mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recurring dreams Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Recurring_dreams

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

Recurring dreams

[edit]

Final (talk page) (51/0/0); Ended Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:29:15 UTC

Recurring dreams (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Recurring dreams. I've been here since August 2006. I contribute mostly to Australian articles, in particular Australian politics. However I've edited a variety of topics. I humbly seek the admin tools. Recurring dreams 11:34, 24 September 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work frequently at WP:AIV. As a dedicated vandal fighter, I think having the tools would be a natural extension of my current activities. I would also like access to Special:Unwatchedpages, as I keep a very strong watch over my watchlist, and would add any unwatched obscure (mostly Australian) articles to it. I would also sometimes close deletion discussions at WP:AFD, where I have participated at plenty of discussion in my time here.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content: In terms of 'pedia building, I tend to contribute to Australian pages. I have created and contributed to a few dozen, mostly short biographical articles like Therese Rein and Howard Judd. But fear not, I also participate at featured article review, so have some idea of what it takes to make quality articles. Oh, and I have also helped save articles from the brink of deletion, such as here and here. Process: I am an experienced vandal fighter, using Twinkle to patrol recent changes and my watchlist. I guess as a counterpoint to that I also welcome newcomers, and help them with any inquiries.
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: Yes, I have. My attitude when dealing with editing conflicts is to "take it to the talk page". I have found that discussion is always better than conflict. Early examples of strong but fruitful discussion include at this page, and also here. More recently I fell into a hornest's nest at List of notable converts to Islam, where in the midst of a revert war my disambiguating was being removed without reason. However I guess that's convinced me more than ever that discussion is always needed, no matter how trivial you think the issue may be. Since then I guess I've decided to fulfill that ethos as best I can at pages like Religion of Peace.
4. Hello, Recurring Dreams. Could you please shed some light on the issues behind Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard?
A. There has been some substantial discussion at John Howard over the last couple of weeks. I haven't been involved in these discussions, however I have commented on the talk page in the past, and also help maintain this page from vandalism. I think the Request for Mediation went out to everyone who had made any comments at all recently on the talk page, and hence my bemused response on my talk page. Anyway, I hope it's been sorted out now.
5. Question from Pedro As a very new administrator I recently declined to speedy delete an article and instead put it to WP:AFD where the ongoing consensus is delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Rhodes. In your opinion was my decline correct, or should I have been more bold in just deleting it and therefore not wasting editors time on what is now becoming a pointless process. Pedro |  Chat  19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'A. No, I think you made the right decision. Speedy deletion should be used with care and caution (I think there was some concern from users including me over the hasty use of speedy tags a few months ago, but that has improved now). If you have any doubts about whether a page may not fulfill one of the speedy deletion criteria, then you can be cautious. Taking an article to AFD for discussion in my opinion is not necessarily "wasting our time."
Optional questions from Mr.Z-man
The following questions are about blocking. Long replies are not necessary, but please give some insight into your reasoning. Mr.Z-man 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6a. A user is reported to AIV; he has not been given a final warning (only a level 2) but has blanked 9 pages and is currently active. What would you do and why?
A. While it is very important to give warnings, and with some reports I've seen at AIV I'd give a final warning and see if it works, in this case as there is persistent and continued blanking I would block for 24 hours per the blocking policy ("Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking").
6b. A registered user is reported to AIV, has been warned 5 times, including a recent warning. All the warnings (and reverts of the user's edits) are by the same user, who also made the report. His contributions don't look like obvious vandalism, but he is not using edit summaries or otherwise explaining his edits. You are unfamiliar with the subject of the article, so cannot tell if the edits are valid or not. What do you do and why?
A. Well in this case I would certainly not block straight away; I may have wondered into a content dispute, and make the situation worse. I would ask on the talk pages of both the reported user and the reporter to clarify what the issue is. If the situation rapidly escalates, or draws more users, and it is not a subject I am familiar with, I would create a thread at WP:ANI to draw the attention of admins who may be more familiar.
7. Optional question from User:Yahel Guhan. Suppose there is an article you are neutral on but lean more toward delete than to keep where consensus is close to borderline. Under what conditions would you keep/delete the article?
A. Just to clarify your question, I presume when you say that "consensus is close to borderline" that there have been conflicting arguments and no real consensus has developed? In that case I would close the debate as "no consensus;" further my own judgment must be as an impartial administrator who is determining rough consensus, not an interested party that has a strong opinion about the article. If you meant something else with your question, please do clarify.
8. When would blocking a user you have communicated with or protection of an article you edited appropiate? At what extent do you believe you are an involved party, where it would be inappropiate to use the tools?
A. Blocking: I would clearly follow the blocking policy. "Communication" with a user would not presumably include warning vandals, in which case I would of course block. If it was a content dispute, I wouldn't. WP:BLP is the exception as indicated by the policy. Protection: Same deal, I wouldn't protect if I was involved in a content dispute, I would be allowed to if it was simple vandalism or WP:BLP issues. "Involved party" simply means being involved in the editing of an article, and being involved in discussion over material in the article. Again, if I've misunderstood your question, please clarify.
9. Optional questions from ArielGold: First, I think you're a great editor overall, but I'm concerned about a few things I notice relating to your vandalism/recent changes patrolling, with regards to the guideline for warning progression. For example, this user made one edit, which was clearly a simple test/joke edit, nothing egregious, and yet you used an "only warning" template, threatening with a block upon next offense. I'd like to point to Cecropia - Wikipedia bureaucrat, who advises: "First, do not threaten a block unless you are confident that the behavior is worthy of a block.". In that case, that behavior was certainly not something worthy of immediate blocking, and it was perhaps unfriendly to respond with an "only warning" template. This again happened with this edit and this warning. Now in that case, I realize you'd reverted the editor a couple times, but you did not give the editor any warnings until the "only warning" was issued. Another concern is the use of level 3 warnings for first warnings and innocent offenses, as seen here, for an offense that was again, silly test edits, which the editor actually reverted, but forgot to replace part of what he'd removed: [1]. There are others, but these are just some recent examples, and I'd honestly like to hear your reasoning. Ariel♥Gold 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my zealous warnings for vandals of Karl Stefanovic and related pages can be explained by looking over the history of those pages: the most persistent (and bizarre) vandalism I have seen in my year at wikipedia. These are not different, innocent newbies doing test edits, but one account using multiple IPs and accounts to vandalise the page over months, always about how Karl Stefanovic is a "robot". The page has even been protected a couple of times, and I think I might have to request protection again if the vandalism restarts in earnest. As for the Ernest Rutherford page, I admit my warning was a bit over the top: I looked at the diff after the users handful of edits, but didn't realise that two of those edits was an addition and removal. I will be more careful in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recurring dreams (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Recurring dreams before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support From what I've seen of him personally, he'll make a wonderful admin which can only benefit Wikipedia. GizzaDiscuss © 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support why not? You seems to have the experience to be a admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Solid contributor and vandal fighter. Pursey Talk | Contribs 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Your contribs show a nice combination of automated vandal fighting and article building. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Placeholder support - I particularly like your answer to Q2 - however I wait with interest your response to Q4 (should you choose to respond, of course) --Dweller 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Updated: All looks good to me. --Dweller 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Sufficient number of edits, and good ones at that. Only minor concern is the political activism, per Just James, but I can live with that. Don't mess up! Bearian 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Just happened to see him around regularly; has made some nice contributions. Can't see anything wrong with supporting. RaNdOm26 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support I looked through of few of the editors contributions and they were good enough. -Icewedge 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, of course. Lots of anti-vandalism work, and comments in discussions like this look good and indicate a knowledge of policy. Melsaran (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - have seen a fair bit of Recurring Dreams' editing performance on Australia-related pages, and have every reason to think he will make an excellent and thoughtful admin. Euryalus 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support My contact and experience with the editor have always been good, and I have faith in their use of the tools. Jmlk17 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Per his answers, and the fact that nothing has been sufficiently found for me to oppose. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent answers to my questions, see no reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - as per comments by others, I have had only good experience with this editor. I see no reason to believe he would not manage his admin duties neutrally when it came to Australian politics or any other controversial topic --Golden Wattle talk 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per answers to my questions. Yahel Guhan 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Solid contribs, consistently fights vandalism, only has best interests of Wikipedia in mind. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support After some solid thought I believe Recurring dreams is right up to par with the admins. He'll make a fine addition to the admin squad. Good luck! GeneralIroh (Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.) 02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A respected editor and no reason to expect abuse of the tools. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Highly respected user who will suit the job quite well. mdmanser 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Dureo 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Spot on answer to my question 5 (IMHO). Ticks all the other boxes in terms of knowledge, calmness etc. which removes any concerns about political intersts overspilling. Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I freaking offered to nominate you...*slaps* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - yes, everything seems in order. :-) Lradrama 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Should make a great addition to the Aussie admin ranks. And for what it's worth, I wanted to nominate you. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I think you'll do just fine. Hiberniantears 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good answers to the questions. He also made very sensible comments in the debate over the hotly-contested John Howard article. I notice there has been a Neutral voter who mentioned the chance of political bias, but he did not provide any data we could consider. EdJohnston 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support outstanding. —Anas talk? 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Suppport seems to have the experience, skill, and demeanor required, and a good idea about Special:Unwatchedpages. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support this user knows what he's doing, has been very helpfull in the past. andrewrox424 Bleep 07:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak Support As a fellow vandalism fighter, I would welcome another Wikipedia defender to the ranks of administrators. But after examining some of your edits to articles concerning Australian politics, I am concerned that you may be politically biased, which could affect your ability to be a neutral administrator.--Just James T/C 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think he would use his administrator tools in a content dispute? Melsaran (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, would you provide some difs which illustrate your concerns with this editor? Hiberniantears 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] – Why revert the removal of an uncited political opinion and yet keep uncited quotes out here [3]?
    I reverted because a source was being sought. The source was later found, but the entire section has been removed. The removal in the second diff wasn't simply about sourcing, as per discussion on talk page.
    [4] – Why add this quote?
    Firstly, what's your objection to it? I'm adding content. I was in the middle of restructuring the page, and balancing the criticism section which was removed in any case.
    [5] – Just because the workchoices article says it is controversial, doesn’t justify a wiki-wide change as you pointed out here [6].
    I don't quite understand that reasoning. I didn't express an opinion about the issue, simply made an accurate description after reading the wikipedia page.
    [7] – Why is this a smear campaign whereas the Liberal Party disunity issue is fact?
    What has "Liberal Party disunity" got to do with anything? I don't think I mention it in that diff. Further, my opinion was actually supported by many and was clearly part of the overwhelming consensus.
    [8] – The speculation had ended long before the 23rd of September. The PM announced he would step down if he won the election. Why remove it? Is it because it displays the government as politically unstable and Labor as a stable alternative?
    No, because it is political commmentary, like I said in the edit summary.
    [9] - Discussing Labor's election campaign. Raises question marks about neutrality.
    No, I was actually discussing the availability of copyright free images.
    [10] – Read the discussion in the The election slogan: "We will decide who comes to this country........." section at the bottom of the page (i.e. not just the diff) – further questions marks about political preference and how it affects your edits. Perhaps a level of hostility towards Liberal Party.
    Nothing to do with hostility, simply discussing the issue at hand. If you do indeed read the rest of the discussion like you suggest, then you'll find I actually resolved this conflict by providing sources without making a single comment.
    All of this further illustrates a possible alignment to the Labor party. Now you can say that my concerns are unwarranted. I just think that once you become an administrator, you should distance yourself from controversial topics (given what I’ve seen in your contributions). I think you’ll be a great administrator (especially because you consistently defend Wikipedia from vandalism) and I don’t want to ruin what has been an overall fantastic Rfa for you so I will change my vote to weak support.--Just James T/C 07:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have somewhat of a flawed understanding of WP:NPOV. The issue is not whether someone edits certain pages, or holds an opinion (everyone indeed does), but that your editing should not be biased by your political allegiences. I will certainly continue to edit Australian political articles, and if I ever violate WP:NPOV I'm sure other editors (admin or not) will pull me into line. Recurring dreams 08:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool, I'm up to date with WP:NPOV. Anyway, I feel better now that you have said "I intend to (tread carefully), through not using admin powers in Australian political content disputes". Best of luck to you!--Just James T/C 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, but suggest treading very carefully using admin tools on Australian political articles, especially at first. I don't touch UK political articles for much the same reason (I am incredibly biased on the topic). Neil ム 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for that. I intend to do so, through not using admin powers in Australian political content disputes. Recurring dreams 10:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Every Editor has a POV whether it is in politics,chemistry,Geography so no issue with that and as per his reply to Neil and Just James that he is not going to use admin powers in content dispute and user has a good track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support A civil and helpful collaborator who has demonstrated his worth over an extended period of time, and works to put in the hard yards so I have every confidence the mop will be safe in his hands. In my view, NPOV does not require not having a point of view, it relates to exercising discretion and judgement neutrally - we all have opinions, we're all human, and we're all subject to review of our actions by other admins. Orderinchaos 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Thank you, RD, for answering my questions with clear explanations. I admit that with regards to the Karl Stefanovic issue, I'd have had no way of knowing that was an ongoing issue, so I will discount that, and accept that you know the history of that article much better than I. I see no valid reason to oppose you, and I truly do think that you'll be a great addition to the administrative team, but I would echo the cautions given above, to tread with caution with articles relating to Australian politics, perhaps even handing issues to another editor so to avoid any possible claim that you're biased. While I personally feel you'd most likely not be biased, I'm sure you're aware of the sensitivity of the issue. I will take your assurances that you would not be premature in blocking an editor who had not done egregious damage, or one who hasn't received proper warnings, and I would imagine that once you have the ability to block someone, you will most likely be quite cautious. I think this project would benefit from having you expand your participation into the areas of administration, and I look forward to congratulating you in a couple of days. Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks muchly for the advice. Recurring dreams 08:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Have ran into edits by RD many times and everytime I have they have been significantly positive for the project. - Mike Beckham 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Seen him/her around the place. A great editor--Phoenix 15 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Good editor, won't abuse the tools. Good work with AFD. •Malinaccier• T/C 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I have observed consistently positive contributions from this editor over time Melburnian 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support why not? --Phoenix 15 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Struck out by Stifle (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - duplicate vote[reply]
  44. Support. Good editor, unlikely to abuse tools. Ronnotel 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Great contributor and avid vandal fighter; no concerns here. -- Chris B • talk 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good work in vandal fighting and AfD, seems to know policy quite well so I think will make a good admin. --Kudret abiTalk 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Has done the same things then I do before my 2nd nomination, so will be another good admin.--JForget 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Strong editor. See no reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Zaxem 05:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 50. — aldebaer⁠ 07:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. My own observations of this editor have all been positive and I feel Recurring dreams will make an excellent addition to the Aussie Cabal. :-) Sarah 07:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.