Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIP (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 29 March 2006 (→[]: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proto

(17/0/0) ending 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proto (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. My first RFA, which was closed as no consensus at the start of February (66/27/5 - 71%), can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Proto. After poor old Marskell nominated me last time, and got dragged into defending me, I thought I wouldn't bother anyone except myself, and you (yes, you) this time around. I started editing Misplaced Pages on 31 March 2005, just about exactly a year ago, and as of this moment, have just short of 6300 edits, around half of which have been in article space, and a bunch in all the various project spaces (almost exactly 2000) and talk spaces (almost 1000). This may well be enough to doom me eternally, as in those edits, I've probably mildly irritated enough people enough times. But what the hey.

I do quite a bit of maintenance, mainly on WP:WIKIFY. I'm involved quite a bit in AfD. I tend to bumble around Misplaced Pages, chipping in here and there, and I think your granting this humble dolt the mop would help me contribute even more.

I started to try and address the issues raised in my last RFA, how I have resolved them (or tried to), and it ended up being the gigantic-est opening statement to an RFA ever. So what I couldn't finagle into an answer to a question, I've put it in the comments. This is the end, thank you. I won't respond here unless it's just to clear up a point of fact or to answer any additional questions, but I will be watching this (naturally) - so if there's anything you want to discuss, my email and my talk page are both always open. Proto||type 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I opposed last time due to a concern over Proto's knowledge of policy, but he is more experienced now. Work in the encyclopedia is excellent, and I think he's admin-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, I trust him with the mop. A good editor. --Terence Ong 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Nice fellow. Engaged me on my talkpage regarding a misunderstanding quite awhile back, and whilst a little off base, showed civilty and a williness to listen to explanation. I was referring to another canidate, but I still hold support. -Zero 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support I also opposed last time around, but my concerns have been addressed.--MONGO 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support I supported last time around and am very happy to do so again. Eusebeus 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support with slight concern I think you would make a good admin, but I'm concerned that is was only the better part of two months since your last one. That's no ground to oppose though! Computerjoe's talk 14:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, very good experience with mainspace and wikispace. Shyam 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support with confidence really has adressed everything with patience and good grace. --Doc 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Conscious 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support he has adressed all the concerns from his previous RFA and I am confident he'd make a very good administrator. Pegasus1138 ---- 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - another mop over here please! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Good guy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support as per last time Tim (meep) 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, I didn't vote last time because I didn't think you were quite ready (hence, no support), but also didn't feel that you would make a bad admin (hence, no oppose). However, I think in two months, you've addressed some of the concerns from your previous RfA. Bring on the mop! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support as per last time Tim (meep) 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
18. We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable. In war we're tough and able, quite indefatigable, though many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable. Oh, and support. JIP | Talk 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Proto's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I've tried my best to address all the reasons for opposition from last time, and will discuss them here:

  A few of the opposes were because I had editcountitis - I hope that I haven't exhibited this nasty disease since, and will endeavour to battle any remission. A bunch of others were because I, like a dolt, put my name down on a (now ended) campaign against blog-related articles, which had some GNAA involvement. When it was explained to me what the GNAA were about (despite voting in an AfD on the article Gay Nigger Association of America, I didn't put two and two together, which was cretinously dumb of me), I pulled my name from the list (), and have avoided such crap ever since.

  Back to AfD. I now edit summarise all my AfD votes, as requested. I'd described AFD as a vote in an edit, and it's a discussion, not a vote. I understand this entirely, and am capable of gauging consensus on an AFD discussion. I am happy to answer any questions you might have on whether or not I'd be able to do this. While in the first few months of my adminship, I would discuss any cases where I was unsure with an experienced administrator. I've contributed to Deletion Review, which is a big improvement on the old Votes for Undeletion, and am more than aware of how strongly people can feel about such things.

  Yes, I am fairly deletionist by nature, and I'd like it if Wikipedians excised quality control a little better. This does not mean I would ignore or overrule any consensuses achieved by discussion on AfD - I'd follow guidelines, as I think I do now. And if in any doubt, I'd ask a fellow admin. If the consensus is in doubt on an AfD, then the verdict of a discussion should default to keep. I do vote keep on a fair few articles, but usually don't bother if it's obviously going to be kept.

  The last issue was about rudeness. I don't think I've ever been abusive, but I have been terse, and I needed to learn when to make a joke and when not to. I think I've improved hugely in this regard, and am always open to discussion on this. I'm always trying to better myself, and the first RFA was hugely useful in this respect. I seem to get into discussions sometimes with a few of the more inclusive people on AFD, although I don't think I've ever been impolite, try to avoid them becoming protracted, and I'm always willing to change my mind, which does happen. JJay and I have had some splendid discussions (which I always enjoy - yes, seriously) about Filipino actor stubs, lists, dead malls, and so on. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the interests of full disclosure, something that was not brought up at my previous AfD, which could have been, was that back in my first few months (April and May of last year) on Misplaced Pages, I uploaded 4 or 5 images that I'd just taken from the BBC, on various news stories, as I didn't quite grasp fair use at the time. I've been hellaciously careful with the few images I've uploaded since then. Proto||type 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. The main one would be helping with AfD backlog. Clogging of AfD is something that I would like to see reduced. The {{PROD}} tag was a great start, but there's always going to be a lot of stuff on there, every day. I think I'm fairly good at judging a consensus (feel free to quiz me on my talk page), and there's always hundreds of friendly experienced admins around to provide advice when (not if) it'll be needed.

I'm going to discuss it a little, as it's where I anticipate being involved as an admin the most. Thus far, to assist, I have closed a few discussions where the article's been speedily deleted or redirected, or where the AfD's been withdrawn. I've a bit of a dislike of AfD clog, and if there's an article that should have been speedily deleted, and the obvious consensus (with no contributors stating otherwise) agrees, I'll tag it for speedy deletion by an admin. Or I'll boldly redirect, again, if there's an obvious 100% consensus.

I've cleared up vandalism as I come across it, but I don't really go out hunting for it. I don't have a huge and weighty watchlist to swing around, I only have WP:AN, the reference desks, and articles I've created on there (and the hundred of redirects I've made (off topic, I love redirects, and am a proud and founding Redirectionista). I'd say I have maybe 30 vandalism reverts to my name. I tried patrolling the newpages and recentchanges pages, and decided after an hour of edit conflicts, that having no rollback button or god mode made me faintly impotent in this regard.

As I said last time, blocking would - of course - be a useful aid to vandal-coping, but I wouldn't like to be giving out long-term blocks until I'd garnered some experience as an administrator. The rollback button would be useful, but at the moment, I don't revert much vandalism. Of course, if it was easier, I probably would. To be honest, all the various tools are useful in some way or another, and I'd use them as best I could to help.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Shoe polish is the obvious answer, as I took a red link on a mundane subject to a featured article, following the perfect route through peer review, second peer review, and FAC. Other articles I am proud of include Neil Ross, Buckley (as it's my home town), chip pan, Nance O'Neil and Edward Lowe. There's no real specific area I contribute in when it comes to articles. I've started articles on things ranging from mambo musicians to corrupt New Jersey vote riggers. And all bar about eight of the articles in Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, which I've created myself, and am working on the others (via List of ambassadors to the United Nations).

There's a list on my user page. I don't know how to get a figure on the number of articles I've created, but it's probably in the region of 150, with none deleted, as far as I'm aware. I help out on WP:RD and WP:AR1, which are the sources of a lot of articles I have created. I've made a crapload of redirects, because redirects are awesome, and I'm proud of every one of those, too.

I'm also quite proud of the fact that 66 people thought I was suitable to be an administrator the last time around. I like being involved, and making a contribution, because I am one of those poor saps that actually believes Misplaced Pages is an opportunity to better the world by making all decent and accurate information available to all.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Everyone has some kind of disagreements. I've never (as mentioned above) gone beserk, or been hateful or abusive. I nearly lost my patience with User:Pigsonthewing a few times last year, but actually ended up defending him (a shame it didn't work out, as despite being awkward, he was a good editor). There are editors who I have disagreements with, often due to my rather deletionist stance on AfD. I don't think these have ever degenerated into conflict, though, and I do my best to understand their concerns. I may never agree with them, and I don't expect them to ever agree with me, but disagreeing with another's viewpoint doesn't mean you have to hate them, or even dislike the, I respect people with a strong viewpoint, who can express it well. Nothing's happened on Misplaced Pages that has ever caused me any real kind of stress, though. It's only words on a computer screen. I was a bit down over the last RFA, and that's probably the thing that got me down the most. But it was an opportunity to improve myself, and I'd like to think I've taken it.