Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wtmitchell

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

Wtmitchell

edit

Final (65/1/4); Closed by Rlevse at 12:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

edit

I initially left this section blank, but it has been suggested that I provide some info here.

This is a self-nomination by User:Wtmitchell. I have been around since November of 2004, and have been editing regularly since June of 2006. I currently have a bit over 20,000 edits, about 60% of which are mainspace article edits. My RFA grows out of recent activity as a vandalism and new page patroller using WP:Huggle. That activity generates requests for speedy deletion and some vandal reports on users. I think it would be better for me to do the deletions myself as I see obvious candidates rather than add to the workload of others. With that beginning, I expect that I will gradually pick up other admin tasks. I can be trusted not to abuse admin privileges, I think.

Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) – Self Boracay Bill (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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: Initially, just using the tools to do simple admin tasks directly which I have, lacking admin privileges, been asking others to do. Lately I have been doing a lot of vandal patrolling with WP:Huggle, and I just added new page patrolling to that. I am seeing a lot of new pages which are obvious speedy delete candidates, and I'll start by doing deletions of those as I see them rather than asking other admins to do that work. I'll probably add servicing speedy delete requests by others to that fairly quickly, and gradually add other admin tasks.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have an interest area in Philippine history and in topics relating to the Philippines in general. I've contributed to many of the articles in that area, some quite heavily. I think my contributions have had a positive impact.
I have another interest area in improving supporting source citation in articles—both in supplying needed citations and in formatting citations so that they are useful. I am a long time member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup , and quite a lot of my edits are citation cleanups.
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 can't think of any conflicts. The one incident which I recall that might be described as stressful was my requested move of the article named Libingan ng mga Bayani to an alternative name of Cemetery of the Heroes which I thought a more appropriate name in the English Wikipedia. That was discussed here, here, here, and I didn't handle my exchanges with User:Sky_Harbor particularly well in that case. I introduced unnecessary stress there, probably growing out of stress which I was experiencing outside of Wikipedia at the time.
Optional questions from Dlohcierekim. Hello, Wtmitchell. Thank you for submitting your RFA.
4.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A: It depends. If the article is patent nonsense or if it is a biography along the lines of "'John Smith is the best person in the world", it merits deletion on sight. I've seen quite a few of those.
5. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entries were by a Bot reverting page blanks by the same anon, with progressive warnings on the anon's talk page. In the current version of the article the anon has replaced the content with, "THE ARTICLE IS A COPY AND PASTE COPYVIO FORM ANOTHER SITE” What do you do?
A: On the copyvio question, if the source of the alleged copyvio'd text is not identified by the anon, I'd probably google a bit for snippets from the deleted text to see what I could find. If I came up empty, I'd probably restore the deleted text with an edit summary asking that the copyvio'd source be identified. If I was able to identify that the article appears to be a substantial copy from another source which is not a WP mirror, I might prune the article back to a stub with an edit summary pointing to a talk page section where I identify the source of the removed text, mention WP:COPY and WP:Plagarism, and suggests that the article content be restated in wording which does not duplicate work elsewhere and with proper credit being given to work elsewhere which is used in the article via citations of supporting sources.
If I dug into it far enough to make a judgment about this, and if it looks to me as if this is not a case of repeated vandalism by the anon, I would probably report the situation on the bot's talk page.
6. Is there ever a time you would block a user who had not received a full set of warning templates?
A:I'm sure there is. One extreme example might be a user who authors an edit containing a death threat against POTUS.
7. Would there ever be a time you would remove a vandal warning and caution the user that gave it?
A:Yes. I have made mistaken vandal notifications and received such cautions myself. That is a Good Thing&#153;.
8. What was up with this fairly recent edit war concern?
A:In a nutshell, see this.
Optional question from Keepscases
9. Do you believe it is acceptable for an administrator to have a signature that is completely different from his or her username?
A:The question has occurred to me, but I haven't thought about it. Another question which has occurred to me is whether or not it is a good idea to do normal editing from an account having admin privileges (sort of like doing normal work on a unix system while logged in as root). The correct answer in both cases is probably that it is a Bad Idea&#153;.
I've changed my sig to match my userid, as has been suggested by several persons here. I expect that this will cause some confusion for people who have known me here for years as "boracay bill" and some difficulty for anyone searching for my past edits. Wtmitchell (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Toddst1
10.I see you've had almost no activity on any of the administrators' noticeboards. In all that time and with the fair amount of vandal patrolling you do, I would have expected at least a few posts or maybe a reply or two. Can you speak to this please?
A:My focus has been on editing articles as a normal user and, lately, doing some patrolling with Huggle. Huggle handles the user-control part of that on its own by escalating warning severity and eventually reporting users with a history of troublesome activity. As I develop a pattern of activity as an admin, I wouldn't expect an activist user control focus to be a big part of it.
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
11. When should you remove reliably-sourced, verifiable information from a biography of a living person?
A: That is a judgment call, with judgment rooted in WP:BLP. I don't see myself as being activist in that area either. One example situation might be where the material represented unbalanced negative overstatement about an aspect of the person's life which has little or no relationship to the subject's notability. One case illustrating a technique for handling that example situation might be Mel Gibson#Allegations of anti-Semitism, where the main BLP article mentions two specific examples in passing, not overstating them in relation to the emphasis placed on other topic areas discussed in that article, and points to separate articles which deal with them in more depth.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groomtech (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I see mention of memes on your user page. I am also a reader of Dawkins. Dawkins aside, though, on your user page you define real-life rights as rights inherent to human beings, as opposed to legal rights which you define there as rights derived from their legal environment. You then say that the rights that you hold as a human being are guaranteed by Magna Carta and the European Convention on Human Rights. That seems a bit circularly contradictory to me; if those rights are inherent to human beings, their guarantee by legal instruments would be superfluous. The lead of the WP article on rights says, "Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. ..." This appears to be the beginning of a long philosophical discussion, and this is not a good venue for such a discussion. Personally, I doubt that points such as this are relevant to the fitness of janitor-applicants to have the keys to the mop closet. Wtmitchell (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Wizardman
13. When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why?
A: As I understand WP:AFD, deletion decisions are based on Wikipedia community consensus. Given that, if there is no consensus, there is no decision and no basis for action. Given that, the decision should default to lack of action (or keep). Wtmitchell (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Tony1
14. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?
A: My immediate view of the notion is that it is probably a good idea. I haven't had time to review the draft process.
15. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?
A: It's probably not something I would do. I don't think a coerced apology is worth much, and applying the coercion can lead to resentment whether or not the coercion attempt succeeds. WP:Apology touches on this. I don't envision myself doing much (if any) blocking or unblocking as a fledgeling admin. I'll need to get my flight feathers established first.
Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
16a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
A. This edit is behind the current WP:NOR#Translations section. Other than that, no significant contributions. I've done a few vandalism reversions and minor changes in policy articles to clarify points, etc.
16b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
A. I can't think of anything at the policy level. Without going back and looking for details, I recall having some discussion and probably some input which let to changes on WP:CITE, WP:GTL, and perhaps some other guidelines. Just yesterday I made this edit to WP:FOOT. At the practices level, after having spent a lot of hours reverting vandalism by anons, I'm a bit doubtful that the practice of allowing anons mostly-unrestricted editing is it's a good thing. Getting more technical, I'm the guy behind Bugzilla:18890 (see also this test wiki).
16c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
A. Probably some. Probably not a lot.
16d. Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?
A. If they can, IMHO they shouldn't be able to. See here and here for some relevant past discussion. I think that other examples exist, but haven't unearthed them without spending more time than I can afford digging for them.
Additional optional questions from Steve Crossin
17. As an administrator, do you feel it's more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines, or to use your administrative judgment to implement a better solution. Basically what I'm asking is, if general policies and guidelines would provide a solution that you could solve better by using common sense and your judgment as an admin, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.
A. Generally, I'd say it is best to identify the "rules" (policies and guidelines) which apply to the situation and follow them. Where the applicability is not clear or where there is apparent conflict between rules (and, WP:IAR being a policy, that consideration can come up in any situation), practice seems to be to, in the absence of serious time pressure, determine consensus and act according to that. One case to illustrate this was mentioned in my answer to question 3a. I requested a move of the Libingan ng mga Bayani article to the name "Cemetery of the Heroes", feeling the latter name clearly met WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name better. English Wikipedia. That was discussed, and closed as a decision that "Libingan ng mga Bayani" is a foreign name which tends to be used in English and there was no decision to move. I disagreed, said so semi-privately here, and accepted the decision as a judgement call on the interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I still feel that this should have been closed the other way, but I saw it as a legitimate judgement call involving several gray areas. I have a WP:COI here and don't want to re-argue it. Though I would have gone the other way, I didn't think it worth pursuing further.
18. On a daily basis, regardless of where you do janitor work, administrators will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form or another. For this reason, it is best if administrators have past experience in dispute resolution, or can at least demonstrate how you, as an administrator, would have the skills and experience required to solve these disputes. For example, provide a situation where there was a conflict that you were involved that you managed to arrive to an amicable resoltuion, or a situation where you helped to resolve a dispute between two or more editors.
A. I don't have a lot of experience in dispute resolution, either as a disputer or as a resolver. I've never gone through formal WP:DR beyond discussion with another editor with whom I had a difference. A bit of advice which I gave lately which might bear on this can be seen at User talk:Wtmitchell#Talk Box. That doesn't seem to have borne fruit in the article at issue. I'm thinking that I might bring the matter up on that article's talk page, mentioning my suggestions there and asking others more knowledgeable in that area than I to pitch in on improving the relevant parts of the article. -Wtmitchell (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

edit

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
edit
  1. Support. 20,000 edits, mostly to article space? Communicative when you need to be, remain civil from everything I can tell? Smart user, plenty of clue, around for 4 years without getting involved in the drama of this place? A simple, direct self-nomination? How refreshing. Absolutely I support. Keeper | 76 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You'll get a load of flak for the empty nom, but I've seen him work on Vietnam War and related articles, and from his use of sources, it's clear he understands NPOV, especially with that article continually being used by POV pushers YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support 60% mainspace edits out of 20,000 edits is quite impressive. You obviously know your way around Wikipedia, and you've been here long enough to see what is right on Wikipedia and what is wrong. I gladly support this RfA. Neutralle 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Looks good. The edit warring question 8 above is a bit strange; the candidate's only contribution to that "edit war" was this edit, which I think anyone would agree is an appropriate removal of - well, whatever that material is. Tan | 39 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; long-time, trustworthy contributor. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as I see no reasons not to and as usual more admins are necessary. --candle•wicke 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep! - Support per Keeper76 and BL Nguyen. Very strong candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support Looks to be highly qualified. It's wonderful to have a candidate that makes substantial article contributions. This is what the encyclopedia is all about and we need more Admins with this kind of experience! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. No reason to oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support User has been around since Nov 2004 and 1st RFA clearly shows the user is not after tools and is seeking them only after gaining the necessary experience and as per track the project will only gain with the user getting tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support — long history of working with free content, well aligned with fundamental WP principles, good wiki interaction skills. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent user, experienced in many areas. Triplestop (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, not enough drama ;) Jozal (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Solid project and article work. Trustworthy, imo.--Koji† 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Solid support. Wtmitchell is an excellent editor and a great contributor, and I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Long-time, diligent, experienced contributor seeking the tools? Absolutely. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'd like to see some more involvement in admin-type areas but you should be fine. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I can not recall where I encountered or saw him. However I've got a good impression that he is a sensible and responsive editor with a warm heart, so I have no reason to think that he would abuse his tool.--Caspian blue 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support The automated edit percentage is a bit high, and involvement in admin-related areas is a bit low, but I have seen no indication Wtmitchell would misuse the tools. Timmeh 23:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support — Mitchell's nomination and record speak for themselves. I can't see a single thing anybody would oppose over that would have any relevance to adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support this clueful candidate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Wtmitchell has a clear will to help the project and should be given the tools to make that job a little easier. ERK talk 03:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support has cared for a long time and is very trusted. Won't do anything thoughtless like delete the main page. Royalbroil 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Level-headed, been around the block, knows policy well, as shown by (self-deprecating) comments on noticeboards like WP:RS/N and policy pages.John Z (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Automated edits don't worry me. In fact I don't really care about that at all. WP:WTHN Aditya α ß 08:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now neutral. Aditya α ß 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support An excellent user. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Review shows an excellent user ready or an adminship.
  29. Support This user has met my standards, a) Having significant content contributions and b) Having experience in an adminly area (vandal patrol). Best of luck! Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Why not? America69 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - mainspace experience coupled with experience in admin-related areas and evident knowledge of policy. ColdmachineTalk 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks great. RayTalk 17:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Clean block log, long term civil editor with clue. I disagree with you on question 9 as I think that admins should be ordinary users who can wield a mop when needed without the faff of logging in and out of different accounts. Your deleted edits look pretty good, though I spotted one CSD tag that merited a {{db-attack}} rather than the {{db-bio}} you flagged it with. Good luck ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has four barnstars on userpage and zero blocks. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Good contributions. Good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: why not? South Bay (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support for a mature and valued contributor. Graham Colm Talk 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Great work at the village pump and anti-vandalism. Noticeboard work is not a must. -download ׀ sign! 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support 20,000 edits! Although I've only checked a few contibs I can't really find an obvious reason to oppose. With the Opposes being so convincing :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak SupportThe only disagrement we had was resolved. but there was an issue over quesionable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&diff=next&oldid=290444952 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&diff=next&oldid=290507675 (although he did eventualy find the right source) In additioon this argument was started due to misunderstanding about the point I was making. But as I said it was reolved, and I felt with out any acrimony. My only doubt is that by the users own admision he may have finding sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I live on Boracay Island in the Philippines, which is pretty isolated. For practical purposes I have zero access to printed sources beyond a few reference books I happen to own, and I can only dream about library research facilities. Still, I do pretty well with online searches. In the case referred to above, I identified a supporting source early on which, from all indications, supported the point at issue. My problem was that I was initially only able to find snippets from that source which had been quoted informally on the web. Such snippets were pervasive, but tended to come up in blog discussions, etc. Being unable to say that I had personally read relevant snippets in a reliable source, I felt that I could not provide a supporting cite. I had located relevant snippets on a reliable source website, but the snippet wasn't in a form which lent itself to a proper cite. I emailed people at the website (The Vietnam Center and Archive at Texas Tech University) and, after a few weeks, they responded with the information I needed to provide a proper cite (Vietnam War#CITEREFPike1970). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC) fixed typo Wtmitchell (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. He's been doing high-quality work on guidelines talk pages for as long as I can remember. Any lurking civility or judgment problems would have shown up already if they were going to show up. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good user, nice contributions. Consider changing the username. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I don't understand the answer to Q9 at all, but the question doesn't really bother me anyway. Short answers to questions and blank nomination could be interpreted as arrogance, but I'm inclined to think that it's because you just don't think it's a big deal. No reason to oppose. Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak support. I don't like that your signature does not match your username, but this is no reason to oppose. Perhaps look into a username or signature change in the future. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Someone we probably should have given the tools to several years ago. Great user. --JayHenry (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, although I do recommend changing your username or signature to match the other. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I see no reason to oppose. — Σxplicit 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for now, seems okay. Wizardman 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Move to neutral[reply]
  50. Support Seems like a trustworthy contributor. Frehley 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. — Aitias // discussion 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I see no reason for concern here. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support should do well with the mop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, very trustworthy. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Nakon 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support to someone that I honestly thought was an administrator already. Good luck! One two three... 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I dont see anything alarming for the user. Net positive! user around since long time -- Tinu Cherian - 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I often see this user doing good work.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Looking through Wtmitchell's contributions I see nothing to show that the tools would be misused. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. To quote User:Keeper76, "20,000 edits, mostly to article space? Communicative when you need to be, remain civil from everything I can tell? Smart user, plenty of clue, around for 4 years without getting involved in the drama of this place? A simple, direct self-nomination? How refreshing. Absolutely I support." Williamborg (Bill) 02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I'm more than satisfied with your answers to questions, and I appreciate your honesty in Question 18. I agree with the sentiments of the above supporters, you seem to be clueful and I am sure you will serve Wikipedia well as an administrator. Best of luck, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Tony (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - No reason to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Three years of drama-free content building. --Stephen 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose This RfA is going to pass, but I just want to go on the record as saying I think it's important for administators' signatures to match their official usernames. Keepscases (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure the candidate intended to say that it was a "Bad Idea" to have the usernames and signatures not match. As this is affecting support (see neutral #2 below), I think this should be clarified. Tan | 39 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that's what he said. So why don't his match at all? Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes. (smacks forehead) Tan | 39 18:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using the "boracaybill" sig in a number of places for a decade or so, and started using it on my WP account with the username "Wtmitchell" in the interests of conformity with my sig in other places. If there is a requirement to do so, I will remove the sig from my preferences and go back to the default of having one's username appear as a sig. If there is no requirement to do so, I may or I may not -- I expect that even with admin tools available, the bulk of my WP activity will be as a normal editor. I think that there are WP editors out there who have come to recognize the "boracaybill" sig which I have been using here for a number of years, and the ~~~~ signature mechanism does provide wikilinks to the user and talk pages. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand this oppose. In fact, at WP:CHU#General notes, it encourages users to change their signature as an alternative rather than changing their username. I don't see this as a problem and it's obviously an accepted practice. — Σxplicit 03:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have dumped my boracaybill sig. See User talk:Wtmitchell#Boracy Bill for my feelings about this. Wtmitchell (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral: Lack of audited experience on the noticeboards and the vague issues and judgement calls required with dealing with issues on them. Solid contributor and vandal fighter for sure. Toddst1 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not getting the jargon, but what do you mean by "audited experience on the noticeboards"? Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, I know this one: He means FA and GA boards. Most Wikipedians are not familiar with the phrase "audited content" for those; using it is kind of like begging for someone to ask what you're talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think Toddst1 means the AN/I boards. These boards could be considered "self-auditing", as any issue or opinion posted there is instantly subject to occasionally merciless review by fellow admins and editors. I could be wrong, but I am quite familiar with Toddst1, and have a feeling this is what he meant. Tan | 39 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you may be right. I was basing my guess on what I saw in another RFA recently. I guess the best person to speak fro Toddst1 is Toddst1... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tan was right, I was referring to WP:AN and WP:ANI mostly but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, etc. would apply. Sorry for the confusion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the clarification. Jafeluv (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral (Shifted from Support) I absolutely agree with Keepscases (talk · contribs). I won't oppose though. Aditya α ß 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I'm on the fence about this one. While the editor has a solid record of contributions, I really don't like the answer to Question 13. What was asked was a fairly straightforward (if mildly irritating) question, and instead of a straight answer we got some philosophical rambling that didn't really answer the question at all. Seems more like dodging the question to me than an attempt to answer it. Firestorm Talk 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Q13. There are times where no consensus should default to delete, such as a BLP where subject requests deletion. They aren't often but they do exist. Not a big enough deal to oppose, but keep this in mind. Wizardman 14:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wtmitchell&oldid=1089811888"