Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 25 June 2007

EVula

Voice your opinion Scheduled to end 19:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I've been thinking about submitting an RfB for a while, and seeing as the CHU backlog is starting to grow (and that's somewhere that I'd like to spend time as a 'crat), I figured I'd go ahead and bite the bullet. :)

I've been an admin for about seven and a half months, and have been on Misplaced Pages for just shy of a year and a half. My activity in that time:

• As an editor, I'm primarily a wikignome; I've got very few "core" articles (and my watchlist currently weighs in at 1600 items), but instead try to spread my attentions around as much as possible. I'm proud of the fact that I've got 6,600 edits in the mainspace (I was worried about shifting too far away from encyclopedia building once I got my mop). I'm still a very active user of Misplaced Pages, as it is my primary reference source for anything, which helps me to maintain my nice wide spread of mainspace activity.
• As an administrator, I'm very active in combatting vandalism (either in mass reverts or in indef blocks of vandalism-only accounts). I try to be as communicative as possible, both to people who need my assistance and editors I've blocked. I've User:EVula/admin, I've got a nice collection of references for myself (and can access from any page via a monobook.js shortcut), and also clearly posts my logs (I'm a big fan of transparent admins).
• As a prospective bureaucrat, I'm already active in RfAs; here lately, I've just been lurking (and wikignoming the tallies when they get out of sync), watching everyone's arguments, though I'm still quite active on WT:RFA. I try to jump on premature RfAs (sub 500 edits) as quickly as possible, as to avoid any biting (twenty "oppose" !votes can negatively affect a newbie, regardless of how well-meaning or positively-phrased they may be), and I created a (fairly good, in my opinion) template for telling editors why I closed them; the template has been fairly well-received on WT:RFA, and I'm always looking for ways to improve it. Given my activity in both WP:UAA and WP:RFCN, I feel that I have an excellent grasp of our username policy, and expect to be spending a good amount of time at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U.
• Finally (and most importantly, in some respects), as a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I try to maintain a very open, friendly, and high-spirited attitude. I'm a big fan of cracking jokes to help alleviate stressful situations (and have netted myself five good humor barnstars in the process). Nothing exemplifies my attitude more, though, than my semi-famous collection of insults (which was recently reported to Jimbo himself; note about that). I've gotten plenty of positive feedback on that list, and I'm glad that I can do something to make the community a bit more fun. :)

Similar to how I felt about my own RfA (and to completely rip-off semi-quote Husond), I feel like I'm at the point where I'm comfortable taking the next step forward in my involvement with Misplaced Pages. I welcome any and all feedback (though I'd prefer not to see any "we don't need more 'crats" oppositions, since I disagree with that... actually, I'd prefer not to see any opposition arguments, to be honest), and I'll be more than happy to work on anything that the community feels is a point of contention with this RfB.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I guess. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Whoever has the biggest edit count gets promoted, right?
All seriousness aside, I'm aware that the percentages listed at Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship are 75%-80% for failure/pass, but those are just numbers (and bureaucrats are supposed to actually interpret consensus, not just do math). The criterion (as I understand them) are that successful admin candidates need to have a clean history of incivility (not to mention a clean block log, or at least an easily-explained one), show a strong grasp of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and have a wide spread of activity (both in the mainspace and in projectspace). I'm not saying those are the criterion that a 'crat should use (that would be gauging and following community consensus, with a few possible exceptions), I'm saying those are the ones I've observed. If I've missed the mark a bit on what the question was asking, I'd be happy to expand upon it.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Well, the second part of the sentence is completely irrelevant; I honestly don't give a rat's ass about being criticized for a decision (after all, I'm always right). However, in RfAs that aren't crystal clear, I'd obviously weigh the opposition arguments first (out-and-out ignoring any SPAs, while paying careful consideration to editors who seem to have a bone to pick with the editor). I'd also take a look at the support !votes; I'd prefer if people actually left a comment about why they support a candidate (example), but I'm not going to hold it against a candidate just because their supports just say "Support". In much muddier situations (like Gracenotes', rare as those may be), I'd be 100% in favor of having a 'crat-chat.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. As an administrator, I've already been exposed to high amounts of confrontation; I don't feel that I've "lost my cool" when engaging vandals (even when I'm having death threats lobbed at me), and very rarely will I ever get into heated debates with another editor without still respecting their opinions (example). I've got a very clear line of communication with people; I've got nearly 2,100 user talk edits (I always warn the users I block, and I always keep their talk pages on my watchlist, so that I can address any complaints they may have on the block). I feel like I've got a firm grasp on policy, but I don't have a diff or number to toss to you as an example... I'd be happy to answer any additional questions about policy, though. :)

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I addressed most of this in my initial nomination statement above. I'm already active at WP:RFA, and don't see that waning if I become a 'crat. I'm also expecting to be active on both the Change Username and Usurpation boards. The only place I don't expect to be active is on the bot page; bots are a completely foreign area of the project, and the last thing I want to do is jump in there and start ignorantly flagging bots. If there's a sudden need for more 'crats there, I'll be willing to do the necessary research to edit there without screwing stuff up, but until then, I'll just stick to my strengths. :)

5. If you had been the closing bureaucrat on the Gracenotes RfA, what would you have decided and why? CLA 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Can we please not make this RfB about whether EVula supported Gracenotes, and everybody comments in relation to that. To sum up the point, I ask everyone to not make this a Gracenotes RfA referendum. Thanks! --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My question isn't meant as a referendum on the Gracenotes RfA. I chose that one to see how EVula would have handled a difficult and controversial RfA and that was a recent one. If you prefer, I'll make the question more hypothetical, "If you had been the closing bureaucrat for an RfA that closed with 73% support, but most of the oppose votes were based on a single objection concerning the candidate's views in a policy debate, how would you have handled it?" CLA 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is your question, I believe your citation of Gracenotes is either inappropriate or a misunderstanding of why the nomination was closed the way it was. -- Cecropia 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A. Well, I'm comfortable using Gracenotes rather than a generic "Editor X". As the page will show, I supported (and still support) Gracenotes as an admin candidate. The issue that brought down the RfA, while I personally disagreed with it, was still a valid reason in the eyes of many editors (and, until WP:EVULA becomes actual policy, I'd have to bow to consensus). I think that closing that particular RfA as a "no consensus, default to failure" is the only valid conclusion (sadly), though I sincerely hope that Gracenotes will have a successful RfA at some point in the (near) future.

6. What are your opinions regarding userboxes being used as templates transcluded in userspace as well as categories of wikipedians which may violate WP:NOT and seem to vary between being divisive or not encyclopedic. --After Midnight 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC) To clarify this question: how relevant do you believe that an admin candidates views on this subject should be to deciding their promotion in a case where consensus was not otherwise clear. --After Midnight 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A. answer coming; I just got back from a party, and I'm catching up on everything else

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Cool - I get to be the first to support --BigDT 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Don't see why not. A willingness and focus on spending time over at WP:CHU is commendable. Grandmasterka 19:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Sure. Sean William @ 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
4. (3x ec) Strong support cool head, good member of community. I trust this user to do things right and not abuse the tools. ^demon 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, user is trustworthy and I see no reason why he would misuse the bureaucrat tools. Good member of the community. --Coredesat 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - I completely trust you. Greeves 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely! Good luck. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, enthusiastically. EVula is sane and knows what he's doing. As someone who has spent many months helping out with the rename pages, I can say that we really could do with another crat or two to help out. Its not the most fun of work and spreading it out is a good idea to avoid burnout. At the moment 3 crats have done the vast majority of the last 1000 renames (with Secretlondon doing about half of those). I believe EVula has the necessary skills and experience to help out in this area and with the other bureaucrat functions. WjBscribe 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. The current WP:CHU backlog shows how much we need more bureaucrats - it only takes a couple of active bureaucrats to go on holiday at the moment and things start grinding to a halt. I've always found EVula an excellent, level headed person and I think he would make an excellent addition to the 'crats. Will (aka Wimt) 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
10. (EC)Support - I have seen EVula all around wikipedia. His decision making, endless good humor, and great knowledge of policy all mark him as an excellent user/admin already. Let's see:
    • 6600 Mainspace edits. Vandalfighting, deletes, article editing: All hallmarks of a good editor as well as a good admin
    • 2360 Misplaced Pages space edits. Large numbers in RfC (user names), AN, AN/I, and AIV. Excellent conflict resolution and user blocking edits.

    Overall, I think EVula is an excellent administrator who will make an excellent bureaucrat. --tennisman 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

11. Support (edit conflict) Even though there are around 20 'crats, the 'crat that does all the work right now is Cecropia. He is now even trying to learn CHU. There is a need for active 'crats. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - more staff all round can only be a good thing for Misplaced Pages. We're constantly growing and the only thing stubbornly staying static is the number of bureaucrats. Single user login will increase the workload at WP:CHU if/when it finally lands and we should be in a position as early as possible to have sufficent 'crats able to deal with the workload. Changing usernames should be an admin action rather than a 'crat action, but until that's rectified, we're always going to be short of 'crats. Nick 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I can definitely trust EVula with this. —Anas 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Why not? He has shown himself to be a reliable admin so he will probably be a reliable bureaucrat.--†Sir James Paul† 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, definitely. I can see him being a good 'crat. Tim 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Trustworthy and funny: The best combination ever! (and the most difficult one) NikoSilver 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Duh. --Deskana (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. EVula is a good admin and understands what is required to be a 'crat. Flyguy649_contribs 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support - EVula is the RfA gnome! He does great work already at RfA such as removing and closing snowballs and generally helping things run more smoothly. I fully trust the candidate to neutrally close RfA's per community consensus, let's give him the tools so he can add a bit more to the process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    Yup, I'm a "he". I went ahead and fixed your statement. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    Extra brownie points for correcting my mis-capitalisation of your username! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    At this point, I'm striving for "RfB gnome" as well. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

20. (edit conflict) Support I have had a number of interactions with this user, and have been consistently impressed by the knowledge of wiki-policy shown. I would trust this user with the bureaucrat tools.--Anthony.bradbury 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
22. (ec) Support - excellent track record with the sysop bit. No issues here - Alison ☺ 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Would have preferred to see a good round year, but why the hell not. Can't imagine him rougely sysopping Willy on Wheels. Riana (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    ...uh, yeah, I totally wasn't planning on doing that... crap! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    Foiled again! Riana (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

24. Dude,-I-know-this-guy support. --ST47Talk 23:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Support...On Wheels!!! EVula will certainly be able to handle being a 'crat. Best of luck, —« ANIMUM » 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong support, I seem to see him everywhere... which is a good thing, since he brings positive energy wherever he goes. I also have full confidence in his ability to remain neutral.  hmwith  talk 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support absolutely. WP:CHU really needs some more attention, and I've decided I do trust EVula with the key to the mop cupboard as well. I'm also echoing hmwith's statement about being positive, which is the kind of attitude we need in someone in such a position of trust. Best of luck, - Zeibura 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Appears to be a fair, reasonable, and dedicated project member and therefore would be an excellent addition to the ranks of our overworked and underappreciated bureaucrats. CLA 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Very Strong Support I haven't interacted with EVula for several months unfortunately, but I know for sure that he is a decent administrator. He will be an excellent Bureaucrat. Acalamari 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I still need convincing that EVula isn't going to simply weigh nominations like a vote. Someone who adds their bolded vote to a discussion page, followed by unproductive comments like gives me cause for concern. (Also, in my experience, when people use the word "!vote" what they really is exactly "vote" but they are avoiding what seems to be a taboo word. What's so hard about saying "discussion" and "comment"?) Also, this assumption of bad faith was not great, and those are the only two places I've seen you recently, unfortunately. Dmcdevit·t 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

   (working backwards) I feel extremely uncomfortable about assuming good faith on that MfD because the nominating editor's own userpage has numerous userboxes that violate the exact same reason that they're citing for deletion (see my statements later on that page). I don't interpret WP:AGF to mean "assume good faith regardless of evidence". Given the evidence, the reason behind the MfD appears to be "I don't like it", which is why I've been active in that MfD the way I have.
   The unproductive edit that you cited was me being a smartass; I can't honestly say that I won't ever do that again, but I will try to reign it in a bit if it is a concern. I generally avoid being a smartass in conjunction with "official" activities, like blocks or deletions, so I don't see it being an issue if I become a 'crat.
   I agree that "!vote" is just a bypass around a general taboo, but sometimes it works (as far as grammar goes; I'm not about to have a poorly-written sentence just because of an anti-taboo taboo). I usually try to replace it with "arguments" (I'd like to point out that I used "!vote" twice and "argument" three times).
   As for the "bolded vote", that's just how I generally handle my comments in XfDs or on proposed changes; I don't really see any reason why I shouldn't post like that, especially given the fact that I really disagree with the proposed addition (would it have been any different if I'd not used a bullet and had instead said "I strongly oppose this blah blah..."?). I generally have set patterns for a lot of what I do (any warning on a user's talk page is titled "Note", any block notification is titled "Notice", etc.), and that's just another one of them.
   I'm not really sure what I can do to convince you that I won't votecount, aside from saying that I won't, as I haven't done much AfD closing recently... of the stuff I've closed recently, there's AfD/Star Destroyer and AfD: Pirates of the Caribbean: 4, but those don't really relate much to the concern (well, maybe the Star Destroyer one, as I considered the Delete arguments by merit of their content, which I found wanting). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral