Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Closedmouth: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:42, 8 April 2009

Closedmouth

Voice your opinion (talk page) (25/1/0); scheduled to end 07:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Closedmouth (talk · contribs) – Today I present Closedmouth (talk · contribs) to the Wikipedia community for adminship. I recently noticed CD in my image tagging work, as he is highly active in sorting images on both Commons and En. To my surprise I saw he had 96,000 edits and was not already an admin, so I looked closer.

Closedmouth has been a Wikipedian since 2005 and could be described clearly as a wikignome. He goes about his maintenance work quietly and courteously. Looking at his contributions I see BLP tagging, a successful CSD tagging record, an excellent understanding of reverting and reporting vandalism.

If selected as an admin, I would expect that Closedmouth would be able to perform the deletions he does now without having to tag the page and wait for an admin to review. Also, his work with Huggle would reduce the need of other admins to review AIV, as he could handle the cases himself. I have every expectation that he will continue his good work. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom Closedmouth has been an active editor for 4 years without a single block, AN/I thread, reincarnation, or ArbCom case. He's a mature, stable editor that shys away from the drama, something the project needs far more of. I have no doubt he will use the tools in a level headed manner for working down the backlogs and to assist with his excellent anti-vandal work. BJ^Talk 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Damn right I accept --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Anything I can sink my teeth into. We still have major backlogs piling up in places that people don't want to touch, and the times that I'm mostly active are not good times for most admins, so I'm always seeing vandals going unblocked, bad pages sitting around for way too long, things just not being done that could be done if I had the tools at my disposal. I want to help this place stay in shape, and it can be very hard to do that when you don't have the facilities.

Hey, that was pretty good!

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

A: It's very difficult to judge what my own "best" work is, but my work with AWB is probably the stuff most worth mentioning. I've done everything from fixing 5000 links to Buddha to typo fixing to attempting to format the dates for every single Australian biographical article (which was going quite well thank you very much until that injunction came along). At the moment I'm working on categorising BLPs which is apparently pretty important (crazy concept, I know).

I also work on shortening the short pages list, fight vandalism whenever I can get the chance (yes, I used to use Lupin's tool and popups, and I still managed to beat people to the revert. Those were the days...), and I've started moving free images to Commons, which having the bit would help me with.

That's good enough, right? Man, this is nerve-wracking; I've probably forgotten something, but if you want to trawl through my contribs looking for it, be my guest. Oh, and I should point out for the record that I am the worst factual writer in the universe, so my lack of content contribution is so our readers don't kill themselves trying to read an article I've written. (Answering these questions was hard enough, by gum.) Seriously, I don't write articles, and the pedia is better off for it.

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: No. If someone gets angry at me for something I've done, I usually run away and hide under my toadstool until they calm down or just realise why I was right in the first place. I don't hold my own opinion in high enough regard to get into a serious edit war.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Difficult questions. I think we have a problem in general with a lack of references. There is a general attitude amongst the general reading public that Wikipedia is the place you go to plug in all the crap you know about something, and the hell with verifiability. Once it's on Wikipedia it's truth. So yeah, taking that through to its logical conclusion, the potential for abuse is severe, and its implications only just now being realised. Our job right now is to make sure that we don't just allow bullshit to creep in, pile up, and pull us down from the inside.

4b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I don't think semi-protection really solves anything, it just frustrates people who want to contribute genuine content. Some kind of flagging would make the most sense, as it would allow readers to edit but give the community a greater level of control over potentially libellous material, but I've honestly not been able to make up my mind on what I think would be the best way to implement it, so I can't give a definitive answer at the moment.

4c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Defaulting to delete puts the onus squarely on the keep voters to verify claims made in the article, so that's making more sense the more I think about it.

4d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?

A: Assuming that the requester is actually the subject, and that the complaint is merely about the article's existence rather than any contentious or libellous content, you can't control public knowledge of your existence, so there's no reason to consider their opinion above the community's unless they present a valid reason. Some guy bursting in and shouting "Hey! Delete my god damned article!" at everybody just doesn't hold any water. (How's that for a crude oversimplification!)

General comments

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

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

This is more of a request to the candidate than a comment: please update this page, and others, when you finish going through them, to save duplicated efforts. Thank you. Majorly talk 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] My talk page is not broken. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a load left that you still haven't removed. I was going to go through them yesterday but found someone had gone through them already - you. I'd appreciate a less sarcastic response next time round, thanks. Majorly talk 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't really understand what this has to do with my RFA. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. Are you going to update the page or not? Cheers, Majorly talk 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --Closedmouth (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As more sexy nom. BJ^Talk 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, totally. More gnomeish admins must be good. --Ged UK 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DFS454 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Master&Expert (Talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely - longterm good user with a clean block log and a sense of humour. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he's a great user and I've often seen him around displaying it :). Good choice - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. GARDEN 08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen him active in image areas and he seems fine.--Caspian blue 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Duh. Flying Toaster 09:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust this user to act responsibly. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MBisanz. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the_undertow ^talk 10:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom/above. FunPika 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, I'm surprised he didn't try this before. -- Menti fisto 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I, unfortunately (heh), know this user from elsewhere, and know that he is funny, well intentioned, and is a great person to be able to work alongside. Definitely. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no issues. Deb (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wizardman 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MBisanz. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strikes me as a mature and reasonable person. I want someone with a sense of humour to have the tools, not some tightarsed twerp. I'm fine with administrators having a sense of humour; I wasn't aware there was an exchange policy "give up your sense of humour today and win a shiny new banhammer!". Not to go stereotypical or anything, but lol I thought he wuz one already. I'm done, now where's my coffee. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get it yourself! --Closedmouth (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks fine to me. Channel R 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support avoids drama. Would use tools well without abuse. Marlith (Talk) 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Tim meh ! 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obviously. Has clue, will use it, zero chance of tool abuse. //roux 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good clueful editor, I believe he will use the tools well. Cool3 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Reasonable person with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions. I do hope that being an admin won't change the pleasant person that I occasionally see on IRC. —Neskaya ^kanetsv? 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - strong candidate, and not a newbie biter either, helping out newbies on IRC when they need help. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I wasn't going to actually vote on this, but per the completely unnecessary sarcasm above, and this totally unnecessary edit summary, I have to wonder how seriously you're taking this. Majorly talk 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the sarcasm, surely the users talk page was a more appropriate venue for the discussion? Camw (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - this does not explain the "majorly darling" response though. It was a reasonable request, responded to in a very inappropriate way. Majorly talk 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate has apologised to me privately, so striking - my sense of humour must have been switched off at that moment. This was an apparent misunderstanding. Majorly talk 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a weak oppose, but this move summary disturbs me. It's innapropriate. I also don't see many edits at all outside of vandal fighitng.--Patton^t/c 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I thought I should just point out that I've opened Huggle maybe three times in the last two weeks. I try to limit my vandal-fighting to when it's needed, say when there's a spike in vandalism, or there's nobody else doing it. There are plenty of other capable and experienced vandal-fighters out there who don't need me stepping on their toes. I do other things, I promise! :P --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 #'''Support''' Good clueful editor, I believe he will use the tools well. [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] ([[User talk:Cool3|talk]]) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Strong support''' Reasonable person with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions.  I do hope that being an admin won't change the pleasant person that I occasionally see on IRC. —[[User:Neskaya|Neskaya]] [[wikt:User talk:Neskaya|<sup>''kanetsv?''</sup>]] 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
+#'''Strong support''' - strong candidate, and not a newbie biter either, helping out newbies on IRC when they need help. '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:green">Stwalkerster</span>]] [&nbsp;[[User talk:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]&nbsp;]</font>''' 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 =====Oppose=====