Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Ling.Nut User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Aug 06, 2006 20:15:52 Unique pages edited:	9,757 Average edits per page:	3.44 Live edits:	30,104 Deleted edits:	3,456 Total edits (including deleted):	33,560

Namespace Totals

Article		14270	47.40% Talk		3601	11.96% User		1229	4.08% User talk	4967	16.50% Wikipedia	3021	10.04% Wikipedia talk	2157	7.17% File		29	0.10% File talk	1	0.00% Template	404	1.34% Template talk	246	0.82% Help talk	5	0.02% Category	129	0.43% Category talk	11	0.04% Portal		30	0.10% Portal talk	3	0.01% Month counts 2006/08	1733 	2006/09	1951 	2006/10	1159 	2006/11	1352 	2006/12	785 	2007/01	406 	2007/02	66 	2007/03	681 	2007/04	716 	2007/05	1057 	2007/06	467 	2007/07	918 	2007/08	266 	2007/09	137 	2007/10	115 	2007/11	748 	2007/12	558 	2008/01	117 	2008/02	1 	2008/03	663 	2008/04	1006 	2008/05	261 	2008/06	173 	2008/07	516 	2008/08	308 	2008/09	2181 	2008/10	676 	2008/11	366 	2008/12	232 	2009/01	581 	2009/02	762 	2009/03	0 	2009/04	75 	2009/05	1341 	2009/06	261 	2009/07	96 	2009/08	508 	2009/09	39 	2009/10	27 	2009/11	416 	2009/12	641 	2010/01	624 	2010/02	50 	2010/03	1276 	2010/04	604 	2010/05	74 	2010/06	119 	2010/07	688 	2010/08	973 	2010/09	710 	2010/10	623

Top edited pages Article

* 866 - Taiwanese_aborigines * 337 - William_E._Harmon_Foundation_award_for_distinguish... * 259 - Battle_of_Red_Cliffs * 239 - Funerary_art * 207 - Georg_Cantor * 164 - Six-Day_War * 116 - Children_of_the_Stars * 105 - Scattered_disc * 98 - List_of_endangered_languages_in_Asia * 95 - Pūnana_Leo

Talk

* 247 - Six-Day_War * 152 - Taiwanese_aborigines * 74 - Climate_change_denial * 72 - William_E._Harmon_Foundation_award_for_distinguish... * 71 - Battle_of_Red_Cliffs * 70 - Taiwanese_people * 55 - Catholic_Church * 47 - Georg_Cantor * 32 - Norman_Finkelstein * 31 - Quid_pro_quo

User

* 613 - Ling.Nut/Sandbox * 167 - Ling.Nut/Sandbox2 * 113 - Ling.Nut/Siege * 91 - Ling.Nut * 40 - Ling.Nut/bio * 29 - Ling.Nut/top * 26 - Ling.Nut/ArticlesCreated * 22 - Ling.Nut/awards * 11 - Dank/Essays * 9 - Ling.Nut/cca

User talk

* 598 - Ling.Nut * 200 - Geometry_guy * 171 - Deadkid_dk * 131 - SandyGeorgia * 92 - Nlu * 86 - Jmabel * 78 - Malleus_Fatuorum * 64 - JRHammond * 62 - Johnbod * 58 - CJLL_Wright

Wikipedia

* 267 - Good_article_reassessment * 121 - Good_article_nominations * 96 - WikiProject_Endangered_languages * 64 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups * 63 - WikiProject_Disambiguation/Adopting_disambiguation...   * 59 - Featured_article_review/Taiwanese_aborigines/archi... * 57 - Help_desk * 50 - WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms * 45 - Good_articles * 43 - Featured_article_candidates/1964_Gabon_coup_d'éta...

Wikipedia talk

* 370 - Featured_article_candidates * 134 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups * 108 - WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms * 102 - Featured_article_criteria * 92 - Good_article_nominations * 89 - Schools/Old_proposal * 71 - Good_article_reassessment * 61 - Content_review/workshop * 56 - Good_article_reassessment/Ali's_Smile:_Naked_Scien... * 44 - Requests_for_adminship

File

* 5 - Rukai_chief.jpg * 5 - SonOfCivilityBarnstar.png * 4 - SqueezedText.png * 3 - Taiwan_aborigine_en.jpg * 2 - Itmad-Ud-Daulah-Tomb.jpg * 2 - Bioling.png * 1 - Guandao2.png * 1 - Sgz2.png * 1 - Kypopulation.png * 1 - BanShrooms.jpg

File talk

* 1 - Taiwan_aborigine_en.jpg

Template

* 57 - Taiwan_aborigines_sidebar * 43 - Harvrefcol * 32 - User_WP3K * 28 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups * 20 - AmbassadorWelcome * 13 - Taiwananese_aborigines * 13 - User_CE2 * 11 - Anonwelcomeg * 9 - GAMedal * 9 - Demographics_of_the_Philippines

Template talk

* 38 - Infobox_single * 28 - Citation * 23 - Harvrefcol * 23 - Did_you_know * 15 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups * 15 - User_CE2 * 8 - Infobox_film * 7 - Ref * 7 - Citation/core * 6 - Infobox_language

Help talk

* 3 - Pending_changes * 2 - Table

Category

* 7 - B-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles * 6 - Taiwanese_aborigines * 5 - Ethnic_groups_articles_needing_reassessment * 5 - Ethnic_groups_articles_by_importance * 4 - Chinese_scholars * 4 - Three_Kingdoms_articles_needing_infoboxes * 4 - Top-importance_Ethnic_groups_articles * 4 - GA-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles * 3 - Three_Kingdoms_articles_needing_attention * 3 - Start-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles

Category talk

* 5 - Ethnic_groups_officially_recognized_by_China * 2 - Language_articles_without_language_code * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_China * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_Ethiopia * 1 - Turkic_peoples * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_Tanzania

Portal

* 20 - Taiwan/Topics * 3 - Republic_of_China/Republic_of_China_news * 3 - Taiwan/Taiwan_topics * 1 - China/Selected_biography * 1 - Australia/Anniversaries/July/July_8 * 1 - Republic_of_China/Republic_of_China_news/Archives * 1 - Linguistics/Intro

Portal talk

* 3 - Taiwan

On closing
If there's a task a crat dreads/is bred by a ghastly WP:RFB process to do, it would be handling these RFAs. There were a number of well-supported points on both sides of the debate, and sifting through was not an easy task. I expect to catch some flak.

From a numerical perspective, the percentage was 64%, which by historical precedent is not successful. Promotions at this percentage or below have been rare and contentious. My initial reaction after a skim and a reading straight through was to request a cratchat, but as I looked about I believe it became clear that there was not a consensus to promote. Although the support was able to give examples of Ling.nut's contributions to the encyclopedia in content, the opposition had examples of their own as well.

The main difficulty was adjusting for certain effects and trends that occur, which I like to call the "maverick effect" and the "tenure effect." The maverick effect is quite simple: A user with viewpoints considered to be nonstandard or less supported, or a different methodology in approaching things tends to attract a good amount of support and opposition. The tenure effect is even simpler: The longer a user edits, the more likely they are to make "questionable" edits or to start a beef with someone, intentional or unintentional.

Now the latter manifests itself in appeals to relatively distant edits and generalized characterizations of personality. I did see aspects of the second, but not as much of the first. In fact, the points most repeated in the opposition were related to a very recent incident, not to other longer-term behaviors (e.g. "the multiple retirements, and the near-complete lack of adminly experience"). As a result, I was not convinced that there were serious long-term grudges in the opposition.

The maverick effect is more difficult to sort out. Generally a candidate will moderate their stance a bit for RFA, but certain behaviors, I think, made this effect quite visible. The self-posed optional questions most clearly demonstrated this point, creating a polarized response, with some supporting for it and others opposing for it. It was universally acknowledged that the candidate approached contributing here in a different way than most editors, but whether this was constructive or destructive was similarly split. Reading through the opposition, I was not convinced that most people were opposing just for the sake of the user being different.

The degree of support/oppose polarization is always something to look at as well. There was a rather small neutral section in comparison with previous so-called "controversial" RFAs, and though there were changing views the opposition was uniformly firm in opposing. The support was similarly firm in supporting. Opposition badgering was not prominent either, which indicates that there might not have been that much to argue about.

TL;DR: This RFA pretty clearly demonstrated a no consensus result. Arguments were supported with actual events, and both sides had a rather large mass with relatively few people in the middle.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only one quibble - it wasn't tl;dr. Anyone with over four years and 30K edits, plus over 100 expressions of support deserves no less than a thoughtful analysis. I didn't find the time I needed to add a !vote, but I did read much of the commentary, and it was clear this wouldn't be a simple task. -- SPhilbrick  T  18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it was a reasonable explanation. &mdash; Deckiller 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bibliomaniac, thank you for your well-considered reasoning. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the rationale and the result. Thank you for performing this laborious task, and then having the stamina to document the process.   7  12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also applaud your post Bibliomaniac. It shows great integrity and good practice to discuss your reasoning so carefully in a contested RfA such as this. Geometry guy 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Commend for sensitive handling of a difficult case. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
 * See above. Well done Bibliomaniac! Barts1a (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)