Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kristen Eriksen (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 27 January 2009 (+supports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RegentsPark

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (8/0/1); Scheduled to end 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) – I bumped into RegentsPark in May last year during an acrimonious debate on the Burma/Myanmar naming debate. What struck me about RP, was that he maintained his calm and composure during the entire incident when temperatures headed northward all around. He is familiar with article writing standards, something critical to this project, although I have been prodding him to get at least one article featured as he writes pretty well. RegentsPark is well versed in policy and editing standards, takes part regularly in policy debates, understands the notability criteria exceedingly well (as evidenced from his participation in several contentiousness AFDs). He also participates in the RFA process, knowing fully well what is expected of adminship. While he does express concerns about what specific admin tasks he would like to take part in, I personally think that question is immaterial. The project stands to gain more from his experience and mature all-round thinking as compared to working on a specific admin-task. Regents Park has my full trust to make well thought of decisions as an admin. I wish him all the very best. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:27, 26 January 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: Initially, I’ll probably focus on WP:AFD and the parts of WP:RM where admin help is required since I have a bit of experience in these areas and have some sense of how to evaluate deletion and move requests. I’ll also start looking into helping out at 3 RR violations. By nature, I like to know what I’m getting into before jumping in but, once I’m comfortable, I swim like a fish. So, if I’m confirmed as an admin, I’ll slowly, but surely, start showing up everywhere.

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

A: Amongst the many things I do on wikipedia, I enjoy giving third opinions because they are a way to dispassionately look at an editing dispute and to give an opinion where I don’t have a personal (mental) stake. It amazes me that, in most cases, editors politely accept the opinion and move on and has lead me to believe that most regular wikipedians are open to discussion and to be reasonable for the good of the encyclopedia. Amongst article contributions, I was impressed with the stellar job that we collectively did on the 2008 Mumbai attacks where several editors, including myself, updated the article based on the news we were monitoring (I had a personal stake, my sister lives in Bombay not far from where the attacks took place) while others checked references and facts as they were added. I’ve worked on many other articles but the one I like the best is probably the most trivial, Charles J. Knapp. Trolling for stuff to do, I stumbled on this brief account of a 19th century US representative from New York and decided to update his biography. In the process of searching the archives of the New York Times, I discovered a lost town (Pepacton NY), a century old bank failure (the failure of the Binghampton Trust Company), and a criminal indictment of Mr. Knapp (some things never change in New York!) and left the article looking like this. For me, this ability to provide good information at the margins of knowledge is one of the strengths of wikipedia. The history of the United States or the campaign of Barack Obama are well covered elsewhere (if much harder to retrieve) but this succinct snapshot of Mr. Knapp and the failure of The Binghampton Trust Company exists only on wikipedia.

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: I think that the Burma/Myanmar naming debate that Nichalp mentions above is a good example of how I handle conflict situations. Nichalp conducted a straw poll on whether the article on Burma should be titled Burma or Myanmar. The straw poll was inconclusive in number but Nichalp decided that the case for Myanmar was stronger and moved the article. Naturally, all hell broke loose! As a strong proponent of the Burma title, my first reaction was ‘who the heck does he think he is?’ But, instead of immediately joining the angry protests, I researched his contributions, saw his prodigious record on wikipedia, and concluded that his actions were in good faith and that he had a point (we were swimming in the same shade of gray, but on opposite sides of the dividing line). So, I acknowledged that and questioned the process rather than the person or the rationale, not giving up until the action was reversed. I was still fairly new on wikipedia and, even in retrospect, I think I handled the situation well by not letting my judgement get carried away by my emotions. I believe that the vast majority of regular wikipedians are here to improve the encyclopedia and are willing to engage in reasonable dialogue as long as no one dumps on them, and that by acknowledging that their motivation is the same as mine (better articles), most conflicts can be resolved amicably. (The initial straw poll, Nichalp’s move, and the ensuing brouhaha - yes, Nazis entered the picture! - is here. The discussion on ANI is here.)

Additional question from Keepscases:

4. Please explain the "Department of WTF" section of your user page.

A: (WTF stands for 'Who that fellow', I think. Or was it World Transport Federation?) I don't remember how I got to that link but I kept it as a salutary example of how the best intentions can unravel on wikipedia. Misplaced Pages thrives on openness and cooperative editing, and secrecy and ownership is not likely to contribute to a happy ending.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A-

6. If you could change any one thing about Misplaced Pages what would it be?

A-

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A-

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A-

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A-

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A- As someone who is probably considerably older than the average editor on this site, I’ve gone through my fair shares of ups and downs in life and in work so I’m not worried about being stressed out. I won’t say I have a thick skin, I don’t, but I’ve learned how to deal with others in a way that doesn’t kill me. Somehow, I don’t see myself in the role of ‘dazed and confused’ but if I do find myself headed in that direction, it’s either a wikibreak or time to move on!

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A

Q's from flaminglawyer

12. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban?

A.

13. Upon what circumstances would you close an AFD as "no consensus?"

A.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Looks good enough for me :D Good luck, Garden :  Chat  21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

   Nice sig............. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

   Really? Have you sunk that low, Garden? (I liked your WBOSITG sig the best...) flaminglawyer 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

2. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Enthusiastic support. RegentsPark is intelligent, calm, fair, and efficient. What more can one ask for? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Beat the nom Yes, looks solid, and Pedro's neutral reason although reasonable, isn't big enough for a neutral or oppose. --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Best I can determine, a reasonable and knowledgeable editor who calms disputes, makes sensible arguments, and builds the 'pedia. While I would prefer more tool related work, I do not see it as essential given the candidate's other qualifications and experience. While we can quibble over the precise meaning of the acronym in question (I think we get the drift), I accept Regents's explanation that he keeps it around as a sort of cautionary tale. My feeling is adminship will easily be a net positive for the candidate with little potential for abuse through personality flaws or misuse through a lack of understanding. Should do fine and probably does not need to be reminded, "when in doubt, don't-- ask instead." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Looks good. Edit count and experience a bit shy of today's standards - but aren't we always saying those standards are BS anyways. Tan | 39 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Could do with more, and name seems familiar positive. Majorly talk 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, understands WP:BLP  :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral Not sure here. You want to work at AFD but have less than 50 deleted edits, a handful of AFD noms and basically no CSD requests (well, one - a blatant one). I'm also a little confused as to the WTF link on your user page and I don't feel your reply to the question was adequate - surely you know what WTF is short for? I think you're pulling the wool over my eyes there, and I don't like that. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)