Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 15 July 2009

Tedder

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/2/0); Scheduled to end 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Tedder (talk · contribs) – I have gotten to know Tedder through our mutual involvement with WikiProject Oregon. Tedder has consistently found a number of different ways to contribute to the development of high-quality content about our state. He has published photographs which inspire others to write; made small but significant edits; initiated and contributed to various collaborative efforts. He's even blogged about his approach to improving Misplaced Pages!

Through all of this, I have come to know a guy who is welcoming to new contributors, who responds well to criticism and to new ideas, and who incorporates his Misplaced Pages passion into his life in a healthy and productive way. In discussing the possibility of an RfA, Tedder has gone out of his way to point me toward incidents where he has not displayed the greatest judgment; but the transgressions struck me as minor, and more importantly, he found effective ways to smooth over conflicts and move forward after the fact.

Tedder is also active on several noticeboards, and has sought out areas where he can put his background as a computer programmer to good use for the project.

In short, I believe Tedder possesses the right demeanor for an administrator -- which I happen to believe is the most important qualification -- and has also worked hard to amass the kind of experience that will help him quickly become a productive wielder of the mop. With great pride and admiration, I present to you Tedder, candidate for Administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks Pete!

I've been on en.wikipedia since April 2005, though at a low velocity for a large amount of that time. I fell in love with Misplaced Pages while I spent 6 months traveling through Latin America by motorbike; I would cache about 100-200 pages, read them offline, then have another 100-200 pages queued up for the next time I found internet access (and power for the laptop!). In fact, I made a few dozen edits during this time period, and added some photos too.

I've spent some of my time working on antivandalism. However, I've done much more than hit the "vandalism" button: I also spend time cleaning up articles, adding infoboxes, and finding and verifying information.

When I'm bored or not tackling larger edits, I have spent time in the NewPages backlog. I made some early mistakes, but feel I have a decent handle on what is covered under the various speedy guidelines. I've learned to do more than simply mark for speedy or mark as patrolled: depending on how the article fits into Misplaced Pages, I'll tag the article for improvements, welcome the editor with Friendly, and (most importantly) add at least one WikiProject to the talk page. For instance, I proposed an article for deletion, added it to a project, and let the project know in case they were interested.

Thanks for your consideration.

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: My intent is to help with antivandal and article-building efforts through areas like AIV, RPP, and AFD. I have some experience in those areas as a user. I'd also like to get involved with the EditFilters, which is harder to do without having access to the EditFilter bits.

There are certainly admin backlogs I could contribute to, such as RPP. I've seen articles come across my watchlist or EAR that could use some quick page protection to facilitate discussion and consensus.

Finally, being able to review deleted content will help in me cases where an article has been recreated and I'm trying to investigate its history.

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

A: I've started a few articles. I'm proud of the article on Black Rage (book); it's something I knew little about, yet I was able to research it and immediately have an impressive (if short) article. I've also created articles for Oak Grove Hydroelectric Project, Cash4Gold.com, Friends of Coal (done while motorcycling and camping across the US, which explains the speedy nomination), Ladd Tower (and the great photos on that page), First Regiment Armory Annex (plus its main photo), as well as few small articles for the barely-alive WikiProject Motorcycling, and the start of a page on the ARC TF Juan Ricardo Oyola Vera (check it out- very unique vessel!).

I also have a talent for "lateral editing". For instance, I've cleaned up every existing high school entry in Oregon, plus some additional communities well outside of Oregon (like this and this). Now that I finished the cleanup, I've been creating redlinked high schools in Oregon- in the above list, it's pretty clear where I've left off. (Lane County, in case it isn't obvious)

This lateral editing is part of the reason I want to wield the mop- to do things like noncontroversial speedy deletes for moves. I'm also proud that I got my first DYK for Clatskanie Middle/High School. I'm not a FA/GA creator, but I feel that I can make up for it with incremental improvements.

Finally, I'm happy with my "non-article" work, such as summarizing a longterm sock: Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse.

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: Oh, certainly. I created a RFC/UC not long ago, and I should have represented myself better in the situation. There are also ongoing articles, like AGV Sports Group, which still isn't fully resolved. However, I've been able to deal with all of them in stride, never being blocked, nor losing my temper and getting pointy. I'll continue to deal with it as I have in the past- follow policies, contact the other user(s), then ask for a third opinion from another editor, a WikiProject, or a noticeboard as necessary.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

4. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Misplaced Pages? That is, what do you think an ideal Misplaced Pages would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Hi ThaddeusB. In my opinion, I like the razor (adage) of notability. It's a convenient shortcut in AFD discussions so we don't have to reinvent the wheel by applying full rationale of the five pillars to every article discussed.

I think that some sort of third-party coverage should be found for every article, and some (many) should require much more. For instance, proving that a large college exists might be enough, while an offhand mention of a Myspace band in a local gig sheet wouldn't be enough. So the bar for inclusion on bands would be higher than a large college, for instance.

Again, this is my opinion, as you (Thaddeus) asked. I'm not saying I'll apply the razor according to my personal stance- I love having and following established policy.

5. I see that you have practiced answering RfA questions. I personally don't think anyone should hold that against you since you could have just as easily done it off wiki & no one would have known. However, some might view this as evidence of being "power hungry" - how would you respond to such a claim?

A: Yes, I practiced it on wiki. I'd hope that my past actions show that I'm not being "power hungry"- I don't spend a lot of time getting involved with drama, and certainly don't troll or do other evil things. I feel I'm weak in the writing skills that would lead to a FA, so I wanted to begin practicing typical answers to RfA questions. In reality, the most helpful part was having it up so I could refine my statement and initial questions. To summarize, I'd hope it shows I'm taking this seriously, not that I have evil intentions.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: (I'll come back to this)

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

7. Scenario: An article at AfD is ready to be closed. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar (say, "burial rituals in aboriginal cultures"). For you to consider are the nomination, which reads "Non-notable subject; I haven't found any sources", and six !votes: One from a new editor, saying "Delete per nom"; one from an IP address, saying "Keep and expand--this is well-covered in Frazer's Golden Bough"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Speedy delete as an attack page because the content is highly offensive to aborigines"; one from an administrator, saying "Merge and redirect to 'burial ritual' because there's not enough content to make a stand-alone article"; one from an experienced editor, saying "Keep per IP address"; and one from a new user, saying "Merge and redirect to 'aboriginal cultures'".

As a prospective AfD closer, please give your assessment of the consensus at this debate.

A: Thanks for the question, S Marshall. My first reaction would be to wait to see if a more confident admin wants to deal with it, since I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue. However, that's a copout for an RfA discussion, as I assume you want to know how I'd handle it if necessary.

Per the deletion guidelines, this is a case where there is no clear consensus to delete. I'd investigate the "highly offensive" comment: does the article appear to be offensive? Can I find anything while searching online to indicate this? Since it isn't a BLP article, the standards are slightly lower in terms of that comment, though it is still important for the article to have a neutral point of view.

AfD is not a vote, and the weights of each good-faith vote need to be considered. The nomination doesn't indicate they tried to find sources, and an IP implies that it can be verified in a source. I've discussed the "offensive to" comment. The admin (who is just a user in this discussion) says to merge, but "not enough content" is a surmountable problem if sources can be found. Finally, the last two votes show there's still no consensus, but it is leaning away from "delete".

Ultimately, assuming there's no way I can personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth (via searching and/or finding "Frazer's Golden Bough"), the best option would likely be to extend the discussion for another deletion period to see if consensus can be reached. I'd also make sure the AfD was delsorted correctly, to ensure interested parties can find the AfD. Sources have a way of being found if it is legitimate and the "keep" camp expends some effort.

• 7a: Let's imagine you've done the requisite homework by locating Misplaced Pages's article on The Golden Bough. Would this affect your decision to relist rather than closing, and if so, how?—S Marshall /_Cont 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Tedder: Tedder (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tedder can be found here.
• If you have questions or concerns you'd like a response on, please ask above or on the talk page, not in the oppose section.

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk page. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support excellent user with experience in many areas, and has the right demeanor. Triplestop x3 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Yay!! Never been third to support before :D But anyways, Tedder is a good user, good contribs, I've seen this user's edits around, should do fine. Good Luck!!! -FASTILY 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I looked through his contribs and saw no issues, barring a huge reason not to trust him, I'll be in support here Alexfusco 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I looked over some of his edits -- he seems reasonable, kind, and experienced, and he seems to have contributed a lot of good content. (I'll be sad to see his article contributions dwindle as he's swamped with admin tasks, which is what often happens to new admins, but that is no reason to oppose!) rspεεr (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Looking over his questions and contributions, I am confident that you will use the tools correctly. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Hard working, great contributions, civil, trustworthy, the whole bit. Will be a great admin. Good luck! :) LittleMountain5 02:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak support You make me a little bit nervous and I've found the Oregon project to be insular and bitey. But hopefully you'll be responsible, tolerant and show restraint as an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support; can't admit to having seen him around before, but I'll support pending any major concerns. –Juliancolton |  04:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Yes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I can only recall working with the candidate on a few occasions (nothing big), but seeing him all over WikiProject Oregon pages and not having to worry about his contributions matters alot. ZabMilenko 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support Tedder has been a model Wikipedian for many months: tirelessly doing heavy lifting—like working on all the Oregon High School articles, traveled hundreds of miles with camera, photographed, and uploaded a zillion photos and added them to the appropriate articles, and demonstrated great judgment in dealing with fellow Wikipedians. —EncMstr (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm with Julian, I can see no real problems here, and no reason why they should not have the tools. Andy (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. No reason to believe you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
16. The oppose thing is a little concerning but seems only a small blemish on an otherwise very good record. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Not going to delete the main page or blow up Misplaced Pages, so support.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but I am disturbed by the way Tedder, in early May, proposed two articles by a new user for deletion (), claiming in one case that the article was "Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual", when this was clearly false. Both articles had references to entries on these individuals in the American National Biography (a reference work published by the Oxford University Press). Tedder's explanation to me was not satisfactory. Tedder seems to miss the point that not only is an entry in a major national dictionary of biography like this one a reliable source, but being selected for inclusion in such a work in the first place is also clear evidence of the person's notability. An additional point: the newbie "welcomed" through these deletion proposals has not (so far) returned to Misplaced Pages. --Hegvald (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   I feel that his response (more specific diff than above) demonstrates an ability to be reasonable and communicative. A lesser candidate would have, rather than ask for an explanation, just submitted it to afd with "contested prod" as part the rationale. ZabMilenko 10:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Misplaced Pages as an administrator. As I have stated countless times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, but when you see userboxes like "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" and "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself", we're talking about something a lot different than that. We're talking about people who enjoy patting themselves on the back about just how smart and enlightened they must be, and people who take pleasure in belittling others' beliefs. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral