Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 14 September 2007

Number 57

Voice your opinion (talk page) (25/14/0); Scheduled to end 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Number 57. Number 57 is in his 11th month of active editing and has amassed almost twelve thousand edits. He's written a lot of Israeli stuff and populated many electoral templates, which is an extra-thankless task. He's got a graduate degree and is an intelligent, well-mannered, and non-conflict-seeking person. I see one stinky edit war at {{Irish elections}} back in May. He has no blocks.

Having seen quality work from this user, and in the hopes that he will continue to do quality work with administrative tools, I invite you to support Number 57's candidacy for sysoppery. -- Y not? 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Number 57 18:51, 10 September 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Having got burned on a CSD a few months ago (albeit following some misadvice from an admin!), I decided to brush up on deletion policy. I therefore expect to contribute to clearing the CSD backlog, as well as dealing with expired prods and closing AfDs and RMs. As I keep an eye on a lot of Middle East-related articles, I will also be able to lock articles which are developing into edit wars (although obviously not ones I am involved in).

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

A: In terms of articles, I guess my most satisfying contributions were completing the Israeli elections series, and making sure there is an article on every party to sit in the Knesset. As Y mentions above, the majority of the elections template series is my work.

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: Shamefully I have once received a 3RR warning, though I believe I remained civil, and that it was a genuine attempt to try and enforce the discussion's outcome (or lack of it) against someone who could be described as a disruptive editor. Otherwise I tend to stick to talk pages and try and solve disputes in a more civilised manner (see an annoyingly circular discussion at Talk:FIFA 08#Ulster Banner beside FAI league as a recent example) and am not too stubborn to change my mind on issues if people present good evidence to the contrary.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't think I have done anything to inflate my edit count - it is not something I boast about. I believe most of my edits are constructive and not minor; at the moment I am going through Category:Former Members of the Knesset and adding Template:MKs and expanding them (see my edits to Naomi Blumenthal earlier today). I wouldn't do anything different if I were not running for adminship, particularly as I was only offered a nomination just over week ago (and had not requested one)! Number 57 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Number 57's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Number 57: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Number 57 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom -- Y not? 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Support The 3RR warning is the only concern I have. Good editor count. But there is something tell me to go netural. For now, Support. Pat 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support The 3RR was back in May. A review of the current talk page shows only positives. He meets my standards by a long shot. Could not find a reason to oppose. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   Switched to strong support. Like the way user comports self under pressure. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Support - Good contributions, and having Y as a Sherpa says a good deal considering his (too) high of standards. --David Shankbone 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support because of the Oppose !vote. We need more admins willing to stand up to our nationalist factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   What exactly do you mean by that? It seems to me like a poor rationale for supporting an RfA.--DLand 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Wow, I wouldn't want this editor to go through RfA #58... —AldeBaer 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as an excellent editor, with many new articles and templates, lots of mainspace edits especially. Being bold is OK. Can be trusted. Bearian 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per above. (Wikimachine 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
9. Support per nom. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support No reason to oppose. A great editor as well. --Siva1979 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per nom statement. · jersyko talk 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. the user has the perfect balance of boldness, pragmatism, and civility needed for the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, no big deal. Nothing wrong with this editor. Melsaran (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support i trust N° 57 and i approve Mailer Diablo's approval! -- FayssalF - 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, good editor. Everyking 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. A good editor, the extra tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• /C 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Good editor, and I was very impressed with his calmness explaining points to other editors during the Irish nationalist edit-war that he found himself unwittingly caught up in on the FIFA08 article, as he mentions above. ELIMINATORJR 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support because none of those opposes raise objections that actually have anything to do with being an administrator. -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - per my brief review of this editor's contributions. I have to say I agree with all the supposedly objectionable edits with the possible exception of the holiday renaming, for which I would have to count ghits to form an opinion. Why would Category:Religious Israeli settlements even exist if it wasn't for settlements? And the canvassing here is really putrid. ←Ben 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

    Opposition was obviously to creation of the category :-) And however one would like to characterise the two messages, my being mentioned above by Number 57 in and of itself means that my being notified of said mention is in order. Tewfik 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

22. Support good editor who has so far been valuable to wikipedia. I don't think we shoudl let our personal POVs get in the way of this adminship.Bless sins 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, I've only had positive encounters with this editor up to now. —Nightstallion 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support what Siva1979 said. Acalamari 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support, I've seen only good things from this editor. The counterparts of his edit history seems a bit overestimated and just not enough. --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Dedicated editor who deserves the position. Am I wrong, or is there an appearance below in the oppose section of an orchestrated campaign by a certain Wikiproject to torpedo this RfA? If so, I think there may be grounds for an RfAR if this RfA closes as unsuccessful. Cla68 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Truthfully, I don't know the criteria required for adminship, but has been nice and helpful to me.--LAZY 1L 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have seen very positive contributions from this user, but it would be unwise to give admin powers to someone who has, on multiple very recent occasions, made controversial and disruptive mass edits without seeking consensus. One example: Moving several Israeli holiday articles to their respective English translations - without asking for feedback at all. This action generated immediate outrage from editors of those pages, and they were promptly moved back.(Yom Yerushalayim, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Hazikaron)

   Another example: Removing about 40 articles from Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel and placing them in Category:Religious Israeli settlements - without any discussion - just the edit summary "rm cat - not in Israel". (one of the many diffs:Alon Shevut)

   And one more thing - it's ok for an admin or editor to have a POV - we all do. However, it's not ok for one's POV to fuel inappropriate disruptive edits like this one to Gordon Brown.--DLand 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see any harm in any of these. WP:BE BOLD. The Gordon Brown edit was not inappropriate either. Maybe it's not what I would have done, but it's certainly within the realm of the legitimate. -- Y not? 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

   This isn't mentioned, but this wasn't a one time edit -- I count three reversions of the category on the article linked; I'm not sure that just calling this boldness makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   being bold when it affect multiple articles with politically controversial implications is perhaps a little on the reckless side. Perhaps the candidate will comment on whether he would still do such changes today.DGG (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   My removal of Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories was done to in order to comply with WP:NPOV - saying settlements are in Israel is very pro-Israel POV, otherwise why would it be called a settlement if it is in Israel? I believe my move was justified by a later discussion on the WikiProject Israel which did see a majority of editors support the move, and by the fact that one of the editors who originally opposed the move has now suggested another solution which removes "in Israel" from the wording. Also a minor quibble to DLand's assertions above - I did bring up the move of Jerusalem Day on its talk page almost a week before moving it back in April. Number 57 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   My reply to this below. Tewfik 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per DLand. Number 57 is a fantastic editor, but I'm concerned that he might not practice blind justice. If Number 57 re-applies in a year or so and becomes less argumentative, then maybe I'd vote for him then. --GHcool 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Canvassed vote. diff. DLand, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. -- Y not? 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I did not know the different wikiprojects sent representatives to RfA. RfA is not a vote or a convention. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, Blind justice? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I left a neutrally worded friendly notice. It is very relevant for members of WP:ISRAEL to be apprised of this RfA, as Number 57 is an active contributor to Israel-related articles. I don't believe that I have violated policy or have anything to be ashamed of.--DLand 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Friendly notices to carefully chosen sympathizers? Don't embarrass yourself any further. -- Y not? 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   The patronizing tone is uncalled for, irrespective of our disagreement on this matter.--DLand 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose A candidate who says they wish to significantly work in AFD and related project space areas, but who has more edits to his own RFA than any AFD needs a great deal more experience before I trust them with the tools. VanTucky 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as I believe Number 57 to be a generally good editor, but my experience on the categorisation issue mention above leaves me unsettled. That is, there was no majority, and certainly not a consensus in favour of either of the two moves he carried out beforehand, and yet he edit-warred to maintain them despite the subsequent objections of several editors (myself included). The changes themselves violated Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization, and so what was most worrisome to me was that after accepting that the first proposal was rejected, he carried out a second proposal that violated the same policy in a different manner. I have to disagree as well with the assertion that I dropped my opposition to the second proposal, as the CfD in question is merely a hope that a venue outside of what had become an unproductive conversation might more clearly show that the problem with his proposal lay, not in politics, but in Misplaced Pages policy on categorisation. While he has supported me there, it is unclear to me whether it stems from any new appreciation of the policy, and whether it will impact his future actions, which is ultimately the crux of the issue for me. Tewfik 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Canvassed vote. diff. -- Y not? 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Again, this was not a canvassed vote - please read WP:CANVASS#Campaigning.--DLand 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   But would the user have !voted without being !canvassed? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Considering that Number 57 referenced me in his comments above,("one of the editors who originally opposed the move") I should certainly have been informed so as to share my thoughts here. Tewfik 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Should we then inform one of the editors who originally supported the move? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Tempting, but no - two wrongs (and it is wrong - DLand's actions are votestacking, not campaigning) don't make a right. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   That is not correct. Votestacking is when the users contacted "are on the record with a specific opinion" - such as with a userbox or other categorization. Campaigning is when the users "are thought to have a predetermined point of view". I did the latter (not en masse either) which is not against policy. It's a subtle, but critical distinction. I still believe that I was justified - it's important that users who are familiar with Number 57's editing, and have interacted with him as well, are able to express themselves. I think that a lot of editors who don't follow AFD regularly would be very upset that they missed this one, should they find out that Number 57 was made an admin without their having a say.--DLand 14:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Personally I believe that contacting editors who you believe are going to vote in a particular manner is votestacking, not campaigning. But the point is that it matters little anyway, because WP:CANVASS clearly says that even campaigning is wrong, even though there are not "hard and fast rules" on sanctions. At the very least, it is discouraged. And to do it on an RfA is particularly disruptive. ELIMINATORJR 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   So it would be O.K. to inform, oh 1 or 2 editors who originally supported the move? Not convassing or campaigning or stacking, just informing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Seems like WP:POINT to me, but I wouldn't object to it. I think some other editors who disagree with my reading of policy would take issue, though.--DLand 15:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   You'd consider that as WP:POINT when that's exactly what you've already done? Words fail me, frankly. BTW, to avoid clogging up this RFA, this discussion is better continued at the relevant thread on WT:RFA. ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I apologise for the perception of disruption. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of what seemed an unusual occurence on an RfA. Again, I am sorry. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Tewfik. The POV issues in Israel-related articles are a serious concern for an aspiring admin. In addition, the aggressive behavior of his supporters on this RFA is unlikely to help. Beit Or 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose edit warring is evidence of pushing a POV, and some of the edits noticed above and supporters' justifications for them - not disavowed by the nominee - cause me to question whether the editor has the maturity and good sense not to use the tools to advance that POV. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, I'm not sure what POV you are getting at - the conflict I had on {{Irish elections}} was over the inclusion of a flag, and against an editor who is known (and has been blocked) for edit warring over flags. Number 57 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment the dispute on {{tl:Irish Election}} wasn't about the inclusion of a flag, it was about the overuse of flagicons in these templates, where you argued against and reverted any editor that reduced the number of the same flag from three to one, using the reason that all the templates used numberous incidence of the same flag, the talk page clearly shows this.--padraig 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per above. Very legit concerns.--Sefringle 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Beit Or and several other comments above. -- Karl Meier 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - a weak Misplaced Pages-space count and some rather rash decisions which have left others flustered have unfortunately left dark stains on this user's reputation. Once they're permanently ironed out, and you've learned from advice given here, you should make a great admin. Not yet though I feel. Lradrama 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose The issues raised above are concerns enough for me. Jmlk17 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose having watched the discussion of FIFA08, evidence of pushing a POV in my opinion.--Domer48 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, but how is pointing out that the Ulster Banner is used to represent Northern Ireland in sporting terms (which it unquestionably used to do) and requesting that people that wanted it removed to show consistency and delete the other flags pushing a POV? Number 57 12:25, 13 September 2007(UTC)

    Comment the Ulster Banner is not used to represent sport in Northern Ireland, it is used the represent the Northern Ireland National Team when they play international football, or when Northern Ireland competes in the Commonwealth games. In the case of the FIFA 08 article it was being used for political reasons to represent Northern Ireland as a country which is incorrect as it is not now or ever was the flag of that country.--padraig 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose PoV pushing on FIFA 08 article did not give a constructive solution just stayed with his PoV. BigDunc 12:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    So "Please be consistent and remove all the other secondary flags too, not just the NI one" is not a constructive solution? Number 57 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

comment A little on the paranoid side dont you think every one gathering up against you. BigDunc 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Based on the somewhat over-defensive attitude here in replying to questions, I do not have confidence about the ability to deal with the inevitable criticism an admin will receive. This is not a comment about the particular views expressed in any CfD or other discussion. DGG (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Apologies if I seem somewhat defensive, but I am naturally disappointed that my RfA has been hijacked by two separate groups of editors who have objected to my attepts to prevent POV pushing. I maintain that the claims of POV against me are unfounded - in the case of Israeli settlements, I was preventing them being classified as "in Israel". The so-called POV pushing on the FIFA 08 talk page is a total fabrication - as I show above, I pointed out that the Ulster Banner is used in a sporting context, but if editors demanded its removal, they should show consistency and remove the others. Number 57 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   I quite agree. This entire RfA has been a disgrace to Misplaced Pages practically from the start, and I suggest to Number_57 that he withdraws it and comes back in the future when hopefully a number of people can conduct themselves as befitting an encyclopedia. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

   Just commenting that I actually agree with the Number57's edits in most of the instances discussed; that is not at least for me the issue. DGG (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per points raised above, very concerning for a sysop. --Ben 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I find it suspicious that the nomination was made just before Rosh Hashana (the jewish new-year), a three day holiday, when orthodox jews do not use computers. As the candidate has made a lot of Israel related edits, there are plenty of orthodox jews that would like to have an input.--Macallan 12 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral