User:Robert McClenon/RFA questions

Hi, can you paste your answers to the three questions here? Let's include so he can give us his views too. Thanks. Lourdes 10:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1

 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: If selected as an administrator, I will focus on material that does not meet Wikipedia's policy standards (e.g. verifiability, notability etc.), and especially in article space.  Two administrative functions in this regard are the review of speedy deletion nominations, and the closing of deletion discussions.  In performing these tasks, experience has taught me the importance of staying on the conservative side of applying policy.  Per my record of CSD nominations, any CSD deletions I perform will be for unambiguous cases, with AfD being more appropriate for borderline CSDs.


 * B. A second focus is that I am willing to review discussions, such as at WP:ANI and WP:AN, and close ones that have dragged on, either by articulating the resulting community consensus or where no such consensus exists, outlining the potential options going forward.  I have closed RFCs in the past.  Some of my analyses of ArbCom cases requests have been cited by arbitrators in deciding whether to accept or decline cases.  My analyses at MFD and DRV (where I am a regular participant) have also been cited by other editors.  If I am selected as an administrator, I will also close MFD discussions (when I have not been involved), and will also be available to close other backlogged XFD discussions.  (CFD discussions are often backlogged.  I need to familiarize myself more with categories in order to be able to help out at CFD.)

A specific third application of administrative tools will be the ability to speedily delete as G6 redirects that are in the way of accepting drafts.

2

 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think that my most significant recent contributions to Wikipedia have been in the area of Articles for Creation review.  I was one of the developer of the guidelines that are used when a draft has the same name as a page in article space (which may be a redirect or a disambiguation page).  That category has fluctuated between more than a hundred drafts and 15 drafts, and is currently at 70 drafts.
 * B: I have supported the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for eight years, both by reviewing the queue and by mediating cases.  One of my more difficult cases was the Dispute resolution noticeboard/Kamrupi discussion case, which lasted for months under administrative supervision.  A more recent long case was Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_203.  I have contributed to copy-editing, both of tagged articles and on seeing typos.  I have contributed to disambiguation pages when they have been needed.
 * C: I should comment on my CSD log.  It included many redirects which I tagged for G6 and then moved to user space.  I then accepted a draft that was ready for article space in place of the redirect.  The redirect was then deleted after being moved.
 * Lourdes' comments:

3

 * 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?

Every active editor occasionally gets into conflicts with other editors. An editor should have the wisdom to learn from their conflicts so that future conflicts can be contained without personalizing them, and I have tried to stay civil, because civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. A few examples are:
 * A. The preliminary statements in the RexxS case show that a dispute with RexxS over AFC became unpleasant four years ago.  After preliminary statements were made, RexxS and I both recognized that we owed each other apologies, and those have been accepted.
 * B. The most public stress was my previous RFA.  While the community had a right to their opinions, I think that a mistaken narrative got out of hand.  I withdrew the RFA and resumed normal editing.
 * C. Some of the portal deletion discussions and resulting ArbCom case were unpleasant.  I think that the proceedings show that I presented my views on portals and on portal discussions calmly and that I avoided personal attacks.

Occasionally I have been subject to personal attacks. Usually those have been in already public places, rather than on my talk page, and I have preferred to let other editors respond. I have occasionally had to report conduct at WP:ANI. I don't think that I have ever lost my temper to the point where I returned the personal attacks. I certainly hope that I can keep my cool. If I become an administrator, I will remember not to use the block button when involved. One stress has been having closes of Requests for Comments challenged, sometimes by someone who said that they wanted to insert a statement (and I think that they deliberately waited until it was closed). I have sometimes raised the issue at WP:AN if I wanted the close endorsed, or have told the challenging editor to go to WP:AN. I have been involved in a few heated Articles for Deletion discussions. I have requested attention at WP:AN. I don't recall losing my cool. I have sometimes been hassled by editors whose pages I either declined at Articles for Creation or tagged for speedy deletion. I have referred them to one or more of the Teahouse, deletion review, or WP:AN. In summary, I have dealt with conflicts by referring them to the community rather than personalizing the dispute. I hope to continue to do so. I have been involved in conflicts with other editors from time to time. I think that every active editor occasionally gets into conflicts. I have tried to avoid personalizing these conflicts, and I do not think that I have over-reacted or handled myself inappropriately:

Further comments
Robert, can you combine the various lines into single paragraphs (as we would see in an RfA)? Let's take it from there. Thanks, [[User