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

Toon05[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (54/1/0); closed successful Andre (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toon05 (talk · contribs) – I present, for your consideration, Toon05. Toon05 is a dedicated, helpful, and enthusiastic contributor who has been with us for over 2 years and has made over 6,000 edits. I first met this fantastic contributor when I looked over his editor review (see here for more information) and realised what a valuable contributor he is to our community. At that point in time, his content work and administrative know-how was already above exemplary and left very little to be desired.

Toon05 is a major component of the WP:SCV system, and the tools would be immensely useful on his patrols there.

In short:

In summary: Toon05 will excel as an administrator on this project and Moonriddengirl and I have every confidence in his ability to do well. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Moonriddengirl

I have been aware of Toon05 since August of 2008, when I first noticed his extensive work with copyright concerns. While he focuses most of his efforts with these at WP:SCV, there is considerable overlap with WP:CP, since CorenSearchBot tagged articles wind up at both locations. I have been highly impressed by his diligence and sensible approach to these, and I know that the tools would be regularly put to good use by him there. He shows a good understanding of when such problems should be speedily deleted, when they should be listed for more in-depth investigation and when they should simply be cleaned up, all in accordance with various copyright policies.

I have also found him diligent in notifying contributors of copyright issues, which is very important to help prevent future infringement, and he is very courteous in his dealings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marnad1963 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbalaya1978, for instance). His temperament will serve him well as an administrator, as he can do what is necessary for the good of the project but is mindful of the Wikipedia's goal to remain accessible in so doing.

As Scarian indicates, I have every confidence in his suitability to serve as an administrator. I'm convinced he has the knowledge and the nature, and I believe that giving him access to the tools will be a great benefit to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Scarian and Moonriddengirl for your excellent noms, I accept. – Toon(talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Most of my admin work would ultimately revolve around Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. There's quite a bit of overlap between SCV and speedy deletion; naturally there are many articles which are blatant copyright infringements, but there are also lots of articles posted by companies directly from their websites which, even with permission to use the content, are pure advertising. Another common problem is pages whose content has been copied and pasted to a new title in-wiki - these require history merges to ensure that editors' contriutions are recorded and we comply with the GFDL. Additionally I would do some general speedy deletion work, as well as dealing with vandalism, considering reasonable requests for rollback and userfication of suitable deleted articles. At the moment a lot of the work I do involves listing articles in different places for somebody else to deal with - the tools would allow me to solve the problems when they arise.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On the content side of things, I'm proud of the first Good Article I helped to promote, Alan Shearer, because it was the first big content-contribution I made to the project. I learned a lot about the manual of style, the GA system and countless other areas of Wikipedia during the process and although the subsequent FAC run was unsuccessful, I'll take another run at FA-status improvements in the not so distant future. I'm also proud of my DYK (Al-Maquar), as it was a subject that I was completely unfamiliar with — I had to approach the whole subject as a newcomer and it turned into an interesting challenge.
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: It's rare that I find anything on-wiki that causes me stress, but I think disagreements with other users are inevitable every now and then; I always try to keep calm and find a reasonable compromise. This (and subsequent sections) is an example of a situation I found a bit frustrating, and could have been more receptive to the editor in question, especially at the beginning. It was an article that I'd contributed a lot to and the editor made clear his concerns of bias; while I wasn't the only editor to disagree, I was quite vocal in my opinion. I think in future I'd approach the issue a little differently; take a step back and consider the issues raised for longer before diving straight in - when people have strong feelings about something like this it shows that they care about the project. I don't think the editor's remarks and edit summaries were intended to be aggressive, and a cooler response from me will help to make any similar discussions run smoother in the years to come. In the end we managed to reach a compromise which suited all parties (and on friendly terms), after a pretty large discussion over what turned out to be have quite a simple solution.
Additional Question from DFS454
4. Under what circumstances can a non-free image be used to illustrate a living person?
A: In the vast majority of cases, non-free images can't be used to illustrate a living person, due to the fact that it would be replaceable - i.e. it's possible for somebody to take a photograph and license it appropriately - per WP:NFCC#1 and Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. In some rare cases, usually for articles about retired people or people from disbanded groups which were key to the subject's notability, an ordinary photograph would not suffice, and therefore fair use is permitted. An example of this kind of image is File:Kaoru_Kuroki.jpg‎ - a retired adult video performer who has successfully sued takers of post-retirement photographs for invasion of privacy.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I apologise in advance for the length of this answer, but I didn't think it was something which could be adequately done justice in three lines.
While BLP issues are not something I deal with in my day-to-day work, I think that it is one of the most important issues on Wikipedia. Ensuring that articles represent their subjects fairly is vital. Massive amounts of damage can be done to a person's reputation (and life) very quickly in the age of free information, and as the most-read online encyclopedia and one of the most visited sites on the whole of the web, Wikipedia would have enough problems were it not editable by anyone. While being openly-editable is the source of Wikipedia's growth and popularity, I think that the current system, whereby vandalism edits made to even high-profile articles can stick around for hours, days or even months, is something which seriously needs to be addressed. And it's not even just people who read Wikipedia who see the potentially problematic content - this is an example of Google picking up a piece of vandalism on the Barack Obama article (a racial slur, in this case) and it being visible 16 hours after the vandalism was reverted (which was two minutes after being placed). If you think about the effect a more subtle peice of vandalism, say... some negative content written in an encyclopedic manner on a lower-profile article, could have, given the amount of Wikipedia mirrors and the ranking Google gives our results, the consequences could be very serious, both for the subject and legally for Wikipedia. It's vital that we find a way to ensure that any negative or controversial content added to BLPs whatsover are backed up well by reliable sources, and the current system, in my honest opinion, just doesn't cut it.
5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A:
  • I think that some form of flagged revisions would be very useful to help solve many BLP issues. However, I have to say that I think it should be limited to BLPs only - I oppose efforts to make Wikipedia harder for newcomers and anonymous editors to contribute to, but this is an issue which requires a serious solution. Most vandalism comes from anonymous editors and autoconfirmed users (not all of them, obviously there are many more useful contributors than vandals) because they are less accountable and have less invested in WP than established editors. Requiring that these users' edits to biographies of living people be approved before going live gives us the opportunity to prevent a massive amount of BLP issues, and would also help Wikipedia's credibility as a source. However, there must of course be the framework there to support it; the system would only ever work if editors play their part.
  • Flagged protection would be subject to similar problems which haunt the current protection system; those articles which aren't protected slip through the net, and to gain protection it is necessary for there to have been repeated incidents - not one incident which wasn't picked up on. I don't see flagged patrolled revisions as being worth the effort, to be quite honest - if slanderous libellous or unsourced negative edits are visible, they are causing a problem, and to patrol all changes would be a mammoth job which I really don't think would get as many volunteers as a flagged-revision style approval would. This would result in a huge ever-increasing backlog that I don't think could ever get cleared.
  • Liberal semi-protection of BLPs could be an interim solution, until a better one is found, but I don't like the idea of completely stopping IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing an article. I think coming up against a wall would repel more potential contributors than being let into the foyer until someone comes to open the door. Apologies for the metaphor, it is how the thought formed in my head.
5c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?
A: As an unsourced, controversial claim, I'd undo the edit, with an edit summary which politely asked users to provide a reliable source which backed up their claim, and to read WP:BLP. I'd watchlist the page, and drop a note at the relevant WikiProject's talk page asking someone to take a look, and if they could source the article. Then I'd run for the bus. I'd check the article again when I got back, and see if I could reliably source any remaining material, as well as the edit the initial user had made.
Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
6. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.
A. Yes, this edit is definitely a violation of WP:BLP. It's negative, contentious, the "source" is certainly not reliable, and it's clearly an opinion - it's an inappropriate edit to make anywhere on Wikipedia - WP:BLP is not limited to articles.
7. What's the difference between wikipedia policy and the content of a wikipedia policy page?
A. Policy is generally agreed upon consensus on how things should be done. Policies have been formed to prevent or solve certain problems; what is on a policy page is an attempt to write this down. The problem with this is that it's impossible to describe instructions for every form of a certain issue; this is where the actual policy varies from what is written down. It's important to look at the problems which prompted the creation of a policy, and to understand what is trying to be prevented or encouraged by the it - so basically the actual policy is the "spirit" or the "essence", and the content of a policy page is the "letter" - We cannot blindly follow the letter of the law without understanding the law itself. This is what WP:IAR is all about; to prevent what is written down as policy getting in the way of what we are all here for: writing an encyclopedia. I apologise if I haven't expressed myself well here, some things are simpler as ideas than words.
8. Is a "consensus" on WP:AN/I enough to overturn an Arbitration Enforcement action? If so, what kind and level of "consensus" would be needed?
A. Yes, but only "a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so" would be enough to overturn an Arbitration Enforcement action. (From this motion, also described at WP:AE)


Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and ((underconstruction)), and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I'd wait about 15 minutes to ensure that no more content was immediately forthcoming, after which I'd userfy the page, and inform the page creator that they can prepare the page there with no pressure, and that it can be moved into the mainspace when ready. Although there's not much content present, I think this option is less likely to "scare off" new users as their creation hasn't been deleted outright.
9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: No.
9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?
A: Well if Editor 1 reverted, he would only have performed two reversions, and similarly for Editor 2, neither has actually broken 3RR (which forbids making more than 3 reversions within 24 hours), but what they are doing is still edit warring. Naturally they should both have headed to the talk page after Editor2's first removal to hash out a solution.
9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: In both areas it should always come down to the arguments which are put forward by both parties and their merits in policy. Usually it's possible to find common ground over phrasing and what to include when seeking consensus during article writing. Naturally, the ultimate outcome comes down to which ideas have the overall support in this situation. In this sense majority rule is probably more true there than in AfD, simply because there's no impartial adjudicator to judge the consensus - it is soley down to the participants in the discussion.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Toon05 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support As co-nom. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - See no reason to do otherwise, seems like a good candidate. — neuro(talk)(review) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I haven't vetted the candidate yet .. but considering the noms.. no problems. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - As co-nom. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Has been around since Nov 2006 and fully trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and good track.User has used rollback well and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good candidate Power.corrupts (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Appears to be a good candidate. I will look at his contributions in more detail later. GT5162 (我的对话页) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've looked at a sample of the user's non-automated edits, and consistently saw politeness and cordiality. That, together with MRG's opinion, leads me to believe that this user will not abuse the tools and should be extended the community's trust. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Gave me some good advice when I needed it. --DFS454 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No reason to oppose, good edits, trust the noms. FlyingToaster 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've seen Toon around and I am confident he will make a great admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Seems like a good contributor, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per Juliancolton, no issues here.--Giants27 T/C 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Sure. :) GlassCobra 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. One of my favorite editors. Can certainly be trusted. — R2 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Looks well qualified. -download | sign! 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good contributor, long continuous history; and plentiful edits especially since June 2008 - plus two nominators whom I trust.--VS talk 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the possibility of another administrator with an interest in copyright.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good luck. Dean B (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support —Capricorn42Talk 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, my search of the talk page and contribs turned up nothing of concern. Tavix :  Chat  01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Certainly. No issues showing up. --GedUK  10:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. The answer you provided to question seven was good in my opinion. Many people do not understand this use of WP:IAR, and I can see that you will interpret policy quite well as an administrator. No other problems, so there is really no reason to oppose. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A stellar candidate, who will lighten the load in a crucial area. (And is there a basis for the belief that there are too many administrators in the highly-specialized and often-thankless field of enforcing compliance with intellectual property laws and ethical standards?) Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Toon knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Not enough administrators currently Alexfusco5 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good solid contributor to Wikipedia. Marek.69 talk 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I hadn't come across Toon05 before, but am impressed by his answers above and from what I have seen of his contribution history. I trust him to be a informed and responsible admin. Abecedare (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support - Let me first say how refreshing it is that a replacement has been found for Kmweber. Speaking on the candidate, I'm impressed with the answers to my questions and also with 6-8, in particular. Toon05 shows considerable clue and I believe he will be an asset to the admin core, hopefully spending some of his time helping improve the problems we face in the area of BLP. لennavecia 06:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Love the answers, love what I see in a quick look at your contribs. -Senseless!... says you, says me 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Oops..I see I got a mention in the .. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?.. I was stumbling aroung in toons flower garden like newish editors do .. and toon helped me to grow and didn't push me away . I am grateful to him for that and I am sure he will make a worthy administrator.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  42. Support. I ran into Toon05 while we were both working at SCV. An admin to help out Moonriddengirl at CP is just what we need. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per WP:AGF in that we had no memorable negative interactions, I don't see any blocks, etc. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Looks great. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support, why I was just examining your GAs quite randomly the other day! Well done! --candle•wicke 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Trust Scarian and Moonriddengirl's judgement and user seems trustworthy. MBisanz talk 10:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  15:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Per nom and reasons given above. Timmeh! 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. An asset to the community. — Σxplicit 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Definitely seems trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support No good opposes, and I don't have any problems with Toon05.--Res2216firestar 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; respected co-nominators. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: per all. Critique Me 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DT, do you think there are too many administrators currently working in the area of copyright violations? Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we just go ahead and strike these votes since it is obvious a crat isn't going to count it? Tavix :  Chat  00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See centralized discussion - Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#User:DougsTech - Fastily (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic (and insulting) discussion removed. As has been mentioned, keep discussion about DougsTech limited to the WT:RFA page, please. kthnxbye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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