Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MusikAnimal

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

MusikAnimal

Final (68/0/0); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, please allow to present MusikAnimal for your consideration. He's been around in this incarnation since July 2011, though he contributed briefly with another account which he has long since abandoned. He is that rare thing: Wikipedia's equivalent of a thinking man's soldier. He is both a prolific vandal hunter and a writer; frustrated by backlogs at AIV and elsewhere, he has decided that he would like to help put as an admin. He has an excellent track record as a vandal fighter, having made nearly 500 reports to AIV; as a regular there, I can certainly vouch for the accuracy of his reports. Other areas he is interested in include speedy deletion; he already has considerable experience of tagging, and keeps a log of his tags, which voters may wish to review. MusikAnimal also demonstrates common sense and good judgement—that is, he is not a simple button-masher. He has single-handedly written a GA (Better Out Than In), collaborated on several more (these are listed on his userpage, but he's admirably humble about his contributions), and has made significant improvements to other articles, such as Chicago and Hasil Adkins. On talk pages, he conducts himself in professional yet friendly manner and—importantly—keeps his cool, even when he finds himself in a disagreement with another editor or when he suffers the inevitable abuse that comes from anti-vandalism work. He also provides helpful advice to novice editors whom he encounters through his speedy deletion and ani-vandalism work.

All this considered, I believe MusikAnimal is a calm, level-headed editor who would make an excellent addition to the admin corps, especially given his desire to work in areas such as AIV, which can always make use of another pair of hands. Thank you for your consideration, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you HJ for your kind words. I wanted to clarify that to my knowledge, I have had at least two other previous (now abandoned) accounts, Fiend666 (2006) and Fiend666x (2008-2010), with a combined 22 edits to the mainspace. The editing histories do not overlap and neither were involved in disputes or edit warring. That being said, I am honored to accept the nomination. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I look forward in continuing to work in areas I'm familiar with, and utilizing my new tools as necessary. The vast majority of my editing history is owed to fighting vandalism, so my primary focus would be in helping prevent abuse of the wiki, including responding to reports at AIV and RPP. I take the blocking policy very seriously and intend to be fair and react on a case by case basis, careful to investigate prior editing history before jumping to conclusions. I have a lot of faith in newcomers and the openness of the wiki, so caution should also be exerted when protecting pages.

Assisting at UAA may be a common task, where under special assumption of good faith I would act accordingly. I believe many users who create seemingly inappropriate usernames mean no harm and may simply need to be asked to change it, as opposed to blatant violations of username policy.

Comfortable with the blocking policy and page protection, responding to AN3 is an area of interest of mine. I do however believe dispute resolution and communication is ideal, and such should be observed before taking administrative action in this area.

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

A: I have reported to AIV over 500 times, but aside from my lengthy anti-vandal work, I'm a passionate content creator. I think my best work would include Better Out Than In (GA) and Hasil Adkins (GA nominee), both of which I wrote or completely rewrote. I like to stay dedicated to my WikiProjects, with 80+ references added to Chicago in a long-term effort to make it good. I have a few other GA credits such as Clarence Chesterfield Howerton; I have made marked contributions to other GAs, though I prefer to give the bulk of credit to other editors involved therein.

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: By nature, patrollers often run into angry, backlashing vandals. The majority of these are ignored, when clearly WP:NOTHERE but only to disrupt. Legitimate editors I try to reason with calmly and peacefully, and I can't say I've ever become stressed. I try to diffuse tense situations with a helpful mindset. If things were to get too heated, and dispute resolution fails, AN/I would be my next step, as I would at that point be too WP:INVOLVED to make an administrative decision. Civility is important to me, and I feel productivity can be deeply hampered when it is not exercised. While I'm not afraid to speak my mind, I've encountered no major editing disputes outside your typical, constructive RfC.

Additional question from alf laylah wa laylah

4. Are you willing to stand for recall and to give your criteria for doing so explicitly here if so? (see WP:AOR for sample processes). (This question isn't meant as a comment on your qualifications. I'm planning to ask it of every candidate from now on).

A: If I ever make a decision bad enough that my adminship becomes questioned, and enough respectable editors agree – then yes, I would not oppose being desysopped. I have not given thought as to what my criteria would entail, but I can say it would be rather straightforward. I am very open to feedback of any kind; I think constructive criticism makes us better editors. Administrator or not, a trout slap is always welcomed if warranted. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Anupmehra

5. Hello and best of luck for your RfA. I noticed you have only created 13 articles (verify) and you do have autopatrolled user-right. A suggested standard for the auto-patrolled user right is, the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages (WP:AUTOPAT). Would you consider granting someone auto-patrolled right for the same number of articles created by him? Or, do you think, 50 is quite high and WP:AUTOPAT page needs a little amendment?

A: Good question! As a patroller myself, this is actually something that has concerned me for some time. I think the 50 valid articles standard is a good one, but there are many other factors at play. The underlying issue is that there is a large backlog of unreviewed pages - not just articles. The autopatrolled right is meant to ease this workload on the patrollers, and can (and should) be granted when it can be shown that a particular editor can be trusted to not create inappropriate pages, or those requiring intervention from a patroller (e.g. tagging for lack of verifiability). If you have created a good handful of valid articles (especially if of higher quality), and have significant other contributions that clearly exemplify an understanding of policy on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability, notability, etc, I would argue this is tantamount to creating fifty valid, well-sourced start-class articles. The "nutshell" of WP:AUTOPAT may insinuate this, but it in the end it is all subjective and varies case by case. That being said, at this time I am not completely comfortable applying this rationale at WP:PERM/A. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Philg88

6. Hi, I came across this comment as part of a CSD/AfD talk page discussion where you said that part of reason that the article met WP:NCORP was because of its inclusion on a list published by Yahoo! Finance. Most of the content within that reference is clearly lifted directly from a press release issued by the company, rather than "content". How do you reconcile your comment with the GNG's statement that "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention"?  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A: This was a very tough call. The only reason I accepted this article at AfC was when I saw that the company had received major news coverage because of an FDA warning placed on one of it's products. This is not inherently a crime, so it's unclear if WP:ILLCON would apply. Further into my own research I saw that the LA Times had covered the subject in detail, along with Fox Business and the San Francisco Business Times. I did indeed cite the Yahoo! Finance as helping establish notability, as it appears much of it was not written from the perspective of the organization itself, and shows the organization was mentioned in Inc. (magazine). That may have been a mistake, but I can't say I fully agree that the source's reliability should be completely dismissed. The judgement call here was certainly vacillating, and it's little nuances like this that will keep me from closing AfD's until I'm more comfortable. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from MusikAnimal

7. What can you tell us about the Thmc1 sockpuppet investigation?

A: Pardon me for this nontraditional RfA behavior, but in response to concerns from some of the !voters, I thought I'd ask and answer this question myself. Honestly, there's not much to say here. I happened to be editing the same article as a few sockpuppets who live in the same area. Skimming through the investigation, you should find any answers you're looking for. I was at the time a relatively new editor; I found the experience to be an agonizing one, and it nearly drove me away from Wikipedia altogether. Looking back, I think the language used by the editor who opened the investigation showed that not enough assumption of good faith was exercised. It makes me wonder what would have happened if it had been some other innocent, novice, yet devoted contributor instead of me. Maybe that editor wouldn't have been able recover from the experience, and their long-lasting potential would consequently be lost. I can't think of a better example of why WP:AGF is so important. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Kraxler

8.Is deleting votes on one own's RfA page, for whatever reason, compatible with WP:INVOLVED?

A. Anyone's vote is welcomed, but the users in question are blatant sockpuppets of an editor banned from editing Wikipedia. I don't know who this person is or why the RfA is being targeted, but after the sixth "awesome editorz" account being blocked and their votes being rollbacked by others, I figured it was safe for me to do the same. See the page history for more. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - RfA pages are watched by a few bureaucrats, admins and other users, who may decide whether to exclude, or not, any votes. Once you start to ponder if it might be safe for you to edit as an involved party, you might be leaning too far out of the window. Better do lean over backwards when it comes to ethics, and leave the decision whether anything is safe to be done to uninvolved users. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Epicgenius

9. Thank you for offering to service Wikipedia as an administrator. What will you do if an editor adds unconstructive content to, or vandalizes, a page:

• on their first edit
• on one of their first 100 edits (they have made previous edits before)
• if they are autoconfirmed with 1000+ edits
• if they are an admin?

A: Frankly, how I would respond to these situations as an administrator is no different than how I would now. I don't think a block would be warranted in any of these scenarios. Unfortunately I don't think I can give you a straightforward answer as everything is circumstantial. Is the edit blatant vandalism? Is it unconstructive, but possibly with good intent? Does it resemble a test edit? Let's just assume in this case that it's vandalism.

If I observe vandalism as the user's first edit, I'd revert and issue a warning, choosing the appropriate template level based on the severity of abuse. With any user who has shown a desire to help the project, especially if they have over 100 edits, I'd prefer to instead place a personalized message on their talk page. If it's vandalism, I'd presumptively revert regardless of edit count or user rights. When an administrator or experienced editor makes a vandalistic edit it's likely a mistake or a compromised account. Vandalism is vandalism, but you should only revert when necessary. On the contrary, I'm a fan of the WP:BRD cycle when applicable, using an edit summary to politely explain the revert, and initiate a discussion in order to develop consensus. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

10. Have you previously used other accounts beside the two you list above? If so, which ones?

A. I want to say I had one using my university email, but I am really unsure. WMF staff with database access could easily find it if it exists, but obviously there are privacy concerns involved, and that account likely had less than a dozen edits anyway. I am not certain why I kept creating new accounts. It was years ago; Perhaps I forgot I had the other one, or as was the case with MusikAnimal, I wanted the username change but didn't realize I could simply request it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from John Cline

11. In answering question 1., you said: "assisting at UAA may be a common task". Please elaborate on this to explain what you intended to convey; I am not clear about what you meant. Thank you.

A. I simply meant that as an administrator, I may be found responding to reports at UAA from time to time. This noticeboard is intended to include only obvious violations of the username policy, however I maintain much of that is opinionated. Inappropriate usernames do not necessarily equate to ill intent, and one should react to each case with discretion. While I feel I have good judgement in this regard, I will make clear that my involvement at this noticeboard will initially be minimal. Should I feel ambivalent about a particular report I will wait to see how a more established administrator assesses it. Through this observation and the holding pen, I hope to become more involved at UAA over time. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for MusikAnimal: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for MusikAnimal can be found here.
• User's edit count could be found on the talk page. ///EuroCarGT 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. A good content editor who is also well involved in vandalism patrol. Moreover they are polite and helpful responding to queries and requests for help from other editors. Has demonstrated understanding of CSD policy and has never made the wrong call in an AfD. Good luck! BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
3. A responsible, co-operative and enthusiastic editor. Clean block log, a good CSD log and the best part nearly 500 edits to WP:AIAV. And as per alf laylah wa laylah said, a good recall criteria is a plus. ///EuroCarGT 21:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
4. A valuable editor with a good record, a respected nominator, and a willingness to stand for recall. I am happy to support.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - you meet my criteria. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Per the nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen MusikAnimal's work on quite a few occasions. I agree entirely with the nomination. Should make a great administrator. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
8. Support → Call me Hahc21 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
9. Support per nominator -- Tawker (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
10. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
11. Support per Donner and above. Excellent content provider. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
12. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Having frequently crossed paths with MusikAnimal, I have no issues at all. Widr (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
14. Support Looking back over his talk page archives I'm impressed with how he handles the people that come to him with questions, with clear but non-robotic references to policy and individual advice. That's the kind of person we need as an admin. Chuy1530 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
15. Support - writes well, gets what Wikipedia is about, seems reasonable and responsible. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
16. Support - no concerns, and looks as if they would use the mop well. GiantSnowman 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
17. Support That was exactly the sort of response I was looking for to my question above. Thank you. The notability of that company rests on an absolute knife edge and it's tough call for anyone to make correctly. Sorry for asking such a horrible question but you certainly get my vote for the quality of the answer.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
18. Support - Excellent communication skills, good answers to questions showing a clear focus on what admin areas they want to work in and policy/guideline knowledge, plenty of experience in article and non-article space, and a nomination from HJ Mitchell is another plus for me. -- Atama頭 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
19. Support per my RfA Standards. Mkdw^talk 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Edit: I want to reaffirm my support after reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive. Truly a unfortunate circumstance in the relatively earlier years of editing for this editor and the nominator. I'm glad MusikAnimal had the resilience to continue on and make the important contributions they have since then. Mkdw^talk 16:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
20. Support - His answer to my question (#5) is something, what I was expecting for. Apart from this, his answers to other questions, shows his competence to be an admin. Good luck! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
21. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
22. Support No concerns either. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
23. Support Seems like good candidate. I reviewed his GA at the time and he was very easy to work with, and was engaging. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
24. Support A very familiar presence as a clued and knowledgeble contributor. Good with colleagues, established and novice. Explains complex issues in basic terms well. No hestitation here. Irondome (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
25. Support - Sure. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
26. Support per all the above. Thoughtful answers. Nice to people. --Stfg (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
27. Support per the above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
28. Support One GA and 13 articles created is really underwhelming, but a nomination from Harry is good enough for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
29. Support. Seems like a sensible choice; no concerns. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 07:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
30. Support Am happy to support - "Mop Please" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
31. Support. Hmm, 19,297 edit to main namespace, I like it.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
32. Support I have seen his work at AfC, where he displayes good policy knowledge (clue) and the ability to work with people. Certainly experienced enough. Regarding the SPA, the only thing that was proved was that he edited from New York City, and edited the same article that a sockpuppet did. Most of us would thereby come under the same suspicion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
33. He certainly has my support. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
34. Support he will be a great admin. Miszatomic (Talk) 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
35. Support Trustworthy nom, good answers to questions. Newbie indiscretions no concern here. Will do a fine job with the mop. Miniapolis 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
36. Support Looks like an excellent candidate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
37. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
38. Secret ^account 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
39. Support — Mediran [talk] 05:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
40. Support Great candidate. James^x12345 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
41. No concerns. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
42. Support Another solid candidate that has the right demeanor and plenty of experience. No concerns here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
43. Support Will make a good admin. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
44. Support – This user, judging from prior personal interactions with him, is trusted. Also, anti-vandalism experience will make the block tool handy to him. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
45. Support - I like the "...nontraditional RfA behavior...ask and answer this question myself" response. WP:AGF is important, especially for an admin. No concerns. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
46. Support per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
47. Per nom. No concerns. Connormah (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
48. The CSD work looks good at a glance. Happy to support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
49. Support, great work in the respective areas he wants to use the mop in. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
50. Support I note the reasonably calm behaviour during the clear stress of the Thmc1 sockpuppet investigation. Coincidences do happen, and they need to be investigated; however, it can be a worrying time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
51. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
52. Support I've run into MusikAnimal a few times on vandal patrol and have nothing but good things to say. Should be a good, level-headed addition to those WP:MOPping up the vandalism. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
53. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
54. Support. Nice solid quality content contributor and also well-rounded in other areas, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
55. Support Yes.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 02:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
56. Support - I've had only good experiences with working with him in the past. I trust him. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
57. Support - A great candidate, prompted me to log in even when I was on a Wiki-break to support him. Faizan 10:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
58. Support Rzuwig^► 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
59. MusikAnimal is a very solid candidate. He's versed in a variety of areas, from contributing to GA's to combating vandalism, which indicates to me that he is knowledgeable and well-rounded. I'm impressed by editors who are able to balance content work and project maintenance work, and MusikAnimal does this very well. Looking at his talk page archives, it's evident that he is approachable, friendly and easy to work with. He'll do well. Happy to support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
60. Support - United States Man (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
61. Support Looks like a solid candidate who checks all the boxes on my list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
62. Support - candidate is a clear net-positive to the project and there is no peril in giving him the extra tools. Any ambivalence I may otherwise have is eradicated on the strength of respect I have for the nominator.—John Cline (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
63. Support: Excellent vandalism-fighting skills; have had nothing but positive interactions with him. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
64. Support Solid admin candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
65. Support. Good contributions, especially at AIV. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
66. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
67. Support - Going to be a superlative janitorial laborer from what I saw. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
68. Support: a good editor in all areas: a good and modest content writer, but also know's his way around CSDs. Matty.007 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral with 31 supporters as of this edit, which may be hard to bear. I would just like to question this SPI where you were involved in: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1/Archive. After reading your comments, it seems like there may be a problem as sockpuppetry is never tolerated here, and as said by the blocking policy, which you take by the book. In the end of that SPI, there was no conclusion on any action done on your account, such as blocking. I am not trying to revive that discussion, however, I think that having associated accounts and problems may give you a problem as an admin. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Maybe I have to think of this matter again per 78.26's statement above. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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.