Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RGTraynor


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

RGTraynor
Final  (18/14/6) ended 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

– I first encountered RGTraynor back sometime in late 2005, and if I recall correctly, it was along the lines of a little disagreement between us on the use of Canadian vs. American spelling. But since than, I have come to know and respect RGTraynor as one of the more trusted and passionate editors on Wikipedia. He is one the core members of the Ice Hockey WikiProject, and users there put great stock in what he has to say. He has zero tolerance for trolling, and is usually the first one to bring in links to Wiki-standards in any argument. He has 2000+ edits on Wikipedia, for those with editcountitis, and has been a Wiki-user for almost a year. He is definitely a deserving candidate for adminiship. Croat Canuck   Go Leafs Go   03:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's apparent that a consensus for approval won't be reached, and therefore I withdraw from nomination. My thanks to those who supported the nomination.  RGTraynor 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support RGTraynor is definitly Administrator material, he knows what he's talking about, doesn't tolerate trollers or vandals. I have full confidence in RG's knowledge of Hockey, when I'm stuck for hockey info, I've always checked with RG to get the RIGHT answers. Having RGTraynor as an Administrator, will make Wikipedia better, more accountable and more accurate. GoodDay 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) The nominee is very knowledgeable & cares about accuracy/accountablilty. Further more, do to his honesty & dislike for Trollers & Vandals, I trust him fully (he has my confidence). GoodDay 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I strongly support RGTraynor for admin. He started editing wikipedia about the same time as me (I started in June of 05) and, like croatcanuck, we had a minor dispute about American vs. Canadian spelling. Since then, I have trusted and respected the guy whole-heartedly. I know that he always thoroughly researches a topic before making and edit and if there is an anomaly, as there was about the "expansion six", he doesn't give up until he finds the "truth". I have run across a few admins who abuse their power and i honestly believe that RGTraynor would in no way do this. I have been following his edits for almost a year now, and he has given no indication of being the kind of editor who would abuse his powers. To not have him as an admin, Wikipedia would be seriously losing out on a great editor. That is my two cents worth. Masterhatch 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support with no reservations. In my experience with RGT he's been squarely on the side of the Wiki and has as little tolerance for trolling and vandalism as I do.  RasputinAXP  c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, Oy I'm a slow nominator. I got beat by four supports. I'm a failure to the profession. Seriously though, for the reasons stated above by me and others. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  Go Leafs Go   18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. BoojiBoy 19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Absolutely. I encounter RGT upholding NPOV and maintaining concensus on a regular basis. Every one of his contributions can be supported with a fact-based defense (or is it defence?). ccwaters 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support RGTraynor has been very helpful, especially with Hockey related subjects. I've appreciated his help a couple times and think he would be a great admin.  DMighton 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Quick learner and good editor, would benefit from access to administrative tools.   _-M     o     P-_     23:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nom. DarthVader 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Looks alright. Nephron  T|C 00:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I'm unmoved by the examples of non-civility, and in my relatively brief time here, he's never been anything other than reasonable.  Doogie2K 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support You definitely got my vote, per all above. Funnybunny 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  07:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support user actually does not meet my full criteria but I appreciate his frankness and his steady contributions and he ahs my vote--Looper5920 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support This user has shown himself to be honest and rational in times of tension. --Knucmo2 11:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support the oppose voters are so full of it, KI 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Does not seem like they will abuse powers, admin is no big deal! I can't support the nom's inclusion of "Go leafs go" in his signature however...GO SENS GO!! Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns about civility, see the last sentence of this AfD vote (which, judging by the answer to question 1, the nominee seems quite proud of). A little too keen to harshly judge the actions of others and dictate who has a right to contribute. TigerShark 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing uncivil about the first example, he simply suggested that he tighten his research up, for which Traynor provided evidence contrary to the claim. You shall need to come up with better examples of incivility than that, for I very well know that I have been known to be "uncivil" on Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RGTraynor's response on that AfD seems appropriate to me. Silly AfDs are to be discouraged. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's largely a matter of personal opinion and interpretation, but I just personally feel that we should stick to discussing the problem (i.e. the details of the contribution/nomination etc) rather than the conduct, intentions or abilities of the contributor. Even if the problem is the editor's conduct, intentions or abilities, there is usually a way to phrase our comments to focus on the problem rather than the person - thereby avoiding the editor taking it as a personal affront. If the editor does need to be "taken to task", it should also be done as privately as possible (in this example, the public AfD page arguably wasn't the best place). Just my opinion, on dealing with such situations. Cheers TigerShark 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be a tendency not to assume good faith, see here TigerShark 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly Oppose. RGTraynor has consistently shown that, although he preaches NPOV, he uses it to his best advantage when opportunity presents itself. As mentioned above, he tends to dictate over other users contributions. Is quick to insult when opinions differ from his own. And is particularly harsh on newcomers who are still trying to "learn the ropes". He needs a few anger management classes before being allowed Admin authority. Fair Deal 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, this is User:Fair Deal's first edit.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per reasons above. Not convinced by the answers that he is ready for this. Also would suggest that he review CSD criteria if this nom succeeds . -- JJay 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Gently oppose based on examination of diffs linked above and candidate's generally impatient tone answering RFA questions (the answers are substantatively mostly good though). This candidate is potentially an excellent admin someday, given his research and evidence skills.  But based on current discussion I think it's too early and he needs further acclimatization to wiki culture.  I'd be likely to support a renomination in a few months, depending on how things go between now and then.  I'm perplexed by the support vote that says that if the candidate doesn't become an admin then we lose a good editor.   He can keep being a terrific editor without taking on the additional responsibilities of adminship, and I hope he does keep editing as well as helping out with maintenance (such as afd participation) pending a renomination.  (Hmm, I'm using "he" and "him" because everyone else is, rather than from knowledge.  Maybe I'll switch to Spivak pronouns in the future.) Phr 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per JayJ. I was set to support until I saw his diff.  Having the restraint to apply CSDs as written is a skill that comes with time.  Many quite logical reasons for deletion, like notability guidelines and WP:NOT are NOT incorporated into the CSDs.  I'm sure editor will pay heed to this in the future, but I cannot support with confidence until more experience is gained. Xoloz 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per TigerShark, sorry. Civility is paramount. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose. -- Rory 0 96 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with that? The nominee certainly didn't buy me. This isn't a popularity contest and I wouldn't prostitute my vote out. RGT earned my support and would have recieved it with or without that notification. ccwaters 05:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely uncommon for some voters to oppose users that campaign for votes. See WP:GRFA.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, wish I had seen that in advance, but the nomination certainly wasn't foreseen. While folks are waxing indignant, by the bye, how are random solicitations to oppose viewed? [User_talk:Hazelorb&action=edit&section=7]  RGTraynor 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Put in the diff this way: diff. Note that Sealclubber's participation looks a little bit odd too. Phr 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per TigerShark and Rory. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Masssiveego 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, reluctantly. I want to support so badly, because diffs like the one JJay provided make me like him more, not less.  That wasn't a lack of civility, nor was it ignorance of CSD - it was common sense, which can be in short supply around here.  But I will always oppose anyone involved in RFA vote pimping (as per the diff Rory provided).  I don't care if Ccwaters would have supported anyway.  Sorry RG.   Proto  ||   type   10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Oppose I don't believe this user is suitable to be an admin on Wikipedia. I have found he doesn't have any respect for NPOV and instead adopts strong personal agendas that he makes totally impervious to argument, especially argument by his own standards of documentation and proof. Elrith 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - he arbitrarily deletes edits which are worthy enough to at least warrant a discussion on a talk page before reverting:, , . Then he demands consensus: ! His edit history shows an arbitrary approach - Richardcavell 11:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per JJay. We don't need more editors bandying about the word "vanity" and misunderstanding the CSD, let alone admins.  fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) oppose Pro:understands Wiki practices. Con:belligerent attitude. Con wins this time around. Seal Clubber 14:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The above user's edit history is a little bit unusual for an rfa participant. S/he shows up on March 15, creates a category for Canadian heroes and heroines, adds a bunch of entries, votes the next day against deleting the category, and doesn't show up again until now.  What's up with that? Phr 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Per concerns of civility, but that little bit of evidence is nothing to oppose over. M o e   ε  16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Neutral per Moe. Computerjoe 's talk 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) TigerShark makes a valid point about civility. And yes, RGT, knowledge is critical to writing a good encyclopedia.  But the whole point of AFD is to solicit wider feedback from those who might know more.  A serial abuser of AFD is one thing, but we needn't rebuke everyone who makes a failed nomination. Derex 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. This is a good editor, but as pointed out there are some issues with civility. Naturally there are some heated comments going back and forth to reach a consensus (demanding a thick skin), but this personal attack and accusations of sockpuppetry  are worrying. Also the edit summaries are low. Still, I like his work on hockey articles and this comment . feydey 00:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) User:Phr vote changed.
 * 6) Neutral I don't want to oppose, but I question this user's civility.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|25px|  ]](talk) 13:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * See RGTraynor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
 * Responding to TigerShark's criticism, no, no editor can "dictate who has a right to contribute." But no one who is not doing so in good faith should contribute, and I hope that anyone unprepared or unwilling to research and who lacks any knowledge of the subject matter should act in good faith on Wikipedia and abstain from such judgments until and unless he or she does. RGTraynor 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am further concerned that you do not seem to assume good faith with regards to the actions of editors whose research and knowledge of the subject you question TigerShark 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By that same token, you do not seem to assume good faith on my part! (grins)  That being said, I stand on my remarks, and certainly urge anyone who does not believe that knowledge in the subjects one edits or a willingness to research are preeminent values for Wikipedia editors to oppose the heck out of my nomination for all its worth.  RGTraynor 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you will come across a lot of contributors who do edit, or raise AfDs, without doing extenive research or without extensive knowledge of the subject. My concern is that rather than only debating the substance of their contributions or nominations you also turn it into a personal issue by questioning their good faith or publically rebuking them - neither of which is constructive TigerShark 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, that sounds reasonable, regardless of the result here. Thanks for your input.  RGTraynor 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard questions were deleted here. I have assumed that this was unintentional, and have added them back for now. Cheers TigerShark 09:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess there's a problem only with posting on another's talk page for "support" votes, but there is no problem with a different user posting on another's talk page for "oppose", see User_talk:Hazelorb. If users are rallying each other against RGTraynor, than if that's the game that is being played, I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to campaign for his own votes. If not, then he shouldn't be maligned for talking to Ccwaters, a user whom is very familiar with him, while these anti-RGTraynor's go on a rallying tirade against him because of a different viewpoint. It is sickening to see so much politics involved inside Wikipedia. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  Go Leafs Go   14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I've already been active in AfD and reverting vandalism, and fully intend to continue with that work one way or another; they're both crucial efforts to ensuring that Wikipedia remains the vital and useful encyclopedia it is. Beyond that, there are so many articles requiring expansion and cleanup that there's a lifetime of useful work for dedicated editors and sysops.  I also anticipate continuing to be proactive in dealing with obvious vandals and trolls -- one giggling, profane anon vandal does harm to Wikipedia's reputation in the outside world that takes the hard work of five sober, reliable editors to repair.


 * Beyond that, there's a pernicious mindset kicking around places like AfD. People rush to judgment without verification.  I'm a litigation paralegal in real life, and the iron rule of our profession (as applied here) is that you can't just pop off and say "Well, it seems notable" or "That person's claims look good to me."  Conjecture or presumptions are fine in newspaper editorials or blogs, but this is an encyclopedia, and we must rely on provable, verifiable fact.


 * Here's a case in point sticking in my head, a recent AfD involving an article on an Irish soccer player. My comment was critical of the nom, but I passionately believe that if we have no knowledge of a subject, no interest in learning and no time to spend a few minutes in the most basic research, we have no business editing or commenting upon an article.  One of Wikipedia's strengths is in the knowledge of its contributors, and without that we're just a bunch of ignorant bloggers.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I've created some articles, but frankly, I'm prouder of the numerous stubs I've taken and turned into readable, useful entries. I'm only sobered by knowing that for every stub I expand, many more await.


 * 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: I've gotten into it with Croat Canuck, as he alludes to above, and the end result is that he nominated me for adminship; plainly I didn't tick him off too badly!  I've been in a couple disputes on the hockey pages and one mediated dispute on a baseball page.  In the former cases, the disputees were newcomers barging in against long-standing consensus; the mediated case was against a fellow with a long and lurid history of disputes, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and warnings.  In general, the best thing to do with any dispute not amenable to consensus and compromise is to go up the ladder of RfC and RfD, and I see no reason not to do so in the future -- festering disputes only distract editors' energy from making positive contributions.


 * As far as "stress" goes, that isn't the case; I hope and trust that no one is here because they want to ruin Wikipedia, and I see no reason to get angry because someone else disagrees with my stances. I'll try to convince him of my position, he'll try to convince me of his, it's all good.

Optional Questions


 * 4. Will you be kind enough to explain your sudden recent interest in Articles for Deletion? John Reid 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do so. Until recently, I didn't really even notice AfD, but my attention was drawn to a couple articles in particular, and I realized it was an important peer-review element of Wikipedia.  This coincided with a new job in which I have frequent (but erratic) downtime, and away from the extensive library and resources I have at home to further my article-writing.  This gives me a way to contribute to Wikipedia even when my own materials and resources are not to hand.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you dont' want to touch if you like :)


 * No, not a problem, I'll answer all that apply. Bear with me, though, folks; I was about to go to bed, so I shan't answer all of these tonight.  RGTraynor 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A Good heavens, find a consensus. Presumably I'd be a newbie admin, and going solo headhunting after a popular admin even if I had video clips of him sabotaging the Wikipedia servers would be asinine.  This is where I ask other admins, preferably veteran ones, for their input and aid, presenting the evidence for their own review.  How much of Wikipedia lives and dies on consensus?  How much more so in dealing with admin abuse?
 * 1) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * A Recreate the article myself (offline) after I'm satisfied I've rewritten it to proper standard.  Then I take the matter to Deletion_review as well as to the deleting admin.  I could just repost it, but without some measure of peer review under the circumstances that would be disrespectful.
 * 1) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * A I wouldn't have a conflict of interest; I anticipate I would be accorded the same presumption of good faith as an admin that is expected from me towards other editors, and I would have declined the nomination had I any doubts about my abilities to use admin powers in an impartial manner at all times.  Nonetheless, there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest, so I'd take it to the admins' noticeboard.  Surely some other admin will review and step in to the degree necessary.
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A Of course I'd submit a comment/statement to the RFAR; the notion of amicus curiae matters as much here as in the legal field.  It'd also be appropriate to hack it over with the other admin and get a clear consensus as to who was the lead admin in the effort.
 * 1) How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and  that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?
 * A Happily, this is not the case.
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A I'd prefer greater restrictions on editing without registration.  Look, we can all adopt pseudonyms.  I wouldn't want to see anything at all heavy, but how much editing and anti-vandal work could be diverted to productive articles if there was even a rolling six-hour delay?  (Whether that would be technically feasible or not I doubt, but a fellow can dream.)
 * 1) Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A
 * 1) Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
 * A "Suspect" is not good enough; I want better evidence than that.  If I do have conclusive proof -- and proof I know would convince third-party admins -- I take that into account when tallying consensus.  The AfD process works only if everyone knows people are voting in good faith, and there is no sense warning people about the inefficacy of sockpuppets or voting by first-time editors created that day if no notice of the same is actually made.
 * 1) Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * A As an editor, I feel comfier when I see an AfD with at least five posters and quite comfy when I see eight or more.  I haven't had enough experience with RfDs or CfDs to make a judgment.
 * 1) A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * A I've been doing this sort of thing for a long time; I was a sysop running my university's public bulletin boards twenty-five years ago.  The best way to avoid burnout is to step back if you feel you are burning out; happily, I've yet to see anything requiring admins to edit five hours a day!
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A
 * A


 * The above 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.