Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fribbulus Xax

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Fribbulus Xax

Final (55/0/0); Closed by Rlevse at 20:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Fribbulus Xax (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I've been editing since August 2007, and have tried to gain experience in as many areas of the encyclopaedia as possible – both article and maintenance. I've written over 200 articles, a few of which were DYKs, and many are stubs – a major reason being that I have actively set out to write or contribute to articles and projects that are largely omitted due to inevitable systemic bias.

I am involved in new page patrolling and, increasingly, recent changes (particularly new users' contribs). This has sparked one of the main reasons for this RfA; as a result of RC I have reported users to AIV a number of times, and found that there is sometimes a long period between the report and administrative action – allowing increased and retaliative vandalism. Even though I have put my rollback rights to use in these situations, I feel that to be granted admin status would give me the opportunity to "do my bit" for this side of things.

If granted admin rights I aim to continue in the article and maintenance areas I am currently active in; using the privileges in the tasks I am currently unable to. On top of this I would like to help alleviate any backlogs or issues that may exist in these particular areas. As stated above, I would like to gain more experience in more areas that would not be possible without admin abilities. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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: I aim to use admin tools in the areas I am currently active in – particularly WP:SD, but also WP:AIV. Sometimes I feel that CCSD articles are left for longer than is necessary (especially without legitimate hangon rationale) and I would like to help alleviate this area – of course, a major part of the admin position here is to act using the tools and help users understand action that has been taken; I feel that I could continue to follow up in this area (in many cases I tailor automated message on users' talk pages to explain and help in particular circumstances).

Having performed my first non-admin closure on an AfD in the not-too-distant past, I aim to become more active as an admin in this area too, but appreciate that I can learn more about the processes involved.

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

A: Although I have not worked any articles to good or featured status (I would by lying if I said it wasn't a long-term goal), I am proud of my article-writing contributions – particularly those that come under WP:WPAFRICA. There's not many of them, but I believe it's very important for us to address the issue of systemic bias and have been commended by other users on my work there. Similarly, I spent a large part of editing time of 2008 populating articles in WP:BERKS, many of which I still work on. There are also a number of articles that have been nominated for AfD or Speedy which I have managed to rescue, primarily through simple background research or removing promotional writing. I am proud of these contributions, as I believe that many potential excellent contributors are lost through poor speedy nominations (it must be quite insulting to be told you're not notable or so on). I like to think that saving one of the articles I have done has positively contributed to another editor's attitude to Wikipedia.

I feel that some of my more "behind-the-scenes" work has provided some of my best contributions, particularly discussing and explaining policy/guideline to new editors – especially those with articles at CAT:CCSD – who are unsure of why we do things the way we do. I also believe that my contributions to vandal-fighting (particularly through RC patrol, which has been my main focus of the last few weeks) have positively contributed to the encyclopaedia – to both content and new editors' attitudes.

So ultimately, I'm proud of my work in two areas – much like Q1 – article-writing and reverting vandalism.

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 yes! A major conflict was in August over the Michael Kapoustin article. To summarise, there were obvious WP:COI/WP:AUTO/WP:SOAP issues with the article, which also saw libellous statements. On a number of occasions I attempted discussion with the author (and other users/WP:SPAs) to explain the reason behind my actions, but was met with hostility. I was able to rewrite the article as a verifiable stub, but the author's objection and persistent attacks (as well as legal threats) made this impossible to resolve on my own. I had considerable support (both in editing and recognition) from User:Ttonyb1, but eventually the author was blocked (for legal threats) and the article was sent to AfD (and deleted) for lack of notability.

I am glad that I had this experience, as I had not encountered anything similar previously. If I was to experience a similar issue (as an admin or otherwise) I think I would take a similar line of action. It was clear that the contributors knew little about our policies and guidelines, and so explanation and example-setting is the first step. I attempted to stay as impartial as possible (I knew little of the article's subject matter) in order to view the situation as objectively as possible. As soon as the contributor was actively ignoring policy and leaving personal attacks/threats, it became an issue for admin, and was dealt with at AN/I. I think it is clear that although an admin could have easily interpreted the user's actions as requiring an instant block, a lengthy discussion was held and that consensus was key – regardless to whether the admin tools were available or not.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

4. Would you advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an admin?

A: So-far I have had no need for an alternate account, and currently don't foresee the need. If, however, I was to require an alternate account, I would most likely announce so on my user page (if it's just for security reasons) along with an explanation. If I needed privacy, and would rather not publicly state so, I would of course notify a bureaucrat and/or checkuser.

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a physical restraint upon a user that stops them from editing, and is implemented by an administrator. A ban is the community's way of revoking editing privileges and, although it is not a physical restraint, may be enforced by use of a block. Bans cannot be brought about by a sole admin, but are usually bestowed through ArbCom or another establishment of consensus.

6. What are cooldown blocks and when should they be used?

A: Blocks used exclusively to calm down a situation should not be used; they're likely to just exacerbate it. If, however, the editor qualifies for a block through their editing (if disruptive, for example) then of course they would be liable for a block for that reason.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

7. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Crikey. I don't think there's a generic answer for this; it all depends on the individual article. I'd need to understand more about the editing/authorship of the article – finding out who wrote it and what their motives were. I think understanding the wider scope would help a balanced, educated decision. I'd rather not use AfD/Michael Kapoustin as an example for everything, but I think it's quite an important case. There were definitely strong arguments both ways, but a no consensus/"default-to-keep" outcome may have had a detrimental affect in the long term. I'd rather not fall either side of the inclusionist/deletionist fence, but removing any whiff of neg-BLP is of utmost importance, regardless of notability or other issues that may exist. That said, any deletions – speedy or otherwise – should be given an amount of background research (even a simple Google search) to see whether they can be easily fixed or (for example) {{rescue}} tagged. If I was to decide that an article could be saved, it would be more ethical to include that in the discussion rather than as a reason for closing. My personal view of the article should not sway the decision I make towards the outcome as that would undermine consensus – so if I do forge an opinion it would be moral to have another admin close the discussion.

Similarly, I think that, even in closing AfDs, we're a community – and so further input is helpful. This AfD may be in an area of Wikipedia I am not so knowledgable about, and so getting another admin's opinion may benefit the discussion with educated or experienced views.

So I think that it depends on the situation, but – excepting clear violations of the BLP policy (which, in theory, shouldn't lead to a stalemate AfD) – no doubtful or hasty decisions should be made. There's likely to be another admin with more knowledge in that area.

8. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A.

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

9. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?

A.

Additional optional questions from ArcAngel

10. Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion to form consensus, and do you feel that WP:BOLD overrides such a requirement?

A: There's a number of non-controversial moves where starting a discussion would just be wonkery – particularly cases that don't follow our naming convensions ([1], [2] and [3] are instances that were new articles with general mistakes in the title). However, there are cases where changing the name of the article would give a different perspective on the article. This may be BLPs (one example that comes to mind is Somer Thompson, where the original title would be strictly a biography but the moved name would be about the event). I can't see (or remember) whether a discussion was held regarding the name change – as it was a obvious "cover the event, not the person" situation – but I think it's clear that when moving a page where the name would require a content change, a discussion should be held.

Looking over Wikipedia:Requested moves, there's a few move requests that I can't see being objected to – and I don't think discussion would be necessary. I'm not saying this is WP:SNOW, just that it would be an uncontroversial move. In this list I can see a number of nominations for WP:CAPS or WP:DABNAME moves, which I don't believe would require discussion. This said, it wouldn't be wise to move a page with a large, regular base of editors – regardless of the current name. I think that continued editing implies that other editors are "happy" with the name, and so discussion would be necessary.

So, yes I do think that being bold allows moving pages without prior discussion, but only in situations that do not have a knock-on effect to the content and where there's no doubt that conflicting opinions are evident (whether shown passively (as above) or actively). I think it's important to remember that being bold isn't a requirement; if there's any doubt whatsoever about a potential action, it's quite easy to place a note on the article's talk page.

Additional optional questions from --_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten}

11. What is your opinion on the current WP:CSD policy, and have you considered speedily deleting articles (if any) when meeting guidelines to do so?----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 07:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A: Could you clarify what you mean?

Your opinion about WP:CSD. If an article meets any guideline of a CSD, will you delete it?----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that, although WP:CSD is a policy, it doesn't mean that that is the process that has to be followed (WP:IAR?). On a number of occasions I have seen articles that have qualified for WP:CSD#A7, but can tell that they can be saved. A recent example of this is Lisa Linde. In the state in which it was created, the article did not assert any notability. However, I deemed it likely that the person may be notable (my edit summary recognised that the article still qualified for A7) and a bit of background research disqualified the speedy.

I think it's different when faced with attack, copyvio and advertising pages, although the latter is often a company that's peppered with PR – it's all about hacking the spam away and uncovering a stub – not just speedying it. Attack pages may sometimes be on subjects that qualify for inclusion, but that is (of course) secondary to removing any defamatory content. Copyvios are similar, but (unlike attacks) can almost always be rewritten in a suitable manner (perhaps it's a subject that doesn't qualify for inclusion for another reason, but that's a different matter).

So in terms of my current status on speedy criteria, I am in least agreement with A7 – purely because a little background research can disqualify the nomination. This is the area in which I think that it is really important to have a quick think before pressing the big red button. After all, we have WP:AfD for discussions if it's unclear after research. A7s are largely harmless; if it takes slightly longer to delete a garage band due to an admin's "playing it safe", then I think that's of benefit to the whole community.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really see any problems arising from it, but could I ask why you haven't answered question 8? I understand why many people refuse to answer to questions about recall, but questions regarding BLP policy? Seems quite important. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Solid record at CSD, AIV and UAA as far as I can see. Triplestop x3 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I think I'll support. The backlogs are only increasing, and he seems to be able to help in general. He'll make a good janitor-admin. ceranthor 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support decent answers to questions, with strong deletion experience. I haven't personally encountered this editor, but he looks suited for adminship. I agree with Q2 that major article contribs aren't as important as the ability see potential in new articles and rewrite them into proper little stubs, which for me is a positive. JamieS93 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Looks like an affable user. No sign of any problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - Looks fine. I found one recent declined speedy but nothing worrying. WP:SB leads to the sandbox, though;) --Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Whoops... thanks for the heads-up :) Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Good admins needed./This candidate makes the grade./The mop should be his. Crafty (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support User has demonstrated a comitment to the porject through the creation of 200 articles. Very impressed.--Coldplay Expert 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I think he does admin related things well, and article writing also, and is ready generally. The article mentioned above was Global Environmental Institute, & I was the admin who declined it . This was a relatively tricky one, which merely shows the advisability of having people review one's deletion proposals, rather than doing them single handed. It's not reason to oppose. All his other speedy tagging I've seen patrolling CSD, I've deleted the articles just as he suggested. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Encountered their work; no issues. -- Mentifisto 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Nothing to suggest user will misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support To me this user seems mature and experienced. Nimbusania talk 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Great answer to Q7, you seem to be a great editor, you'll do a great job as an admin. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Cannot find a reason to oppose. You have a fine speedy deletion nomination record, but you also show that you are capable of recognising your own errors (few though they may be), and fixing them. As a side note, I hope the Bloogs are treating you well. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Have never seen this guy, but everything looks great! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support He will be a Great admin Mr.Snoppy (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

    — Mr.Snoppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    Above user was blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of a banned user. MuZemike 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

18. Does good work, good SD record. Pmlineditor ∞ 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Very nice work. and a really awesome username too. really brings back some good times :D Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Great answers to questions. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Support: good answers to questions and rescuing articles is an admirable thing to do. I also particularly like the fact that the user works for the WP:AFRICA project, of which I am not yet a member, though that is soon to be rectified. Disclaimer: I am an expat who lives in Africa so am probably slightly biased towards anyone trying to combat systematic bias in that area, though not enough as to cloud my judgement. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Moderate-ever-so-close-to-weak Support No reason to oppose. Besides, questions above are answered correctly.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 07:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support has consigned a lot of CSD fodder to the admins. Though some of the tag reasons are dubious Kuppanasaripatti tagged as a no context, but clearly the name of a village in some named area, and William On Wheels as G1 patent nonsense, when it was a copy of William, probably should have been marked as a test page. Upload logs looked mostly good. File:SlowNorris.png had a fair use rationale without reason. (I suspect my speedy delete tagging may be dodgy too). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Everything appears to be in order. Warrah (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)h
25. Support Hardworking, productive editor with an excellent record as far as I can see; their work on articles pertaining to Berkshire and to Africa is solid, and their efforts to fix systemic bias are commendable. I trust this user with the mop. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Will be a good addition, we always need more people in new pages to help with the backlog and this user seems to have the right stuff. RP459 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong Support — JoJo • Talk • 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Qualified. Sole Soul (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Andrea105 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Edits, answers, and general attitude seem OK to me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - sure. I think the questions are answered well, and there is a lot to like in the article creation area. I don't have any concerns. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. No problems here at all. AtheWeatherman 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. His username reminds me of the Commander Keen games which I enjoyed tremendously as a kid. Also, he seems like a good chap. Draftydoor (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - tens of thousands of edits including high-quality article work, Rollback rights, and even a Barnstar. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Nothing concerning, I'm sure you'll put the mop to good use. ThemFromSpace 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
36. AGF-support; user hasn't come to my attention good or bad, and we need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Solid candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - Great contributions, good answers to questions, no problems that I see. -- Atama頭 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Sure, looks good. Impressive edit count, good work around the project, displays knowledge of policy. GlassCobra 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Not-that-you-really-need-it-Support iMatthew ^talk at 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Support A trial by fire and brimstone is always a good thing on this site though.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Keeper | 76 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Checking through a slice of edit history as well as the answers to the questions show you to be thoughtful and deliberate whenever possible but quick witted when necessary. Can't argue with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
44.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fribbulus Xax. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. What else is there to add? Excellent candidate. Useight (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. All around good candidate. Valley2city^‽ 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - Looks good to me. Lots of good vandalism and patrolling work. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong Support: This is a near perfect Candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I liked his answer regarding CSD and the importance of attempting to rescue articles when it's clear they can be notable, with a little effort. Though I note that the diff he pointed to has since been PRODDED, so it may not be the greatest example. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
50. Nice answers. ϢereSpielChequers 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - per my criteria. Great answers to the questions, and a solid editor in general. Airplaneman ^talk 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Great user. No problems here. Btilm 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Never heard of this editor. Given the places on Wikipedia I tend to hang out, that's a good thing. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. I don't see any potential issues with this one. Seems to have his head on straight, too. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Yup. A8UDI 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose This RFA needs some spice. I feel you're a supreme editor, but those who go in unanimously could potentially get cocky. Think of this as a check to all those wonderful votes. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to support as I was caught before I could hide this vote. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this !vote is necessary... Fribbulus Xax doesn't seem like the overly proud type... but I won't complain. ceranthor 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.