Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rl

Rl
'''No consensus. (26/14/2) Closed 23:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)'''

- Rl is here since July 2004, has 7,100 edits (5,500 in articles). Huge amount of work to keep Wikipedia clean, contributes to articles, talks with people, uses edit summaries, participates in Wikipedia namespace and VfD. Reliable in my experience. --Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I accept. Rl 09:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. This edit where Rl caught a spam hidden under seemingly valid name serves as example why. Pavel Vozenilek 02:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2005-08-21 04:45
 * 3) Merovingian (t) (c) 05:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Unequivocally support. A highly committed (insert joke here) and responsible user who would make a fine admin. He's being particlularly helpful to me dealing with a vandal. The JPS 10:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Oh, and willingness to admit potential deficiencies/problems demonstrates maturity that the wiki desperately needs. It is admirable that he has declared what he is uncomfortable with. Opposing honesty is absolutely disgraceful. The JPS 13:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  We need more hands, and this is a safe pair in which to shove a mop. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Looks like a good and experienced wikipedian.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) David Gerard 16:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Passes my simple criteria: I have some idea who he is, he's been around and active long enough to be seasoned, he's not stupid or insane.
 * 8) Support, good editor, wikipedia will be better off if he has admin powers. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. He knows his way around and is trustworthy. Rje 18:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Great editor, hand this fellow a mop. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, not least for the wiki-fascist label. If the idiots are shooting at you, you know you're doing something right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, see no good reason to object. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Good editor, carries himself very professionally. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 14:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Some phenomenal catches, including, most recently at the Boston article. And making the awful into the readable is an important goal. Friejose 17:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Coffee 18:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Suppport Yes I spelled it with three p's on purpose. D. J. Bracey (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Earlier today I was browsing past here and didn't vote because I didn't really have an opinion, but later looking at my watchlist I noticed that RI just categorized an article I rewrote.  I like to think that my revision left it somewhere above awful, but at least now I know it's good ;-). LizardWizard 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. >5000 edits to article space, does enormous amounts of good work on RC patrol, has knowledge of policy, and, to use the memorable characterization above, is "not stupid or insane."—Encephalon |  &zeta;   04:05:14, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I endorse Rl's view on consensus.  Grue  05:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Good editor. Func( t, c, @,) 03:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good contributions, and I appreciate his honesty in answering the candidate questions. Sietse 18:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Editor clearly understands Wikipedia policy far better than the hordes opposing him. Kelly Martin 03:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, agree with Kelly Martin's comment. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Andre ( talk ) 05:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Checks out as a good editor. The "misunderstanding the notion of consensus" is in my opinion minor and fixable. I'm happy to support this candidate. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Rob Church Talk 01:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Answer to Hamster Sandwich fundamentally misunderstands the notion of consensus. It's not the same as unanimity. Answer to first question sounds like he's not very keen on doing admin-related things. Doesnt' really sound very pro-active, either. Supposed to be no-big-deal, but some interest would be nice! Whilst VfD closures are often controversial, it is surprising to list a single debate which didn't go the 'right' way as an important conflict. -Splash 01:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. My answer was correct. 100% of the vote does indicate a consensus. There are lower percentages that may indicate consensus as well, but any realistic number I could have mentioned would have been too low for some and too high for others. There simply is no consensus on a percentage (see 1, 2). Rl 09:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose I endorse Splash's comments completely. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told another candidate last week. In your answers, you trash yourself and your work. You're fishing for compliments, or rather, support votes. Plus, your comment that "Everyone does it [revert vandalism]. My English always warned us about using words such as all, never, and every. I doubt vandals revert vandalism. Acetic Acid 03:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I trash neither myself nor my work. "I am pleased with my work because I consider it important." Sorry you don't agree. Rl 09:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Most of my work was not about making the good great, but about making the awful decent." That's an pretty pejorative statement. Acetic Acid 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. It says he makes articles better. That must be a good thing, no? It also says that the helps repair some of the more awful messes that arrive here, and that is important to our outside image - someone comes across a rubbish article on a good topic, and they are likely to look elsewhere in future. -Splash 23:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just that line. It was the entire answer. Even the first line about reverting vandalism comes off like the user has a bad attitude. And the part about 100% consensus is a little shady. But you're right. I probably took the "making the awful decent" sentence the wrong way. Changed from Oppose to Weak Oppose, if that does anything. Acetic Acid 06:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, user has too weak a grasp of Wikipolicy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Great contributions and fine edit summaries, but I am also perturbed by the candidate's interpretation of consensus. I don't like the statement: "I freely admit that I wouldn't be comfortable closing a contentious VfD". Fernando Rizo T/C 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. - ulayiti (talk)  18:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Whether the admission of discomfort with the prospect of closing a contentious VfD reflects a lack of confidence in the ability to do it well or a lack of desire to do it at all, I don't know. Both possibilities, though, strike me as a sign of not being cut out to be an administrator.  The Literate Engineer 22:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose strange understanding of cosensus. Borisblue 01:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I'd prefer not to oppose, but his comments aren't really what I want to see from a candidate. I'd like to see more willingness to make mistakes and also to admit them. Carbonite | Talk 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Agree with comments above. Jonathunder 16:34, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose: I think Rl is a fine editor, but he needs to research policy if he doesn't know it (with reference most especially to consensus, but also evident in other remarks by him). Perhaps we could have another look at this in a couple of months if Rl delves into policy a tad more.  Sunray 23:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rl continues to maintain (see comments, below) "...that there is no official agreement on any number lower than 100%." I would direct his attention to the following statement in the third paragraph of the guideline: "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority" (bold text added). Admins generally abide by this, AFAIK. Sunray 09:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose. The 100% concept of consensus allows a liberum veto for POV warriors and trolls.  Will change vote to Neutral if candidate can explain that this eccentric view of consensus will not intefere with admin role.  Robert McClenon 00:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Consensus, etc. - brenneman (t) (c)  03:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Sorry to say, but I waited till I was able to guage the comments that have been coming in concerning my question. If you had said 65% or 70% or 75%, some concrete number, I might have voted for your promotion. Adminship should be at least partially about accountability to the community. Hamster Sandwich 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: As much as I hate the "consensus" terminology that has been introduced in VfD closures, there is a lot more here: It is necessary to get rid of trash, to revert vandals, and to obey consensus (66% is the threshold used by US legislators).  This is not because of "deletionism" or "inclusionism" or any other dadblamed "-ism."  This is because encyclopedias are tertiary reference sources, and anything that gets even a large delete vote is probably not suitably dead and cold to be part of an encyclopedia. Geogre 21:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Rob Church Talk 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support (waiting for user to answer candidate questions).   ral  315  06:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral.   ral  315  05:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Question for the candidate. I would like to know; In your opinion what percentage of the vote indicates a concensus at VfD? Hamster Sandwich 09:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 100% does. As for a lower number, the guideline doesn't provide one, and I am not going to make one up. I freely admit that I wouldn't be comfortable closing a contentious VfD. – If you are referring to my answer to question 3, an article with a vote count of 8 keep and 8 delete (after discounting sockpuppets and the like) should be kept. Rl 17:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this page is getting a bit long, I will will respond here as well to Splash's original claim (repeated by others) that I don't understand consensus: I never claimed only 100% of votes indicates a consensus. What I did say is that there is no official agreement on any number lower than 100%. Here is the quote that I am relying on, besides my personal experience: Policy: "What constitutes a rough consensus is not set in stone, some do consider a 2/3 majority a 'rough consensus', while others believe consensus implies a higher ratio. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from time to time, case to case, and person to person." For what it's worth, there's also this gem from the guideline: "Some people feel this determination requires voting, which is why the system was originally called votes for deletion. Others maintain that consensus can be determined without regard to votes and have referred to this as a 'lack of voting'." Rl 08:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Question: Could you describe what you would take into account when closing a VfD? Hipocrite 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandals, link spammers and copyvios alone have kept me busy for quite a while now, so I don't see myself going into VfDs as long as the WP:CP backlog remains as common as it is these days. If I started closing VfDs, I would start with trivial ones (those that are virtually unanimous, which is the majority of VfDs I have seen) and observe some of the trickier ones more closely to see whether my own judgement is roughly in line with reasoning and decisions of experienced admins. Votes are a key criterion (as elaborated elsewhere on this page). Then there are sockpuppets, votes that were stuffed for instance by a posting on LJ, votes cast to make a point, VfDs where the trend clearly turned for a good reason (e.g. rewrite of the article) without early voters noticing, and VfDs that my POV does not permit closing even though I didn't vote (i.e. if the vote went roughly "my way"). There are many possible factors, and most are fairly obvious if they occur. If taking such criteria into account changed the outcome, I would turn to an experienced admin to check my work until I felt confident enough about my own judgement. Rl 15:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm abstaining because I've never run into this editor, but I have no reason to oppose, and I think the answers to the questions show a perfectly acceptable grasp of policy. Consensus is unanimity, and that we go by "rough consensus" is a trade-off that currently has to be made. And there is, indeed, no agreement on any number lower than 100%, nor agreement on what to do with disputed "votes", or we wouldn't be having any of these long, drawn-out arguments all over RfC/admin noticeboard/etcetera. Also, why are we primarily judging an admin candidate who has specifically stated a lack of interest in closing controversial deletions on his attitude toward controversial deletions? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is the most sensible thing said on the issue so far, and I find Hamster Sandwich's new habit of pressing every admin candidate on VfD closure percentages to be counterproductive. --Michael Snow 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What a sad thing that the fine notion of "consensus" has now degraded into a qualified majority that must be obeyed. This used to be a wiki. -- Grace Note

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Reverting vandalism isn't really a sysop chore, is it? Everyone does it. But I have 3800 pages on my watchlist, so a little convenience when reverting wouldn't hurt. I can imagine cleaning out WP:CP, because I've been fairly involved with that process. However, I expect that the tasks will find me, as they have until now. Yesterday, for instance, I could have added protection notices to pages that have been protected without a note.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Most of my work was not about making the good great, but about making the awful decent. While I'd rather write artices myself, I am pleased with my work because I consider it important. I don't write FAs, my articles look like Mann Gulch fire; it covers the basics of an obscure, but notable subject, and offers resources that provide more information. I added a few hundred old paintings from the commons to articles; they often make great illustrations for the subject (rather than the artist) articles (e.g. Greta Bridge, Sens, Cranberry, Soap bubble). I caught numerous copyvios and link spammers (keeping track of them here).
 * 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.
 * One editor created wiki-facist just for me.
 * I've been accused of "butchering" an article when I reverted copyvios that had happened quite a while ago.
 * In Slashdot trolling phenomena, we had a bunch of anon editors who insisted adding a paragraph that didn't fit the article and resorted to vandalism when they didn't get their way.
 * I was pretty upset a few months ago when I managed to turn around a VfD only to see it deleted at an admin's discretion.
 * And I was once involved when metric units were repeatedly removed from an article because "they interrupt the flow of the writing".
 * The only case that really caused me stress was the last one, because the subject was important and the dispute was with a great editor that I couldn't dismiss as a rambling idiot. In every instance, I argued my case on the respective talk pages. If I didn't find support, I gave up. I don't expect to change my way of dealing with conflicts.