Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Torchwoodwho

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

Torchwoodwho

Final (0/8/2); It's clear at this point this RFA will not be successful, and to avoid an unnecessary pileon, I have closed it early. –xeno^talk 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Torchwoodwho (talk · contribs) – I have worked extensively with CSD, Vandal fighting and reporting, reliable sources, AfD (with experience at NACs), and attempted informal mediation of various users dating back to 2007. I'm not as strong at content creation, but have participated in AfC and worked to recover articles proposed for deletion. If granted the tools I would use them to assist in CSD, AfD backlog (for discussions of which I'm uninvolved), and continue to advance my work against blatant vandalism. Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (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 will continue my work at CSD, AfD, and AIV as well as attempt to resolve disputes at ANI.

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

A: I have a strong record with CSD having over 850 successful CSD nominations. I have also worked diligently in the areas of reliable sources and article recovery where needed. In recent changes patrol I regularly fight blatant vandalism resulting in numerous short term ip blocks and indef blocks of vandalism-only accounts. I am very proud of feeling approachable by less experienced editors and enjoy pitching in on various noticeboards or direct requests for assistance.

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 was recently in a small dispute with Mono regarding a reversion I made. It was really a matter of bad timing. I reverted a vandal but didn't go back far enough so my reverted version still had vandalism in it. Mono saw the vandalism in my reversion and mistakenly warned me with a level 2 template. I was shocked and brought the incident to ANI for discussion which resulted in a debate about the accuracy of the new vandal fighting tool used by Mono. When it became obvious that Mono and I were not going to be able to work constructively together I disengaged without breaching civility. Additionally, an article I created via the Articles for Creation project over 2 years ago (The Kampung Boy) was found to contain hoax material which was not obvious. I apologized for missing the hoax, defended the validity of AfC's policies, and brought the incident to the AfC talk page for discussion. In the instance of Mono I learned that before going to the community for a consensus on such an event it's better to wait for a proper response in user talk, advice I'd given others many times before but lapsed in my own judgement at the moment. In the future I would be more patient before involving outside opinions.

Additional optional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

4. A BLP article that claims an individual is a national sports award winner has only one reference - which is a link to the award's website. You are not able to find the individual's name on the awards website. A simple net search also fails to bring up any links of the person having been a national sports award winner. What would be your next course of action?

A:I would CSD the article under BLP status, inform the creating editor and suggest the editor moves the article to userspace while the award issue is resolved. BLPs carry different urgency standards regarding removal of unverified content, so it's important to get the article out of mainspace asap. If, after a reasonable amount of time determined by the situation, the article is found to not be reliable I would suggest it is removed entirely.

5. An article seems notable but has no reference; and you're not able to retrieve verifiable and reliable references after a reasonably search. You place a prod giving your reasons. The prod is removed within a minute by a freshly created editor (not the author) who gives a reasoning, "Will add". What's would be your next course of action? Thanks and regards.

A:I would replace the prod notice and notify the editor of the time limit on prods. If the editor feels they will not be able to find sources in the amount of time allowed by prod I would suggest moving the article to userspace until sources could be found. If the editor disagrees with this solution I would remove the prod and bring the article to AfD for consensus.

Uhhh... Wikipedia:CONTESTED might be of help here. —fetch·comms 16:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The question was framed around a 100% new user. From my work in CSD I've noticed that good new editors can often be put off by the processes of the project and I feel that easing an editor in to the climate of the project is better than tossing them toward processes they may not properly understand. The prod template has a notice about how to contest it with links. If the editor clearly doesn't understand how that process works more hand-holding is required. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of intent, if any user removes a prod notice (except in cases of page blanking or along with other vandalism), it should not be added back. Discuss with the user after removal of the notice, then bring to AfD or userfy if they don't work on it after a few days. But re-adding the prod doesn't help, and goes against policy. —fetch·comms 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fetchcomms. It was a question intended to test exactly that knowledge of yours. You should have checked our Prod policy guidelines before answering. I do think you are an extremely positive editor still. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Begoon

6. You have a couple of thousand edits in early 2008, then a period of very low activity, then a couple of thousand more in the 2 months prior to this request. Is there a reason for this? Obviously we all contribute what we can, when we can, but since it means there are less recent edits that can be assessed, I thought I would ask the question to give you a chance to comment on something that I'm pretty sure others will raise.

A:See Q7.

Questions from —fetch·comms

7. (Edit conflicted with Begoon, but related.) Why have you been relatively inactive since you registered an account? Why do you think that, after only becoming an active editor again last month, that an RfA so soon is a good idea?

A:Real life happens. Although I was inactive I regularly read discussions and made minor edits in article space under ip address. I also spent many months at a time away on foreign service. I am no longer engaged in work abroad and can devote more time to the project now.

8. What do you think about the current BLP policy, broadly speaking? How would you approach an AfD on a BLP, or approach trying to save a BLP from deletion? You can answer about your general approach or give detailed examples on what you would do (or have done in the past, with diffs).

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Stats posted. —fetch·comms 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

Strong support Great vandal-fighting experience, among other things. Will make a great admin.Wait, replacing a PROD notice after it's contested? I'm afraid I feel inclined to hold off my support until I see more answers to questions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting on Thing's original !vote due to his comment about holding off his support. I am reading that as he is not supporting right now, thus needs to have his !vote not count towards the supports. If I am wrong about this, please restore.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You seem to have done little content building work, and have far more user talk page edits then you do mainspace edits. While this may be attributed to vandalism work, I personally do not consider 1400 mainspace edits, many of which would be using tools/scripts, a good indicator of having worked much with developing articles. Of course, saving pages from deletion is commendable, but it still seems like a very small part of what you do. If you plan to work in AfD, I would be expecting either a high level in involvement there already, especially in the administrative processes (closing, relisting, etc.), or a lot of writing to show that you better understand arguments presented in AfDs. You also have only about 50 article talk page edits, which seems to indicate a low level of collaboration with others in article work. In addition, you have only become recently active after over two years of inactivity (excepting a few periods of brief activity). I cannot tell if you have kept up with recent policy changes (such as pending changes, etc.), so I'm looking for a few more months of active participation so that is evident. More recently, as you mentioned in Q3, I was surprised that you took your minor dispute with Mono to ANI when he didn't even reply to your talk page message yet. That was very recent, and I don't yet see any evidence of you being more patient and discussing issues with a user first. Your CSD work seems fine, however, but I don't think now is the time for you to become an admin. —fetch·comms 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   1400 edits? Um, according to popups, he has 5117 edits. Nevermind, I see you were referring to article space edits. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Presumably, Fetchcomms is referring to mainspace edits. NW (Talk) 16:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, I clarified it after getting edit conflicted four times :P. —fetch·comms 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Addendum: Replacing removed prods is a no-no, and Q4 did not necessarily refer to new articles. If the person doesn't appear to exist whatsoever, CSD as a hoax, not as "BLP status" (did you mean as an attack page? That wouldn't work either...). Then again, if a hoax, it wouldn't be a living person. But assuming it was a real person, and that there was no negative content in the article, and that there was a claim of notability, though unproven, so I would have recommended proding or AfDing. —fetch·comms 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

2. As per the comments made by Fetchcomms above, and in particular your recent unseemly haste to take your dispute with Mono to AN/I without any real attempt to resolve your differences. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW; you're a good editor, but I don't think you're experienced enough for the mop. And I agree with Malleus: that dispute should not have been taken to ANI so fast. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry - but I too believe the ANI dispute was premature. Mainly, though I have to oppose on levels of recent, relevant experience, and the answer to Q5 per Wikipedia:CONTESTED#Objecting. My oppose doesn't mean I don't believe you have made valuable contributions, or that I don't think you would, in time, be a good admin, it just means I can't support now, for those concerns.  Begoon•talk 17:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry. I think you have the potential to be a fine admin, but at the moment, there are serious gaps in your knowledge of policy.--SPhilbrickT 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Not enough experience, too many red flags raised by opposers above. Also, running to ANI over a mistaken warning instead of removing it and/or discussing it with the editor (not leaving them an outraged message and taking it to ANI before they have chance to respond) raises serious questions about your maturity and communication skills. Finally, Q4 (what hell does "CSD the article under BLP status" mean?) and Q5 which is just plain wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Here's another example of immature communication skills HJ... go jump in the lake. I'm fifty two years old and I have better things to do than be scolded on here. All of you who gave constructive feedback, thank you, all the rest [redacted]. How's that HJ?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   The "maturity" thing is a bit of a false meme on here, but it's best not to take RfA personally or too seriously. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

7. Reluctant oppose Nice contributions, but as others pointed out, the AN/I was rushed and unneeded. Wait a couple of months then retry.--intelati1^(Call) 18:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose – Have concerns with this editor. Q5 worries me; we need more constructive editors here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I have not yet had time to look at the candidate's contrib record in detail, but I do remember one encounter with him from less than a month ago which raises some red flags. This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wagner's first love and the related AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Organizing AfD comments. Basically, Torchwoodwho decided that it was a good idea to re-arrange the AfD comments into "keep"/"delete"/"other" sections and started moving around the AfD comments of other users accordingly. When it was pointed out to him that this went against well established conventions, he took the matter to the AN/I and started the above mentioned AN/I thread. At AN/I it was explained to him that what he was doing was both against a well established convention and against WP:AFDEQ which says: "Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." To be fair, Torchwoodwho was certainly motivated by the desire to improve the process and after the AN/I comments by others he quickly conceded the point and was perfectly nice about it. Still, to me the episode demonstrates a lack of experience and understanding of how the AfD process works. There is a place for being bold, but with something like a significant revision of an AfD format he really should have asked first, say at WT:AFD. As it was, he created a bit of a mess in the Wagner AfD, which had to be untangled.Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Can't really support, but you're a good enough editor that I don't want to oppose either, despite the prod replacement above. Will probably support next time around, if there is a next time... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2010 (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.