Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 18 January 2010

Joe Chill

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (7/11/4); Scheduled to end 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Joe Chill (talk · contribs) – I am nominating Joe Chill for adminship. Joe Chill has been an active editor since around July 2009, and is active in AFD, PROD and CSD work. I feel that with sysop tools, Mr. Chill would be a fantastic administrator, and would be an invaluable asset when it comes to deletion work. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'll start off with deletion work and then move on to other stuff because I'm more comfortable with handling deletion work. I have the notability guidelines memorized by heart. I also know that AfD isn't about votes, that it is about opinions that have to do with policies and guidelines.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I am proud of my AfD work. I have both saved and deleted many articles. I have created 74 articles, most of them stubs, but I did create Liberty Kid, Safe Conduct (film), Capitaine Conan, and Clavariadelphus truncatus which I created this month and I nominated them all for DYK. Two of them were approved so far. I expanded Expiration Date (film) from a very short stub.

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 in multiple conflicts, but it is almost impossible to be active on Misplaced Pages without getting into conflicts. There was a time User:Tothwolf kept on assuming bad faith towards me just because I disagreed with him when it comes to software notability. No matter how much I remained civil, it kept on escalating. We did end up resolving our differences peacefully which is great after many days of a long argument that seemed to be getting nowhere. I also had to deal with User:Michig. Michig called me a troll and kept on reverting my edits in AfD. I tried to remain as civil as possible again, but it kept escalating. I will always try my best to remain civil no matter who I'm dealing with even if it seems to not be working. There are editors who got mad at me for replying to their comments a lot in AfD, but what they need to realize is that AfD is a debate and not just a vote.

Additional optional questions about CSDs from Phantomsteve

4. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:

a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A. No context is a very short article like "Cat Journal is a great journal." No content is only an external links(s), template(s), images(s), chat like comments like "Where can I download free games?", and see also section(s).

b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A. A claim of importance, not notability.

c. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to accept a request for a speedy deletion using the relatively new criteria A10?

A. I wouldn't accept it. I would AfD it or prod it to be on the safe side.

d. Which CSD do you find the hardest to judge, and how would you ensure that you make a correct assessment for deletion under this criteria?

A. CSD for images. I will not deal with speedy deletion for images at all.

Additional optional questions about AfDs from Phantomsteve

5. Could you please answer the following questions related to AfDs:

a. In an AfD, what would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?

A: !Votes that completely ignore guidelines.

b. Could you explain in your own words how you would judge the consensus in an AfD?

A: I would judge it by which !votes are stronger than each other when it comes to guidelines.

c. Under which conditions would you close an AfD before the 7 days have elapsed?

A: Hoaxes, copyvios, bad faith nominations, overwhelming consensus like Gummo style, and withdrawn nominations with all keeps.

d. In which cirumstances would you relist an AfD for another week to allow concensus to be reached?

A: If there is only !two votes or an equal or very close to equal number of keeps, merges, redirects, and deletes that keep guidelines in mind.

Additional question from rʨanaɢ /_contribs

6. What do you mean in answer #2 when you say "I have both saved and deleted many articles" (emph. added)?

It means that I spend a lot of time in AfD and many of the AfDs that I highly participated in where kept or deleted with my help. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

7. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and when are you willing to use it?

A: I use WP:IAR when it comes to species and geographical places (which is community consensus so no article like that has a chance of being deleted) when I !vote in AfD, but I wouldn't use IAR in admin work.

8. Can you please explain your low edit summary usage?

A: I didn't think that it was necessary and no one ever approached me about it.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

9. On 29 December 2009 you proposed a speedy deletion of Battle of Mlali under criterion G3. You then promptly reverted this nomination but didn't remove the WP:PROD tag which made a similar claim. Would you please describe your decision process here that led you to the conclusion that a CSD was not justified, but the PROD claim was reasonable? (Please note this is not meant to imply I have an issue with what you did, or that I feel it was wrong; I simply want some insight into your thought process for this action).

A: I removed the speedy because I wasn't sure after a while if it was a hoax. I couldn't find anything online for it, so I thought that it might be something that could be found offline. Since I wasn't sure if if wasn't a hoax or not, I kept the prod there because I didn't feel comfortable removing it. And evidently, it was a good choice because the prod was contested and now the article is verified with an offline source. If I kept my speedy there, it would most likely have been deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Coffee

10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A.

11. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A.

12. What is your interpretation of IAR, and do you think that common sense should automatically overweigh policies in any area on Misplaced Pages?

A.

General comments

• Links for Joe Chill: Joe Chill (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Joe Chill can be found here.

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

Discussion

Close this. My communication style cannot change. Joe Chill (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton |  22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support as nom and by vague answers to questions. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Good AfD participant, always on the lookout for reliable sources. Triplestop x3 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Weak Support I've seen him often at AFD and trusted his opinions there, although Q7 is concerning. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as the most improved editor who I've run across in many months. Meets my usual standards in edit count, edit summary usage, XfD work, experience, etc. I have to note that if he'd applied a few months ago, I would have said, "No way." He has grown a lot while doing work at WP:AfD and has shown real maturity. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support for creating Limnonectes megastomias. Thanks for knowing how to contribute to wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be fine as an administrator. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 00:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   I agree about it being a good article, but you'd think that there would be more information available about a frog with fangs that eats birds, insects, and other frogs. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   I may be able to find some more information in the taxonomic literature, but it's a rather new species for having much information. I also categorized it more specifically, and it will get listed in new amphibian articles after tagging the talk page with the wikiproject. Still, keep up the good work adding species stubs, whatever else you do on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Good enough for me. He may be rather quick to nominate AfDs, but we need both inclusionists and deletionists on Misplaced Pages. –Juliancolton |  00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support (based on my experinces with Joe chill on AFD, yes he nominates articles for deletion, but hes reasonable and reserves some good judgment. My dealings with him show that if plausible evidence suggesting or unsuggesting notability exists hes reasonable to changing his opinion if he views it necessary(if examples of this are needed I can supply these). He has good judgement, is fair, revisits discussions and is open to consensus and would be a benefit to adminship. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per apparently irrelevant answer to Q7 (both versions of it). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   What do you mean by irrelevant? That is what I use WP:IAR for when !voting. I don't support WP:IAR use any other way and I wouldn't use it in admin work. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   I reworded it. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   You didn't actually explain your "interpretation" of it as asked, nor did you give any explanation of why IAR should apply to articles about one thing and not about another. To be honest, your response was so out of left field that at first I thought you had misread the question. In any case, either you don't have a satisfactory (in my opinion) answer to the question, or your terse communication style is preventing you from getting it across; either way I can't support. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Does how I explain it really matter when I said that I wouldn't use IAR in admin work? Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but my vote is going to have to remain in this section. Communication skills are one of the top things I look for in the few RfAs that I vote in, and with answers like this I have a difficult time even making right or left of what you're trying to say. But, based on WeakWilled's statement, I'm sure I can support you in a future RfA if you work on improving your communication skills. Best, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Sorry, Joe, I think you're still too deletionist for me to support at this time. Pcap ping 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Does that mean you'd only support inclusionists? Doc Quintana (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   Which part of the word "too" did you not understand? Pcap ping 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   The part where you didn't answer if you'd support ANY deletionist. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sure I support some deletionism. Actually, quite a bit of it. I've deleted way more articles that I've created, MUAHAHAHAHA (since we got to all caps). Pcap ping 04:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose per answers to questions 7 and 8. I honestly don't understand that answer about IAR being relevant to geographical places. Plus, the reasoning you gave above for the lack of edit summaries. The fact that you didn't see them as necessary seems more than a bit troubling to me. It shouldn't take long for an editor to find out what a PITA when others don't use one, and that should be impetus enough to begin using them yourself. To me, these responses show you aren't quite knowledgeable enough yet for the bit, sorry. Auntie E. (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   So you think that edit summaries have to do with how good an admin does their job? Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   If you hadn't already earned my opposition with Q7, that snippy remark certainly would have done it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   I wasn't trying to be snippy. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Candidate needs to work on the tone of their interactions with other users. Too confrontational. Poor answers to many of the questions as well. You may be ready at some point, but not today. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Mostly clueless. Garibaldi Baconfat 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose - It sounds like you don't think much of edit summaries. Me, like most other contributors, do. I cannot support someone with a low edit summary usage, especially absolutely none this month. Otherwise, it is mostly per Auntie E. for this one, and that remark you gave him. Sorry. smithers - talk 02:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Per above. Lack of edit summary usage, concerns with policy knowledge, experience. -FASTILY 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Q7 and apparent lack of policy knowledge. Şłџğģő 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per 5d, AFD is not about numbers, but overall answers do not show sufficient knowledge of policies at this time--Terrillja _talk 04:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose Although I acknowledge that an administrator is not expected to be perfect, I expect them to be a model of behavior for other Wikipedian. in that respect, Joe Chill is impertinent, is unable to assume good faith in other Wikipedians and is unforgiving even to smallest of perceived so-called sins of others. Fleet Command (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose Yet another nonsense, probably juvenile, self-nomination. Leaky Caldron 09:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm concerned on the edit summary rate. 58% for major edits is just way too low. Auntie E. (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose Auntie E. (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving to oppose. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) For some reason I had a nonplussed feeling in my mouth when I saw your message at WT:DYK#Citations this morning. I don't know exactly why, maybe because it sounded almost jealous (although after thinking about it I figured you probably were just trying to learn more about how the process works) and maybe because the way you posed the question, without giving any links to examples of the articles you were thinking about, did not seem to demonstrate good communication skills. Either way, it's certainly not a big enough deal to oppose over, and I don't really know much else about you, but this was fresh in my mind when I noticed the RfA so I wanted to let you know. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant WT:DYK#Citations. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, sorry. Fixed it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now. The answer to 4.c. troubles me. I take "I would AfD or prod it" to mean that the nomination would be declined, not merely passed over for another admin. If unsure about how to apply a CSD criterion, an admin shouldn't just decline CSDs on that criterion. In my view, that amounts to complete rejection of the criterion. Passing over the nomination for another admin to deal with is perfectly acceptable, but not declining it. Speedy deletions are discretionary, but that doesn't mean the discretion can properly be denied its exercise by an admin just because the admin is unsure of its application. I'm also unsure of the answer to 4.b - has the question been answered the wrong way around or am I confused? Nonetheless, the editor is a tireless and valued contributor to AfDs, albeit sometimes I find his explanations for his votes (as some of his answers here) a little on the brief side. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral As an editor I have nothing but respect for Joe Chill. However, many of his answers are rather vauge. If he expands them, I will natually reconsider my position. Also, I'm a bit wary about giving the mop to a known murderer. Angrysockhop 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral veering to oppose I am not satisfied from the answers to my questions (4 and 5) that the candidate has a thorough understanding of the deletion policies. However, I am willing to give the candidate a chance to expand on those answers. If I am still unsatisfied (or they fail to do so) then I will change this neutral to an oppose. If I am happy with their answers, I will look in more detail at their contributions, etc, and decide from that whether to support or oppose -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I am surprized that I am here, as I instantly recognized your name as a sound contributor to AfD. That being said, after looking over this RfA and your talk page I have some questions about your communication style. Your replies are always very short and sometimes give what are obviously wrong impressions on readers, such as your reply to Auntie E. above. I don't doubt your reading of consensus or policy at all, but I do have worries that you could unintentionally flare up disputes instead of calming them down. Sorry. ThemFromSpace 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)