Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Softlavender (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 21 August 2015 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doniago

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/5/1); Scheduled to end 17:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Doniago (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen , I would like to present User:Doniago for your consideration. I have encountered him on several occasions and was surprised he was not an administrator already due to his calm demeanor. Doniago first joined the project in May 2008 and has accumulated 50,000 edits since then. He is active in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film and does a lot of gnomish edits including vandal patrol. When I approached him about the bit, he said "I tend to believe that sometimes the people best able to handle additional power, as it were, are the ones who aren't specifically looking for it." This is the perfect attitude to have, since it shows he is not seeking the mop as a source of power but rather an opportunity. He will be a net positive with the tools. ~EDDY ~ 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I would like to thank EDDY for the faith and confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me for adminship. I am surprised and grateful to be spoken of as they have done above, and I am happy to accept their nomination. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Based on my practical experience with Misplaced Pages, I believe my skills could best be utilized off the bat at WP:RFPP, WP:3RN and WP:AIV. That said, while this may sound a bit wishy-washy, I have no objection to learning about other areas of Misplaced Pages where it is felt that increased administrator presence would be an asset. The majority of my knowledge of Misplaced Pages has been self-taught, which is to say that when I learn about situations where I think I can help out, I try to do so.

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

A: At the risk of sounding overly-humble, I daresay my best contributions have been the "little things". As noted by Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) I have been active at WP:FILM, including in conversations that led to refinements to related infoboxes and the Manual of Style. I played a primary role in developing Template:Uw-plotsum1 and Template:Uw-plotsum2, user warning templates that the community seemed to feel were helpful in cases where an editor was adding too much detail to the plot summary of an article (film or otherwise), and which were recently added to WP:WARN.

I have also been very concerned with and active with regards to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and have participated in multiple conversations there. This stems from the fact that one of the activities I regularly partake in is patrolling new edits, and I take particular interest in cases where editors are adding information without providing reliable sources. It could probably be said in all fairness that I tend towards the deletionist side of the spectrum, though I make an effort both to inform editors about the verifiability guidelines and assist them where I can.

On another front, I was heavily involved in a discussion regarding appropriate usage of the Religion field at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 26#Straw poll. When conversation there was, in my estimation, becoming difficult to manage, I started a straw poll to try to gain a more clear understanding of what editors' opinions where. I feel this was a generally successful effort that led to a path forward.

More recently I've taken more of an interest in both AfD and CfD, moreso the latter. I've also been monitoring RfCs in areas where I think I may have useful input and have contributed on occasion.

The blunt truth is that for the most part I'm a gnome. It's where I'm most comfortable in my involvement with the project and I think working in this capacity plays to my best strengths.

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: Quite recently I was involved in a disagreement at Talk:Inception#Analysis of the ending. Because a limited number of editors were involved in the dispute, I solicited additional opinions at WT:FILM. When the conversation continued with a limited number of editors and it, in my mind, was no longer being productive, I proposed an informal closure of the discussion. When no editors supported by motion, I let the matter drop, understanding that I had no consensus for how I felt matters should progress.

I think it would be safe to say that the majority of arguments I find myself in here revolve around my removal of unsourced information. While these situations have generally been localized to either my Talk page or the appropriate article's Talk page, they have on occasion been escalated to WP:ANI (recent examples and ) and I believe it would be fair to say that the feeling is that while my actions with regards to unsourced material may not always be "best practice", they are well within policy.

I think in the end it all, perhaps unsurprisingly, comes down to WP:CONSENSUS and knowing when to walk away from an argument. If I'm the only editor who can or will take my side, I have to consider that I probably don't have a very good leg to stand on with regards to Misplaced Pages. If other editors support my perspective, then what's most important is to be civil and try to find a compromise that will satisfy as many editors as possible. I think it could be argued that one of the greatest problems that can emerge in any debate here is editors who become entrenched in their views and lose flexibility.

Additional (optional) questions from users

Additional questions by Carrite

4. Are there any other account names that you have used to edit Misplaced Pages? If so, what are these?

A. No.

5. If you could change one thing about English-Misplaced Pages, what would it be?

A. I'm not sure whether you'd prefer an answer that I would consider realistically attainable, or are open to a pie-in-the-sky answer, but in general I wish the overall atmosphere here (and perhaps it's just the areas where I've tended to focus) was more collaborative and less confrontational. I've found myself in more situations than I'd like where if editors had focused more on civility and expressed more flexibility when expressing their opinions than disputes might have been resolved (more) cleanly rather than either continuing or, worse, escalating. "Hi, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but we have a guideline about that..." and "Hey, stop what you're doing right now, that's not how we do things, you have to do it this way!!!" may convey the same underlying message, but are likely to cause very different reactions. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way we can tell editors "be nicer to and more patient with each other", so we're left just trying to appreciate the disputes where everyone is reasonable and civil for the duration of the conflict.

Additional question from SilkTork

6. I've just read User_talk:Doniago/Archive_38#Lawrence of Arabia (film) in which you explain how you deal with unsourced content: if it is recently added you remove it, if it was added a while ago, you tag it, and when tagged you wait a year before removing it. Given that we have a serious problem with pre-existing unsourced content (see Category:Articles lacking sources for example) would you expand upon your thinking on this.

A: I think you may have misunderstood me; what I was saying there was that when information has been tagged for over a year an editor is well within their rights to remove it (though per WP:MINREF they're not really required to wait at all if they're removing it as a challenge, and whether the information is previously-tagged is technically irrelevant). Personally I tend to consider anything tagged and still unsourced after 2-3 months fair game (which isn't to say I'd necessarily remove it, the exact text is always pertinent).

But this is, as I indicated above, a matter of "best practice" versus "is permitted". Personally I think it's somewhat poor form to summarily remove unsourced text that's been stable and untagged, and when I remove substantial amounts of text I often relocate it to the Talk page rather than simply deleting it. But I'm not going to revert them solely because I think it was poor form.

I hope this sufficiently addresses the question, but I'm happy to speak to it further.

Additional question from SilkTork

7. You come upon a discussion or AfD to close it and find all those involved seek A, with nobody seeking B, yet B is the appropriate option. What do you do?

A: Assuming that extending the duration of the AfD (and perhaps mentioning it in appropriate locations to draw additional feedback) was not an option, I would cast a vote in favor of B. We don't close simply in favor of majority rule when we know that the majority's preferred action is blatantly inappropriate.

Additional question from Ritchie333

8. A brand new user creates an article, with no sources, that reads "Bernie Drummond wrote Batman and Head over Heels with Jon Ritman". What do you do?

A: I think I'd want to try to initiate a conversation with the user, given that we have articles for Batman and Head over Heels and Jon Ritman. It seems reasonable to assume without more context that whatever they're attempting to create has "already been done", but there's no deadline either, and if they're going to build an article that would contain something that isn't already captured, that might be worth pursuing (perhaps Bernie Drummond is due for an article). Though I'd likely drop in a mention about WP:V as well. In any case, if this is really among their first edits, it seems needlessly bureaucratic and likely alienating to take administrative action without giving the user a chance to discuss their intentions.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

9. What is your view of Process is important?

A:

10. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A:

11. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion?

A:

12. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A:

13. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A:

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support as nom. ~EDDY ~ 17:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - Adequate tenure (very active since March 2009, more than 50K edits), clean block log, no indications of assholery. Excellent content-creator's sort of contributions graph. Good luck. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support — I first encountered Don as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and helped him along in his early days there and have worked with him on a number of occasions since then. Don demonstrates a fine, reasoned approach to all that he does and would make a great admin. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support I haven't done much digging but I reviewed the discussion at Talk:Inception and the ANI's link in question 3. A few spot checks on their talk page showed no issues and generally I like their demeanor thus far at this RFA. Otherwise, this editor more than meets my RFA standards which has me here early in the support section. Mkdw 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Per basically, everyone above. Doniago is one of the good guys. --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Support. Nothing wrong with an editor who spends a lot of time doing a lot of little things that each make our articles a little bit better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Support why not? Jianhui67 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
8. Support. I have never heard of Doniago before seeing this RfA. But that is not required. Some of the best admins are those who keep to the shadows, do the job and are happy to do so. I checked an extensive sample of their edits and couldn't see any red flags. Doniago appears to be a level-headed, friendly editor who likes to help people and keep the place tidy. If there is any major drama concerning them, I couldn't find it. Doniago admits (in A3), that he has a rigid view of WP:V and removing unsourced information which has led to some friction but I can understand (although I don't necessarily share) his point of view. What I think matters most though is that he is capable of accepting when consensus disagrees with him. While I do urge him to take concerns over such editing seriously, it does not effect my assessment of whether he should be an admin because those edits can be made regardless of it. But there is no instance I could see where he misused the tools already granted to him (rollback, reviewer) to further his point of view, so I don't think he will misuse the mop if granted.
   As for the opposes at this moment (and hopefully there won't be more of this kind) regarding a lack of content creation: The notion that admins should be really good content creators completely fails to take into account what we are: We are - hence the mop symbol - this project's janitors. We clean up the mess and take care that the project keeps working so that the content creators can do their job. An editor can be a great admin without writing a single line of new content for articles as long as they demonstrate that they can distinguish between good and bad edits others make. One doesn't expect the janitor at the museum to also create its exhibits but only that the janitor doesn't damage the exhibits while doing their job. So why should this project be any different? With this in mind, I did check a random sample of the candidate's edits in Mainspace and imho there is no reason to assume that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to encyclopedic content (edits such as demonstrate a skill in content editing in line with our policies and guidelines).
   Regards SoWhy 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
9. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
10. Support Doniago has been an asset to the project for some time. having the mop and bucket will increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
11. Support as an excellent candidate, No issues, The opposes don't bother me in the slightest. –Davey2010 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
12. Support. I haven't come across Doniago before this RfA but his log looks good to me. There are a lot of edits spread out evenly over the last 7 years; mostly mainspace. I'm not concerned that Doniago hasn't done much "content creation" as the opposers below all seem to focus on - the fact that Doniago's edits are 63% mainspace convinced me that I shouldn't be concerned about his quality to enrich content. Deryck C. 23:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Per this. Not only no FA/GA articles, but no article creation at all? Ah, no. GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   There are some of us who think the GA/FA process is a crock of shit. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   LOL, then I would suggest that you don't use it as part of your criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   ... and for the record I don't mandate GA/FA, and even though I like improving stuff to GA I've got no problem with Carrite taking an opposing view at all. Ritchie333 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose - no article at all created, total of 15 votes at AfD and half of them "red cells", doesn't inspire much confidence Kraxler (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose - sorry but "Was it good for you? Next time just add your sources instead of wasting everyone's time." and "Pot calling kettle, given that you're talking about sources but apparently can't be bothered to provide a single one thus far. You are, of course, welcome to reinsert the material with reliable sourcing. Which might be a better approach than bickering about the need for sources" falls below the level of WP:CIVIL I expect from an admin. Also your AfD experience is weak as documented in the "neutral" section. Even without the tools you must take a more compassionate approach for newcomers and stop thinking "verifiable content" means "has a ref tag" - WP:SOFIXIT. Ritchie333 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   I respect your right to oppose my nomination, and I won't argue that I may not have addressed that particular incident as level-headedly as I might have, but in case it's of any bearing I did reply to your question above. DonIago (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose- per the three opposes above me: inadequate article creation, inappropriate attitude. Also distribution of edits shows an inordinate percentage of User talk page edits, often an indication of a contentious editor. Let me add that I'm not particularly impresssed by the nominator. BMK (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Continued misunderstanding/misuse of BRD, BURDEN, V. Many instances of edit-warring when his wholesale unwarranted removal of non-contentious unsourced material before {{cn}} tagging or discussion is questioned or reverted. Poor AfD record. On-wiki canvassing of this RfA. Way way too many appearances, as accused or plaintiff, on the noticeboards . And that's just my cursory examination. Not looking good at all. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - First, thank you Doniago for your contributions. The candidate's AIV reports and overall demeanor are positives. I would like to see at least a couple of articles created and more insightful participation at AfD (example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/No-go area and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni). I also recommend getting involved in new page patrol to get an understanding of CSD. - MrX 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

General comments