Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smalljim Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Smalljim

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

Final (26/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smalljim (talk · contribs) - Smalljim has been editing Wikipedia regularly for about a year, during which time he has made around 9,000 edits. He regularly participates in XfD and policy discussions, and is a good vandal fighter, with around 80 reports to WP:AIV. He also has article writing experience, helping to improve various Devon articles, including being a main editor of the Teignmouth article. He is a mature user, who is able to remain civil and polite during discussions, and deals well with conflicts resulting from his vandal fighting. Smalljim would make good use of the admin tools. Epbr123 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks for the nomination. I accept.  —SMALLJIM  14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: A quick look at my user contributions will show that AV work has been a large part of what I've done here - having rollback has made the process flow better; the ability to bypass WP:AIV when necessary would be useful. I know the frustration that's caused by waiting for an admin to block while the vandal continues, so I would definitely help out at AIV too.

I've looked at a lot of AfDs, and contributed to some. I think I would be a sound judge of consensus, so I'd look to help with closing those - starting with the uncontentious ones of course. And being of a naturally curious nature, I'd be looking into the other areas where admins are needed - I'm sure my temperament and strengths would be a match for some of those listed at WP:ADMIN.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contribution, in terms of what has helped WP the most, must be my WP:RCP work and reversion of editing tests and vandalism. There's no need to explain why that's important, I think!

As far as writing articles is concerned, I must admit that I don't have much natural talent for writing, so I tend towards wikignomism - I've used AWB a lot. In the absence of pressure I turn out prose very slowly, so, although others may laugh at the snail's pace at which it's progressing, I'm relatively proud of the work I'm doing at present on Teignmouth: it will be a GA eventually :-) I've also been pleased when I can find gaps in WP's content that I can plug with stubs or short articles - like Okimono, Tartane, Gordon Rollings. I've added what I think are some half-decent photos too, e.g. Image:Dover Harbour panorama.jpg.

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 had a crazy time last November with an agitated editor and his many sockpuppets. Most of the discussion is archived at Talk:Drake Circus/page 2, though it also spilled over into its AfD and another talk page. Based on experience gained from participation in various discussion forums over the years, I recommended that other participants should exercise restraint and later suggested a compromise which was (grudgingly) accepted by the editor. I would probably behave similarly again, but probably look for compromise earlier. I've never got anywhere near 3RR and I can't imagine doing so. One of the benefits of not being inclined to hold many strong views is that it is easier to see all points of view; and I think that is a useful attribute that is sometimes in short supply in WP.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a software feature that can be applied by an admin to an account or an IP address in an attempt to stop the person who is using that account/IP from continuing to damage Wikipedia. In contrast, a ban is "a formal revocation of editing privileges" and as such is a community decision that refers directly to the person, no matter what account or IP address he uses. Both can be applied temporarily or indefinitely. By their nature blocks remove editing access from the whole of Wikipedia, but bans can be applied to particular areas.  —SMALLJIM  17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: This would depend on whether I had any strong views on the matter: see the last sentence of my answer to Q3. It's far better to remove something that's possibly of concern than to add it. So I'd probably move on and do something more important. However if I did feel strongly enough about it, I would check some basic facts first (primarily, is the material verifiable?), then discuss with the other admin on her talk page. I would expect to reach agreement there, and not have to take it to WP:BLPN.  —SMALLJIM  17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: My initial response was "what an unnecessarily complex idea". But on examination, it may be a useful backup to have in place in case an admin goes a bit bonkers. In my case, any reasonable moves towards invoking any such agreement that I might make would certainly cause me to think about what I was doing!  —SMALLJIM  17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Please see my further comments on this question below, under "Oppose".  —SMALLJIM  11:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Can you say something about the large gaps in your early contribs e.g. no edits from November 2005 to December 2006? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Sure. I registered here in 2004 when I came across WP for the first time. Since then I've used it regularly as a resource and also occasionally experimented with editing, but I didn't have the inclination to do more than that until I retired from work and got rid of other commitments in early 2007.  —SMALLJIM  10:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. / 7.b I'm sure you understand the scope of Q7. I commend the tactful phrasing by SlimVirgin and personally I think your answer is satisfactory. Nevertheless, just for the sake of total clarity, I'm going to be more specific: Have ever edited with another account? — Please understand that this is not assuming bad faith, but merely trying to be extra-careful. User:Dorftrottel 09:49, January 22, 2008

A: Thank you for being direct. I can categorically state that I have not edited with, or even registered, any other account either before or after registering Smalljim. Nor have I (knowingly) edited from a bare IP address since. I may have made one or two test IP edits just before registering the account on 2004-09-03, I really can't remember. The fact that I only made one edit on that day[1] suggests that I probably did. But if I did they would have been similar to those I made since. And just for the record, if I get the mop and register another account for any other purpose (I know that some do, though I can't presently see the benefit of doing so), I would make the fact very clear on both user pages.  —SMALLJIM  11:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of a sock like this is in the (fairly unlikely but not unheard of) event of a compromise of your admin account. You can use your sock to report the compromise to meta, and get the admin account de-sysopped quickly, without everyone wondering if it's really you requesting the de-sysop or a third party with ill intent. Pedro :  Chat  11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful info. Thanks.  —SMALLJIM  11:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Smalljim's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Smalljim: Smalljim (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

1. Support: Seems like a good editor. The lack of article writing does not concern me, as an administrator or a regular user can write articles; the tools are for work like recentchanges patrolling. Good luck! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I had a recent positive experience with Smalljim--he seemed thoughtful and helpful. A review of his contributions showed me many similar edits. I would have no worries about this editor misusing the tools. Darkspots (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support add me. ^Avruchtalk 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Looking over his contribs, I find some substantial work on articles and I particularly noted his work on Teignmouth. His AV work is good. I ♥ Wikignoming as well. He knows policy and his general congeniality indicates he'll communicate in conflict situations, which I consider very important. Thumbs up. Pigman☿ 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak Support Weak, because of the weak answer to Q6.Spencer^T♦C 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. sUPPORT PER ABOVE. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Looks good. Timmeh! 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. I am aware of this user's work here & on Commons. I see no issues with having the extra buttons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Looks good so far. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - good answers to questions. Addhoc (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Answers are ok, with the notable (and already noted) exception of Q6. Because of that I'm giving my weak support. Please note however that this is an issue extending far beyond this RfA and I do have a rather strong opinion about it, so I'm not going to let it prevent me from taking a neutral look at the good you're doing around the wiki. User:Dorftrottel 09:30, January 22, 2008
13. Support - Looks good from where I'm standing - a fine user who appears in many areas. He shouldn't do any harm with a couple of extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Well thought out answers. His contribs look good. --PTR (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Looks good here. --Sharkface217 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Your dedication to accountability will no doubt be mirrored in your dedication to performing admin tasks. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - meets all my standards, incl. edit count, AfD work, no issues, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - sure :) - Alison ^❤ 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support with blathering: your answer to Q6 is one of the best we've seen in awhile. The gut reaction is spot on. You correctly intuited some of the problems with recall and really intelligently expanded on those insights below, and that's a very good sign. You've done good work at Teignmouth and you needn't be bashful of it. Also, bravo to Epbr for finding candidates who don't spend all their time at RFA. We need more people doing what Epbr does—not less. --JayHenry (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - a good editor. --Bhadani (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - great editor! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - I am sure you will use the tools well. --BelovedFreak 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - No red flags here. Gromlakh (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - I'm suitably pleased with what I see here... --Mhking (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. No issues here. Acalamari 03:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - yup. :) Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has cleverly managed to avoid giving a straight answer to Q6. Is he going to be open to recall or not? (I don't blame him for tiptoeing around the issue, giving all the controversy it generates, so I will of course reconsider my oppose if he gives a better answer.) Walton^One 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it's just me but I find the whole criteria for recall issue so convoluted, I have trouble telling whether it might not be easier to just bring a rouge admin to arbcom than do the recall thang. In a practical sense, I'm unsure whether him not giving a straight "yes" answer is very significant except as a political tactic. (Note: I'm on the admin recall list and firmly believe it's a good idea; it's just not a make or break issue for me in an RfA.) Guess this isn't really an attempt to persuade you to change your opinion, just my view on the subject. Pigman☿ 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"..unnecessarily complex idea" sums it up well enough, and the question doesn't ask whether he would indulge in the process. –Pomte 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You pipped me to a response, Pomte. I was going to point out that the question asks for my opinion on admin recall, not whether I would subscribe to it or not. I chose not to express a preference on that point, as I haven't decided yet - I haven't been following RfAs recently, so admin recall is new to me. Let me put it this way: the principle of admin accountability is clearly sound, but putting it into practice in ways similar to this one seems to me to be unduly bureaucratic and a fine example of WP:CREEP. Consensus appears to indicate that the existing accountability process starting with WP:DR is sufficient. However if, as a safety net, I could find some simple form of words that would express the concept without all that baggage (or potential for abuse, which is the tricky bit, I think), I'd gladly subscribe to it.  —SMALLJIM  22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - you're right, the question doesn't actually ask whether you would be open to recall. I'm striking my oppose, though I'm not 100% happy to support. (Incidentally, concerning instruction creep, I think my recall criteria are relatively simple and non-bureaucratic. I agree that the Lar model goes somewhat over the top with complex provisions.) Walton^One 00:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your recall criteria are certainly much simpler. However after having spent some time now reading up on admin recall, I think that although it has generally worked in the few cases it has been applied to so far, there would be problems if the process as it stands now was taken up widely and became well-known. A contentious AfD could well cause problems for the closing admin, for instance. I agree that desysopping an admin should be simpler than it is now, but it mustn't be too easy. But this isn't really the place to discuss this interesting subject. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, it's an area I'll keep an eye on.  —SMALLJIM  11:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just for completeness, if given the mop I would still include some sort of accountability statement on my user page. I probably wouldn't specify criteria (sorry!), but it would be something intended to show my commitment to helping the community and my willingness to step down without a big fuss if I lost its trust. I know that such a statement wouldn't actually mean anything - but it would to me, and I'd be happy for anyone to refer back to this statement to remind me of what I said. This would be pending the development of an accountability process that will gain admin consensus, which I hope is coming, and which I'd sign up to.  —SMALLJIM  13:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Candidate does not feel ready for the role so why should I think they are? [2]. I'm also getting tired of these relentless nominations by the nominator (not the candidates fault of course, though maybe they should have checked the nominators history). I'm not opposing, but if you're not ready wait until you are. There's no money, awards or personal benefit in being an admin. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With the greatest respect, Pedro, you are misreading what I wrote in that response to my nom., but understandably so. Although I always try to phrase what I write in open discussions so that it makes sense not just to my immediate correspondent but to anyone else that may read it, this was not the case here. My reply to Epbr123 took into account the fact that I'd read his stated policy on nominating RfA candidates and his record of successes, and an assumption of the experience that he's gained from doing this work. I was not indicating to him that I didn't feel ready for the role, but that I did not want to be involved in a contentious RfA (because that would waste everyone's time). His reply indicated to me that he understood what I meant. I hope that explains. I think Epbr123 and those like him play an important role in bringing forward potential admins.  —SMALLJIM  10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair response and explanation. I have struck my neutral, and will review further with a view to hopefully support. Pedro :  Chat  10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Sorry, I don't have time to research enough for a full vote, but I've looked at a few of the candidate's contribs and these look good: here using Twinkle but being careful not to label this particular edit as "vandalism" (and other similar examples); here using the nice gentle "editing tests" template for vandalism reverted here. The reverts that I looked at that the candidate labelled as vandalism looked clearly like vandalism. So, the candidate seems to be being careful, using different levels of response to different kinds of tests/vandalism. The little I looked at looks good. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (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.