Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WAvegetarian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

WAvegetarian

[edit]

Final(84/1/2) Ended 15:03, 2006-07-30 (UTC)

WAvegetarian (talk · contribs) – WAvegetarian is a veteran Wikipedia user who has been editing Wikipedia since 31st May 2005, and has more than 4200 edits. He has been very active on new pages patrol and has more than 1000 deleted edits to this day. He shows a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and actively participates in AfDs. Connor is also an active RC Patroller and has a keen eye for vandalism. He is also very active on the Help Desk and always offers a helping hand to newcomers. This rational, intelligent and civil user would not abuse the responsibilty bestowed to administrators, and should be provided with the appropriate tools. Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I-beat-the-nominator-support :) — FireFox 15:15, 23 July '06
  2. Support This Fire Burns Always 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Meaty Support, excellent user. High points definitely make up for Yanksox's concern in my opinion (but please do take that criticism into account after this RfA). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No red flags as far as I can see. WAvegetarian appears to take part in a wide range of activities on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, please. Misza13 T C 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support per neutral section. Look quite good otherwise. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Things seemed a lot better until I saw those edits in the neutral section. Everything else is in order, though, and nobody can be perfect. Alphachimp talk 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: I've seen this user around and there's nothing worrisome for me. Catamorphism 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seivad 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. He'll make good use of the admin tools. Canderson7 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I agree with Neutral 1 and 2, but it still looks to me like this user could use the admin tools, and those examples don't really show anything that would suggest he would misuse them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've had...quite an experience with WAvegetarian when I was first starting out here. Obviously, I've changed. He is an excellent vandal fighter; I've had first hand experience! (In fact, I was planning to nominate him, darn!) Thistheman 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. That's so hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian - Talk 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. good user, his reputation proceeds him. Highway Return to Oz... 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Edit conflict Support This editor seems to have a sensible grasp of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, judging by the spread of edits and the answers below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, support. JohnnyDemon 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    IP contribution -- Samir धर्म 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Recurring AOL vandal. Vote stricken. Naconkantari 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nominator. Reggae Sanderz 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, I'm impressed by his answers and his contribs are top notch imho - great candidate all right. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support (despite what another admin candidate, Yanksox, has to say below). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support. Weak due to concern raised by Yanksox. Roy A.A. 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support definitely, a good contributor who will make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support solid contributor who I'm sure will make a solid administrator hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I was neutral, but a more thorough look at WAveg's contributions and community interactions convinces me that he is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and that his having the tools is likely to benefit the project, so I, my concerns about the issue raised by Yanksox notwithstanding, support. Joe 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support for fellow RC Patroller. Pass the mop! E Asterion u talking to me? 23:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per RandyWang. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems like a great user. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Go Bulldogs! --Michael Snow 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'd have to say this here is a pretty hefty support! bd2412 T 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. A 16oz Cut of Meat Support I've been looking for this RfA all summer. Teke 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. DarthVader 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support From what I have seen is a good user, should make good use of the admin tools. --blue520 05:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --A. B. 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support I have had recent dealings with this user and a troublesome third user and I think they have been nothing but professional in their dealings. ViridaeTalk 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom. 1ne 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. great big bags o'Support I like the answers given to the questions. TruthCrusader 07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. --Draicone (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Go Yankees 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Exicornt vandal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Well you've been editing over a year, so I support. Mostly Rainy 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --HResearcher 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Suppport.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. support Knows his way around.Geni 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Meets all three of my criteria. In addition, all of my personal experiences with WAvegetarian have been very positive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Pepsidrinka supports. 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, without reservations. Sango123 04:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, looks quite thoughtful -- Samir धर्म 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support appears to be a good quality user and someone who won't bite sentient beings. I really don't like the responses in the Neutral section (specifically the Again... bit) but it's not enough to sway my recommendation. MLA 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support, good for the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. A good editor, I'm sure he'll be a good admin too.-Will Beback 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Ryūlóng 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 10:32Z
  62. Support, WAvegetarian looks like an excellent candidate for administrator. Prodego talk 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support — Vildricianus 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - does good work at WP:HD -- Lost 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support 172 | Talk 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. (Edit conflict) support, as I really like WAvegetarian's answers to the questions he was given. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per above. Bucketsofg✐ 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. OMG Cabalish Support --Vengeful Cynic 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Scrabble-tastic Support. Appears to be thoughtful, mature, articulate and responsible editor. Agent 86 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I am sure he will not abuse the tools. --Guinnog 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per above, and per fair and open response to communication. Good Luck! -- Avi 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support: All reliable editors should graduate to become administrators. --Bhadani 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per above, a reliable and trustworthy editor. Silensor 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Good editor. Let's give him a go. --Improv 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per nom. Michael 06:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Schizophrenic Support I ask myself, "would Wikipedia benefit if this user gets the mop?" Amazingly, the "other side" replied "yes". Hence my vote. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support Good editor who is always willing to help others on the Help Desk, reliable and "mature" contributor -- Imoeng 09:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Meets my standards. --Tuspm(C | @) 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support A good editor and an asset to Wikipedia.--Runcorn 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. No reason not to, and many good reasons to Support ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support A sound editor who displays good judgement and knowledge of policy. Gwernol
Oppose
Oppose I don't like his answer to the rouge admin question. The first part (about being called names and wrongfully) is sympathetic. I don't like the part about it not bothering him if he were nominated as a rouge admin. It would bother me if someone put my name in there. I still don't find the joke amusing as it rings a little to loudly with truth. Plus, again, I feel a cliquiness in this rfa. Shannonduck talk 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TINC? --Nearly Headless Nick 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon, hve you ever heard of WP:AGF? These 'Clique' comments are becoming worring. Thε Halo Θ 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand that some people will not like my answer to the rouge admin question. There's not much I can do about that as it was a truthful answer. I will note, however, that I wasn't looking for sympathy as anyone seeking adminship at the same time as seeking sympathy for being called names is decidedly confused about what comes with the territory. I was trying to demonstrate that various disgruntled parties, and a few immature folks from my highschool, had written things about similar in a similar context as what a rouge admin might get. Of course, all I did in these cases was warn them about vandalism, tag their 7th grade friend's bio as a WP:CSD A7, or nom/comment in their company's AfD. Whether you understood that before or not, I'm sure that my explanation of it isn't going to make you more likely to change your mind, but I thought I should explain it anyway just so there was no confusion. A couple of people have commented on your cliquiness concerns in this RfA; many more have in others. There is a legitimate reason to be concerned if you see adminship as a political position and RfA as a democratic vote because only a very small portion of the community is involved. Assuming that there is an average of 100 votes per RfA and that 2/3 of the registered usernames aren't active in any way for one reason or another, that is still a voter turnout of just .005%. As much as it seems to have become like an up or down vote, RfA is supposed to be consensus based. Just like all other consensus based decisions on Wikipedia, consensus is formed by interested parties who happen to show up. There is a group of people who, like yourself, wish to be greatly involved in the RfA process and do vote, for lack of a better term, in nearly every one. When they think a candidate is well qualified they say support. It is my guess that they have similar standards which is why they often end up on the same "side." Although I didn't participate, I would have supported Ohnoitsjamie whole-heartedly. I think this is a great example not of cliquiness, even though many of the same voters that are involved here were involved in that RfA, but instead an example of an amazingly well qualified candidate. I can appreciate what I believe is your ultimate concern that not enough people take an active role in or seem to care about RfAs, but I don't feel that setting your vote to the opposite of what the majority of others are saying is likely to bring about positive change in the matter. I could of course be completely misinterpretting your comments, so please let me know if I have misunderstood what your driving concern is and I will try to address it. I realize that for you this is a secondary matter in my RfA and am not trying to get you to change your opinion, but it is the one criticism you had that I think I might be able to work with you to change. I also have concerns with the current RfA process, although please don't take that as another example of me being a rouge admin running roughshod over process. :)—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - [Edit conflict] A good user who is obviously interested in the project but I feel the user can get slightly worked up when things do not run smoothly. For example, I closed an AfD nomination and forgot to mention I had found a few sources for them, to add them into the article. WAvegetarian responded with a slightly mild tirade. I could certainly sense his anger. However, I could tell he had calmed down with his reply. Iolakana|T 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that my first message was more confrontational than necessary, however the context of the timeline of events gives explanation, if not excuse, for it. The AfD notice was removed and the AfD was closed at 11:40 with the closing remarks The result of the debate was keep. There were two qualified keeps, pending sources. At 14:29, two hours and forty-nine minutes after the closure, there had been no change made to the article and no comment as to why it was being kept. It seemed to me that the almost three hours of elapsed time was more than enough to have brought up any new information or links to debate somewhere else to explain the keep closure. I left the message linked above at 14:29. At 14:58, Kilo-Lima left me this note, explaining that he had forgotten to mention that he had found sources. He made no comment about forgetting to add them to the article. His comment makes it seem like adding them was an afterthought spurred by my enquiry. He added the sources two minutes after that comment, but a full three hours and twenty minutes after closing the AfD. My response, linked above, was geared towards settling any bad feelings that Kilo-Lima may have had. The desired outcome had eventually come about,the article kept as notable with sources; there was no reason to complain about the lack of timeliness as nothing could be done about it. Kilo-Lima had only become a sysop two days earlier, so my confrontational first message may have felt to him like newbie admin biting. I can imagine that there was something that prevented Kilo-Lima from having the time to immediately add the sources, but he should have at least mentioned that he found them and had some intention to do so, although the time lapse and response makes me think he forgot/didn't. I don't feel that most single events are enough to cancel out the rest of a candidate's qualifications, especially if they occurred over three months in the past. That said If I did feel this way and this interchange had occurred two days prior rather than two days after the close of Kilo-Lima's RfA, I might have voted oppose on his for his poor communication and lack of transparency and timeliness. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Seems like a good user, but I'm little worried about this considering that the candidate listed this as being an article that he is proud of. This may seem ridiculous, but that section seems unencylopedic and intended for people that go to/did go to/will go to the school. Yanksox 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my response to the associated optional question below. In direct response to this vote: One of the ways that our project is used is as a neutral review and source of information on companies, places, schools and organizations. While I can't say how widespread it is, I know many people who have "googled" potential dates, employees, employers, etc. We are now being used in the same way. Anecdotally I can say that many people I know used Wikipedia in their college search to get neutral information on schools. The Seattle Public Schools allow you to pick your own school to some degree so I don't see any problem with providing neutral information about the culture of the school to potential students and parents. This of course opens up a whole 'nother issue over what way we expect/want people to use Wikipedia. I'm quite certain that there is a more appropriate space to do this than my RfA. If there is a current discussion about this, either here or on meta, please let me know as I would love to be involved in it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Yanksox. I don't think the candidate actually wrote that section or should be opposed over it, but one would hope that a Wikipedia admin would know that kind of speculation about random school employees and people and so on is utterly unencyclopedic and needs to go. --W.marsh 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have removed the two really troubling items, see [1] for the earlier version. --W.marsh 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per YankSox and W.Marsh. Joe 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
    Again, please see my reasoning in the response to Yanksox' question.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user WAvegetarian (over the 4311 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 388 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 11.02 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 355 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4311 edits shown on this page and last 30 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.3% (13)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.62% (70)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.53% (799)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 47.75%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 26 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2057 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 12.34%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.56% (2352 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.39% (879 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.33% (747 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.31% (272 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 36.12% (1557) | Article talk: 5.2% (224)
User: 5.96% (257) | User talk: 29.16% (1257)
Wikipedia: 21.46% (925) | Wikipedia talk: 0.65% (28)
Image: 1% (43)
Template: 0.26% (11)
Category: 0.07% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (6)
Username WAvegetarian
Total edits 4311
Distinct pages edited 2057
Average edits/page 2.096
First edit 05:08, 31 May 2005
 
(main) 1557
Talk 224
User 253
User talk 1257
Image 43
Image talk 1
Template 11
Template talk 3
Category 3
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 929
Wikipedia talk 28

Taken from Interiot's Tool2. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
A: I have found that much of my time on Wikipedia is spent doing new page patrol. As it is now, I can tag articles for speedy deletion, but that just adds to the back log. I would like to be able to lessen that backlog. I also have gotten fairly good at recognizing copyright violations. I have tagged many articles as such, but would like to work on the other end to reduce this massive backlog. I have experience with images having uploaded a number of main illustrations myself and would probably help out at the image csd backlog as well. I also have been active working on countervandalism through computer assisted recent changes patrol. Having the rollback button would make my vandalism patrolling easier and more efficient. I also would be able to block persistent vandals rather than trying to figure out what {{test4.2}} is while I wait for someone else deal with my alerts on WP:AIV or IRC. Instead, I could be working on that backlog. There is lots written here about "the backlog" because we have a lot of it and I know I helped to create it. It is especially noticeable to me when doing new page patrol and it takes forever for attack articles to be deleted. In my work on the help desk/{{helpme}} patrol I have come across instances where admin assisted page moving/history merging was necessary to fix a duplicate article, someone needed to have the text of a deleted article to rewrite to an acceptable state and other instances where I had to refer them to someone else. I have a background in establishing consensus in discussions in real life. I was elected to the position of a consensus discussion moderator/arbiter at my cooperative, which is a part of the Oberlin Student Cooperative Association (the third largest student cooperative association in N. America). I would make use of this and my experience with Wikipedia to close XfDs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I know that there are users who will hold it against me, but the single article I have contributed to the most is Garfield High School (Seattle). The early history of the article got corrupted during a string of page moves, but you can see most (I think) of my uncorrupted changes by looking at my early contributions. This article wasn’t even a legitimate stub when I found it. Since I’m not of the opinion that every accredited educational institution teaching people age 14 and up is notable, I probably would have marked it as having no claim of notability and sent it to VfD, however this article is about ‘‘my’’ high school. I got involved with Wikipedia because User:CAPS LOCK told me to one day in our high school philosophy class. Having grown up in the neighborhood and spent four years there, I figured I was well qualified to write about it. Garfield is by no means ready to be featured article, but it is quite good, IMO. I didn’t create it, but I’m fairly certain the majority of the content is mine. The source research was by me, at least. The best start to an article I’ve made is at Power Pete. Other than some mention of a community of Power Pete players, which did/doesn’t exist AFAIK, I think the article covers everything it should/could.
Most of my contributions haven’t been creating content but instead new page and recent change patrolling and answering on Ref desk, Help desk and helpdesk-l before it closed in February. As it was a mailing list, my contributions to helpdesk-l don’t show up in Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian or my edit count. I would refer you to the archives, but the link on the meta info site doesn’t work. It seems that the only record I was there are the BJAODN I added to the helpdesk page.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course. Most recently (today) while responding to {{helpme}}s on #wikipedia-bootcamp I ran into a disgruntled newbie who wanted help figuring out where his article had been moved to after it stopped being at Credit Card in favor of a redirect to Credit card. I patiently worked resolving his problems while removing helpme templates over and over. It was pointed out to me by another editor trying to help the author that the article was likely to be deleted as it was related to a current AfD. I agreed with them, but continued to help the author. It was at this point that the author decided we were conspiring against them and proceeded to have a fit across my talk page, the other helper’s talk page, their own talk page, the AfD, and the talk page of at least one person from the AfD. This included personal attacks, gross civility violations and blackmail using threats to troll if I didn’t make sure the article got kept. I responded in a calm, civil and collected manner. I pointed out the relevant policies, explained my actions and tried to deescalate the situation. The calmed down significantly after my first message in response to their rant and left a civil question for me on their talk page. I answered it, giving the reasoning behind my actions. I feel that open communication and civil discussion are the best ways to deescalate conflict and stress. If stress is cumulative rather than stemming from an individual conflict I find that short wikibreaks can be very rejuvenative.
I flipped out once in what I feel is the distant past during the AfD for REMAGINE. I felt that the author was being bitten for not understanding Wikipedia policies. I was out of line and have not had anything even close to that occur since. JzG gave a great example of deescalation technique and a lesson I took to heart [2]: clear and early communication avoids problems. In general my wikistress levels have been relatively low other than during the time I was involved in this dispute. I did get into it with User:Mike Nobody over edits to the George W. Bush article and the addition of a 238 pixel wide image to his signature. It eventually became clear to him that the insertion of his POV using out of context photos was unacceptable as was the oversize fair use image in his signature. I explained how to avoid inserting your own POV into articles and explained the fair use criteria. I finished the exchange with a compliment and didn't have any problems there after.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. You listed Garfield High School (Seattle) as one of the articles that you are most proud of. However, there is a section that appears not exactly be encylopedic[3].Do you believe the section should still be inculded? If so, why? Thank you very much in advance and good luck! Yanksox 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that section. I agree that the section will not be there in its current form if/when the article gets to featured status. It appears that more of the edits got lost in the various moves and history merge crap than I realized. I know that I have made many edits to this section to clean it up. The only one I found in the history is this. I guess this is one area where I am an eventualist. While I agree that the current style of this section is unencyclopedic, I think that the culture of the school is an encyclopedic topic worth covering. The painting of the stack and culture surrounding activities on Alder Street are, now with the remodel "were", an integral part of the Garfield student culture. I didn't create this section, but feel that it will and has served as a spot to draw in new editors where they will feel like they can make a positive contribution. Eventually I would like to see this section become a nice paragraph detailing the changing culture of the school through the years as evidenced by the words students at the time used to describe it. I realize this may be somewhat of a pipe dream. Currently I feel that the section is doing less harm than good so I haven't deleted it. There have been no concerns raised over it on the article's talk page so there hasn't been any consensus created one way or the other. I don't think this is quite the right forum to discuss article content, but will definitely take that into consideration. I urge anyone with a viewpoint on this matter to discuss it at Talk:Garfield High School (Seattle) and to post an article content RfC if they feel so inclined.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from Lar:

5.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(/me scribbles down his notes frantically wishing the professor would slow down) :) (sorry I got carried away but one paragraph per 3 ?s seemed reasonable).......
I actually just read about the 6 users requesting resignation thing earlier today when poking around in the fallout of Sean's second RfA....So I'm now coming back to answer this question having had the edit window open for roughly one hour per question mark. After a long, hard thought I've come to the conclusion that if I were made an admin in 5.5 days, I wouldn't put myself into that category. I think that the idea is a sound one. Allowing a minority of the community to have that power preserves the consensus backbone of the project that I feel is getting lost as we grow larger and switch to more vote-like systems as it is very hard to scale consensus up to the population size we now have. This is one way to prevent the voice of underrepresented groups from being squashed as sometimes happens in percentage based RfAs. I also like that this provides a way to avoid the time consuming hassle of RfAr. No matter what the eventual outcome, arbitration takes a lot of calendar time and person hours and often results in hurt feelings and grudges. This provides a way to avoid that. This would also take the bureaucracy out of the process, allowing the editors of Wikipedia to get results without having to depend on members of that thing of which there is none that starts with a C.
That said, here are my reasons for not liking the wording of the category currently: I'm not sure that 500 spelling corrections make you enough of a community member to be in good standing. I support the work that recipients of the Minor Barnstar do, but one can rack up 500 minor edits rather quickly without ever communicating with others, knowing policies or really getting involved with the community. I just checked and it took me 2.5 months of solid editing, but from May 31 to October 14 elapsed time, to rack up 500 total edits. Others might disagree, but at that point, given the length of time, quality of edits and sense of community I had, I felt like I was certainly "in good standing." So I find myself feeling that 500 main space edits could be both too low or too high a standard. One month also seems short to me, but someone who spent many hours each day on the project, was involved in policy discussions and communicated with the community about Wikipedia off site through IRC, meet up or whatever could have a very strong grasp of how we operate and be a fully functioning member of the community "in good standing." Thus I have similar conflictions about both numerical limits. I am also worried that by the written criteria someone who doesn't know how to use the preview button, made many borderline helpful minor edits and got a week long block after three weeks on the project could then turn around and request the blocking admin step down. Obviously some people get accidentally blocked so banning people who have been blocked from the process isn't good, but maybe having a cooling off period after coming off a block would avoid retaliatory requests. I also think that there needs to be some kind of double jeopardy clause that limits how soon after a successful reconfirmation and admin can be requested to prove themselves again, otherwise it would be used as a tool of admin harassment. While this RfA has been going quite well for me so far, I'm not sure that I would necessarily want to go through it again as I have some reservations about the way they are conducted, as touched on earlier. I think that there are better forums for reviewing user conduct, as I believe that administrators are User:s just like everyone else. One forum that comes to mind is a user conduct RfC. This could have some modified form for reviews of admins, but I think it is a better base to work from than a second RfA. If I were to join something like this, which I'm not opposed to, I would need to determine "good standing" on a subjective case-by-case basis as I don't see there being a practical and objective way to do it and have some other form of review than RfA. I believe that I have always tried to treat others fairly and think that I will be able to make clear-headed decisions regarding who is in "good standing" and worth accepting criticism from in this format.
As for Rouge admins...In my time here I have been called: a stupid fucking asshole, pathetic, a bad apple, a douchebag, a self-abuser, a porn addict, and a homosexual (used as a pejorative). I've been told I have no clue, no friends, and no life. I was able to call upon Godwin's Law in an AFD debate after my actions led to Wikipedia being equated with "NAZI Germany." Most of this was due to people feeling I was horribly treading on their rights to add vanispamcruftisements to Wikipedia. (Thank you to Freakofnurture for coining that). Well, that or my inability to distinguish them as being distinct from a localized absence of topsoil. I think the Rouge essay is quite funny and obviously appreciate others as well. I certainly have some Rouge tendencies, but I also feel that transparency and consensus are important. If someone placed me in the Rouge admin category I wouldn't be horribly offended and wouldn't object. After all, I have felt the need for {{db-cb}} (for CSD CB) from time to time. I also am extremely concerned about keeping transparency and accountability in admin actions. That said, as just about everything can be undone now, including undeletion of images, I think that it is important for admins, and everyone else for that matter, to do what they think is best for the project and rely on people to tell them if they are stepping on toes or eating the bowels of newbies later. I feel that at times both process and policy can get in the way of the good of the project and that momentary voluntary ignorance of either can be justified if done in good faith with openness to undo it if questioned. I do strongly advocate treading lightly around newbies, however if they partially unbutton their shirt, pull back their collar and seductively say, "Take me," you shouldn't hesitate to bite their neck and drain them of their unrepentant vanispamcruftisementing blood, that is to say that you can only be nice to admitted trolls for so long before blocks are required. So I guess my adminship beliefs boil down to: do what you think is right, but always be open to criticism; don't take it personally when someone tells you your actions were wrong; and be willing to re-evaluate if you have the community's trust every time you edit. I guess they aren't that different than my non-admin Wikipedia philosophy.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, sorry for the essay questions there! Other editors have done OK with them though. Thanks for your thoughtful answers, that's what I'm hoping for when I ask these... ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 30 July 2006 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WAvegetarian&oldid=1143741413"