Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schierbecker (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 18 June 2012 (→Questions for the candidate: I'm incomprehensible when I'm tired). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Marcus Qwertyus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 09:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Marcus Qwertyus (talk · contribs) – I know self-noms have a low success rate, but asking for one is too desperate for my taste.

I'm a Wikipedian of three and a half years, contributing primarily to technology and military topics.

My last RFA in July 2010 burned because of some incorrect interpretation I had of WP:CORPNAME. To be fair, the wording was less clear than it is now: "Explicit use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. ...Accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." Now the wording is a lot more prescriptive and more forgiving.

This does not excuse my approach with Jansport87. I issued an 36-hour deadline for either an effort to change usernames or an assurance that he was not in the employ of JanSport. Maybe I thought of it as an extension of the normal time I give users, but Jansport certainly didn't. He made edits leading up to the deadline and none thereafter. In retrospect, WP:RFC/NAME would have been a much better place to discuss the issue had I suspected Jansport87 were actually employed by the world's largest backpack company. Hindsight is always 20/20 right? I'm ready to give this another go if you are willing to let me prove myself. I have the enthusiasm and maturity to serve this project for many years. Marcus Qwertyus 00:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: From the get-go I would like to close move requests, and CSD and XFD nominations. After getting comfortable with the tools in these areas, I would master more advanced tasks like merging histories and investigating accused sockpuppetss. I have extensive experience participating in proposed page moves and I can gauge consensus pretty well.

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

A: I'm a believer in the saying that perfect is the enemy of good. As a result of this and my poor motivation, I have very little featured work to show. I have Ground Combat Vehicle as a GA and its companion article, GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, which I gave up on making perfect when the project was canceled for the umpteenth time (see FCS Manned Ground Vehicles, ASM Program and that failure called the M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle). I have gotten other articles like Pinterest, main battle tank to a respectable quality but I have never pursued GA status for them.

I enjoy working on the main page where I have spent many hours whipping main page news items into shape on short notice. There is a dearth of willing administrators monitoring WP:Main Page/Errors or putting new items on Template:ITN in a timely manner. These are tasks I am willing to do.

On the gnome-ier side of things, I've saved people lots of extra clicks with my work at Wikiproject Disambiguation and made article titles more recognizable by making them adhere to WP:AT. (list of all page moves)

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: Talk:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China#Move to Propaganda in China. Here I get a little hot-headed over the false conclusion that I had deliberately contravened the established consensus. Lesson learned? The takeaway from this is that you should read the edit history and talk page before making bold moves.

4. Recall?

A: Although voluntary recall should not take the place of establishing consensus for a mandatory de-adminship policy, I am willing to relieve the bit after a week-long simple majority vote on my talk page.

Additional question from My76Strat

5. Please describe the entire admin action you would take if you observed what you reasonably believed to be an adult user soliciting a minor child for sexual favors?

A: I would email the Arbitration Committee the evidence and revdelete any public comments and accusations by others about the matter. Marcus Qwertyus 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from RegentsPark

6. An editor shows up on your talk page complaining about the way another admin has closed a controversial move request and moved the article. You look at the move request (A --> B) and your reaction is "What the heck was he smoking - A is obviously the right title!". What will you do?

A: First I would ask the admin for a better rational or to reconsider. He or she may have been Editing Under the Influence. This will solve most problems. Failing that, I may reopen another requested move in a weeks time and ask the admin to allow someone else to close the debate. It probably isn't worth going through dispute resolution for something as menial as an article title.

Additional question from Cntras

7. Using an example, explain your understanding of WP:IAR.

A: An administrator has un-protected an article. The next day another admin re-instates the protection and promptly suffers a fatal accident. At this point it is fair to wheel war the second admin, if there is consensus to do so, so that the article does not languish in its protected state untill the end of time. IAR is necessary because it is impractical to foresee every loophole and exception. That said, I have never seen a successful argument for IAR. Marcus Qwertyus 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from ItsZippy

8. Your nomination statement is a bit thin: could you explain more fully why you believe you think you need the tools, why you can be trusted with them, and why we should support you as an admin candidate?

A:

Additional question from Hahc21

9. How would you determine the difference between reverting vandalism and edit warring, and how will you consider (in those cases) the 3RR rule to be violated?

A: Vandalism is done with bad intentions and . If it can be reasonably assumed that the accused editor is earnestly trying to improve the Misplaced Pages, it is just a fundamental disagreement between the two editors. Even if the accused editor's head isn't screwed on quite right, sometimes you can at least assume the presence of a belly button. Marcus Qwertyus 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ktr101

10. Hey Marcus. Would you be willing to explain the large number of blue "db-banned" tags on this page? I'm quite curious, as DarkFalls helped address some of the blue links here, but I'm wondering why you didn't pursue getting them deleted. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A: All were creations of the incarnates of banned copyright violator OSUHEY. See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/OSUHEY. I cannot continue pursuing deletion due to a lack of a response from said user. Marcus Qwertyus 02:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

11. This is a spin off of some of the above questions. I notice that you have placed {{db-banned}} on a couple of obviously notable articles, generally politicians, many of which included edits by non-banned editors. Articles include Ross Boggs, Bill Holtzclaw, Paul Bussman, Fred Dyson, and Cooper Snyder. More recent examples are from January 2011 and include Charleta Tavares, Anthony DeVitis, and John Hagan (Ohio politician) among numerous others. As it has been some time, please explain your understanding of criteria G5, specifically in respect to its requirement that all substantial edits be from the banned user in order for the article to be deleted. In addition, please explain your interpretation of Ignore all rules as it applies to obviously notable articles created by a banned user. As an administrator what steps would you take if you saw this on a page with an edit history as it existed to the point of the tag?

A: G5 applies to entries originally created by a banned or currently blocked contributor that lack content contributed by non-banned users. Does the article stand on its own at all without the banned users contributions? Remove problem user's contributions delete if no.

Maybe there is a place for IAR if the situation calls for it and there is consensus, but for thieving, litigious, lying scum like OSUHEY? I think not.

For the Holtzclaw situation, I would definitely delete the article in question. It was tagged before any intervening edits and the nature of his ban makes it all the more important to remove the article quickly. It isn't a great loss to not have an article on an individual nobody cared about enough to write his article before hand. If an individual who is not OSUHEY want's to re-create it, that is fine. Marcus Qwertyus 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
• Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus
• Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus 2

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. My76Strat (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

Support Experienced editor, who also has rollback, file mover, and autopatrolled rights. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must change my vote to oppose because of the CSD concerns. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Trusted, experienced editor who has over 30,000 edits. Cheers,
   Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. One or two good points are raised in the oppose section, but I think Marcus has come a long way since his last RfA (almost two yeas ago). He has done some excellent work dealing with sockpuppets of a particularly prolific, copyright-violating sockpuppeteer, and he wants to work in possibly the most visible area of admin work on the project (the Main Page and surrounding templates and process pages)—an area which is chronically short of admins. I think the biggest risk is that his zeal will get the better of him, resulting in hasty and ill-considered actions (which I suspect is at least part of the reason behind the CSD tags mentioned below). However, that same zeal, properly channelled, is what gives him the potential to be a great admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Support I think we are being too strict at RFA, the candidate is an established editor and the areas he wants to work in need more admins. While the CSD concerns below give me pause, in light of his declared commitment to a specific recall process, and the one he has chosen, I don't see why we shouldn't give him a chance. (Not to say that I think recall related questions are generally helpful at RFA, particularly when they ask for a commitment to some vague and undefined recall process) Monty₈₄₅ 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Support I support this candidate OrenBochman 06:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. CSD tagging is poor. A high proportion of tagged pages/files were not appropriate. Axl ¤ 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
   • Mind pointing out a few recent ones so that I can address them? Marcus Qwertyus 18:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
     • Looking at June 2012, Marcus Qwertyus's CSD log has seven entries. 1 was a "Non-free" tag placed on a free file. 2 was tagged as "unambiguous copyright infringement", although the image is old and the original copyright holder is not identified. This is not "unambiguous". 3 & 4: again the original copyright holders are not identified and the pictures are clearly old. With 5, Marcus Qwertyus applied the tag too speedily, before checking to see if the name "Ultra Twister" had any other meaning, although he soon realized this and corrected the mistake. Number 6 has been deleted; I am not able to view the deleted content, so I assume good faith and believe that it was an appropriate tag. Number 7 looks like it was probably a reasonable tag prior to a disambiguation page move. (Again, I am assuming good faith with this one.) Axl ¤ 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
       • 1 is a copyvio because all or almost all of the logos are copyrighted and Nouveller did not have permission to liscence them the way he did. Clearly the responding admin has erred greatly in flagging the image for transfer to Commons. 2-4: You got me there. I must have slipped through the cracks because I have never seen this license before in my life. The vast majority of the images I upload on Commons are CC or PD-Gov. By the way, the contributor of the files is being investigated for plagiarism here. Please take the time look over a few of his contributions. 5 is more the fault of the original mover not dab'ing the page after moving Ultra Twister to Ultra Twister (Six Flags Great Adventure). There was know harm done because I realized instantly what had happened. Marcus Qwertyus 01:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose While a lot of the blue links on User:Marcus Qwertyus/CSD log is a result of it being {{db-move}} or {{db-histmerge}} etc. so care needs to be taken when analysing that page, there has been a few worrying images CSD nomination only recently. While the license listed at the time of the nominations are obviously incorrect, they are not "Unambiguous copyright infringement" for the purposes of CSD. The nomination statement and answers to question at the moment does not provide me with enough to overcome this concern. I would be willing to change my !vote if the nomination statement and answers are expanded satisfactorily. -- KTC (talk) 19:0 9to, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I've seen the candidate act imperiously in the past, and the way the self-nom is presented here, sort of as a series of rebuttals, does not make me believe that things have really improved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Fails criteria 4.—cyberpower _Online 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not picking this particular comment because I'm supporting the candidate, but because it's not the first time I've seen you make a comment like it. Creating your own arbitrary criteria and sticking to them rigidly rally isn't a helpful thing to do. Evaluate the candidate, and make your mind up on whether you think they would be a decent admin or not; statistics and criteria can aid you in that, but only to a very limited extent. If you don't have the experience to properly evaluate a candidate, or you don't know a candidate well enough to be able to decide, don't vote. There are no awards to be won by voting in every RfA. Finally, a four-word oppose rationale is even less helpful. If you're going to oppose, especially early on, it would be decent of you to provide the candidate with useful feedback (and again, if you have nothing to offer, offer nothing—there are no prizes for being one of the first voters, either). After all, if this RfA were successful, Marcus would have very little to go on from your comment if he wanted to use the criticism from this RfA to work out the admin areas in which he needs to take things more slowly. Oh, and b the way, "criteria" is plural; "criterion" is the singular form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   My apologies, I forgot to write the reason as to why they fail that criteria. If I may elaborate, criteria 4 is demonstrating experience in admin related areas. I primarily evaluate those that the candidate wants to take part in. Now going through that, I am scared at the number declined CSDs this candidate has, which obviously is enough for me to oppose. Although the candidate has improved, they merely limited themselves to {{db-move}} deletions. To the candidate, study up on CSD policy tag articles properly for deletion that need to be deleted and re-apply for adminship if this one doesn't pass.—cyberpower _Online 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Admin-like work I've done: Flagging of several dozen sockpuppets here and subsequently investigating his copyright issues. Also a lot of page patroling and vandal work. Marcus Qwertyus 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose User's answers have an unbecoming and worrying defensive tone to them. Moreover, they are lacking in substance and essentially have no explanatory power whatsoever. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Regretful Oppose Per CSD tagging history. Admins have the delete button, and are expected to know when to delete a page, and you seem to lack these skills. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Due to the lack of feedback to the questions asked and CSD problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the aforementioned CSD tagging issues. Logan _Talk 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose Two reasons. 1) CSD may be a problem. 2) Unconvincing answers that could lead to ambiguous interpretations not permitted on a future admin. We need concise response. Maybe a month or so with CSD will do the trick. —Hahc21 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)