Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Checkingfax


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

Checkingfax
Final (4/25/0); ended 04:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC) per WP:SNOW — Esquivalience (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
– It is my pleasure to nominate Checkingfax for adminship. With 25,769 edits on English WP, and 29,756 global contributions, he is an experienced editor who started editing on Wikipedia more than six years ago, in March 2010. He works on a wide variety of articles, mainly fixing small errors and problems, but also improving prose, organization, and sourcing. Beginning in November 2015, Checkingfax began to help me with some things such as templates, text formatting, use of color, and reference formatting. As a copy-editor who comes across a variety of issues, I have posed many questions to him since then, and he has generously answered all of them with detailed explanations and useful links. See both his talk page User talk:Checkingfax and mine User talk:Corinne for examples. It is clear that he enjoys helping others, particularly new editors. He helped User:Natalie.Desautels, a relatively new editor, learn a lot about what goes into writing and sourcing an article. He helped her get the article on Michael Laucke through the GA review until it was approved, and helped her get the DYK approved. See his many comments here and Talk:Michael Laucke/GA1. He also helped Picomtn quite a bit. See, for example:


 * User talk:Checkingfax
 * User talk:Checkingfax
 * User talk:Checkingfax
 * User talk:Checkingfax

Checkingfax explains things well, and he has immense patience. If someone doesn't understand something, he'll explain it further until the person understands it.

Checkingfax is not afraid to work on controversial articles. He put a lot of work into getting the article Planned Parenthood through GA and a DYK and getting the article Caitlyn Jenner to Good Article status.

Checkingfax is quite knowledgeable about references, templates, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines – and he knows the difference between policies and guidelines. He works quietly, making many small edits to fix errors and problems in articles.

Checkingfax is always polite. He remains calm and respectful in discussions. Even when he disagrees with an editor, he will never be rude. He avoids edit warring and is happy to discuss any issue. He is very perceptive – his understanding of the dynamics in discussions and of personality types enables him to respond appropriately. His responses are to the point, clear, and effective, and worded in such a way as to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions. I think he would make an excellent administrator on Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I am delighted to second Corinne's wonderful nomination for Checkingfax, who I believe will be an even more valuable asset as an administrator. In fact, he has been working around the edges of tools like page deletion, blocking, and so on and I feel it is time to give this editor "the mop". My personal experience with the expertise, generously and kindness of this editor has been one of the main reasons I was able to persist and surmount surprising obstacles on WP. When I first wandered into the tea room asking questions, he was the only editor who reached out in an enduring way. When at the very beginning I was trying to understand hundreds of pages of policies thrown my way, only to be scolded with a very unhelpful "...how could you when I precisely told you", only Checkingfax encouraged me yet let me grow according to my nature. His grasp of WP from the broadest perspective was obvious to me and thankfully, he took me by the hand. I now have nearly 7000 edits in 16 months, a few GA articles, and other accomplishments I am proud of on English, French and Spanish wikis. My only disappointment is that Checkingfax could not follow me on other language Wikis, but he did make valiant attempts on my French articles! It would be wonderful if Checkingfax—an editor of such integrity and talent—could have access to tools whereby he could:


 * move pages over redirects or over pages up to 5000 edits
 * be able to block users who are out of control (I respect his discretion profoundly)
 * be even more on call for anybody needing admin assistance, and
 * be able to speedy-delete pages needing it, and only those in the fairest way possible

Wikipedia could further benefit if Checkingfax were authorized to use Geonotices, particularly but not exclusively for events in San Francisco, as he attends all WP conferences there. I realize that anybody can request a Geonotice, but it takes an admin to post them. Also, since admins cannot confirm accounts that they create I also suggest that he be given the ability to do so, as this would better Wikipedia and I know he would tackle this task according to his proven responsible nature.

Checkingfax doe not hang around Administration Notice Boards and only goes there in an emergency, so this gives me further confidence that he would never abuse his position. He has a good working knowledge of the WP guidelines and policies and can be trusted to be a good steward of the admin tools and to not abuse them. From his Talk pages, I see that he is an extremely responsible and trustworthy person off wiki as well, whether it be with software security or safeguarding money, and has held positions of ultimate personal and corporate liability. He has managed up to 100 volunteers at a time to ensure an environment which was peaceful, happy, and safe. He managed a crew of 300 volunteers to rehab a girls/boys retreat in Muir Woods. He knows how to get along with volunteers and works hard on diffusing problems before they start. And he’s willing to walk, or run away from an impending fight instead of saving face.

Alas, to err is human and Checkingfax does of course stumble, but he is very persistent and at the end of the day everything is cleaned up; in other words, he tidies up his own messes. Checkingfax already uses Twinkle mainly for sending Welcomes and WikiLove. He rarely templates anyone with Twinkle for being bad, but he does so if absolutely necessary. He successfully lobbied to have several users blocked and several pages protected (or unprotected), after Twinkling them.

Working expediently and efficiently with the reviewers, he has taken articles to DYK, GA and to FA although he did not pick easy ones. He has built templates to help editors and has edited essay, guideline, and policy pages, and stats show that very few of his edits have been reverted.

Finally, Checkingfax works on many Wikimedia projects: wikipedia, wikidata, wiktionary, wikivoyage, fr.wikipedia, meta, wikimedia, and more. I agree with Corinne's comments above in that, indeed, Checkingfax would make an excellent administrator on Wikipedia. kind regards, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 12:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am humbled by your confidence in me and I graciously accept your co-nomination of me for a Wikipedia adminship.  22:06, 1 July 2016 (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 to being entrusted with the admin tools necessary to approve Geonotices and then posting them; approving page protection and page unprotection; blocking and unblocking editors who have earned it; deleting and undeleting pages; emailing deleted pages to users who ask for them; moving Did You Know (DYK) promotions from the "prep" area to the "queue" area so they are ready to auto populate to the Main Page; anti-vandalism; perform page history merges; posting edit notices. I already have a few of the rights that come in an administrator's toolbox, like account creation and mass message sender. I am eager to learn more areas of need as I mature as a Wikipedia admin/sysop.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Being flexible and adaptive to participate in a variety of areas from mopping up to fine tuning. By not focusing on a niche article topic or on a niche duty or WikiProject, I have been able to build out and refine the encyclopedia in many ways. I have so many interests on Wikipedia I cannot pick a single favorite, but in general any time I can help another editor it gives me great satisfaction and I always learn a lot in the process. I enjoy improving documentation so that others can get up to speed on things quickly. Improving documentation allows me to become more educated on the topic. Being allowed to be a wingman and participant in edit-a-thons and for the new Bay Area WikiSalon has allowed me to come out of the shadows and meet real Wikipedians. This has been cathartic. Another contribution is that I freely integrate my Wikipedia efforts with other Wikimedia Projects like Wikidata, Wiktionary, Commons, etc. This helps grow the project as a whole, it is interesting and it can be fun (or tedious). I also make a conscious effort to bridge and close editor gaps that exist on WP by helping to provide equal access and rights regarding age (old and young), race, gender, sexuality, ability or disability, mental illness, religion, politics, lack of Wikimedia experience and so on. This diversity benefits our readers and gives editors a fun, rewarding and safe place to edit.


 * 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: Yes. My biggest stress was when I was accused of deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner. Nothing could be further from the truth, however I was nearly blocked. I was able to do damage control by quickly expressing my feelings to the closing admin and the admin recanted (struck out) his charges. Remnants of it are still on the Administrator Notice board and some editors to this day think I did something bad because my user name shows up in an archive search. Some of the worst things that have happened to me I literally slept through and when I woke up others had already noticed the issue and an oversighter had oversighted it. I am good at resolving and burying conflicts. It takes a trigger for me to dredge up those memories. As a Pending Changes Reviewer, I have approved, denied or edited enough controversial articles that conflict is always waiting in the wings. I do not praise bad behavior and I am willing to work with (almost) anybody to reach a mutual understanding. Sometimes I have been in conflict because I was wrong or made a typo. In those cases I research things and I recant my statements or fix my actions, unless somebody has graciously fixed them before I can. The best way for me to avoid future conflict is to try and not cause it in the first place. Once a conflict is in motion, I make good faith efforts to resolve it. If that fails, I step away until things cool down on their own.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * 4. When you were taken to ANI, you said: "As an essay, WP:BRD carries no obligation to follow it".  Could you elaborate on this?  Is this still your view?Tazerdadog (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you for your question. I really appreciate it. It is not merely my view. I took the language straight from the BRD WP:essay. Nearly verbatim (not my emphasis):
 * In the AN/I thread an admin mentioned that I had (paraphrased) violated the BRD "guideline"; an editor mentioned that I had "[violated] an approved guideline"; another stated that I "repeatedly violated" guidelines (WP:BRD and WP:CITEVAR); the ANI reporter, Josh, stated that his reversions were based on BRD implying that BRD gave authority for reverting. I was commenting directly to the AN/I comments that had been made by several editors, all of which cited BRD as a guideline. Even though it is optional, in this case I chose to follow it. I immediately started a discussion upon my revert. I was asleep during the whole beginnings of the AN/I as there is an eight hour time difference between Josh and I. After I woke up, did my chores and had some breakfast I then created an AN/I response. I drafted a final response but the AN/I was closed with no action before I had a chance to paste it in. I understand why Josh filed the AN/I but in the end he did opine that it had been over-hasty. Cheers!  00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the AN/I thread an admin mentioned that I had (paraphrased) violated the BRD "guideline"; an editor mentioned that I had "[violated] an approved guideline"; another stated that I "repeatedly violated" guidelines (WP:BRD and WP:CITEVAR); the ANI reporter, Josh, stated that his reversions were based on BRD implying that BRD gave authority for reverting. I was commenting directly to the AN/I comments that had been made by several editors, all of which cited BRD as a guideline. Even though it is optional, in this case I chose to follow it. I immediately started a discussion upon my revert. I was asleep during the whole beginnings of the AN/I as there is an eight hour time difference between Josh and I. After I woke up, did my chores and had some breakfast I then created an AN/I response. I drafted a final response but the AN/I was closed with no action before I had a chance to paste it in. I understand why Josh filed the AN/I but in the end he did opine that it had been over-hasty. Cheers!  00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Checkingfax:
 * Edit summary usage for Checkingfax can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Easy support. Ran into him at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Seems to be a tireless editor with a good head about the "business." Good luck! United States Man (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Taken out of context, your support vote could mean something entirely different... Kurtis (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny... ;) United States Man (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will stand by my support, but, now-knowing about those recent issues, I would advocate you waiting a year or two and staying out of trouble. If you come back, I would be more than happy to support again. United States Man (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a fully-qualified user with a legitimate need for the tools. We need more admins around DYK, and Checkingfax will be perfect there. Good to see another great candidate applying for the mop!  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 22:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.
 * Support, just. The answer to question three and possible issues with dead naming (warning and discussion as still on his talk page) did concern me. I'm sufficiently happy this wasn't the case, although Checkingfax perhaps should have shown more tact around the topic (as here). But people do make mistakes, the user seems to work hard, and we need more proactive admins. KaisaL (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid that I must move to Oppose as more information comes to light. KaisaL (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. We need more admins, and while I have concerns, they are not sufficient for me to think that they will be anything other than a WP:NETPOS with the tools.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, primarily based on my in-person interactions with . We have worked closely together on establishing the Bay Area WikiSalon, which he mentions above, and also running two edit-a-thons at a high school. He has some overwhelming positive qualities: when he makes a commitment he takes it very seriously; he has deep and genuine care for Wikipedia and helping others engage with it; he has great patience and willingness to engage in repetitive tasks. I have looked at the section and I think some of the influential comments exaggerated, and do not jive with my reading of the text linked; however, I do not have deep on-wiki experience working with Checkingfax, so I won't offer an unqualified defense of his actions. I have found that he is generally keen to get input on difficult decisions, which I feel is a very important quality in an admin; and I am happy to help him learn the ropes, and examine more challenging decisions, if that's desired and helpful. -Pete (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Has a good head on his shoulders, knows how to spot b.s. when obvious and not so obvious and call it out as appropriate in a non-threatening manner.  Have seen him do well in descalating situations.  He has an affable manner and good sense of humor with decent judgment skills - all sorely needed and lacking in far too many current administrators.  I've been very disappointed in a few of the admin candidates I've !voted 'support' for in the last several months but know  will not disappoint.  Candidate is even tempered and consistent in my estimation and that makes for good administrator material in my book.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) It's what, two weeks tops since you were demanding at Talk:Cary Grant that one of Wikipedia's most-viewed articles be redesigned to suit your personal preferences, and dug your heels in and tried to personalise the dispute when it was pointed out to you that you were wrong? I have no doubt at all of your good faith, but I don't feel comfortable giving access to the block and protect buttons to someone with such a recent history of pointless fight-picking. &#8209; Iridescent 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Oh, and you also appear to have forgotten to mention that you were hauled to ANI for disruption on 15 June and came very close to being blocked for editwarring. &#8209; Iridescent 22:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @, those are rather strong words, and don't match up with my experience of . So I looked at the talk page you linked. In two sections, I see rather hostile interactions about small details. To my eyes, the hostility did not originate with Checkingfax, and he responded reasonably well to some accusations. I'm not trying to give a decisive opinion about where the "fault" lies, as I haven't done an exhaustive reading of this big pile of details, but I wanted to note that your take seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Checkingfax has more than just good faith; he is responsive and thoughtful, works hard, and genuinely wants to learn and help others learn. None of this means he is perfect (no more than any of us, I suppose) -- but he is certainly worthy of more respectful consideration than you show here. -Pete (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) ...and slightly more than two weeks since this. Between that and your conduct on the Carey Grant talk page (where your response to "This parameter shouldn't be added to Google Books links" was "It's okay, I don't mind adding them at all!"), I'm not confident in your conflict resolution/avoidance skills. Steve Smith (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose (moved from support) I'm sorry Checkingfax, but the edit warring and the ANI thread are incredibly concerning for me. The fact that it was so recent is a huge problem for an admin hopeful. The admin tools are extremely powerful, and the thought that you would have them while involved in a situation such as the above is enough to make me want to oppose. I'm also disappointed that you failed to mention the incident in your answer to question 3.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 23:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Iridescent. Eric   Corbett  23:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose mostly per Omni Flames. The edit warring was less than a month ago, and although the candidate has done great work, I'm going to oppose this one. Chickadee46 (talk&#124;contribs) (WP:MCW) 23:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose (moved from Support) I'm afraid I must oppose too. We do need more proactive admins that don't shy away from controversy, but the ANI thread is so recent and concerning to me, along with my initial concerns about a lack of tact over the dead naming issue. It seems that your automated and semi-automated editing leads to disputes and while you are civil, I'm worried that having the administrative tools could lead to more substantial problems. Other little things like requesting admin assistance when it isn't indeed (as you did here) also concern me. I'm not a lifetime opposer so please do come back as I think you'll make a great admin one day. KaisaL (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Iridescent and Omni Flames. – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I spent a half hour reading the talk page and ANI mentioned above, which led to another talk page. There's far too much conflict for someone who wants to be an admin. And as mentioned, this particular conflict was within the last month. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose The response to Q2 about their best contribution seems too vague and lacking in specific examples. On their user page, they claim an FA – Persoonia terminalis.  I recognise that one because it was the five millionth article and I helped out a bit myself.  The candidate made a bunch of edits but I reckon it's really Casliber that deserves the credit for doing the heavy lifting on that one.  My impression is that they are trying too hard to impress. Andrew D. (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose . Per and  I'm sorry, but if you have been taken to ANI for disruption recently and as  said you were being closed to being blocked from editing, then I'm afraid I can't trust you as an admin for now at least. Class455fan1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Per and . ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 23:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth does that mean? For one thing, editing ability is not relevant to most administrative tasks. But more importantly -- even if there were problems with his abilities as an editor, which you have not even made an effort to establish -- stating it in such a manner is needlessly insulting. I object. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After taking a cursory look at their editing statistics, I actually have to agree with Pete. 26,000 edits with more than half of those to articles, that is not below average, if anything that's well above average. As an addition, 20,000 of those edits have been made in the past two years. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you could clarify what you meant by, "editing is below average." GABgab 00:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Resolved. GABgab 01:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think the candidate having the admin bit may be disruptive to the project. HighInBC Need help?   00:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Leaning Oppose - as per the ANI thread. No comment on the Jenner issue. I understand that editing in some controversial areas (Planned Parenthood, Jenner) is bound to generate some disputes - and I'm no stranger to controversy. However, the CITEVAR argument seems... I don't know, like a trivial thing to make a stand on and be the subject of an ANI post over. I appreciate the overall politeness and willingness to discuss, but I'm not comfortable supporting. GABgab 00:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I'm so sorry, man... I understand that people have bad days, bad situations, and even bad periods of time where they make mistakes and maybe knew that they could have behaved or handled the situation better if they could start over. But two things stick out that will most certainly end this ANI early: First, this happened less than three weeks ago. Obviously, no time has passed since the ANI thread and hence no consistent pattern of contributions showing that you've learned from these mistakes have occurred yet. You also failed to mention this ANI at all in your RFA (Question 3 would have been the place, but you made no mention of it). Surely, you must have had thought of that ANI at least a dozen times while you were drafting your answers here, and especially when thinking of your answer to Q3. I hope that you view this RFA as a positive learning experience, and that it helps you to keep at it, stay consistent, and learn from this. I wish you the best of luck, man. I really really do.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I personally participated in your thread at AN/I and I note on revision that most of that happened while you weren't there, however, what happened while you were there no improvement on what happened when you weren't. The recentness of the incident unfortunately acts as a shadow that blemishes your work. It is too soon after such an incident to consider you for adminship. Maybe again in a few months or a year, but this assumes that you continue to work well and learn from the experience at AN/I and Talk:Cary Grant. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The ANI trips, disruption at Cary Grant and passing a GA with copyvios in it mean this user would be up before Arbcom facing a desysop charge within about 12 months if we gave him the tools. Completely unsuitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Pile-on oppose - as shown above, Checkingfax doesn't seem to have the proper temperament for administratorship. ansh 666 00:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully to all, given the current !vote count, I don't think any more "pile-on opposes" are useful or helpful at this point. Until this RfA is inevitably either withdrawn or SNOW-closed, additional opposing comments might be worthwhile if they give new feedback to the candidate, but not otherwise. Please remember that the candidate is a person who dedicates his time to Wikipedia and is offering to do more of that, and treat him as such, despite the mistakes he has made along the way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad. I don't want this outcome to kill Checkingfax's spirits. Think first before jumping on the pile.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So because I think someone summarized points better than I would have, and added "pile-on" as a tongue-in-cheek comment on how it seems to be going, means that I'm not being "useful or helpful"? Jeez. ansh 666 03:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, not to make you feel worse, but to bring up User talk:Ian Rose. There's a pattern developing here. Don't feel besieged; there are good people all around who can help you see things that you're not currently seeing, and when you add those skills to your already considerable skillset, you'll be happier and better at your job. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per Iridescent and Newyorkbrad. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per and because this issue which took me over 30 minutes to read through and check, is so recent that it was ill advised to run at RfA at this time. Wherever the fault lies, it's always best to allow plenty of time to blow over such incidents. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Not sure that the candidate has temperament suitable for adminship. -  F ASTILY   02:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Kudpung, the ANI thread, and this talk page thread. Checkingfax doesn't seem to have the temperament at all. Mr WooHoo  ( T  •  C ) 02:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per the behavior at Cary Grant, which was unhelpful and point-y.   Montanabw (talk)  03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Iridescent. Newyorkbrad: WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The oppose (and support) votes can and should continue until either the RfA is closed or withdrawn. BMK (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

General comments



 * 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.