Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 14 February 2009

Amalthea

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (26/0/1); Scheduled to end 12:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea (talk · contribs) – I've been watching Amalthea for close to two months now when SoWhy and I were independently looking at his edits wondering why he wasn't an admin. Amalthea is truly a unique candidate for me... he came to my attention as result of my foray into CSD, where I became EXTREMELY impressed with his work. When I realized that SoWhy was also reviewing his edits, I asked Amalthea, I've actually been reviewing your edits for the past hour or two with the same thought in mind, why aren't you an admin? At the time, there was a very strong push for article building at RfA, and this is Amathea's weak area. While he has contributed to a number of articles, he can't point to scores of GAs/FAs or even DYKs, but he does work on articles as he stumbles upon them. Why do we really want people who have experience building articles? Well, I look for it because I want somebody who knows what it feels like to be on the other end of a speedy deletion or an over eager tagger. Article building is often seen as a measure of "this person understands the reality of contributing to the project."

Amalthea may not have as much experience as some might like in "Building the Encyclopedia," (not to say that he doesn't help build it) but his edits and his approach clearly shows somebody who understands what our principle purpose is all about and has plenty of clue. Amalthea is always willing to assume good faith and is always very civil.

I've been watching him for two months now, and I'm convinced that Amalthea has what it takes to be a great asset as an admin.---I'm Spartacus! 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

I am pleased that my very first co-nomination is Amalthea. I know the phrase "I thought he already was an admin" is used quite liberally these days but this is a genuine case of it. I was fooled thrice by his great comments and contributions, each time checking his userpage - each time being surprised that he was no admin. The third time, I decided to ask him why that is and he was surprised I found him suitable. I think that counts as modesty, as you will soon see.

Amalthea may not be a perfect content creator but rather more of a WikiGnome. But he is none of those who cannot create - once challengend, he easily got a DYK for a new article (and he said it felt good, so I guess we can see more content creation from him). So yes, this candidate is not an article creating robot...but he sure knows how to do it and he certainly knows the value of content creation.

Amalthea's more active areas are CSD and the deletion processes. He is one of the few non-admin regulars at WT:CSD, providing CLUEfully to those discussions and he proved his knowledge of policy over and over again. He has more than 80% deletion at the AfDs he nominated and provides good arguments to delete articles.Most of the times where it was kept, he either withdrew himself , , , or just fell victim to his helpfulness by nominating an article for someone else. Only a single article was kept against his nomination, which I think proves he is pretty knowledgeable (nobody is perfect after all).

Amalthea is friendly and helpful on his talk page, where I have seen many users asking for his help. He has a high number of Twinkle-edits but while some may see such edits as something negative if too many, Amalthea is actually improving Twinkle, not merely using it. His Barnstar-honored™ work improves Twinkle for the benefit of us all (except those like me who prefer Huggle^^).

So, for the WP:TLDR-crowd: Amalthea is a dedicated, friendly and helpful user who works many areas and giving him the mop will benefit us all a great deal. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Amalthea 12:01, 14 February 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: The areas I plan to work in right away are CSD and to a lesser extent AfD. I'm very familiar with the speedy deletion policy, and even though we don't have a backlog at AfD at the moment, I can help out there if one were to build up again. I've also started assisting Ioeth maintaining Twinkle lately. It would be helpful if I could edit the scripts directly, and wouldn't need to ask Ioeth to make changes for me.
I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, so when I'll eventually ease myself into other admin areas I'll know what to read, who to watch and who to ask until I feel confident enough to press any other buttons there.

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

A: I have recently written an article I'm quite proud of. I did this mostly because I myself would expect it from an RfA candidate, to show that I am here to work constructively even though the admin areas I mentioned above are mostly focused on deleting things.
My main purpose here has been to maintain the existing content, which I believe is just as important by now as creating new content. That includes fact-checking new additions and adding references, cleaning up after vandals, and comparing both old and new articles with our inclusion criteria.
I've also helped a number of new users with their first steps and articles here, and worked on some of the behind-the-scenes things, e.g. the CSD notification templates.

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: After mistaking a disruptive edit for vandalism and undoing/reverting thrice I was only-warned by Tiptoety for edit warring, three months ago. The two 3RR reports can be found here, and this is the exchange I had with Tiptoety afterwards. I have certainly learned from it to be more considerate with disruptive, but not vandalistic edits.
Other than that there were only minor differences, all of which can be found in my archive.

General comments

• Links for Amalthea: Amalthea (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/Amalthea before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support pending no problems discovered by anyone else. I haven't got the time to check right now, but I fully trust both nominators and every encounter I've had with Amalthea in the past was fine. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Helpful and clueful, two things that make for an excellent admin. Richard 12:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support of course. :) Though I'd ask SoWhy to get the admin-highlighter or something. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   I considered that but like the username highlighter, it does not work with most people's signatures. ;-) SoWhy 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Support a good candidate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Co-nominator support. Wish I could make it stronger than that ;-) SoWhy 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support 9,000 edits, no blocks, sensible user page and I get a very good feel from the talk page. WereSpielChequers 13:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   It's over 9,000, actually. –Juliancolton 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Yep.  GARDEN  13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Will be a good admin. -- Mentifisto 13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support No reason to oppose.--Giants27 TC 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I think that Cyclonenim said it best. Sam 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Amalthea has demonstrated their trustworthiness and will make an excellent admin. Rje (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - thought Amalthea was already, actually. //roux   14:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - no reason not to. –Juliancolton 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support On strength of nom statements and my review of CSD work makes me think user knows it's better to improve than delete. Not that the candidate lacks empathy, but I've never seen empathy as a requirement for recognizing CSD candidates-- the template messages exist for a reason, in so far as the feelings involved are concerned. Nor have I seen a connection between being a super article creator and understanding what it's like to have your first article deleted per CSD. (Kinda lack a slap in the face, if no one bothers to let you know why. Like I said, those template messages exist for a reason.) Dlohcierekim 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
17. SoWhyNot --Tikiwont (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

18. Support: Seen him around Wiki numerous times, always well impressed. — R 15:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong support. Many contribs like this one that show precise, broad, guideline- and policy-based knowledge about what does and doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages articles. The lack of extensive work on "his own" articles is not a problem for me; in fact, I'm more impressed that this editor is confident enough to apply what he knows to other people's articles, especially people who need a helping hand starting out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    If I may, this is actually a rather sensitive situation, tied in with this ANI report. I'm not usually that verbose when it comes to discuss myspace and facebook links. In this case however I'm happy that the editor in question has started to discuss at all. --Amalthea 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

20. Support, decent all-round editor. --Aqwis (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
22. "Thought he was already" indeed. I was surprised to see their name up here. Give this guy the mop and be done with it. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support User has been around since September 2005 and great track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak support. Support as candidate has never been blocked and per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends) (deleting per lack of verifiability is indeed the right call; however, one bit of caution is that WP:N is NOT our “inclusion guidelines” plural. We have multiple inclusion guidelines. Notice that Misplaced Pages:Inclusion guidelines is a red link and where Misplaced Pages:Inclusion criteria redirects to (some place other WP:N. And WPN is currently disputed in terms of should it be demoted, renamed, etc.), but neutral per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ugnaughts (a call to merge is not unreasonable, but subsequent reply to another editor cites WP:FICT, which is of course a disputed essay) and per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk (again, merge not totally unreasonable, but well, y'all know how I stand...). Anyway, almost meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, so weak support. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - without question. J.delanoy_adds 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Strongly: I've interacted with Amalthea on more than one occasion, and my interactions have always been positive. Amalthea is an excellent editor, is a good voice in discussion, and a friendly person. Had I been more aware of them being interested in becoming an admin, I would have been a nominator. Acalamari 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I have a lot of respect for Tiptoety and trust his judgment. I would like to see more if this user can be trusted after the run in. This happened too recently to just ignore, and warnings are still important. We have enough admin who revert too casually and get into warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)