Final: (78/0/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 22:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present to you all for your !voting pleasure, SuperMarioMan. SMM has been an editor for over 8 years, racked up a respectable 40k edits, over 45% to article space, including over a dozen good articles and a featured article. He also has over 70 reports to the Administrator's noticeboard for vandalism.
Snottywong's editor interaction analyzer isn't working at the moment so I'm unable to look back to see where I first ran into SMM. But SuperMarioMan, in my experience, is one of our most levelheaded editors and any participation he has had at administrative noticeboards has been helpful, productive, and led toward resolution. I note particularly his contributions to the Murder of Meredith Kercher controversies where editors often considered him fairly neutral and well behaved in the face of some serious POV pushers. SuperMarioMan possesses the levelheadedness and wisdom needed for the administrator tools and I think he'd be of invaluable service to the project. v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination from JohnCD: I first came across SuperMarioMan when I found myself deleting strings of highly undesirable attack pages which had been lurking for months or years after being wrongly declined as non-notable or test pages at AfC. SMM had been conducting organised sweeps, searching for particular strings, to winkle them out. The initiative to see that something is necessary and get on with it is a good sign, and the willingness to undertake this sort of prolonged behind-the-scenes tidying up is also good; a lot of mop-work is like that. Examination of his contributions and his talk pages shows a level-headed user, helpful to others, willing to take advice and learn, and to explain his reasons courteously if his actions are questioned. I believe that SuperMarioMan can be trusted with the tools and would make good use of them. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
I also feel very familiar with the file namespace and the associated copyright and licensing requirements. For some time, I've been running through new user uploads periodically and tagging, where suitable, for common problems (e.g., replaceability for non-free files, lack of permission for free ones and copyright violations). Unfortunately, due to a database error affecting recent changes search, I haven't been able to perform this kind of work as regularly as I would have liked in the last couple of months; I believe, however, that I could process dated speedy deletion nominations of files with the necessary competence.
Aside from article-building proper, I have more than 7,500 pages on my watchlist, which constantly gives me things to do – be it simple vandalism reversion or more complex tasks, such as the light expansion, copy-editing and clean-up of shorter articles (e.g., Leslie Grade).
During the weeks and months that followed, I found myself somewhat frustrated by the manner in which reverts of content clearly intended to skew the article to a particular POV, questionable with regard to the biographies of living persons policy, and/or corroborated by unreliable sources (e.g., advocacy websites and blogs), were denounced by some new users as censorship or evidence of an "anti-Knox" mentality. It should be emphasised that the conduct of a few users who were actively promoting a view of guilt was sometimes equally disruptive. Bad-faith discussion on the talk page spiralled out into other venues, including WP:ANI and WP:AN, with blocks issued for personal attacks, legal threats and other disruptive editing.
I think that it would be arrogance on my part to claim that I did not, on occasion, contribute in some way to the atmosphere of hostility; my objective, however, was never simply to fan the flames for its own sake. I won't deny that I resented some comments directed towards me, including a claim that I was a commentator on an Amanda Knox hate site (untrue), which may have caused me to assume a tone "bite-ier" than I would have preferred.
My primary coping mechanism for the bad blood at MoMK was to go back to topics with which I was more familiar, and then return feeling refreshed. I believe that when editing divisive articles, one should remember that Wikipedia is, ultimately, a website; it is not worth becoming so emotionally invested over that it spoils enjoyment of other areas of life. At the same time, readiness to admonish others for their unconstructive attitudes demands readiness to re-examine one's own approach, and the ways in which it could be improved. I'd like to think of myself as a person willing to listen to others' views – if a user comes to my talk page with good-faith concerns, I will always try to take them onboard and see matters from that person's perspective. Openness to differing opinions and constructive criticism is, for me, among the top hallmarks that a Wikipedian can possess. Stressful as my experiences at MoMK sometimes were, I came away from the page with invaluable lessons in positive user interaction.
In brief, were I to find myself in a similarly heated editing environment in the future: for others' benefit, politeness, a welcoming attitude and careful consideration of viewpoints; for my own benefit, dissociation and detachment (up to and including walking away for a few days if conditions are very rough).
The second, unresolved conflict that I cite is not so much "stressful" as slightly wearisome. For a number of years, an anonymous user (or small group of anonymous users) has been using numerous IP addresses to add unsourced "descent" information and categories to various BLPs in contravention of the WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATEGRS guidelines – the problem is encapsulated in this revert (and others) on the Zack Ward article. In response to the recurrent disruption, I've added many of the BLPs affected to my watchlist. Others, including a few administrators, are also aware of the issue, with the latter applying rangeblocks to counteract serial problematic editing and block evasion. As an administrator, and being familiar with the style of anonymous editing deployed, I would block (where appropriate) with the same confidence and precision. I had previously considered starting a WP:LTA entry in the style of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal, but the appearances of the anonymous user have become less frequent over the last few months.
This non-administrator AfD closure of mine was not in response to a true "emergency situation". The discussion could just as easily have been left to run – after all, the chances of a vital article being deleted were virtually nil. I suppose that the question of "ignoring all rules" entails the question of where the "greater interest" lies. In this situation, I believed that using the "snowball" argument to save other users the time arguing against a deletion that was never likely to occur would be of greater benefit to the project overall. Then again, it was never essential that I adopt this course of action. There was very little that was controversial about my decision there, but if the same attitude were applied in slightly different circumstances, it could establish a bad precedent and the start of a slippery slope. SuperMarioMan 07:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A7 – Strict application is warranted to ensure that "credible claims of significance" is not confused with "evidence of notability". It is vital that both taggers and deleting administrators understand that for A7, the bar is lower.
G3 – Assess the tone of the writing and apparent intention of the author. In the case of hoaxes, the key word is "misinformation". Unless obviously intended to deceive, good faith should be assumed and the page either tagged for G2 (if the creator's objective seems to have been the testing of editing functions) or sent higher up the ladder of deletion processes.
G10 – In the case of named individuals and organisations, tolerance must be low. Diatribes without a specific target, although perhaps fitting the description of "some other entity", may be better suited to speedy deletion under G3. Either way, the result is the same – the harmful content is removed from public view, which is to the benefit of Wikipedia's image if nothing else.
G11 – While the current wording is indiscriminate with regard to the location of the advertising or promotion, I believe that under certain conditions, some leeway can be afforded to pages in userspace. I would be hesitant to tag for G11 a self-written, FAKEARTICLE-style biography user page, even if the content, length and detail seem incompatible with WP:USERBIO/WP:UP#PROMO or WP:WEBHOST (with its "limited biographical information" condition). In my experience, (self-)promotion and copyright violation frequently go hand in hand, in which case dual-tagging under G11 and G12 is the necessary route. Otherwise, MfD is generally preferable to speedy deletion as both a "softer" process and one that is arguably "kinder" to outgoing, new users who are simply making their first contributions and are as yet unacquainted with the policies and guidelines.
I apply the above to the grey area of individual self-promotion in userspace only. User pages that exclusively advertise or promote organisations or products or services should not be considered less speedy-deletable simply on account of namespace, especially if compounded with a promotional username.
G12 – Since WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy with legal considerations, there is little room for flexibility. Regardless of the namespace, pages comprised exclusively, or near-exclusively, of infringing content must be removed. SuperMarioMan 04:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A content dispute between two users, one with considerably less experience than the other, descends into bitter personal attacks and results in a mêlée at WP:ANI. Various calls for blocks are made. At one point, there is an emerging consensus to block the less experienced user, but a neutral third party can see that many of those in favour are the same editors who supported the established user at the talk page, and that the conduct of both users, generally, has been equally poor. The proposed block seems very one-sided, and not in keeping with WP:CIVIL's directive that the policy should apply "to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia". In a situation such as this, it would be worth remembering that disputes can die down as quickly as they flare up, and questioning whether it is really necessary that either party be blocked at all – WP:NPA states that blocks for personal attacks "should only be done for prevention, not punishment". One may contend that, by the time an ANI discussion has started and both users are under the spotlight, the time for prevention has already passed. Mediatory discussion would be a faster way to progress and result in less ill will. SuperMarioMan 19:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vital difference between a topic ban and a site ban is the perceived "net value" of the editor's contributions. The former is proposed only if the editor is generally constructive but needs to stay away from one particular area; as soon as "the broader problems ... outweigh the benefits of their editing", they will be seen as (what is popularly termed at WP:AN and WP:ANI) a "net negative" to Wikipedia. I would argue that site-banning is a well-founded institution, in practice as well as in theory, because it serves as an instrument of the Wikipedia community's will. It sends out a message that the community's patience, with regard to disruption, is not limitless. I feel that if the institution were repealed in favour of issuing only topic bans, it would be tantamount to encouraging disruption, since theoretically there could be no limit to the number of lesser bans that individual users could accumulate – once removed from one topic, they could simply start to disrupt another. Regardless of the question of efficacy (and I tend to think that they are effective in most cases), the practical value of site bans rests in their empowerment of the community to re-inforce its message to editors whose participation has been found to bring with it more disadvantages than advantages.
Some deep philosophising here ... Very grateful to you for your RfA support! SuperMarioMan 23:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed deletion policy already covers Wikipedia books. I've wondered a few times whether it could be expanded to include orphaned free files. WP:FfD appears to be somewhat prone to backlogs. These seem to be caused, in part if not primarily, by batch nominations of old, orphaned and unmaintained images. Discussions are frequently open for weeks without attracting comment and typically result in WP:NOQUORUM deletions. I think that sometimes, the abundance of uncontroversial nominations overwhelms the smaller number of controversial listings that produce actual consensus-building, and that bringing orphaned files to the centralised discussion venue often serves little practical purpose – if an image is not used on any pages, it is likely that the only user who would have an interest in keeping it is the uploader. The implementation of tracking categories and removable PROD-notices for perceived uncontroversial cases could make FfD a more streamlined and efficient process. SuperMarioMan 00:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some claims of bullying or harassment are exaggerated, perhaps to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Some well-meaning new users who discover that their problematic first edits have been reverted may interpret the actions of others as a type of "ganging-up", and make accusations that, while not exactly malicious, remain fundamentally baseless. In a case such as this, education and a welcoming approach would be the remedy, and I would refer the complainant to point 5 of WP:NPA#WHATIS. It may also be prudent to remind the more experienced reverters of WP:BITE, if they were more gruff in their edit summaries than was really necessary. SuperMarioMan 00:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |