Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/CloudNine: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:33, 17 June 2007 editCaptain panda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,994 edits →Discussion: Support← Previous edit Revision as of 21:40, 17 June 2007 edit undoGurch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers109,955 editsm →Discussion: supportNext edit →
Line 52: Line 52:
#'''Support''' Has good taste in music. --] 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC) #'''Support''' Has good taste in music. --] 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, ], but I still think you will make a good admin. ] ] 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) #'''Support''' I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, ], but I still think you will make a good admin. ] ] 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
# I was initially in two minds about this one, but after a long and thoughtful consideration of this candidate's username, userpage design and edit count (oh, and a few contributions, too), I have decided that they should recieve my support. Recently concern has been expressed that many contributors to adminship request discussions, particularly those in favour of the candidate's promotion, have not been elaborating their arguments in quite as much detail as might be desired. My opinion on this candidate is not one which can be distilled to a simple "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral", and I have both positive and negative points to make, as well as recommendations to the candidate for future consideration. However, I feel that, on balance, the project would benefit from their promotion. <br/> So. What do we have, here? "CloudNine" isn't a bad username – makes sense, even kind of catchy. Certainly this is not the sort of user who picks a dull, meaningless, monosyllabalic username and then somehow expects to be taken seriously. Definitely a plus. So then we come to the other key element of a candidate's suitability for adminship – the userpage. It's blue, it's organized, but most importantly of all, it has ''no userboxes whatsoever''. (The user has wisely decided to put them on the talk page, where they will blend in nicely with the insults, bad language and accusations of misconduct that an administrator can expect to have deposited there). In fact, it's so good that if my userpage wasn't already perfect in every way, I'd steal it and pass the design off as my own. It's spoilt only slightly by two minor blemishes. First, the box at the top constitutes blatant canvassing. While it's only their userpage, such blatand disregard for ... well, something is absolutely not on if this candidate is taking adminship seriously. Someone visiting that page might not have previously known that this request was in progress, and ''imagine the consequences of that''. Vote-whoring, I hear you cry? It gets worse. The userpage has a link not only to the user's edit count (which, being the gold standard by which all candidates are judged, is naturally a largely meaningless, often misleading statistic), but ''also'' their edit summary usage. How a candidate who feels the need to prove their ability to consistently fill in a box on a webpage expects to be handed a position of trust is beyond me. Were it not for the user's excellent first edit date (27th November 2004. Classic.) I would be opposing. <br/> Fortunately, the user is able to redeem themselves at this point, as I consider another important indicator of a candiadate's ability – the wording of the nomination. While this candidate's nomination has serious neutrality issues, fails our policy on biographies of living persons, and does not cite independent, reliable sources, I feel that the candidate can be excused, provided they are careful in future to accept a nomination by someone well-versed in our content policies. Where the nomination really stands out is with the nominator's description of the edit count as "riveting". 9161 may at first appear to be a fairly boring number, but not only is it prime, you can transpose the first and second and the third and fourth digits and then rotate it clockwise through half a turn and it looks the same as it did before! Clearly the candidate should be commended for this excellent achievement, which more than makes up for any reservations I may have had. <br/> A word of caution to the candidate, though. While I'm supporting them here, and wish them every success, a number of troubling metrics caught my eye when I fed this candidate's long and prosperous contribution history through the edit counter, like a beautiful, delicate flower being fed through an industrial waste treatment plant. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the results – a complete lack of Category talk, Image talk and ''even'' MediaWiki talk edits is a bit worrying. The candidate's 798 edits to the Pixies article strongly suggests either a conflict of interest or an inability to use the Preview button (or possibly even both), and while it's a featured article of the highest quality thanks largely to the candidate's dedicated work over a long period of time, I don't really like their music, and if it ever goes on the Main Page the accusations of American bias will come thick and fast. <br/> There is much more I would love to discuss, but time and space do not permit; if the candidate would like me to explain myself in more detail, they are welcome to leave any queries on my talk page, and I will endeavour to ignore them as soon as I can. Just one final word, as no RfA rationale would be complete without an excessively broad generalization based on the voter's single, brief encounter with the candidate. I once reverted some vandalism to an edit by you, this shows you make edits, which is good. Thank you for everything you've done, have a nice day – ] 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''

Revision as of 21:40, 17 June 2007

CloudNine

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/0/1); Scheduled to end 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine (talk · contribs) - CloudNine is an editor I have worked with a few times in the past. He is a dedicated and fabulous editor who has five Featured Articles and one Featured Portal under his belt ("Bam Thwok", Frank Black, Doolittle (album), Pixies, Portal:Alternative music, Surfer Rosa), while still being an avid contributor to the Alternative music WikiProject. His civility and kindness is riveting, as well as his edit count. CloudNine is a large contributor to peer review as well as GAC. Although he had been absent for many months when he first registered in November of 2004, it is apparent that, since finding a niche in Misplaced Pages, he has become an integral part of our society. In my general opinion, CloudNine is an exemplary editor of Misplaced Pages and will make an excellent Administrator. NSR77 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination! I accept. CloudNine 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Helping with the ever-present backlog at CAT:CSD (especially during times of heavy backlog) and closing XFD debates. I would also visit the various administrator noticeboards to resolve problems there. I'd also be able to help at any administrator backlog, and I would be happy to do so; indeed, if I do gain these administrator tools, I'm sure I'd find other places to help out.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: My five featured articles; Doolittle (album), Frank Black and Pixies are ones I'm particularly proud of. Also, I feel my maintenance of the WikiProject:Alternative music, including contributing to weekly collaborations and writing the newsletter, have helped to improve the project. I'm also proud of the articles I'm working on at the moment: Monkey Gone to Heaven, Kim Deal and Joey Santiago.
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've been involved in several conflicts, although none of them have been serious in any way; I hope my attitude towards conflicts helped to resolve them as quickly as possible. In chronological order, here are two conflicts I have been involved in:
  1. The Pixies article was renamed to The Pixies and then Pixies (band); both moves were without consensus and I went to the proper authorities in order to get consensus for a move back. However, I've always tried to focus on the similarities rather than the differences - I assume both editors aim to make the best article on the subject (WP:AGF of course) - and I don't take sides as such; I try to empathize with the other person.
  2. While editing the Red Hot Chili Peppers page, I noticed that the article referenced a little too much fair use media. I went to the talk page to discuss removal of some empheral media, gained the appropriate consensus and removed several images that were not criticised in the text. User:Xihix took objection to this, saying: "top being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used? Oh wait, you don't. Good job ruining the article guys, great job". I didn't get emotionally involved, and instead quoted policy and tried to empathize with the user. This was similar to an earlier debate about a logo in the infobox, which I removed; citing WP:FUC as a reason.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/CloudNine before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. First to support (it was watchlisted ;) ) - great editor, very communicative, all my interactions have been very pleasant. Has my trust. Go for it! (Must add - a great relief to see one of the musical editors being conscientious about fair use - we don't have enough of those... ) Riana ⁂ 16:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Oowaweewah, your contributions are excellent, I can't see any reason why the community shouldn't trust you with the tools. However, if they're bestowed, please don't forget to continue making your great positive contributions. Good luck. The Rambling Man 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support He is a good editor, and I believe I can trust him! Politics rule 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Adminship is no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks good to me RuneWiki 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I generally only meet the editors of academic articles, but I have come across CloudNine because I am a Pixies nut. He has done the band proud with his five featured articles; he works hard, understands about sourcing, and responds impressively to questions or objections. He is also a good reviewer of other articles at FAC and contributes measured comments on the talk pages relating to featured articles.qp10qp 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - a great candidate. —AldeBaer 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Seems to be consistently civil and composed, and has a fine track record of constructive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support in agreement with BrownHairedGirl. Acalamari 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Why not? He/she is a reliable user.--†Sir James Paul† 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Very strong editor, and no reason to believe he'd abuse the admin tools. - Zeibura 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Support on behalf of the nominator. NSR77 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support- Great editor. Eddie 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support - has made really good contributions and is very experienced as well ..:) --Cometstyles 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support ll the evidence says you'll be a great admin. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I have not personally come across this user, but he clearly has a broad basis of admin-related experience over the whole project. And User:Riana supports him, which would be good enough for me anyway.--Anthony.bradbury 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Has good taste in music. --MichaelLinnear 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, Pixies, but I still think you will make a good admin. Captain panda 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. I was initially in two minds about this one, but after a long and thoughtful consideration of this candidate's username, userpage design and edit count (oh, and a few contributions, too), I have decided that they should recieve my support. Recently concern has been expressed that many contributors to adminship request discussions, particularly those in favour of the candidate's promotion, have not been elaborating their arguments in quite as much detail as might be desired. My opinion on this candidate is not one which can be distilled to a simple "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral", and I have both positive and negative points to make, as well as recommendations to the candidate for future consideration. However, I feel that, on balance, the project would benefit from their promotion.
    So. What do we have, here? "CloudNine" isn't a bad username – makes sense, even kind of catchy. Certainly this is not the sort of user who picks a dull, meaningless, monosyllabalic username and then somehow expects to be taken seriously. Definitely a plus. So then we come to the other key element of a candidate's suitability for adminship – the userpage. It's blue, it's organized, but most importantly of all, it has no userboxes whatsoever. (The user has wisely decided to put them on the talk page, where they will blend in nicely with the insults, bad language and accusations of misconduct that an administrator can expect to have deposited there). In fact, it's so good that if my userpage wasn't already perfect in every way, I'd steal it and pass the design off as my own. It's spoilt only slightly by two minor blemishes. First, the box at the top constitutes blatant canvassing. While it's only their userpage, such blatand disregard for ... well, something is absolutely not on if this candidate is taking adminship seriously. Someone visiting that page might not have previously known that this request was in progress, and imagine the consequences of that. Vote-whoring, I hear you cry? It gets worse. The userpage has a link not only to the user's edit count (which, being the gold standard by which all candidates are judged, is naturally a largely meaningless, often misleading statistic), but also their edit summary usage. How a candidate who feels the need to prove their ability to consistently fill in a box on a webpage expects to be handed a position of trust is beyond me. Were it not for the user's excellent first edit date (27th November 2004. Classic.) I would be opposing.
    Fortunately, the user is able to redeem themselves at this point, as I consider another important indicator of a candiadate's ability – the wording of the nomination. While this candidate's nomination has serious neutrality issues, fails our policy on biographies of living persons, and does not cite independent, reliable sources, I feel that the candidate can be excused, provided they are careful in future to accept a nomination by someone well-versed in our content policies. Where the nomination really stands out is with the nominator's description of the edit count as "riveting". 9161 may at first appear to be a fairly boring number, but not only is it prime, you can transpose the first and second and the third and fourth digits and then rotate it clockwise through half a turn and it looks the same as it did before! Clearly the candidate should be commended for this excellent achievement, which more than makes up for any reservations I may have had.
    A word of caution to the candidate, though. While I'm supporting them here, and wish them every success, a number of troubling metrics caught my eye when I fed this candidate's long and prosperous contribution history through the edit counter, like a beautiful, delicate flower being fed through an industrial waste treatment plant. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the results – a complete lack of Category talk, Image talk and even MediaWiki talk edits is a bit worrying. The candidate's 798 edits to the Pixies article strongly suggests either a conflict of interest or an inability to use the Preview button (or possibly even both), and while it's a featured article of the highest quality thanks largely to the candidate's dedicated work over a long period of time, I don't really like their music, and if it ever goes on the Main Page the accusations of American bias will come thick and fast.
    There is much more I would love to discuss, but time and space do not permit; if the candidate would like me to explain myself in more detail, they are welcome to leave any queries on my talk page, and I will endeavour to ignore them as soon as I can. Just one final word, as no RfA rationale would be complete without an excessively broad generalization based on the voter's single, brief encounter with the candidate. I once reverted some vandalism to an edit by you, this shows you make edits, which is good. Thank you for everything you've done, have a nice day – Gurch 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral at Present You state that you opposed the move of Pixies to "Pixies band" as there was no consensus. However you have been heavily involved with this article, and I wonder if WP:OWN applies. Everything else looks great, but I would like to know why you feel that "Pixies band" is unacceptable to you when it, well, is a band and not a bunch of imaginary small people at the bottom of the garden (etc.). Of course there is no requirement to answer and I wish you well in your RfA. Pedro |  Chat  20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Pixies (band)", I felt, was unnecessary in terms of disambiguation; the fact was (and still is) that nothing else is referred to by "Pixies" other than the band. Someone looking for Pixie (and typing in Pixies) would see a dablink at the top of the article, which I felt was a suitable compromise. CloudNine 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)