mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StuffOfInterest2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/StuffOfInterest2

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

StuffOfInterest

[edit]

Final (52/6/1) Ended Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:47:20 UTC

StuffOfInterest (talk · contribs) – Although my account was created back in May of 2005 I don't really consider myself as having become an editor until October 2005 when I did some cleanup on the Crew Exploration Vehicle (now named Orion) article. Since that time I've spread out into creating a few articles (Global knives and a bunch of Silver Line stubs), performing major cleanup on one article (D-STAR), started a WikiProject (Amateur radio), and done lots and lots of vandalism repair. That last one is my biggest reason for desiring adminship at this time. There have been too many cases where the backlog on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP has been to the point that vandalism on pages could continue for far too long.

Alkivar was kind enough to nominate me back in February, but at the time I felt obligated to decline due to my own limited availability and concerns that I should have some more time under my belt. Now, some months later, I feel that I will have enough time to monitor a few of the action lists and my experience has certainly built up. Hopefully, if my contributions are considered worthy, I can use the mop and bucket to help keep the backlogs a little more under control. --StuffOfInterest 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted as self nomination. --StuffOfInterest 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As mentioned in the introduction, my biggest goal is to keep an eye on WP:AIV and WP:RFPP to manage the backlog. In addition, I've been involved with a number of page rename discussions where once a consensus was reached everyone had to wait for an admin to come along and help out by clearing a destination point or doing some other fixing so that the move could be performed. Hopefully, by monitoring WP:RM, I can help in reducing the wait time for those actions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: A few of my prouder involvements are mentioned above, but let me try listing them with a little more detail:
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio - This one is my most recent area of activity. I was able to go from project proposal to gathering interested parties and on to activating the project in just a few days. Since then I've been working on tagging articles related to the project. Most of this is really just clerical type work, but it needs to be done.
  2. Silver Line (Washington Metro) - My involvement here has been to sub-articles and related templates rather than the main Silver Line article. I was able to convert a number of station red links into clean stubs as well as build the needed templates for line configuration dealing with this being the first line to share track with two other Washington Metro lines. In particular, I'm happy with the articles for the four stations in Tysons Corner (Tysons East, Tysons Central 123, Tysons Central 7, and Tysons West).
  3. D-STAR - This is an Amateur radio related article which I decided to take under my wing after seeing what a sorry state it was in. After a couple of days editing I had it to a state that although not perfect I felt it was ready to have the cleanup tag removed.
  4. Global (cutlery) - I was surprised to find out that there wasn't an article for this brand of knives so I decided to get one started. This included authoring some basic text and uploading a photo of my own set of the knives. Some time soon I hope to get around to working on Thermador, whose brand of ranges is in the background of the photo.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The closest thing I've had to a direct confrontation with another editor was with Karmafist back in December when he decided to list me in a RfC over a template I had made exactly one edit to. As that template has since been deleted and salted, I can't point to the actual edit. Karamafist later had other problems, so I hope that will be weighed when counting this dispute. Beyond that one, I've tended to avoid any direct person-to-person disputes. I've had a few general philosophy disputes, but I've always tried to work them out on various project and article talk pages so as to keep the forum open to all. On occasion, editors (both signed and anonymous) have had issue with reversions I've performed, but I've usually been able to defuse those with an explanation and/or short discussion. A history of that is readily available on my talk page.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As with an unestablished (meaning new, low edit count, or anonymous) user, anything demanding a block should have good documentation on the talk page or a report on WP:AN/3RR to back it up. As well, such blocks should be preventative and not punative, being used to keep further damage from happening and let the community at large or ArbCom in particular examine incidents and sanction if necessary. As long as standard procedure and policy is being followed there is no reason to treat an established user differently than a new one. Now, there are cases where I would recuse myself from issuing a block. The most distinct example would be in the event of a 3RR violation of an article where I'm actively editing (or performed a revert of my own of an edit by the party in question). In a case like this the incident should always be reported to the appropriate notice board and left to an uninvolved admin to sort out. It is essential that conflict of interest be avoided when using admin functions.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support - Seems like a good enough user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - a good user, familiar with policy, and having good experience with the wiki. Full support. --Draicone (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: IPs second edit. MER-C 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I deleted my cookie because of the wikibreak. About my 2500th edit :) And next time just strike IP votes, I'm pretty sure thats policy. --Draicone (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support He seems like a pretty good user and has good experience. I'll give him my support. Hello32020 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Seen him around doing good work. --Alex (Talk) 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Has a good level of experience and a solid editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Great user, but I'm a bit scared that he likes to write about knives. *scared* That's my saddest attempt at a joke. --Nishkid64 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Michael 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Regarding the idea of Wikipedia being a "chore," I can attest to this. There's a bare level of editing required to satisfy the addiction, which explains why I'm here instead of staying on break where I belong. Incidentally, it appears I was one of several sysops to delete the template in question... Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Enthusiastic editor despite the chore remarks (we've all been there at some point); the admin tools will be used sensibly. (aeropagitica) 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the support, but please note that the word "chore" hasn't passed my fingers. It was a comment by another editor which others have been reacting to. --StuffOfInterest 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.  Doctor Bruno  21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per the above comments. RFerreira 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Canderous Ordo 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support and 73s de --Aaron 23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: Contribs looking good, no reason not to trust user with the tools. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - per above really -- Tawker 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Very yes! Seen a lot of good things from StuffOfInterest, and I'm sure they'll do well with the tools. Thε Halo Θ 12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, only seen + stuff out of StuffOfInterest, and Wiki would be better if this user had the buttons. Daniel.Bryant 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, StuffOfInterest does good work and wants to help out further, I see no reason to hinder this goal. Thryduulf 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good work, good tenure, and I like the work on transit related articles.-- danntm T C 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have seen this user around WP:AIV and WP:RFPP before and it all looks good to me, so I have no reason not to support. --WinHunter (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Looks like an honest, hardworking user. NauticaShades(talk) 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Will not abuse the tools. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. This admin shows no record of POV-pushing or anything of that nature that would lead me to think he would abuse the tools. Themindset 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Looks like good stuff to me.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Zaxem 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Merovingian - Talk 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I like to see users who want to do more than just monitor WP:AIV, but the user seems civil and thoughtful and demonstrates his need for the tools. -- Merope Talk 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I'll branch out into more things over time. WP:AIV ends up high on my scope now being that it accounts for a lot of my interaction with administrators. Already, WP:RM is an area I hope to watch and when time permits I can check out other backlogs to lend a hand. --StuffOfInterest 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom. John254 02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom and answers. Appears well-qualified for the tools. Re the Oppose !vote, I am not a big fan of POV userboxes but their presence should hardly be disqualifying either. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom. and great answer to Dmcdevit's question. - Patman2648 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support- logically, you should have passed the declined RfA.  Jorcoga  11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Need more admins, this one will do. Haukur 18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. As long as the POV userboxes don't affect his editing, I think they're perfectly fine. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, after having a browse of the user's contribs. Thanks/wangi 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - solid editor, very likely to be a good admin. --MCB 23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Based on past experience, I'm quite surprised that your userpage (and particularly potentially insulting User:StuffOfInterest#Religion) has not been a bigger issue. Nevertheless, I don't see any evidence of your point-of-view becoming an issue in the encyclopedia. -- tariqabjotu 11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support seems likely to make a good admin. --W.marsh 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Look forward to seeing you with mop and bucket. And I liked his response to Oppose vote below. Jcam 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support—That StuffOfInterest believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned, hardly distresses me. I'm rather confident all users have points of view; concealing ones POV serves no purpose; what matters is editing in Wikipedia itself. I’m willing to trust the evidence that StuffOfInterest believes “that articles need to reflect a NPOV”; this is sufficient to bestow the power to block, unblock, delete and undelete. Let's do it. Williamborg (Bill) 06:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support seems to be good, devoted editor. Besides he has learnt the lesson and removed the political userboxen abakharev 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support – should be a good one. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I like his style, have seen good edits. -Lapinmies 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support a great editor. seems like he would make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support I've seen him at AfD a couple times and he is pretty civil. Given that, I support. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I've personally had positive experiences with the editor. I also am motivated to support out of disagreement with the opposers below. I share SOI's believe that the open declaration of one's biases is preferable; I have always done so on my own userpage, and have only gotten one question about it, which I managed to resolve in a friendly manner. Essentially, the only difference between SOI's page and mine is that he uses (properly userfied) userboxes. As this is in accord with WP:GUS, I don't find much worthwhile in the opposition point-of-view. Users are not androids, and shouldn't pretend to be; although we all must act neutrally here, when we fail to do so on occasion (as is inevitable), checking our biases should be an open and easy thing for our fellow editors to do. Xoloz 15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Everything looks fine here. — xaosflux Talk 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I concur in part in Xoloz's assessment of the propriety of the use of advocacy userboxes and in part in Dmcdevit's false dichotomy formulation, but, in any event, not particularly inclined to reach the userbox question because I think it quite plain that SOI is possessed of the deliberative temperament, judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am altogether confident that SOI, qua admin, will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I am confident that the net effect on the project of SOI's becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is, after all, my principal RfA standard). The userbox issue need be reached only if one thinks the use of advocacy userboxes to be demonstrative per se of poor judgment or to be demonstrative of an improper emphasis on other-than-encyclopedic tasks which emphasis might tend toward disruption (or, at best, toward the determent of collaboration); the former objection is, IMHO, without foundation, whilst the latter is persuasive but not to any great extent. Joe 04:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - no incivility, seems to know policy, good answers, & edit summaries, & edit count, nice spread of edits throughout project &... etc etc, seems like a textbook +Sup to me! And pish posh to the "admins shouldnt express POV in their userspace" view - You'd rather we all just pretend we have none? Obviously we all do, and although I have no userpage there's no point pretending to be a mindless drone; after all, it would be naive to assume our POV doesnt affect editing pattern in at least someway Glen 05:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose anyone with POV-advocacy userboxes and categories on their user page. I thought we had moved beyond that. Instead, upoon visiting the user page, I am confronted with SOI's point of view on religion, sexual preference, political party affiliation, capital punishment, censorship, church and state, and, incredibly, POV userboxes themselves. Not someone whose userpage (and judgment thereof) reflects well upon the encyclopedia, and certainly not someone I trust with adminship at this point. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always believed it is better to state one's POV up front rather than to hide it and use sneaky editing to put it in articles. If you check my edit history you'll see I've done vandal fighting on articles which do not represent my views in the express interest of keeping article space neutral. If having my POV stated opens my edits to closer scrutiny to make sure I don't put anything inappropriate into articles, then I see this as being good as editors may have some slant to their writing even when they don't intend to. As for the categories, you are right. I should have had those out long ago as they don't serve any benefit to me and have only helped me to receive an occasional bit of spam. --StuffOfInterest 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Obfuscation. Openly declaring POVs and "hid[ing] it and us[ing] sneaky editing to put it in articles" are not the two options. That is setting up a false dichotomy to blur the issue. Rather, the one almost all editors choose is neither. That is, editing neutral, while not using their freely-provided Wikipedia userpage which is for encyclopedia purposes to promote their political agendas. Furthermore, there is next to no good reason for POV categories, it is really only to coordinate POVs. Of all Wikipedianss, no administrator should support POV user categories. That's indefensible; I'm surprised at your response. Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repsponse is also a false dichotomy that implies that having userboxes on a page stating one's POV implies that one is editing Wikipedia with the purpose of pushing a POV. POV userboxes are not "bad": if anything they help users who scrutinize another user's edits to know what kind of unintentional bias to look for. Everyone on Wikipedia has a POV, and no matter how hard we try it is impossible to be completely neutral in our edits. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm? I didn't say that at all. Dmcdevit·t 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. Not a big deal. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opposish largely per Dmcdevit's reasoning. Admins (in my view) are held to certain standards and administrators and their actions reflect not only on the user but on Wikipedia, and more broadly the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't feel that the candidate's POV (not necessarily the views themselves, but the overt broadcasting of them) is at all a reflection of Wikipedia and its aims. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Dmcdevit. I am sorry, but really too much not to be concerned. And yes, I've got 1 naughty user box myself - but I am not standing for admin. --Pan Gerwazy 10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, essentially per Dmcdevit. An admin having POV-advocacy userboxes (or any type of explicit POV advocacy on their userpage, userbox or not) is at best questionable, although when the position is vague enough this might be acceptable. But having ones which explicitly state the user supports a given political party? This, in my mind, would set a Very Bad Tone. The arguments stated above, which discuss whether or not it is better for a bias to be upfront, miss two important points:
    • Just because we all have biases, this doesn't mean we all embrace them. Once one publically and internally identifies oneself with a certain "crew", this by its very nature strengthens one's biases. A Wikipedia editor, and even more so an admin, should not think of themselves, and identify, as a member of a political party while they are here.
    • This would at the very least give an appearance of impropreity when this putative admin does some administrative action which coincides with their stated bias (e.g. imagine a case where a user is making Republican-POV edits to an article, and acting in a way which is borderline blockable, say, sort of edit warring, or sort of trolling on the talk page). Would we be comfortable with SoI applying a block in this situation? If yes, we open the system up to the complaint of "He blocked me because I am conservative" and in this case we'd have to at least consider that pretty strongly -- it would certainly cross my mind if such a complaint showed up on AN/I. Or if no, then we are saying this ties SoI's hands to mediate and administer in politically-charged discussions?
    • Either way, I am very skeptical about the explicitly POV-advocating userboxes. --Deville (Talk) 11:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I tend to agree that it can be best to be upfront with one's biases, but I feel this editor has relatively limited encyclopedia-building experience. Espresso Addict 03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Dmcdevit. pschemp | talk 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Unsure. He doesn't seem well rounded, mostly doing reversions and jumping into conflicts, but that in itself isn't enough to oppose. Looking at his diffs, it appears he treats Wikipedia like a chore, and that makes me nervous. People Powered 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Can you please provide solid evidence to support your statement regarding this? --Siva1979Talk to me 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please expand on this with examples/evidence, thank you.--Andeh 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Basically edit summaries like these [1],[2] and this edit war at the end of August.(diff from the middle of it)[3].
    Mackensen probably states my reason for voting most eloquently though: I feel uneasy with an "addict" being given more control over something other than reducing their own addiction. Of course, that's not enough for an oppose vote IMO, so thus my neutral vote here. People Powered 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (changed to support above) - i've not looked into the users contribs, nor come across them in the past (before today). However I'm a bit concerned by a posting on WP:AIV [4] today where the reported user had only made two edits, neither of them after the warning tag was added. Also one of the test templates (rather than bv) might have been more appropriate. Had the StuffOfInterest been an admin then would that have been a ban straight off for the user? Anyway, when I do get some time I'll have a better sift ;) Thanks/wangi 13:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases I would use a test template, but here the user added text such as "coke fiend" under the religion entry and "HAS A PENIS!!!!" under nationality for one article and a whole bunch of nonsense for the 2nd article. Looking back, the 2nd one I probably would have used a test template on if it had not come directly after the first blatant edit. Looking closer now, I'm not sure if the user saw my first warning before or after he made the second edit. They are both logged in as the same minute but I didn't see the user's second edit listed when I checked his history before issuing the first warning. --StuffOfInterest 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember blocks aren't for punishment, the user you've just added to AIV just now hasn't made an edit since your last warning... And what are the instructions at the top of AIV? I'll keep my eye on that user, and no doubt block them tomorrow ;) /wangi 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I'm sorry but that user did make an edit since my last warning. My last warning (spam4) was yesterday and after his edit today I added the message to WP:AIV. In neither case was my block request intended to be punative. In both cases there was a reasonable expectation that the user would continue to make similiar edits. --StuffOfInterest 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake there! /wangi 13:36, 4 October 2006 (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.