Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triwbe


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

Triwbe
(talk page) Final (9/7/10); ended 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

- Triwbe has been editing Wikipedia since April 2007, during which time he has made nearly 8,000 edits, including 4,000 to mainspace. He is an excellent vandal fighter, with nearly 300 reports to WP:AIV. He also has article writing experience, mainly helping to develop articles on the European Union. He is mature and polite user, and deals well with conflicts resulting from his vandal fighting. Triwbe would make a great admin. Epbr123 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the challenge to help Wikipedia further. Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not seek adminship as an end in itself. I have been very happy and satisfied aiding as a regular editor and recent change patrol, especially on the small changes which need careful attention, and assisting in the control of vandals. As an administrator, I would first take this to the next level of user blocking as per WP:BP. I hope my WP:AIV contribs are testimony on that point. I pride myself in being a very balanced editor, in as much as I support strongly the policies on neutrality and Verifiability. I also don't mind a bit of gentle humor in my talk either. Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let me clarify my view on Afd. I already realise what you are saying, I already said it is "challenging" since it has already passed Csd and prod, so the status is not immediately obvious. Next, it is more effort to follow and learn since there may be some days before a result is known. Again, afd is a process of consensus; the admin should be the executioner, not the judge. Anyhow, I understand the concerns, but be assured, whatever the decision, it will take some time before I am ready to push the delete button and I welcome any advice on the subject from others. Triwbe (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Naturally I will continue my RCP but I will also be assisting others by reducing backlogs on WP:AIV and WP:CSD. I know very well the frustration of tracking a persistent vandal who has already been added to WP:AIV but there has been, at times, a delay of up to 10 minutes before the block is put in place. I have also started checking and contributing to WP:AFD which I find this very challenging work. I expect my range to develop into any areas where I would be needed and can be of use. Generally assisting any other editors has also been one of my skills I have been developing. Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I feel that my best contribs are probably in article cleanups and adding structure and quality references to existing articles. However, some of the articles I have had the most satisfaction with would be European Union Youth Orchestra which I find demanding because they are good (I challenge any one to find a verifiable opposite opinion) but there is a limited number of indicators of their quality to be cited. They do not sell millions of CDs; they do not perform in "sold out" 50,000 spectator concerts. Therefore, any article in this domain is inherently POV and it is difficult to avoid peacock terms. My edits to any other EU article has been self limited as I work in the very heart of Europa and I feel my experiences are very different from that of the general public. I am not talking politically but simply from what I see and experience. So I think this is not compatible with WP:NPOV. I have added verifiable facts to the main area of my work, the European Parliament and particularly the foreign affairs articles. Also there is a great group of editors working on these articles and doing a fine job. My next plan is to continue on the improvement of amateur radio articles which, despite the mass of online information, I find lacks much in content and references (all respect due). Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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: No, not really. I can say I have never been in a major conflict with another editor. Just see my talk page. Yes, I have been vandalised, I have my battle scars :-). I have had some troublesome reverts on some sensitive subjects and have been able to convert vandalism into productive contribs, see User talk:125.27.219.26 and his contribs. My philosophy is talk, then communicate, then chat. I am also great believer in the Wikipedia policy of consensus. Triwbe (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A. A block is a rather blunt tool that simply blocks editors from editing (with some customization possible). It is often applied unilaterally by an admin for a definite period.

A ban comes through consensus, a point I have already brought up earlier, and is more a more specific response to what may be a much more complex issue (e.g. POV). A ban looks much more flexible and should be applied as a community decision. This could be used, for example, where there is a difference in interpretation of Wiki’s polices and rules by an editor who refuses to comply with the consensus. It is also much more personal than a block. It applies to a specific editor, regardless of IP address, username etc they may try to use. In these cases the community has to check for likely sock puppets on articles the banned editor may attempt to chage. Triwbe (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A. You say "if and admin does it". I do not see the difference in the removal of material by an admin or editor. All facts, and especially on bios, must be verifiable. If I can verify it myself, I would revert, explaining why and citing the source of the information. If the other editor does not agree, I would start a dialogue to discuss the information on the article talk page and hope there will be more input. I see the 3R rule as being more than sufficient in controlling edit wars, I always think edits must be explained and justified. Bio information has a problem due to information published in self-promoting sites and fan sites and less reliable sources, which may include un-verifiable information. Triwbe (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
 * A. Administrator recall is an interesting concept, my first thought is “what is it supposed to achieve”? A system for desysoping admin already exists but is quite complex (i.e. RFAR). Allowing the admin to define their own criteria is a little self-defeating if honest discussion has not resolved any problematic issues the contesting parties can too easily cry “foul” on the criteria. I see people have tried to define other methods, but finding a balance between efficient and just judgments and protecting admins from retaliation or persecution is a fair problem. Are you asking if I would accept RFC? Certainly I would, but under which criteria, and can you believe me? All I can offer is the question “what do I have to gain”? I hope you can see I have no special agenda or axe to grind. Triwbe (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Keepscases

7. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to attract more minority editors?
 * A. Oooh good question! But unfair to me, because I am a minority, there is only one of me :-). What do you mean by "minority", ethnic or subject? Let me start by relating what attracted me to WP, which was the way WP entries came up consistently on the first page on the famous web search engine. I figured it was a great tool for diffusion of public information (see my earliest edits) and then I caught the bug and voila, here we are today. How many of you followed the same trail? How does WP rank so high is these engines? Many people would like to do the same.

The creation of stubs of minority cultural articles would be one way, followed by portals and projects to attract and guide new editors to article already exist. Let me take the area where I have direct experience, African affairs. Google made a great project from the Darfur situation. WP could do the same, by encouraging bold editing with encyclopedic virtues (a tough task to pull off).

This raises another problem that I have come about often in the morning patrols, changes to information concerning non-English subjects (manga characters, Asian politics and people), only other people from the same culture can identify and verify facts in these subjects. If you talk about the greatest minorities (I mean the fewest people), the third party reviewing is equally limited. Triwbe (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Triwbe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Triwbe:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Triwbe before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Re question 7 from from Keepscases: I don't know what "minorities" means in the context of an international English-language encyclopedia.  --Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Minority group. See, articles are important, folks. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - from his answer to Q1, I gather that he wants the extra buttons to block vandals. From what I have seen, his warnings and reports are mostly competent, and given that he acknowledges that he has only recently become involved in articles for deletion, I'm not overly concerned by the minor errors mentioned. Addhoc (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Rudget . 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Kind of a no-brainer, way more qualified than I was when I was promoted. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support meets my standards. I would urge a bit of caution because of concern expressed below. Dloh  cierekim  22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Switch to Neutral as Daniel's dif is concerning. Dloh  cierekim  04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good enough to be an admin...MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Great vandal fighter, but I'd advise him to take it easy at AfD until he has more experience. Epbr123 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be funny or anything Epbr123, but you nominated this editor! If you have concerns about his ability to handle all aspects of administrative duties do you really think you should have even nominated? Pedro : Chat  15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins aren't required to handle all aspects of administrative duties. Epbr123 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but this candidate has explicitly stated in his answers that he wishes to work in deletion areas. I personally would be reluctant to nominate an editor if they had a glaring deficency in one area of admin duties, if nothing else because I would expect the RfA to fail and I see no point putting someone through that. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't actually say he'd start work in deletion areas immediately. Even if he did, I can't predict what nominees will say during the RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support - good vandal fighter; take your time at AfD and you'll be OK. EJF (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good enough to be an admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support as it seems unlikely that any late rush is going to make this RfA succeed. It's very puzzling that, in a week when other RfAs are getting 100+ contributions, this one is almost closed and has barely a handful (support, oppose and neutral all in single figures still.) This editor makes appropriate warning tags and AIV reports, as far as I can see, and shows no reason not to be trusted. Would suggest getting more involved in articles for deletion discussions before trying again, also perhaps a little more discussion on article talk pages to show how you can interact with other editors. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Kim. Whilst this is a volunteer project, and improving the work should be top of the list, I'm staggered by the lack of input here. However considering most comments are neutral/moral support but leaning to a future support, I suspect this is an exercise in not wishing to undermine an excellent prospect through neutral/oppose when we all know that in 2/3 months we'll all be desperate to nominate ..... I am sure the candidate will take on board the limited feedback, and progress from there. Pedro : Chat  22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support as he technically meets my standards, and I have no concern that the tools will be abused, but this is a weak candidate. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - While this user has made wonderful edits to improve the project i feel that there are still some areas of worry for me. Such as proper knowledge of deletion policy, this is a AFD that you !voted as delete and was kept, your reasoning for deleting the article is worrisome, along with this one. I feel that with these !votes at AFD and overall lack of experience there it also shows that you do not have enough contributions in areas related to article deletion. And while you have made very good contributions to AIV, i feel that this report was made too hasty as the user had not had proper warning, nor where they even active and shortly after the report a administrator agreed . Though we all make mistakes (including myself) these were all within a few days of each other and too recently for me to support. Tiptoety  talk 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: Does the phrase "you !voted delete and [it] was kept" imply that this particular AfD !vote for you is problematic because (in addition to the other reason cited) he said delete and it was ultimately kept? - Revolving Bugbear  19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if his delete !vote would have had more of a reason behind it, that maybe cited policy then it would not have been a problem. To answer your question directly "no", my oppose was not based on the fact that he !voted delete and the reslut was keep. Hope that answers your question. Tiptoety  talk 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I agree that !votes without expressed reasons are bothersome -- I just wanted to clarify because your original text was a little ambiguous. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per point made by Bugbear, above.  Bothersome.  --  Iterator12n   Talk 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask which point you are reffering to? Tiptoety  talk 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's probably being ironic. Epbr123 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww...I see :) Tiptoety talk 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In relation to Ultraexactzz comments in the neutral section. This is your RFA.  If you aren't willing to try to convince us you're qualified, I have to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Mainly per my fellow rogue non admin, Tiptoey. The first diff (per above) is OK in some situations, but bums me out - WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEVENT are highly important (anything with BLP in it is important ;) ), so I'd like to see a better understanding of them. Maybe next time. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: In Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins there were over 20 registered editors who voiced an opinion to keep the article in question. Also, the article in question Natasha Collins survived AfD and remains an article.Kingturtle (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per this comment. Daniel (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Daniel. Jehochman  Talk 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Daniel.  Ral315 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Weak abstain, unless you support allowing moar cats. Kakama5 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This user has little or no edits outside of this discussion &mdash; Rudget . 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I like what I see and so WP:AGF says support. But you have specifically stated you want to work at CSD and WP:AFD and you barely have any contributions to either venue so far. Deleted edits showed about 15 odd CSD tags in the last two months and your project space seems to be almost entirely WP:AIV reports. Don't get me wrong, we need vandal fighters, but I'm a little worried that you want to get involved in deletion processes with barely any experience. Tricky. I might change my mind as it's not a great rationale not to support, and I'm not opposing either, but at present I'm a little nervous. Pedro : Chat  16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Pedro. I've just had another look over the contributions and they don't match up with the desired areas. Rudget . 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per pedro. Generally I have liked what I've seen in the past from this user, including no small number of chronic vandals he has sent my way at WP:AIV. However, I think that this RfA might be a little bit premature. I would prefer to see this user get a better grip on project space, and probably the help of an admin coach before coming back and trying this again in a couple months. Trusilver (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per Pedro and Trusilver. Spencer  T♦C 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Neutral - meets my standards, but I am right on the edge of supporting.  Perhaps he needs more experience at AfD before closing discussions. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I changed my vote. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Bearian seems to have a good idea. Jmlk  1  7  21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. The candidate seems to be a good editor overall, but I'd like to see the answers to some of the additional questions, particularly Avruch's, before supporting. I note with some minor concern that those questions have been posted for two days without answers, during which the candidate has edited elsewhere. Just a little, tiny, nit to pick, and not a major concern... but... hm. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally like the candidate's answers, and I again reiterate that vandal-fighting is of significant value to the project - and the candidate does it well. Unfortunately, I'm going to remain neutral. I think that some more experience may be of value before receiving the tools, as - though not a deal breaker - Daniel's diff is of some concern. You might also give some thought to Admin Coaching. I guess you could call this a weak neutral, as the candidate really is a good one - but this isn't the time, I think. Best wishes, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per above. You don't seem to have much experience with the areas that you claim to want to work in, which is worrisome.  On the other hand, is a good vandal fighter and I don't see any indications that you'd abuse the tools if they were given to you.  Hence, neutral.  Lankiveil (complaints 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
 * 2) Neutral. A large chunk of the Contributions to Wiki-pages are at WP:AIV with little if any involvment in AFD's and RFPP's.-- JForget 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Switch to Neutral per Daniel's dif. Dloh  cierekim  04:19, 23 January 2008 (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.