Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 6 October 2009

Tcncv

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (23/2/3); Scheduled to end 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Tcncv (talk · contribs) – Tcncv has been with us for a year and a half (having been a rollbacker since December 2008). He has extensive vandalism fighting experience and always reacts calmly even to the rudest of comments. I have no need for an extravagant nomination statement — Misplaced Pages would benefit from having Tcncv as an admin, enough said. @harej 03:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: I expect that my initial participation will be slow and cautious, likely limited to monitoring and taking action on some of the routine action lists. I will admit up front that I am not familiar with all of the policies and procedures associated with adminship and have a lot to learn. That said, I'm not going to jump right in and start mucking things up until I watch, read, and learn the accepted procedures for each of the tasks I take on. Still, I will likely stick to the routine administrative tasks in the foreseeable future, possibly looking at areas that tend to get backlogged. As a recent changes patroller, I have a particular interest in seeing prompt action to entries on the WP:AIAV page, but would not limit myself to that task.

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

A: I am not a major contributor of new content. I have mostly participated as a recent changes patroller, page watcher, and reference desk participant. Occasionally, I'll voice an opinion on some of the policy pages.

In my participation as a recent changes patroller, I keep a special watch for subtle changes to established facts, such as dates and figures, and will take extra time to check he page history, follow cited references, and do a quick Google search to determine of the change warrants a revert. I also watch for and will occasionally defend the new user attempting to make some good faith changes that is being repeatedly reverted by Huggle operators. (Don't get me wrong - Huggle is a great tool, but once a user has two of three warnings, the resulting red flag will almost certainly lead to a revert from someone on any subsequent edits.)

Occasionally, I'll stop and attempt to resolve a conflict, not as a mediator, but by researching the subject and either voicing a third opinion or proposing a compromise. Possibly my only significant contribution was to research and rewrite the US Airline Pilots Association article to provide balanced coverage following a series of provocative edits, presumably by members of both sides of the covered seniority list controversy. Admittedly not great writing, but I believe tha relevant facts are fairly covered.

I also participated for a while on the 2008 Olympics articles - mostly performing table maintenance in the athletics and swimming categories. One of my edits () consolidated several bullet lists into a (IMHO) much more readable table format. I also led a discussion on medal result table formatting standards.

On the reference desk, I try to contribute where my background and knowledge allows. I've had some really good answers () and an occasional bad one (). Well, nobody's perfect.

I am really more of a technical person than a writer and have dabbled in fixes to the {{nts}} template to fix sorting or negative numbers ( and ) and a proposed change to wikibits.js to fix sorting in tables containing rowspans and colspans. Unfortunately, neither has yet been implemented due to lack of apparent interest. I also worked on a sophisticated template to calculate accurate geodetic distances ({{Template:Tcncv/Geodist/Vincenty1}}) at the request of another user, but there is likely little practical use for it, so it was more of an academic exercise than a real contribution. Recently, I have contributed the regular expressions and test cases for the Full-date unlinking bot. That work seems to have prompted harej to nominate me here.

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: Other than cases of obvious vandalism, I do not recall being involved in any edit conflicts that I didn't promptly take to the discussion page. Everybody has an opinion, and mine doesn't count for more than anybody else's. Even on the discussion pages, my philosophy is to state my opinion in a non-provocative manner, back it up with evidence if possible, and then listen to others. Although I may expand on my opinion in follow-up posts, I believe it is counterproductive to continuously restate a position or to post an argument to every differing opinion. I suspect that, in most cases, all involved have likely made up their minds after the first few posts.

I aim to be courteous and responsive in all of my posts, regardless of the tone or actions of the editor to whom I am writing (, ). I think the closest I have come to going over the edge was this comment at the end of an exceeding frustrating discussion.

Questions from ArcAngel

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

A: A ban is an administrative ruling, possibly by the arbitration committee, that a user is prohibited from performing X activity for a designated period. The user remains active and is otherwise free to contribute. A block is a usually temporary, sometimes indefinite technological prohibition from editing typically imposed after a pattern of disruptive edits, policy violations, or incivility.

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: I started to assume that a cool down block was a short (i.e. 24 hour) block applied to an editor after a period of disruptive edits, but on checking WP:BP, I see that the term specifically refers to a short block to quiet an angry user - a use that is not allowed. In that context, the answer is never. It is better to continue discussion and work to achieve a resolution via the talk pages. A block would limit this avenue towards resolution and might further aggravate the editor. (I will note that specific actions such as 3RR violations or personal attacks may still warrant a temporary block.)

6. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: Hmmm. Not sure if you are looking for a specific correct answer here. Some possibilities might be "assume good faith", "don't abuse my privileges", "respect other opinions", or "remain civil". Other answers might involve protecting the integrity of Misplaced Pages and guarding against copyright violations and BLP libel issues. I expect that as I read the various pages listed in WP:ARL, I could come up with other good answers. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is worded such that there really is no correct answer, per se. It's really more of a gauge as to what YOU think the most important WP policy is. Think of it as a question that "gets inside your head".  :) ArcAngel (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

7. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: I'll be up front. I have two alternate accounts – Tcncv2 (talk · contribs) and Tcncvbot (talk · contribs). The first was to examine new user settings. The second was created in anticipation of creating and running some date related cleanup scripts, but was mostly superceded by my work on the Full-date unlinking bot. I do not anticipate ever having a need to create an alternate account without full disclosure, but if special circumstances warranted such an account, I expect I would ask permission from and disclose this fact to the bureaucrats group or other appropriate authorities.

Additional optional questions from Belinrahs

8. What is your view on Misplaced Pages Watch?

A: I was not previously familiar with that site. My first impression is that I'd take no offence and would treat it as pointing out opportunity for improvements. By its nature, Misplaced Pages is vulnerable to the introduction of misinformation, copyrighted material, and the like. Some of the patrolled edit proposals floating around might provide some mitigation, but I think it is most important to make sure the reader is aware of the possibility and to suggest that they check the references and/or check the history if there is any doubt to the accuracy of an article. (I may revise my answer when I have more time to look at this site.)

9. Choose a scenario from Filll's AGF Challenge 2 (directions), and try to answer it as best as you can.

A.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

10. For what reason would files be uploaded to en.wikipedia? What problems would you expect that an administrator would have to take care of with them?

A:

Additional optional questions from Caspian blue

11. Have you ever had any account other than the current one, Tcncv? You showed profound knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules and familiarity with tools from the first day on English Misplaced Pages.

A: I had _no_ Misplaced Pages experience prior to my first edit of record. I discovered the recent changes list and Twinkle early on. Those were my primary tools for interacting with Misplaced Pages in my early days. I later started to build a watch list and picked up Huggle.

Optional questions from Keepscases

12. What are the origins of your username?

A: It's a combination of my own initials and those of my home town.

13. How is your username pronounced?

A: Good question. I guess I'm due for a name change, or at least a signature line change. For now, call me "Tom".

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

14. What learning do you think a prospective admin. can gain from the sock puppet saga and the associated ArbCom proceedings at and

. {I’m not looking for a lengthy response and it’s not a question intended to trip you up in any way, but the case is highly relevant to the general user community and our confidence in those who are selected to manage it.)

A:

General comments

• Links for Tcncv: Tcncv (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tcncv can be found here.

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

Discussion

• General editing statistics are available on the talk page. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Report on speedy delete in deleted contribs: There were less than 10 speedy delete taggings. G10 G3 G2 G7 and R3 all looking close to good. Only one R3 tagging missed the mark by not being a recently created redirect (4 years old), but deleted anyway. There was also a successful prod. (well unsuccessful for the article creator) Any declined speedy delete taggings should be visible to all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Been around quite a while, great many contributions, seems to have need for the tools for AIV, no apparent red flags, seems to deal well with stress. And I think bonus points should be in order for this :) --Saalstin (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2. As nominator. @harej 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - I see nothing but good here. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
4. The Strongest of Supports - ever. From looking at the stats and stuff on this user, and comparing to my own (from when I submitted my RfA), I can clearly see now why so many opposed my RfA. This user is outstanding - someone who has got me inspired. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I want to oppose based on not recognizing your user name and not being totally convinced you're human. But I couldn't find anything to object to in your edit history or answers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support despite my strong belief that an admin should be well-rounded in writing and sourcing article content as well as vandal fighting and other important areas. Tcncv's straightforward manner in admitting shortcomings in that area (writing) wins me over. Answer to Q1 rings true, well said. Seems quite level-headed, vital for the job. All in all, a good choice for the post, and appears most unlikely to misuse the tools. Wish the candidate the best of good fortune. Jusdafax 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Looks fine to me. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Support – Great demeanor, good knowledge of technical aspects, and researches before acting. Not a big contributor of new material, but has made plenty of constructive edits. Most importantly, one who focuses on the mission with absolutely no drama. I predict clear sailing for any such candidate this week who offers us a breath of fresh air. We need more people who don't see being an admin as a goal. User page is a good example of WP:OWB #5. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I see where Tan is coming from with his neutral, but the Q1 honesty also blances an "if in doubt - don't" attitude which I like. Further "Everybody has an opinion, and mine doesn't count for more than anybody else's" in Q3 was very impressive. Not much content work, to be true, but reference desk work is allways a plus. Net positive with the extra bits. Pedro :  Chat  09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   As a further aside, the nomination from User:harej was very crisp and clean. Given my terrible propensity for verbose nominations filled with bulleted lists I have to say it was a pleasure to read such a succinct rationale! Pedro :  Chat  09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Agree with Pedro. Answer to Q1 shows willingness to be patient and to not do what one does not know how to do and thus is a sign of a candidate who probably will read up on anything they do not know before acting. I could not find anything particularly concerning with the candidate's contribution, only their somewhat fractured edit history is a bit concerning. But every good editor is better with the mop than without it, even if they do not wield the mop often. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Patient, great track. ceranthor 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Question 1's answer kind of gives me a bit of pause (you should really be quite knowledgable of the policies related to admins before undertaking an RfA) but we all learn along the way. I'd be lying if I said I knew all the policies pre-RfA. Good luck.  public GARDEN  11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
13. We need more admins — badly.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - Awesome editor, great attitude... Will make a great admin. Strong comes from Saalstin's diff above.--Unionhawk 12:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. I have a good feeling about this candidate. Q1 is a bit vague, and you did go over the edge with that comment in my opinion, but all in all it's a minor infraction. Seems to have above-average proficiency with the technological stuff, which is always a positive. decltype (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)The wiki-implementation of Vincenty's formulae is very impressive!
16. Support. The candidate is light in CSD work, but I'll take 1 correct, non-BITEy tagging over 10 iffy ones any day. Most good admins go easy in their first days and weeks, to make sure they have a handle on what's what - and I think this candidate would be well advised to do the same. But I like their candor and their attitude, and I concur that their adminship will be a net positive to the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support looks fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - the answer to question one and the first paragraph of q2 answer was enough for me. This editor will not cause havoc with the tools, and will probably do very much good. (I also want to know if "tekunkvuh" is correct pronunciation) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support No concerns right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - While not all of the questions have been answered, the answers to the questions given look fine and Tcncv does seem to have plenty of experience. -- Atama頭 16:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support My concern have been alleviated, and based on A1, I do not believe the candidate will break anything. ArcAngel (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per harej, who knows how to find clueful and reasonable people. ;) In all seriousness, Tcncv looks like a good guy, competent, calm, "gets it", all of that. I'd much rather have somebody who has a head on their shoulders and respects others, who isn't familiar with all the policies, than somebody who can recite policy yet lacks standalone judgement. The answers are a plus, especially Q1 and Q3 as Pedro pointed out - no problems here. JamieS93 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I have no issue with the username. I was just curious. Keepscases (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate seems civil, but I oppose him per the fact that the candidate is essentially unexperienced in most of fields that administrative attentions are required such as XfD, AN, AN/I, RFPP and others, and per the unsatisfactory answer to the Q1 as well as "too poor" article building. Only "one list article" and insufficient interactions for contents in one and half year does not convince me to believe that the candidate fully acknowledge core content policies. Plus, depending on what the candidate would answer my question or further answer to others' question raised, I would be sticking here or not.--Caspian blue 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Per the odd non-answer to Q11, in light of recent drama at WP:RFAR. Will reconsider if the nominee confirms that they never used any other account except those mentioned in Q7.  Sandstein  20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Attitude and demeanor seem great. Neutral on Q1; something about this strikes me as "meh" but I can't put my finger on it. Not much actual content work, and not enough collaborative evidence for me. It probably wouldn't be a bad thing if the candidate was promoted, but I can't bring myself to support. Tan | 39 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answers to questions and discovery of CSD work, if any. Moved to support. ArcAngel (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Regarding Tcncv's CSD's; he seems to be averaging about 1 tagging per month, so I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor. There was a questionable G1 back in early February, otherwise nothing particularly worrying. decltype (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I agree on Q1; familiarity with policies is assumed as a criteria, but then maybe you're being exceptionally honest, and I wouldn't want to discourage honesty. I'll stand out for now, review some more maybe. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - The answer to Q11 does not address the question. Concerned that this means something. Had a bad feeling before seeing that anyway. — neuro 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)