Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floydian


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

Floydian
Final (1/10/6); ended 11:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW -  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Scheduled to end 04:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hello. My name is Jess, but I commonly go by the screen name of Floydian. I come to RFA after many many months of self-debate, as I know I have the occasional blip in my history which I feel predispose me to failure; nonetheless, a recent proposal on the village pump has led me to bite the bullet and pursue the tools to increase my efficiency. The primary use of the permission would be for editing protected templates, as I am skilled with troubleshooting templates. Most of my contributions in that realm have been from the sidelines, and that is why I feel having the tools would benefit my efficiency. In addition there are several other tasks which I feel I could perform better with a mop in hand, which I'll go into more below. My editing pattern generally consists of highway articles, though I've dabbled my toes into several other topics, including a medical syndrome, a village and a bridge -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:26, 5 May 2011 (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: There are three primary things I intend to do if I'm granted this tool belt. The first would be working with templates, including edit-protected requests. I also have been performing dozens of moves generally non-controversial moves (a few had a touch of boldness to them, and were reverted, after which I did not attempt to move them again). Very often I have been unable to perform these as the receiving page has an extra edit to change/add/remove a category from the target. My final intention is work with conflict resolution, where I am well experienced in acting as a neutral third-party mediator, but am incapable of setting forth a resolution as a non-admin.


 * I have absolutely no intention of using these tools to block users (with the exception of clear, obvious and active vandals that crop up on my watchlist); my interest is content creation.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My greatest contributions thus far have been in content creation, where I have made significant contributions to several good articles and a featured article. I've also helped numerous times in solving of identifying complicated issues in complicated templates. I feel the former are some of my best contributions because my experience allows me to create well-sourced and informative articles right out of the gate.


 * 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 have run into numerous conflicts over the years, as sometimes I will jump into discussions demanding that they be backed by convention, guideline and policy, and not the assertion of "its consensus". I will come out straight and say that one of my worst conflicts was in February involving an attempt to rearrange the presentation of content, which would have involved the merging of several short but independent and directly related articles into a list. While that issue, as well as many minor issues, involve heated discussion (where I may express my frustration at fruitless situations, but explicitly never address it towards any editors), I have never once attempted to contravene discussion, edit war (despite an odd and unfounded accusation or two over the years), or go above the respectable process for discussing controversial changes (WP:BRD).


 * In the future I understand that I will need to hold my breath more often and express my frustrations in better ways. However, I hope the community trusts me enough to understand that despite my occasional impatience or temper, I would never make use of these tools or the status to give me and sort of advantage or weight in any discussion in which I am involved.


 * Additional questions from 43?9enter
 * 4. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
 * A:
 * 5. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?
 * A:


 * Additional question from Mtking
 * 6. When judging the notability of a subject, what is your view of the primacy of the WP:GNG over other WP:SNG?
 * A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Edit count info added to talk. — mc10 ( t / c ) 04:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support He seems to be sensible, mature and experienced. Also good at content creation, helping to get articles and lists to a good standard. He should have no problems with the mop. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Attitude to copyright unbecoming an administrator expressed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin. Suggests uploading third-party created images with inadequate evidence of permission to enwikipedia (can't use them here either, unless justified under the NFCC, and certainly not with a claim of free content.) Chester Markel (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. Severe concerns with temperament, maturity, and civility.  Although I originally came here to support, I thought I'd have a brief look at some of the candidate's edits in the last few days just to be safe.  The diffs I came across are extremely troubling (note the edit summaries in particular):, , , , , , , ,  .  All of these edits were made in the past two weeks .  The edit summaries Floydian uses are offensive, crude, and uncivil.  FWIW, Many users have been blocked for much less.  I don't believe the candinate is fit for adminship at this time.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 07:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose While I do think that at least one or two of the examples Fastily provides are taken out of context (the "admins are clueless" one for example), they do paint the picture of an editor who is easily frustrated by a number of things and has the tendency to express said frustration in his comments. While frustration about how certain things are handled is perfectly normal, an administrator should be able to edit in a way that does not raise such frustration for other users. Unfortunately, I cannot envision this candidate to do so. Regards  So Why  07:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose What Wikipedia needs is more patience and kindess towards everyone. Crass stuff like "Fucking tards" and "are you really that thick?" in permanent edit summaries is not helpful, whether you have the tools or not.  Steven Walling  08:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose—I don't actually have a problem with most of the diffs presented above – the 'stupid rollback' one seemed completely innocuous to me – but this and this are just way out of line. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  voice vote  ─╢ 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I was ready to support, having so much experience at AN/I means you know the way things work around here. The diffs given above, however, are concerning and you do not appear to have the correct temperament to be involved in conflict resolution as an admin  Jebus989 ✰ 08:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Per calling people LAZY at ANI for disagreeing with your position. Can provide diff on request. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, could you provide the diff? I could do with a laugh... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * . Tijfo098 (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Too much incivility, clearly does not understand file copyright. Wikipedia and Commons delete files with insufficient evidence of permission because in hosting such content there WILL be legal repercussions if the file is copyrighted. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:56pm • 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Civility issues. Please reapply again after you have improved your civility. -Porchcrop (talk 09:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I have to admire your chutzpah, I suppose.  A definite no, based on constant and recurring rudeness and incivility.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Neutral

 * 1) Based on this discussion, I have an issue with your judgement of consensus and apparent inability to keep an NPOV view on certain issues, but barring further investigation into your other contributions I will not oppose at this time. StrPby (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, leaning oppose. I've interacted with Floydian once, at Talk:Warwick, and although we disagreed - I could tell this was a user who was passionate about the subject and a great asset to wikipedia. Unfortunately, the civility diffs raised in the oppose section are far too recent (last 2-3 weeks), and I expect there is too much passion for an admin...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral only because piling on would serve no purpose.   Per many diffs provided in oppose section, you need to cool your jets and be more collegial.  – Athaenara  ✉  09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral to avoid pile-on - the reasons given in both the oppose section and this section reflect my concerns. I suggest that the candidate withdraws, or that this is soon closed as WP:SNOW.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral: Extra hands in the template area would certainly be useful, and I see a candidate who is pretty clued up in terms of content and is very positive towards the project. I look forward to being able to support a future run after a bit more effort on hanging back and staying calm is evident (though not all of the diffs presented above bother me - I don't mind a bit of honest expression sometimes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, with regret. I know you're a great editor and I know you mean well, but I can't support because of the diffs others have pointed out (and that I have noticed before). I would suggest toning down your comments and reapplying in a few months. --Rschen7754 10:22, 5 May 2011 (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.