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

Tabercil[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) at (44/1/0); Scheduled end time 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabercil (talk · contribs) - I am honored to be able to nominate Tabercil for administrator (it took me three months of persuading). Tabercil is a long term (more experienced than I am) and important member of a somewhat shadowy corner of the Wikipedia many of you have never visited (or at least will never admit to having visited!), Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. But don't worry, this nomination will be PG-rated. Probably the single action he has done that has had the most impact on the Wikipedia has been getting User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission, where, with a few emails, he got the Wikipedia tens or hundreds of free-licensed GFDL images, and blazed a path we all try to follow. He also got other licenses and images the same way, by persistence and asking nicely; and they're not solely of porn stars, they include Sherman Hemsley, Howie Gordon, Luke Perry and others. He's himself an active contributor to the Image space here and on the Wikimedia Commons. So he knows about images. But he also knows about dealing with spam, which this area is prone to (shocking, I know). User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam documents only one of the many similar problems he has dealt with and continues to deal with, strictly, regularly, and efficiently. He also knows about original research and WP:BLP/privacy concerns, which also come up in this area; a lot of the interaction we have has been when he comes to me for help with that, as someone who knows about the area and carries a mop, see here, and here, and here; frankly, if he had the mop himself, he could deal with more of this himself. He is able to pleasantly and efficiently deal with the people who are the subjects of our articles, such as in these previous cases. He knows how to deal with other editors, being able to navigate conflicts and maintain his side in arguments without turning them into personal flamewars. He knows about Wikipedia:Featured articles, being one of the two people who most helped me get Jenna Jameson to FA (he's got a candidate of his own in mind that I've been woefully remiss in helping him out with). He is a regular visitor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where he can be counted on to uphold our Wikipedia notability guidelines, whether for keeping or deleting; he is the most active maintainer of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion list. In short, he's hard working, polite, experienced, tough as nails (tougher than I am), and he needs the tools; ladies and gentlemen, User:Tabercil! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, as I pointed out to the Mouse earlier, I'm not sure I know all that I feel an admin should know, but I do stand before you as a candidate for admin status. Tabercil 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily I see myself as working with the mop that AnonEMouse alludes to... removing the copyvio images and blocking the blatant vandals. I'll also probably be active in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. While my earliest contributions can best be described as unattributed borrowing of material, I've since had my moment on the road to Damascus and now stand firm in the belief that Wikipedia should be a beacon to what free-use material can be.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I'm not one to blow my own horn. Arguably my greatest contribution has been the Luke Ford permissions. But I'm also quite proud of the work done on the Ron Jeremy article, which I rebuilt from a blanking by Jimbo Wales for WP:BLP concerns back up to the point where it is a B-class article and I'm still eager to try and bring up to FA quality. I'm also proud of the small stuff which I do... primarily dropping references and cites into the various articles along the way.
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: Yup. As I alluded earlier, I've gotten into a sparring match over the Ron Jeremy article which led to Jimbo's blanking, but that act plus my subsequent rebuilding of the article led to my current belief that Wikipedia must be respectful of copyrights. I also adopted User:Callelinea, but later withdrew the adoption when he acted in fashion where I felt he was not minding the advice I had given him.

Optional question from Addhoc:

4. Under what circumstances is a non-free image replaceable? Does this apply to all living persons?
Hooo... toughie. Warning first up: this answer may change to some extent as I think the question over further...
A non-free image of a living person that is used only to identify said person is readily replaceable under most circumstances. If the person in question has dropped off the radar or is actively avoiding having their photo taken, then a fair-use one should (in my opinion) be usable. Part of this answer is because I do remember reading a story a while back about a retired Japanese porn star who sued a magazine for running a current picture of her and won... (no I can't provide more details than that right now). In that instance, a fair-use one should be used. Another example would be Bambi Woods, who is a notable porn star who basically dropped out of sight some years back. In fact part of a documentary about Debbie Does Dallas was an attempt to answer the question "What happened to Bambi?" In this instance I feel a suitable fair use image should be allowed of Bambi. Fortunately, Wikipedia already has a free-use image on her article that was contributed by the firm that currently holds the rights to Debbie Does Dallas.
For deceased people, fair-use becomes more acceptable; WP:FU says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine).
Beyond those two general principles, I guess a non-free image would removable unless it can be shown to be irreplaceable - for instance the iconic image of Elian Gonzalez being wrenched out of someone's hands at gunpoint. But my instinct is to hold that bar on the high side. Tabercil 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've had it pointed out to me via email that the picture presently on the Bambi Woods article is only fair-use. My apologies as I genuinely thought at the time when I wrote my answer that the picture was free-use. However, the circumstances on this article are precisely what I had outlined; most other celebrities would not fall into this gray area. A random publicity photo of (say) Kylie Minogue, if tagged as a publicity photo, used within the article should not be allowed as she is still very much in the public eye. Tabercil 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
Well, a nice puzzler, asking me to look over a list of items which arguably change on an hourly-by-hourly basis and hoping that others will be see the list exactly as I saw it at that time.
First up, I'm looking at the list as it stood at 10 AM EST on July 28; pretty much all of the items listed there I feel should belong on the CSD list. About the only item I think might be worthy of keeping would be Orthodoxy in the Philippines since it is just a redirect to the Orthodox Church in the Philippines article and dictionary.com has as one definition of orthodoxy as being "The beliefs and practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church." But even that would be a stretch as the definition given is the last one possible for the word, which is typically the least commonly used form, and how many people when then think of "orthodoxy" immediately think of "Orthodox Church"? Tabercil 14:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the initial concern - how a random admin personally decides to close an SD after you give your spiel here isn't important, and of course I realize that the speedy deletion category moves, well, speedily; just looking for your reasoning. Re: the results - Just bad timing. There is most often something boneheadedly-tagged in there. :-) The fact that you actually went into reliably sourced definitions in thinking about this is a good sign. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
Optional; #5 answer shows you think rather than just react with regard to deletion matters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tabercil before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Hey guess what, I can find no reason to oppose this candidate. But I did think it was funny that a user who's contributions have been to "adult-related subjects" would reference the Road to Damascus. New England (C) (H) 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —AldeBaer (c) 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - experienced in all the right areas. Lradrama 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Garion96 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I chose a random adult star, Sunny Lane, and perused the history. Lo and behold, the candidate has made several good edits! Very dedicated user. (I also noticed I had an edit there as well, so I'm not sure what that means.) The quality and consistency of edits month after month make me trust this user with the tools. the_undertow talk 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. Sounds fun! Giggy UCP 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support absolutely. I've seen Tabercil work, and opposite to the cliché, I have always known he wasn't an administrator, but I've always wondered why was that so. I consider him to be a great candidate and a man trustworthy and reliable enough for this responsibility. All the best! —Anas talk? 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support pretty much what Anas Salloum said; I've seen this user's work as well. I knew Tabercil wasn't an administrator, but even so, he still does excellent work all the time. Acalamari 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - high quality article contributions. Addhoc 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Excellent editor, good answers, and humble, too. -Lemonflashtalk 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support I've seen Tabercil's edits and comments throughout my time at Wikipedia, and found him to always keep his cool in a controversial editing area, a valuable contributor, knowledgeable of Wiki policies and procedures, and generous with advice. He'll be the best kind of administrator. Dekkappai 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yeah, I concur! Mindman1 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Mindman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ Wikihermit 00:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote struck as by indef blocked SPA/Vandal LessHeard vanU 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Everything seems great, no reason not to become an admin :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Has lots of experience. It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 03:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, good example about porn stars I mean excellent user. @pple 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I went through a lot of his edits last night and I really like his grasp of policy. I think he is going to be an excellent administrator, he's got my wholehearted support. Trusilver 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Supportt Excellent edits on some very good(read sexy) articles--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Always a pleasure to see someone dedicated to lesser-known areas of Wikipedia. Jmlk17 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support seems to be a good candidate. --Aminz 09:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I wholeheartedly support fellow counter-vandals. I believe this user has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and has learned a lot in the process. I can certainly relate to his previous editing disputes.--Just James T/C 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I knew I remembered your name from somewhere - you helped find citations for various lists of people that were causing WP:BLP issues back in Nov and Dec. Good work then, loads of good work since then. Clear understanding of policies evident - should make a good admin. WjBscribe 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support seen this user around, will be a great admin. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - good editor, excellent relevant experience & maintains his cool. No problems here - Alison ☺ 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per nom.--MONGO 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support See absolutely nothing wrong. Great editor. NSR77 TC 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. You may not feel you know all an admin should know, but you clearly have a good grasp on some of the trickier issues in WP. I have no reservations that the extra buttons would be in good hands.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Per excellent nom, contributions and answers. IronGargoyle 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Cant Stop the Mop. Dfrg.msc 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I've been watching this RFA for a few days now but never quite found the time to review the candidate - until now, that is. And, not that it matters, on the issue of Q5 and Q6, I'm very much with Ryan and I think it's missing the point. This isn't a pop quiz - it's a non-scientific way to gauge community trust and consensus. I don't think that making candidates jump through an arbitrary number of hoops is really helping in that regard and I think it certainly doesn't make the RFA process more accurate or, if you prefer, less broken. If you ask me, it's way too arbitrary to accurately judge someone's ability to make sound administrative decisions anyway. You're obviously entitled to ask any questions you see fit, SMcCandlish - I just don't think it's all that helpful. No offense. S up? 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially on-topic comment in the form of an inverse post-script: What does any of that have to do with "never quite found the time to review the candidate - until now, that is"? I get the impression that you were intending to say something good about the candidate but got sidetracked into expressing issues with my questions... (no "dig" or sarcasm intended, that's simply what it looks like, and if nominee has a back-pat coming, I don't want it to be me that prevented it from being received.)— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I'm responding to this on my talk page; I don't think it's fair to RfA nominees to have debates on their RfA talk pages (in fact one RfA last week was totally derailed by such a thing.) Everyone is invited to comment; this is a wiki, not a private conversation; discussion is at User talk:SMcCandlish#RfA questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: Willingness to actually research the matter at hand (see the copyright question, especially, and even mine, about WP:SD) instead of assume, guess, assert or blindly react is a strong sign that the janitorial tools will be in good hands. Tabercil may not know every darned thing yet, but is clearly capable and willing to figure it out, stat. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support singing the alphabet to the gauntlet theme ~ Infrangible 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support From what I've seen, he knows what he's doing. Full support!Deliciously Saucy 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. Brilliant candidate. Peacent 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom Harlowraman 10:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. Politics rule 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Trustworthy and is unlikely to abuse the tools. - Jreferee (Talk) 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I'm going to support. Clearly echoing the sentiments of the nominator of this case as well as the supporters above. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support'. See no reason to think he will abuse the admin tools. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good anti-vandal. Deserves admin buttons. AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support good contributor, the Luke Ford permission has led to hundreds of free license images and prevented at least as many replaceable fair use pieces from being uploaded ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose: To balance out A.Z's frivolous support vote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) - struck out, --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it seems like you're doing a wrong to Tabercil because of something Tabercil had nothing to do with. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; the closing bureaucrat will surely ignore A.Z's silliness and not count that vote. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose — Per this. I am just utterly baffled as to why people find it so hard to use the word "discussion", last time I checked we didn't "vote". Matthew 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - could do with a greater amount of activity in Wikipedia project space. Sorry, my error, he has this experience, change to Support. Lradrama 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to questions 5 and/or 6, at least one of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category