TParis (talk·contribs) – Hello again. I am once again nominating myself for adminship. As with my last nomination, my intentions are purely to help the encyclopedia. I'd like to take a similar approach as before and address some reasons I may not be capable of handling the tools and maybe address some of those:
1) I do not have a GA or FA under my belt. I am not that strong of a writer and I can't say I know any subject real well. I do, however, have several DYKs under my belt and I have created several articles I am proud of including expanding Tops in Blue, creating Troy Yocum, creating Olympic Cool-Cap System, and revamping METC.
2) About four months ago, which can be considered recent in some folks books, I brought an AfD to deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_17. I felt that the AfD should not have closed keep and perhaps even delete. Some folks may feel that I would be unwilling to close an AfD in favor of consensus. The honest truth is that I still feel that AfD should have closed either No consensus or even delete. I feel an admin must weigh the strength of the !votes. That said, I think having looked at it again I would have agreed that no consensus would have been more appropriate which would have defaulted to the article being kept.
3) My oppose !vote at Kudpung's RFA in February was more about them personally than it was about their edits. I regret that !vote and I've interacted with Kudpung since then and have earned a strong respect for them.
4) I enjoy participating in new page patrol which I know is a contentious area. I have always tried to tag honestly and appropriately. I've missed key phrases a couple of times. Other times, like Ruth Amos, Save the tatas, or Operation FREE, I've been able to fix articles that may have been candidates for speedys and save them.
5) I might be considered too light at Wikipedia:ANI#Tokerdesigner_temporarily_banned. I strongly feel that what I've read on the user's talk page and other linked diffs has been hostile and not helpful. However, I am not opposed to vandals or disruptive users being blocked where appropriate and I feel this is a unique circumstance.
6) I took a 13 month break from editing and only started editing again recently. To be honest, this was not Wiki related. I got into a really good book series which fed into a couple more and they ate up my time. Wikipedia is a hobby for me and I do it in my spare time. I can say that I do intend to be an active editor, with or without the tools, with small breaks in between. It seems appropriate not to get too obsessed with the project and I make a better candidate with this nonchalant approach as I am less likely to get emotionally attached to a position or get stressed over it.
That said, I'd like to explain why I feel I would be helpful to the encyclopedia. I've been a long time CSD tagger and there is often a backlog on new page patrol. I feel that I can delete with honesty and in accordance with policy. I've also been a long time participant in WP:AFD, but I've recently started doing non admin closures. I would like to get involved with it more. Writing articles isn't my forte, but I like doing quick but tedious sort of work. What I mean to say is, I like finding AfDs that close as keep per needing improvements that often have refs in the AfD. I enjoy adding those refs to article. I've also done a couple article merges, I've been hesitant to do it in the past for fear of screwing up, but I feel I could adequately handle it now. I've also learned quite a bit about the WP:DYK process the last few weeks and while I am not at the level to be involved with it right now, it is something I would like to approach stronger in the future. I am familiar with the username policy and I would also like to get involved with WP:UAA. For the record, I had a username change and I was formerly known at TParis00ap. My old RFA can be seen here. v/r - TP 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to continue to participate in WP:CSD. I enjoy new page patrol. Not just deleting articles, but finding little gems to be improved upon. I would also like to participate in WP:AFD and WP:UAA. I would be willing to work backlogs and help out at WP:WQA and WP:RPP.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution, I feel, is to the unreferenced BLPs at WP:MILHIST. I don't know exactly how many articles I referenced, but it was a fun process and I got to learn quite a bit about the lives of different folks. I started with the unreferenced BLP process when it was around 40 and I ended when it reached 11. I may have found references for about 20 of those. I've also revamped Tops In Blue after they performed at the superbowl this year. The article was out of shape and I felt that it might gain some attention from their performance and I wanted to make sure it was worth reading. I also recently rewrote the article on Medical Education and Training Campus. I knew there was more information available on it and I found it and incorporated it into the article. I also was shortly involved with WP:Wiki guides but I had to drop out after the second week. I just was not able to keep up with the daily demands of the project. My time has to be flexible and the project just didn't fit into the flexibility. However, while I was involved I feel I was an early pioneer and I frequently communicated with the coordinators on my progress.
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 have not been in too many conflicts. I was involved with one early early on when I was a new user and our conflict started off Wikipedia. It eventually led to her making a legal threat against me, at the time I wasn't aware of WP:NLT and I didnt report it, and so I simply stopped communicating with the user. It wasn't the threat that bothered me, it was the user was obviously more passionate about the subject than I was and I didn't feel it was worth arguing anymore. Most of the argument had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Other than that, I've been in minor disputes. I've tried participating in WP:WQA and WP:3O a couple of times and help others solve their disputes. I hate to bring this up once again, but I really enjoy the WP:DGAF essay and I generally apply it. I tend to keep a cool head and reach out to others even those I am opposed to. I try not to hold grudges and I always try to see the best in others. It's not just about WP:AGF, to me, it is more about appreciating other people for their uniqueness and how that contributes to the encyclopedia.
4. What is the key component of using CSD A7 correctly?
A: I knew this sort of question would come up. As someone who self labels as a CSD tagger, this sort of question can make a break an RfA. Good thing I feel confident in my answer. The key component to using A7 correctly is ensuring there is no credible claim of significance or importance. I'll explain what credible means in a moment. Claim of significance or importance does not have to be a cited claim or a claim that meets any notability guideline. It only has to be a claim. Hence, "Sally goes to college" is a candidate for A7 as no claim is present. However, if it said "Sally goes to theater college where she earned a national award for exemplary amatuer talent for 2010". Although someone may suggest the award is not a notable award, the claim of significance is present and this article is no longer a candidate for A7. Or perhaps it might say "Sally is known for founding a corporation". The corporation may not be notable and neither is Sally, but a claim is made and that makes it no longer an A7 candidate. Now, 'credible' comes into play here. Credible does not have anything to do with notability guidelines as some folks confuse it to mean. Where credible comes into play is for claims that simply are not really claims. For example "Sally is famous for her nice butt". Now, a claim of "famous" is there, but the claim is not truly a claim of importance. Rather it is a opinion. Unless, of course, Sally's butt was the subject of multiple independent reliable sources ect ect ect. To recap, and tl;dr, the key component to using A7 correctly is tagging whenever an article (person, animal, corporation, group, band) fails to have a credible claim of significance or importance.
5. In your own words, could you describe the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A: Sure. A3 is where there is absolutely no content aside from images, external links, or a "see also" section. That means no prose of any kind or an infobox. A1 is when there is not enough information to ascertain who or what the subject is. For example, an article that says "Andrew is a famous actor". Who is Andrew? What is his last name? What movies has he played in? Here is an entire list of actors named Andrew, it could be any one of them. Had the article used a last name or perhaps listed a movie or two, perhaps we could identify which of these actors it is. To recap: A3 - no prose, A1 - can't pin down the subject.
6 Please explain the difference between a proper administrative discretion in closing an AfD, and an im-proper super-vote, with some examples from actual disputed instances, perhaps from current articles at Deletion Review.
A: Proper administrative discretion could be used if a discussion was diluted with canvassed opinions from editors who may be single purpose accounts. For example, on ANI right now is a discussion Wikipedia:ANI#What_constitutes_a_consensus.3F. At issue is whether opposes canvassed at car enthusiast websites and urged readers to !vote a certain way. Admin discretion could be properly used to weigh these !votes based on their previous contributions and whether or not they are an SPA as well as if their rationale is based on policy. improper super-vote would be if, let's say, consensus is leaning toward delete, but an administrator feels that the article is notable because of ... and closes in favor of keep.
7 I notice that in the last few weeks, but only in the last few weeks, you have done non admin closures of quite a few articles, all as keep. Is this to illustrate that you are not overly inclined to deletion?
A: I haven't done non admin closures before because I was afraid of breaking something. My first NAC was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaustubha. I closed this one because it was an obvious bad-faith nomination. I felt confident that even if I broke it, my actions would be seen as good intentioned. After closing it, I began to feel more confident. I started watching the AFD logs and I noticed Cirt closed many of them. I felt I could take some of the burden off of them by finding the obvious keeps/relists and taking care of them. I haven't closed them all as keep. I closed List_of_countries_with_Wendy's_franchises as merge and performed the merger myself (another new experience for me).
8 In your October 2009 RFA (which received 57% support), most of the oppose/neutral comments related to a lack of policy knowledge and content contributions. Please give the community some specific examples of how you have addressed those concerns, particularly in respect to policy knowledge.
A: That's a really tough question. I took a class several months ago called "Objectives and Tests" and part of the class was about levels of knowledge. 1a meaning a user is aware of a concept and knows how to find information up to 4d where a user knows a concept, can explain it, and can analyze it as well as demonstrate it properly with no help. When I took my last RfA, I was aware of policies and I knew how to find more information. I knew the commonly used ones well, like WP:V and WP:N, while others I knew less about like WP:NFCC. I would say that now I am at the higher level as demonstrated by my participation in WP:Wiki guides. I am not trying to use Wiki guides as any support here, my participation was very short, but during that time I mentored about 15 folks and I not only had to know how to use policy, I had to be able to explain it to others and help them apply it and determine if they understand. Also, in my last RFA, question 8 was specifically about images and licensing. Since then, as part of NPP, I have tagged images lacking license and source information. Also, on the Edmund Ser article, I researched the copyrights on the images even though the uploader claimed they were his original work. Using the source I checked each copyright, found violations, and reported it to commons. I've been working with the user to find appropriate and properly licensed images. I also very recently dealt with a copyright issues at Erik Brunetti. The article started with direct copy of the source and then changed to very close paraphrasing: as in changed minor words. These are things I was not able to deal with at the time of my last RfA.
9. Do you consider your first RfA to be a mistake, or do you stand behind your decision to run?
A: I would have to yes and no, but mostly that it was a mistake and in retrospect I should not have done it. I consider the confidence behind the self nomination a mistake. I had not realized at the time the depth of Wikipedia. The thing about me is that I've been a fairly avid World of Warcraft player for 6 years and I still consider myself fairly new to the game. It's not that I dont have a firm grasp of details of the game, but there always seems to be something that pops up that I have to learn. The same applies in general everyday life. I think smart folks arn't the ones who know every policy in and out, but who have the wisdom to recognize the ever learning and growing process of life. As I said, I did not realize the depth of Wikipedia. I thought at the time I had the core policies down and many of the guidelines under control. I, apparently, did not. So I had a false sense of confidence in the self nomination and that was a mistake. That said, I feel I handled it fairly decently. Perhaps I should have withdrawn, that was also a mistake. But I didn't and I survived with no grudges, a little stress but not overpowering, and a newer respect for the RfA process. The experience I got out of it was good, but I could have received the criticism through an editor review instead. So tl;dr, it was a mistake but what I learned was invaluable.
10. You said that you play WoW. How many level 70 creatures do you have?
A: None. The latest level cap is 85. I have two level 85 characters; however if you consider I leveled my wife the majority of the way you might say I have three. I mostly tank, but I also have a healer because I don't just like destroying things, I also enjoy making things better; just like my Wikipedia editing.
11. What is your opinion of WP:NLT and how would you enforce it, as an admin?
A: I am a supporter of WP:NLT. I strongly believe legal threats impede the efforts of volunteer editors and prevent building a free encyclopedia. That said, I feel many legal threats are made emotionally and because editors feel they have no other recourse. I would enforce the policy and block editors that make legal threats or what can be reasonably be construed as a legal threat. But I would block with sympathy and attempt to help these editors redact their threat and use proper channels to solve their issue. They are often emotionally attached to an issue or cause and fear the WP:CABAL. Some folks feel that invoking the word "lawsuit" will get them attention and they can then work through the problem. Unfortunately, it does get them attention and they appropriately get blocked. I would try to help these editors, while they remain blocked, through email or on their talk page to better understand our policies and guidelines and how it applies to their agenda. As I mentioned earlier, I had a legal threat made against me in my early days of editing. I still avoid articles related to The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, not because I fear the legal threat but because the editor there is really invested in that article and is doing reasonably well and I'd rather not cause anymore confrontation there, but I do know how the effects of the event affected me at the time.
12. My apologies for this late question. Do you believe that editing by you on US government/defense related articles or those that have close connections with the same (for example, UN Peace Keeping Forces) would constitute a conflict of interest as a Wikipedia editor? Kind regards.
A: It depends on the topic and the level of controversy surrounding it. The US Government/Defense Department are pretty large and broad. If, say, the topic was about the release of photos by Wikileaks surrounding the killed reporters then I certainly would have a conflict of interest. However, if it's a mundane topic like Medical Education and Training Campus or Tops In Blue then I would say there is much less conflict of interest. As you can see in Tops In Blue, what little controversy surrounds them I covered. I have never edited on behalf of the US Government nor will I ever use this account to edit on behalf of the US Government. In fact, I think there is a policy out that says I am supposed to make that declaration on social media sites and I think it might be a good idea to put it on my user page. As conflicts of interest go, my wife is soon going to create an account because she wants to contribute some of her photography work. So while I am at it, I'll also mention that I'd never use the tools in any topic she or I are involved in.
Could an admin be so kind as to let us know (roughly) how many of the candidate's deleted contribs are CSD tags? SwarmX 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
about 80%. Most of the rest were Prod nominations. A few were attempts to save an article by another ed. that got deleted anyway--One or two of them I would have judged hopeless & not attempted to fix, And some were deleted user space work on articles when they got moved to mainspace. None were attempts to create unsupportable articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. SwarmX 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calm hand on the tiller. You have a nice tone and way of interacting. Think that will stand you in good stead dealing with all the drama-monkeys around here. Also, content is light, but at least contains several passages of prose and many referencing activities (from scratch, not tweaking). I would not think of writing as only some "art" or that it is effective only if done as a super-verbalist. It's about finding information and being clear to our readers. That is significant work, but important and something that more and more is expected in daily life. Hopefully stands you in good stead as a senior enlisted leader doing fitreps, staff assignments, etc. Keep up the good work.TCO (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Familiar with your work. You always come across as pleasant and clueful. ceranthor 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – I don't see any outstanding issues, and the answers to the Q's were fine. —mc10 (t/c) 04:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - In your last RfA I mentioned that your lack of experience gave me pause but I was driven to support you due to your demeanor and good judgement. This time around, you have the experience as well, so I unreservedly support you. -- Atama頭 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see more content work, especially for someone who wants to work in AfD. The relatively low (1214) number of mainspace edits is iffy to me. And usually, I assess candidates more in-depth if their edit counts are on the lower end of the admin average. But this user seems to know his stuff, from what I've seen of his work over the past few months. He doesn't have zero content experience—there's some fairly good work to be noted. He has a clue, and the only thing that annoyed me was he seems to like to write a lot. The answer to Q4 was fine, but it could have been shorter, as could the nomination statement. But that's no problem. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Candidate has made some mistakes, but who hasn't? Adminship is no big deal, and there is no reason why this candidate shouldn't have the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Has grown since last time and I see no reason to think the candidate won't do well. As a side note, I'm happy to see Brookie is still around. Dlohcierekim 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having recently interacted with the candidate, I feel that the characterization of lacking interest in article building may be difficult to tender. Dlohcierekim 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support He's a good man and a serious contributor. When writing articles or responding in the midst of a conflict, I benefit from a spell-checker and a grammar-checker, and I should use them more; these devices may help TParis also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lukewarm support Although the candidate could use some more content contributions and some refinement, I like the answers to the questions (particularly mine) and the serious workman-like approach he has taken to this RfA. I feel confident that he will not abuse the tools and will grow into the job.--Hokeman (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The content creation isn't great, but otherwise good contributions. Axl¤[Talk] 18:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Meets most of my criteria, good answers to questions (satisfied with the answer to mine), clearly has the trust of the community, excellent communicator and he seems like a likable person. Also, he's done good CSD work. These things definitely trump the lack of content work, IMO. SwarmX 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (Moved from neutral) I am confident in this candidate and fully expect his tenure as an admin to be a net positive. My76Strattalk 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. While Wikipedia is attempting to address the lack of female editors on the project, I would have appreciated an example in the answer to question #4 to be a bit less sexist. I think the sexist comments made throughout the project are directly reflected in the underrepresented population overall and the tendency to think of Wikipedia as a "boys club no girls allowed" mentality. That said, I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. I hope that as you move forward, you will work to align your words and actions in accordance with WMFs Strategic Plan in your participation in the project. I don't see any other glaring issues that would lead me to oppose. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I was trying to be funny and use an example of content we often see in new articles. I am happily married and trying to get my wife involved in Wikipedia with her photography; so perhaps we'll see at least one new female editor pretty soon.--v/r - TP 11:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(not trying to be sexist) I can't remember the last time I saw a new page about a guy with a nice butt :S. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I see no reason why you shouldn't be granted the mop :) OrphanWiki 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Whenever I've seen TParis offering an opinion recently (usually at AfD, although I'm sure I've seen him provide input at other venues as well), I found his comments sensible and thoughtful. As Fetchcomms wrote, this candidate "has a clue" and, in my estimation, will make a good administrator. Verbosity certainly doesn't bother me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I supported last time and am glad to see you back here again. I don't find the oppose section convincing, yes you weren't around much in 2010, but that wasn't recent in wiki terms as you've been active for 6 months since your 11 months of reduced editing. Looking through your deleted edits I saw one where I'd have tagged it as G10 rather than G3, but I had to hunt for it and you had valid G10 tags as well, so I think we can agree to differ there. ϢereSpielChequers 20:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to support. I've seen TParis working hard at NPP (often beating me to the tagging or fixing I'd wanted to do), and a review of contributions assures me that the candidate will handle the job just fine. Kudos to him for being up-front about the things he would have done differently; the ability to recognize and learn from mistakes is a very good one for an admin to have. 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of unfinished articles, even on very important topics. I bet TP can't beat you to all of those. ;) TCO (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support My brief interactions with TP have always been positive, and a review of contributions, talk page etc. shows no issues. A well rounded editor who will make sensible and cautious use of the tools IMO. Pedro : Chat 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Everything I see looks fine... CatfishJim (ex-soapdish) 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support While I agree with the oppose in that someone who wants to partake in deletions should have more content experience, I also feel this user would make a good admin due how I've seen him conduct himself onwiki and his knowledge thereof.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Everything looks good to me. GB fan (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cautious Support. I'm sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the opposers, but I'm coming down on the support side. It seems to me that the most important thing for an administrator—truly the single most important thing—is to, first, do no harm. I think the area where the candidate, if confirmed, could potentially be most likely to run into drama would be in closing a disputed AfD. I've looked hard at what the candidate has been saying over time, and it is very clear to me that this is someone who is, commendably, honest with himself about his strengths and weaknesses as an editor. He strikes me as someone with the good sense not to overreach. Therefore, I expect that you will be a helpful administrator. Please prove me right. (And, completely unrelated to the merits of the RfA, I'm glad to have learned about Le Pétomane!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - No concerns. I will support this request unconditionally. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thanks for waiting till I gave the !vote. Honest candidate. My interactions have been less with the editor; but my overall analysis of almost all edits going way back till the start of this editor's tenure, is quite positive. Yes, you can close it now. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, answers to questions appear clueful, and TParis has plenty of experience to back up the knowledge. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several reasons I feel I must oppose. The main one being that an administrator with no interest in creating content who yet wishes to most of all participate in deletions is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a MMORPG. The deletion review incident cited is concerning. The timing of this nom does not show good objective judgment since the candidate has recently come back from a 13 month break and he appears to lack confidence in his abilities and commitment, making the motivation for this self-nom all the more puzzling. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're saying that someone with several DYKs, who created Troy Yocum and Olympic Cool-Cap System, expanded Tops In Blue and revamped METC has no interest in creating content? Those are all fairly substantial articles. Don't you think you're relying more than a little bit on hyperbole? -- Atama頭 17:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No you're not. You're ignoring what the candidate has said. For example, when asked where he would use admin tools, he said, "I enjoy new page patrol. Not just deleting articles, but finding little gems to be improved upon." That directly contradicts your suggestion that he only wants to delete articles, not improve them. If you want to see a candidate with more article experience and/or more interest in creating content, I understand that. The candidate himself admits that to be a weakness. And your other points are valid. But stating that the candidate has no interest at all in creating content is a fabrication. -- Atama頭 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Redacted) You're right, Fetch. SwarmX 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this personal attack is a standard to be applauded? My response is to the knee-jerk worrying of opposers who would like to see content creation as the primary reason to be involved in Wikipedia and not as a few scraps thrown in purely as a sop to admin attempts. So someone got an DYK. DYK is a joke attainment for kids who want to be admins voting each others' "there, that should satisfy them" contributions.Plutonium27 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you were above that, Swarm. Plutonium27 has stated his opinion, and you have no right to criticize his personal behavior at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose His editing pattern seems too sporadic and his level of contributions too lightweight. Warden (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is a second self-nom. As such the candidate has had plenty of time to prepare his statement. It is still full of grammatical errors, to the point that at times I am left wondering what the actual intention was. An admin needs to be able to adjudicate disputes and clearly explain the reasons for their conclusions. I fear TParis will simply prolong any disputes in which he becomes involved. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
answers to DGG's questions are unsatisfactory. wants to work at RFPP, but as far as I can tell has never made a contribution there. mainspace contibs seem light. -Atmoz (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral (Moved to support) - I am sorry to see this RfA in an improper state of transclusion after 2 hours. It is not being picked up by SoxBot, the link labeled "Voice your opinion on this candidate" does not go to the correct location, and it is best practice to show a link to your first RfA. Correct all deficiencies with this RfA and know that this neutral vote is leaning towards support. My76Strattalk 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about the link. Because of the username change, I had problems with the template. Also, the link to my first RFA is at the bottom of my self nomination. v/r - TP 22:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do see that you had disclosed your previous username and RfA. That was my error. I appreciate your diligence in giving attention to the areas where improvement was necessary. My76Strattalk 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The error seemed to be the underscores in the main RFA page. —GFOLEYFOUR— 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - I am concerned about the second part of the answer to question #4. My understanding of the credible requirement is that the claim have a reasonable possibility of being true. The problem is that in the response, the candidate acknowledges that the offered example could well be true. Now one could certainly debate whether being famous for a nice butt is enough of a claim of importance, but arguendo, if it is, then its certainly plausible that this person is famous for that reason. I think a better example of the rule would be something that is totally implausible, like claiming the subject who is still alive invented the wheel. There is no way that such a claim could possibly be credible. Combined with nominating statement point 2, which seems to demonstrate an over eagerness to see things deleted, I cannot support this RFA. Monty845 06:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't accept the "nice butt" as plausible. I think the proper interpretation of plausible in this context is something that someone might in good faith justifies a possible article in an encyclopedia, as well as something that has some chance of being correct. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like to keep a level of humor in things, it keeps folks at ease. I can't honestly say I've heard of anyone famous only for their butt.--v/r - TP 19:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Touché!--v/r - TP 22:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(moved to support) You certainly have a way of making people trust and support you, regardless of your experience or lack thereof. Reviewing your contribs, I don't see anything too convincing that you would make a good admin- other than your gift with communication. Your level of content work is really low, even by my low standards. I may elaborate on other concerns in the future, but I'd rather wait, for now, lest I change my mind. SwarmX 06:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. I'm hesitant to support you, because I'm not really impressed by your reply to my question; your interpretation is, of course, correct and I'm happy to see that you would discuss with the blocked editor. However, I fear your reply lacks nuances: there are cases, I'm referring to BLP-vios, where a user, unaware of our policies, might make legal threats because, seeing he has been defamed, he wanted to remove the libellous statements and was reverted by a vandal fighter and, so, he did not know what to do; in those cases, a block is useless and can only inflame the situation, adding insult to injury. A very useful essay, in this regard, is WP:DOLT. SalvioLet's talk about it! 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a good essay, and TP did not list this possibility. All that said, I think from TP's comment about talking it out with the person, that it is pretty clear he is not another teenage boy who just wants to wack. Given he would talk it out with the user, I feel confident that he would advise the BLP person on how to make an official complaint, etc.TCO (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to be honest here and it might hurt this RfA; however it is the truth and should be weighted as such. I've just read the essay and I was recently involved in a situation exactly like this on the article Bob_Newton_(footballer). At issue was language describing an accident he had where a teammate was killed and that it was the result of being drunk. Knowing WP:BLP requires erring on the side of caution and removing the information, I reviewed the citation, felt it was appropriate, and reverted in favor of keeping the information. I tried explaining to the user the proper channels (I suggested to email the foundation and provided an email address). The user made a legal threat, not against me personally, and I tried to explain the problem and explain why he would have to be blocked until the issue was resolved. I dutifully placed a message on WP:ANI about it, but I also went to the BLP Noticeboard and created a topic there as well asking that the source be reviewed. After a discussion on the article's talk page, it was decided the accident and death would remain, but the alcohol involvement would be removed due to a weak/local source. Additional citations were found to support the new material. I hope you feel I've handled this correctly, and if you feel I haven't then your concern is valid and I understand why you're neutral.--v/r - TP 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All that said, I think from TP's comment about talking it out with the person, that it is pretty clear he is not another teenage boy who just wants to wack. That's why I'm not opposing this RFA; my neutral is strictly a neutral, not a weak oppose. I'm really glad to see that TParis would discuss with the user and not just drop a ((uw-lblock)) on their talk page, but I believe that, in certain cases, a ((uw-nlt)) and possibly a link to WP:OTRS or to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) would be more thoughtful, since a person who feels defamed is already aggrieved and there would be no point in making it worse for them.
I hope you feel I've handled this correctly, and if you feel I haven't then your concern is valid and I understand why you're neutral. All in all, I believe you handled this quite welly, even though, perhaps, I would have stressed the possibility of contacting an OTRS agent and the provisions of WP:BLP/WP:GRAPEVINE. You certainly did the right thing to report the matter to WP:BLPN. I just would have waited before reporting the user to ANI, which was not an error, under WP:NLT, I wish to stress this!, to see if the situation could be solved to everyone's satisfaction, without needing a block. SalvioLet's talk about it! 10:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, thanks for explaining.--v/r - TP 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. This is a truly neutral comment and is not to be interpreted as a 'weak oppose'. I am recusing myself from !voting 'support' or 'oppose' because although I very much appreciate the comments in the nomination statement, I would not wish the community to assume it had influenced my opinion on the candidate. However, there is strong support from regular experienced RfA participants, and the oppose rationales are unconvincing. I'm sure the community will reach the right consensus, and the closing bureaucrat will summarise accordingly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't support with so little in the way of content experience, which is relevant because the candidate's primary interest is in deletion. In the past I would have opposed on that alone. But you clearly have clue, and that's just about enough to bring me back to neutral. Best of luck with the mop. —WFC— 13:18, 16 June 2011 (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.