteran contributors cap off years of effort with the equivalent of a public dunk tank / fraternal hazing ritual. The predictable result at this point I would contend is that only extremely milquetoast editors who haven’t taken any previous political positions and who give the same disingenuous crowd pleasing answers receive sweeping nomination (and maybe this is what many on Wiki think is best, while I obviously disagree). It may not have always been this way, but it is obvious to me that some of those admins on the top are committed to now kicking out the ladder from those below them – and preserving some sort of clique/cabal to the overall detriment of the Encyclopedia.
I remain committed to the overall mission of wikipedia, which I believe is a beautiful collaboration for the betterment of society – but I value my dignity to much than to continue with this process. If that makes me a "pussy who took his ball and went home", then fine – but eventually some "Admin fraternity pledges" have to refuse to drink the proverbial piss and retain some self respect. To those who granted me their support or even to those who opposed me after careful and honest deliberation, I apreciate your time, effort and consideration.
I think this is the first time I've been the first to support an RfA. In any case, WSC has never given any reason for us to doubt his judgment, and this candidate demonstrates the attitude and experience one should expect from an adminship candidate. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I see no red flags. This user would make a very good admin. Inka888ContribsTalk 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support I'm a bit concerned with the block log for edit warring, but as the blocks were placed at least over a year ago, I shouldn't complain too much about this. Minimac (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Scratched, moved to oppose.Reply[reply]
Support Looks good. I don't see any major issues. Tyrol5[Talk] 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - 3 years' experience, reviewer, and rollbacker, see [1]. Has an interesting user page/talk page. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - looks intelligent and skilled as an editor, level-headed and thoughtful. Good responses. Should make an effective admin. Tony Fox(arf!) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Originally I was going to nominate you, however I think that your current nominator is more qualified. After reviewing your edits in preparation for suggesting a nomination, I was ready to support the moment this went up, however your answer to question 1, which was slightly ambiguous on RevDel, gave me pause. Your answer to question 4 has satisfied my concerns. If you do get the mop, I think you'll do fine. Sven ManguardTalk 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was going to hold off !voting for a while but in light of the opposes and neutrals I can't. The key to Q5 is its final sentence. Unless there is any reason to suspect that the candidate's personal views would actually affect his use of the tools the opposes on q5 are weak to the point of being 'crat-disregardable. Answer to q6 was solid and covered all the relevant issues. I've seen all I need to see to land here.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support primarily to balance silly opposes. I see no reason to think Redthoreau would be a poor admin, and opposing on the basis of the answer to Q5 is silly. I do disagree with the answer, but it's irrelevant to the issue of giving Redthoreau the mop. I mean, really, those opposing on the basis of Q5 should stop and remind themselves that admins have no more say in policy discussions than anyone else. So however vociferously Redthoreau might argue for his belief when the occasion arises, that is simply irrelevant at RFA. Rd232talk 23:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support admire the way he buried the hatchet with Mattisse; other people buried the hatchet with Mattisse too, problem was that they buried Mattisse in the process. Guess they thought the chance of having the hatchet rust undrground was worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Some may disagree to the answer to number 5, but I see no reason this would interfere with the way they would act as an admin. Redthoreau has shown to be a civil editor with plenty of experience. Derild4921☼ 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support He has opinions. —Soap— 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as Nominator. I did notice the Userbox about IP editing when I did my review, but ignored it as irrelevant to RFA. I think Redthoreau would do a good job of administering the site according to policy. If this was an election to a policy making body then I would be concerned as we are on opposite sides of the IP editing debate. But if we were to turn RFA from a discussion about whether an editor can be trusted with the tools to a WikiPolitics election about their view on policy development then I think it would be bad for the site, both in terms of the way we choose admins and the way we develop policy. Also there are many policy discussions that take place on this site, I often find that editors who disagree with me on one issue agree with me on another. So if this did degenerate into an election for policy makers I expect I'd still have to vote for people who disagreed with me on some policy issues. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope the closing bureaucrat discounts votes based solely on policy grounds. One RFA failing because of such votes is bad, but the precedent it would set has the potential to be all kinds of appalling. Rd232talk 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - per WereSpielChequers, the opposition fail to raise any real concerns. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:12pm • 03:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Although some of the opposers' concerns are valid, I believe that promoting Redthoreau to a sysop would be a net plus to the project. —MC10(T•C•GB•L) 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support An honest, intelligent, knowledgeable, and productive contributor. It seems to me he would function well as an administrator. I disagree with some of his positions, but this shouldn't be politics. extransit (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support The opposition raises valid concerns. I had thought about whether declaring your academic backgrounds is necessarily bad on an RFA. If there is conflicts of interest in articles you write declaring it is not a bad thing, But there are asscoiated issues with this, ie not identifying yourself and only your background, maybe you could to a trusted senior editor/beurocrat etc or so? and they can vouch for it. But again does this really matter so long as youve stated you have a conflict of interest? A can of worms so to be with the statement, and COI can be quite serious in many cases. So Im more neutral on that avenue (willing to elaborate if need be) but thats why my support is weak. WereSpiel above makes a good point about views on policy views. Its only opinions the editor states and they are not forcing one to edit by those rules (at least thats what i beleive). So I see Were's view on this and his endorsement/nomination statement combined with the editors wealth of editing history and experience as reason to belive that the editor would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. As for yourself the editor, I hope that you dont take the RFA too harshly and continue to advance on the project, keep at it and in the future of course give it another shot. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, although I may switch to Neutral if Jbmurray (talk·contribs) weighs in. I am very uneasy about this RFA for several reasons. First, presenting oneself as a PhD in whatever (without attaching a real, verifiable name) is sliding down the slippery Essjay slope. I'm the Queen of Sheba-- this is the internet, anyone can be anyone; we're judged by our edits, not our alleged credentials. I'm not saying I don't believe Red but it's his edits that we should judge. Second, I'm concerned about the way Redthoreau invokes the names of absent editors; on the Che Guevara FAR, Jbmurray, Mattisse, Ling.Nut and myself were all in agreement that there were problems that Redthoreau argued didn't exist. Third, if Red is an "an academic with a Ph.D", why did he fail to see those problems? I'm sorry, I don't trust this editor's neutrality, and don't appreciate the way in which this RFA was presented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you be more comfortable if this editor's RfA if he were to avoid taking admin actions in Che related articles? And as to your comments on Ph.Ds, see this. Just because someone is well educated does not mean that they are above making stupid mistakes. Besides, that was two years ago. Sven ManguardTalk 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, he would have to recuse from using the tools in all socialist/communist-related artcles for me to feel comfortable, and Jbmurray would have to endorse his "academic PhD", but seeing the answers to questions presented subsequent to my Oppose, I am unlikely to change my mind.
On the Essjay slippery slope, we all know and can independently verify who Jbmurray is, who TimVickers is, and even though we didn't initially know who NewYorkBrad was, his edits backed that he was who he said he was. I didn't see that in Red's case, and I worry about candidates passing RFA claiming credentials that we can't verify, when they aren't using their real name.
Next, Q4: I don't want any more admins I don't trust running around striking edit summaries, since I was just on the end of an abusive admin's use of that.
On Q5, I'm very troubled: yes, IPs vandalize a lot, but that is easily dealt with, and they sometimes make very good edits. I see more damage from POV-pushers and tendentious, disruptive established editors. And POV warriors rarely change-- they just learn to play the game until they get the tools, and then their edit warring, POV-pushing shows its colors again.
On Q6, once again, Mkativerata poses a very good, provocative question, and the candidate shows us they will give a break to a fellow admin that a regular editor wouldn't get; 3RR is a bright line, and hiding behind BLP doesn't excuse it. We don't need more admins who close ranks.
So, I'm afraid my oppose is only stronger now. I do wish good luck to the candidate, since RFA is hell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The mention of the phd is as part of explaining long-term objectives; it isn't "vote for me, I've got a phd" (nor should anyone). Q4: he's said he'd ask a long-established admin for advice, and the suggestion is a concern with racial slurs. In any case I don't see any indication of ending up in situations remotely like your recent one. Q5: irrelevant, unless you're willing to draw conclusions about how he intends to treat IP editors qua admin. I think that's what Q5 was getting at, but it should have asked that instead of a question the answer to which is irrelevant to RFA. Q6: even a detailed provocative answer allows no definitive conclusions - too much depends on unspecified detail and context (eg the reverting admin's record). The answer covers the relevant points to consider fairly well, and indicates no rush to judgement, which is the main thing we want from people who are not yet experienced administrators. In particular, rushing to punish a good faith admin attempt to uphold BLP is not generally a good idea, even if a specific attempt is misguided. BLP caution is more important than 3RR, which is why there is a BLP exemption for it, and any good faith attempt to draw on that (by non-admins too) ought to be given appropriate slack. [Appropriate slack != carte blanche, BTW.] Rd232talk 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per answer to question 5 and the block log. MtD (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most recent block is 23 months ago. Is there any length of time after which you would regard a block as historical? Please bear in mind that candidates with a clean blocklog and less than 23 months experience have been known to breeze through RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I read the block log wrongly. I thought the blocks were from 2009, not 2008. You're right there, sufficient time has elapsed for those indiscretions to be overlooked. Apologies to the candidate. That said, the IP editing stuff is still a killer. IP editors get a rough time around here, particularly when you consider that some of the best contributions come from anonymous folks and that a lot of the high grade fuckwittery that goes on is generated by named accounts. We don't need another admin who carries an entrenched bias against the IP set. MtD (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for striking that part of your oppose. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ as to whether an admin's views as to how policy should change are relevant to their role in using the tools in accordance with policy. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not, per question 5. Sorry, wrong attitude. Wisdom89(T / C) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I'm sorry, but the attitude reflected in the answer to Q5 leaves me feeling quite uneasy. --Andy Walsh(talk) 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, per Q5. I don't know what the current figures are, but in 2004 and 2007, although 80% of vandalism is by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered editors were not vandalism - in Feb 2007, 62.5% of edits were constructive ones by registered editors, 29.4% were constructive IP edits, 6.5% were unconstructive edits by IPs and 1.6% were unconstructive edits by registered editors. If you removed all the good IP edits, we'd have a much much poorer encyclopedia (see the essay Wikipedia:IPs are human too -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PhantomSteve, those are certainly compelling numbers if accurate. I haven't personally seen any data on the issue before, and I am certainly open to adjusting my opinion as I become privy to more of the facts. Unfortunately, all I have to go on right now is my own experience, and thus my own personal view is possibly an imperfect reflection of that. Lastly, as a potential counterpoint – I would add that the "unknown variable" in your statistical sample is how many of those ip’s would still have added material if registration was mandatory – versus how many would have bothered to register with the sole intention of vandalizing. For instance, if mandatory registration still got you 23 of the 29.4 % of valuable ip additions, but only .5 % of the 6.5 % of vandalism, I would argue the tradeoff could theoretically be worth it. Redthoreau-- (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More info is at User:Dragons flight/Log analysis (possibly some of that page could be copied into the "IP's are human" page); there's also an essay called Who Writes Wikipedia that may be interesting. I suspect the proportions have changed somewhat, though. —Soap— 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, Redthoreau, I used to hold your position a while ago, and at some point (can't remember when - some years) changed my mind based on evidence like that from Phantomsteve. Rd232talk 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The Guevara articles (especially Che Guevara in popular culture) are political hagiographies. I can't support a candidate who cites these as their best content contributions. I am also troubled by the "name-drop" of a PhD in order to advance an RFA, per SG. Skinwalker (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per the answer to Q6. Administrators should not be shown any special consideration in 3RR disputes, or in any other disputes come to that. MalleusFatuorum 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but users making good faith attempts to draw on BLP exemptions to 3RR should. Rd232talk 00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite, whether they are administrators or not. The candidate's answer to Q7 has just confirmed me in my view. MalleusFatuorum 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per question 5. Just this morning, I logged on and found that five seperate IP users had made nothing but constructive contributions to one of the articles on my watchlist, far quicker and just as effectively as any registered user. Denying IP users the right to edit denies us contributions that are just as valuable as those from us with accounts; I think it's completely the wrong mentality. C628 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I was ready to support until I saw Che Guevara in popular culture. Yikes. That article is an alarming demonstration of everything that Wikipedia is not. (In particular, from WP:POPCULTURE:'Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged'.) Sorry to oppose over it, but I just don't feel you have a strong understanding of what Wikipedia is for. Robofish (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? He mentioned 6 articles, of which 2 are Good Articles, 1 B-class, 2 on the way there. The one you highlight is indeed rather listy - but let's not lose perspective. Rd232talk 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose based on a number of factors. First off, you have a very...colourful user talk. I don't wish to debate its aesthetic merits, but it does make it rather difficult to communicate with you, especially for a newer user (75% of the page is non-discussion material!). Second, Che Guevara in popular culture, which you list as one of your "best contributions", really should be shortened significantly if not deleted - echoing concerns above, it falls under WP:NOT. Third, concerns about IPs, while understandable given your experience base, are generally not helpful given our claimed dedication to open editing. Fourth, looking through your user contributions I come across pages like this one, in which a number of problems with your discussion style present themselves - potential biteyness, lack of awareness of what the NPOV tag requires, lack of AGF while demanding it of another editor, "pulling rank" on a newer editor, etc. I could go on, but this is already TL;DR. Short version: multiple factors in combination make me unable to support. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, so who had 4 hours and 5 minutes on the McCarthyite office poll? Oh, guess what, my favorite baseball team is also the Cincinnati Reds! Ahh! If you can't show where I have claimed to be a "Communist" anywhere, then I would ask that you redact your accusation. Redthoreau-- (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not in the last year or two, although I addressed the SPA status in the first year up above. As for my talk page, I can't believe that is even relevant to a nomination process. Can some here at least give the impression that this process isn't one big fucking joke? Redthoreau-- (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's very obvious from your writing record that if some communist breaks 3RR, the page will get protected, but if a "reactionary" does so, a block, and likely a lengthy one will land on their head. Anyone can check your Castro/Guevara/Batista edits and tell YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Talk page certainly is relevant. If you're any kind of active admin, anonymous and novice editors will come to your page all the time to ask questions like why their article was deleted. A novice may very well not understand where in that morass they're supposed to leave a message. --Andy Walsh(talk) 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q5 is a red flag, numerous past blocks are red flags regardless of age, user page and talk page are Myspace. Townlake (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Myspace". Brilliant. I'm sure glad that I put in the time to offer up cogent and policy-specific answers for your honest consideration. Redthoreau-- (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The User page doesn't upset me, frankly, but the response and the link to the Idiocracy YouTube video gives me pause. Is this an esoteric joke between you and Townlake? I'm still neutral, but while I was starting to be wary of the "piling on" effect of oppose !votes, now I'm leaning more in that direction. Saebvn (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why he linked to a video of a guy getting kicked in the groin. I can't say I find it offensive, but I also don't imagine he posted that as a compliment to my wisdom. Townlake (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. My general impression of his edits has been that they are skewed towards giving undue weight to particular POVs, to the point of stretching guidelines such as WP:UNDUE. As documented here, he created an entire sub-article for a topic that other editors found didn't have enough coverage to merit even a section in the main article. I'm also uncomfortable with his use of very close paraphrasing of source material in edits such as this and this (but to his credit, he does cite the sources). So while I don't hold old blocks against him, I'm not comfortable that his present-day perspective is balanced enough or close enough to the WP norm (not just on the registration issue) to make an even-handed admin. --RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (from neutral) per conduct at this RfA, specifically [2] and [3]. I understand some of these concerns are frustrating, but they are genuine, and unfortunately reactions such as this raise almost insurmountable concerns about the ability of the candidate to stay cool under pressure. Combined with the concerns in my struck neutral below, I must oppose. -- Lear'sFool 03:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeTemperamental issues. Will not be able to withstand slights with high degrees of civility, given the current responses. Regret opposing. With WSC nominating, 90% of the job to become an admin was done - as I believe WSC is one of the few admins who stand against 'gaming the system' to gain adminship. I suspect if the editor hadn't answered any questions, leave the compulsory ones, they would have passed with ease, SG notwithstanding. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm very disappointed with the block log you've just had. Sadly, I have no intention supporting candidates with 5 blocks in a year for edit warring. Also, that's way too many administrative actions you plan to take in terms of your answer to Q1. Like all admins, they should start slowly. Minimac (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to an inability to maintain decorum and respect toward other editors, as reflected in this discussion. It matters little that comments made by other editors have been a bit snarky. One snide remark does not require or indicate the need for another in return. The RfA process is a reflection of how an editor may respond in similar discussions, once receiving the bit. Administrators are responsible to diffuse situations such as these, rather than feed into and/or foster them to the hilt. That said, I think comments regarding an individual's political and/or social bent is inappropriate and immaterial. I welcome Communists, Republicans, Muslims, Democrats, and the Amish. What I don't appreciate are editors pushing a particular point of view, while dismissing and disregarding the views of others. Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because of Q1 and a lot of little things. I don't see why the mop is needed. But not at all because they listed a PhD, and only slightly because of question 5. Question 5 betrays to me a superficial familiarity with vandalism patrolling (I see no AIV edits) but good intentions. Vandalism patrolling is easier because of anon edits, and without it we'd have less silly vandalism and more persistent, harder to track vandalism. Of the few AfD opinions that are there, the most recent seems to be broadly out of consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism), and I don't see a large history of policy edits or discussions. I don't require that in an admin. The only suggestions of admin activities in Question 1 are anti-vandal activities, of which I see almost no experience of this admin. Moreover, the 7 article creations (other editors have been rejected having more content creations) have a focus, and combined with the concerns above, I don't see a need for the tools, and I see some real concern over other issues, although they may be minor on their own. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Per above. Concerns with judgement and temperament. -FASTILY(TALK) 07:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose with apologies to WereSpiel. Re: the PhD...I think I even have a userbox that says that's irrelevant - but this is the internet, and I have a 12" penis. Re: IP editors - wrong, wrong, wrong and more wrong. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as per answer to question 7. Admins should be treated absolutely no differently to any other editor, and relying on the judgement of other admins would, I'm sure, see the matter casually brushed under the carpet. Parrotof Doom 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Q7 is a major no-no, and the user seems to have a blatant POV and doesn't work well with other uses in that sphere. Skinny87 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral per Q5. Not sure I approve of your opinions on IP editors. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can respect that Sarek, although I hope you understand that I gave you my "personal belief", that bears no real relation to how I would act as an administrator. You asked a philosophical question, and I hope you would at least value that I gave you my honest answer. Redthoreau-- (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do value that. It would have been easy for you to say "Oh, that's an old userbox I never got around to removing", but you gave me a straight answer. I don't know if that opinion will affect your admining or not -- it's entirely possible we'd agree on every action you took. However, I'm not sure of that at this point, so I'll sit down here in Neutral for the moment and see what else comes up. Could change my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. At this point. Q5. Could change my mind; it's a long time before the RFA closes. "You can edit this page right now is a core giding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Even for IPs. Saebvn (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I value that view Saebvn, but would posit that "sacred" reverence for any man-made policy, has the potential for creating stifling groupthink and not the sort of intellectual atmosphere that produces quality results. All situations in my view should be seen as fluid, and ip editing ability (which has already been curtailed through semi-protection, pending revisions etc) is hardly sacrosanct. As a nuanced aside, I don’t support the current concept of pending revisions, but do support philosophically the idea of mandatory registration. It is merely my own view, that I don’t expect anyone else to endorse or share. Redthoreau-- (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redthoreau, thank you for the response. (I disagree, by the way, with Sven and think that you should respond to the "oppose" !votes (and my neutral !vote) and enter into discussion, as you've done here. Totally fine; let the 'crats sort it out.) As someone said above, "RFA is hell." It's true. But it's what we've got. I'm listening carefully, vascillating between weak support and weak oppose. Don't like the "one big f*ing joke" remark, or the video link, as I mentioned above. But, Rd232 is making some cogent arguments as to why your personal views on IP editors shouldn't matter to me. Saebvn (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Sandy, will change to support if confirmed, as question 5 is a personal opinion. Secretaccount 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral moved to oppose 03:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC). I'm leaning toward a weak support here, as Redthoreau is clearly a good editor, and from his resume (by which I mean his on-wiki activities) looks to be the kind of editor who would be good with the tools. I don't care about the IP editors thing, and although I do agree that his talkpage needs to change (especially for someone working at CSD, where there'll be a lot of newbies wanting to post there), but I note that it already appears that this will get fixed (see here). To be honest, I haven't checked your CSD taggings, but a nomination from WereSpielChequers is enough guarantee that there are no problems there. I'm afraid, however, that I cannot bring myself to support given the answers to questions 6 and 7. I do respect the obvious caution with using the block button. However, we have here a content disagreement that has been taken to the talkpage, where neutral editors have joined the discussion, and where the consensus is clearly that the new material does not constitute a BLP violation (and note this is different to a consensus that it should be included). In this scenario, An editor of the experience required for adminship who makes six reverts in two hours should be blocked, or at the very least given an extremely stern warning that any continued edit warring will result in one. Page protection is not for situations when a single editor is edit warring against consensus: that's what blocks are for. Both the phrase "I personally would probably stay away from blocking a fellow admin in this instance" and the general vibe of the answer to question 7 make me concerned that Redthoreau's trepidation in this hypothetical comes not from the experience of the edit warrior, not from Redthoreau's inexperience as an admin (which I would find a perfectly reasonable reason), but from the userrights of the edit warrior, which explicitly does not matter in content disputes. I would love to support, but unless this concern is addressed, I can't bring myself to do so. -- Lear'sFool 01:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral – A few of the late oppose reasons give me cause to hesitate, including temperament issues, RfA conduct, and the quality of content leaves something more to be desired. OTOH, I'm willing to forgive old blocks, and the answers to the questions are fine, so far; I'm not worried about Q5. I'm sure many admins now have strong opinions on things, but that doesn't imply partiality in admin (or even editorial) decisions. –MuZemike 06:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. This is a placeholder vote, as I see I've been invoked in this RFA. I'm in Barcelona right now (at the Drumbeat Festival, as it happens). Will check back in later. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (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.