Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 14 December 2015

BethNaught

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (38/1/0); Scheduled to end 18:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

BethNaught (talk · contribs) – It gives me great pleasure to present to you BethNaught as a candidate for adminship. I have now looked through BethNaught's edits in quite a bit of detail, and I think that they would be an ideal candidate for the admin tools. While the majority of BN's contributions have been gnoming and administrative edits, they have done a decent amount of content work, and the work that I have seen shows that they have a very good knowledge of Misplaced Pages's content policies and of everything else that goes into making an article. BethNaught's most notable content contribution is probably Jessie Bonstelle, which they brought to GA status, and they are also the author of nine DYKs. In addition, BN has done a lot of work at Articles for creation; in fact, they did enough to get on the leaderboard for the June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive.

The administrative areas that BethNaught is most active in are speedy deletion and recent page patrolling. For a small idea of the work that they do, I recommend checking User:BethNaught/CSD log, which weighs in at an impressive 1,157 entries. Most of BN's recent speedy deletion work has been in the file namespace, which I don't feel qualified to assess, but there is an awful lot of earlier speedy deletion nominations of articles, and the ten or so that I spot-checked were all unambiguously good tags. Their recent changes work is also prolific. According to Xtools, they have 6,184 edits using Twinkle, 4,911 edits using Huggle, and 182 edits to WP:AIV. The Huggle edits that I spot-checked all looked good (and made me thankful again for all of the patrolling that BN and others do after seeing what exactly was reverted). BN would undoubtedly benefit from being able to block vandals directly instead of having to report them to AIV every time.

On checking BethNaught's AfD stats I was slightly concerned at first because there were too many times when their vote matched the final outcome (113 matches, 5 non-matches, and 5 no consensus outcomes). Sometimes this can indicate that an editor is only voting on AfDs where the outcome is certain in order to boost their statistics. However, after looking at BN's comments in individual AfD discussions, I was pleased to find out that not only was there no evidence of voting only on “dead certain” AfDs, but also that they have an excellent understanding of the notability guidelines and that they always leave well-reasoned comments explaining their decision. So I had nothing to worry about - BethNaught's AfD record is simply very, very good.

After looking through BethNaught's talk page archives, the impression I get is of an editor who is helpful, knowledgeable, and a very good communicator (an essential quality in an admin). Some investigation reveals that they have strong opinions about Flow, but I imagine many other editors feel the same - and this is the only evidence I've seen of BN coming anywhere close to losing their cool. I've tried very hard to find other reasons why BethNaught might have a hard time at RfA, but I just can't find anything. So I can only conclude that they should have become an admin a long time ago, and hope that you will all join me in supporting their nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Co-nomination

BethNaught's experience has already been articulately summarized by Mr. Strad's statement, so I will endeavor to keep my co-nomination brief and to the point. I have noticed BethNaught helping out newbies and adding sensible comments around the project numerous times. Speaking of things that are impressive, I should repeat what Mr. Stradivarius already noted, BethNaught's outstanding knowledge of deletion policies which is evidenced from their clueful comments at AFD and this long list of their CSD tagging, it is already clear that they are extremely well versed in deletion related areas. From my experience, it seems that BethNaught puts care into every edit they makes and that's a desirable quality in an administrator. BethNaught has also got a backbone, and they are not afraid to share their opinion. But BN is mature and knows when to contain themselves. BN is calm and level-headed demeanor full of trustworthiness, competence, intelligence, and experience. In working with others, they are always kind, thoughtful, and helpful, and never gets upset. In deciding whether they would be a good admin, BethNaught has it where it counts: plenty of good contributions on Misplaced Pages, excellent knowledge of policy, enough number of high quality content creation, plus very good judgment calls and lots of experience in the area of TFD and AFD, as already mentioned. Given BN's experience and their obvious clue, I'd say there's no harm—and an awful lot of good—that could come from giving them those tools. I think we'd be doing ourselves a favor by giving them the tools. Jim Carter 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Having the admin tools would help me to be more effective in the work I am already doing. On vandalism patrol, I have not infrequently come across vandals who have been reported, or who I have reported, but have not yet been blocked due to WP:AIV backlogs. As an admin I could block them myself, and I would help out at WP:RFPP and AIV. Being an admin would also enable me to carry out delete closures at WP:TFD, where I have performed some non-admin closures in recent months – including delete NACs, a method not available at AfD, where a non-admin closer tags the template for speedy deletion by an admin.

I also work in the file namespace. Firstly, I patrol file uploads to tag obvious copyright violations for speedy deletion and dubious files for WP:PUF or dated speedy deletion. I would like to be able to actually delete copyvio files (according to process, of course). Secondly, as a file mover I often rename files which have the same name as a file on Commons. In order to "unshadow" the Commons file, it is necessary to delete the resulting redirect. (I will point out here, this is why there are many bluelinks recently on my CSD log: the Commons file makes the link blue although the local page has been deleted.) I may also help out with CSD in general, since I have previous experience in New Page Patrol.

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

A: In terms of content my best work is definitely Jessie Bonstelle, which I created and brought to GA status myself. (Thanks go, of course, to the GA reviewer and to those who pointed out typos.) In addition, I have eight other DYKs, concerning either British MPs or female scientists. As Mr Stradivarius said, I have done much WikiGnoming, such as typo fixing and red link repair. I have a lot of experience in counter-vandalism, and since August I have been active in closing TfDs, helping to keep the once-egregious backlog there under control.

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: As a newbie I got into a couple of scrapes. For example, there was an argument over "State anthem" or "National anthem" of Uzbekistan. I prematurely took that to dispute resolution. If I were in that situation now, I would consider making a move request. As noted, I have strong opinions about Flow and I became agitated during mid-2014 at the height of the MediaViewer/Superprotect controversy and the arguments about Flow that precipitated. I still make comments criticising Flow and the WMF's handling of it from time to time, but everything is more calm and considered, if still to the point. For a recent example of stress, one of my TfD closures got taken to DRV. This gave me some nervousness about what the result would be, even though I trusted my judgement (which the DRV endorsed). However I believe I acted reasonably civilly. Having been there once, I know how it works, so if I were to be taken there in the future it would cause me much less stress.

Additional question from Esquivalience

4. Editors who work at TfD should know how to handle templates and template responsibilities. Because I can't see many non-TfD contributions to templates or Lua modules, do you nonetheless feel that you are reasonably proficient in handling templates and modules?

A: It is true that I do not know Lua and am not fluent in e.g. parser functions. For this reason, I would not use administrator access to edit modules or templates with non-trivial programming. When it comes to closing TfD debates, it is frequently the case that the debate has no aspect about coding (for example, sports team navboxes), and I can close these confidently. When a debate hinges on technical aspects or programming, I would use my judgement to avoid closing that debate unless there were a clear consensus.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

5. I have created pages that were deleted as “vandelism” , so I would like to know what is a vandal in your opinion ( I have not infrequently come across vandals who have been reported…)

A: WP:VAND defines vandalism as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages (emphasis original). I think this is a good general definition of vandalism (and to answer your question exactly, a vandal is a user who performs vandalism). When patrolling new pages or recent changes, there are several types of edits that are revertible, such as addition of personal biased opinions and copyright violations, which are not vandalism if the user doesn't know why they're wrong. These edits should be reverted and warned using specific messages (possibly templates) which explain why the edits are wrong instead of branding the user as malicious. In short, vandalism requires mens rea, and good faith editing can't be called vandalism.

I hope that gives you a sense of my views. If I haven't been clear in some way, please ask for a clarification.

Additional question from Reyk

6.- Under what circumstances is it appropriate to block an editor for not answering a question on their talk page?

A: I find it difficult to imagine a situation where blocking for that alone would be appropriate. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive, so if the editor's not causing disruption, there shouldn't be a need to block them. Perhaps if an editor with a clearly inappropriate username (such as a seriously offensive username or a promotional one implying shared use) continues editing despite a reasonable request to change username, then a block may be appropriate, but that would be for the username violation instead of the lack of reply per se.

Additional question from Rubbish computer

7. You go onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you respond to each of these?

A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 14 users, most of them substantially experienced.

Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!)

A:

• A town, somewhere: this would depend on the nature of the vandalism. If it's just one or two users, blocking them and monitoring the situation would be a more appropriate first step. If the vandals are many and non-autoconfirmed, semi-protection would suffice in the first instance. Per WP:FULL, Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article, but full protection is too much if this is not the case.
• Joe Bloggs, Sr.: This sounds like a content dispute. With large numbers of (auto)confirmed users edit-warring, semi-protection would be ineffective. Full protection for a moderate period (I have seen one week used before) would force the users to discuss on the talk page. This is likely to be a more productive outcome than dishing out 14 edit warring blocks.
• Greenish (color): If the IPs have been blocked and the situation has been resolved, monitoring the situation may be preferable to protection. If it appears to be an IP hopping vandal, and vandalism continues after blocks, protection may be in order. This would be an exercise of discretion.
• Crayons, Inc.: In that situation, creation protection would be an appropriate action to take.
• Internet vandalism: Depends on context. If there is persistent move vandalism or an ongoing dispute, move protection would be appropriate. In general, consensus is only necessary in advance if it is reasonable to believe a move would be controversial, so "moved without consensus" does not automatically require protection.
• Vfggfsaygtshbykags: Salting would be inappropriate, given that the page has never been created, and there's nothing e.g. blatantly obscene.
• Foo: Similar to the Joe Bloggs edit war, if it's a just couple of users, edit-warring blocks would be in order, but if many experienced editors were involved, protection would likely be a more productive solution.
• Graphic graphs: We have significant, productive IP contributors here, so semi-protection would be bad. Pending Changes Level 1 would be appropriate in order to allow productive IP editors but screen out vandalism.

Additional question from Rubbish computer

8. You go onto AIV. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. How would you respond to each of these?

User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago)

User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A: These answers assume claims of vandalism are true. If vandalism has not actually happened, investigate further, take appropriate action and explain to the reporter why a vandalism report was inappropriate.

• User:4Funn5: more investigation required. If they haven't been warned, warn them. If they have received a final or immediate warning, and vandalised after receiving it, block them.
• User:SomeUser44: Recent vandalism after a final warning will most likely merit a block.
• IP:1.23456789.12: (This is an account pretending to be an IP but getting the format wrong. Anyway,) this isn't vandalism. A better venue would be WP:ANI if there is a dispute with personal attacks occuring. Alternatively it may be that the user needs a stern warning to play nice. (Of course, check the reporter isn't a pot calling the kettle black.)
• User:U wot m88884: depends. If there is recent vandalism, block. If the user has by now stopped vandalising and has made some productive edits, I may be more inclined to monitor the situation and block in the event of any further vandalism.
• User:$$£$YEPP: This isn't vandalism. Refer to talk page discussion, WP:COIN or if there is disruption occuring, WP:ANI.
• User:Hi98: Again, wrong venue. WP:AN3 is thataway. Still, if the case is clear, there's no need to be bureaucratic about it: block the reported user and explain the correct course of action to the reporter. (As before, check the reporter isn't also edit warring.)
• User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc.: wrong venue. With no edits so far, refer to WP:UAA and monitor the situation.

Additional question from Spartaz

9. I see that you been active at DYK. Many users feel that DYK is broken and should not be on the front page. Do you agree or disagree with this position. Extra points for providing a detailed explanation of your reasoning.

A: With respect, I don't see how this is relevant to an RfA, given that I am not interested in being involved with the administrative side of DYK. Also I can't say I have ever given this issue in-depth consideration. However, it's clear, even from just skimming the WT:DYK archives and reading Fram's recent Signpost op-ed and the comment section, that it's a highly controversial topic... If you are really keen to hear an answer, send me a message and I'll consider it, but I couldn't give you a properly informed answer at this point.

Discussion

• Hi all. I understand why there is confusion, but I'd rather not let this catch on in a wide venue: as I have a userbox saying, I don't want to reveal my gender identity on-wiki. Beth naught is a number: ${\displaystyle \beth _{0}}$. I would appreciate it if you would please refer to me as "they". Thank you! BethNaught (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support Absolutely no qualms. BethNaught would make a great admin. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support, as promised at the trial.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Widr (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Editor exceeds my RfA standards and I have no reason at this time to oppose. Mkdw 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Summed up perfectly by the nominators, BethNaught is a brilliant editor and would make a fine administrator -- samtar 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
6. —Kusma (t·c) 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Very good editing record. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, obviously. I've seen a lot of BethNaught's work at TfD since the NAC process was introduced and have been consistently impressed. BethNaught is confident, clueful, and already skilled at judging consensus from discussions. Well qualified, except for not having come to RfA a long time ago ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
9. Support Appears to have excellent knowledge of the necessary policies. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - As I said here I actually thought she was already an admin so was rather surprised to see she wasn't, Quite honestly I couldn't think of anyone better to be an admin!. Obviously great candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010 20:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    One small point: BethNaught hasn't identified as a "she", so using "they" is probably the safest bet. Check out User:BethNaught#My name for some more details. — Mr. Stradivarius 23:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

11. Support ticks all the boxes, needs the tools and their history suggests they'll use them responsibly. Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
12. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
13. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
14. Support .Of course. I have recently reviewed this candidates work with a view to adminship. I can honestly say that it is rare for me to come across a user who so adequately fits the profile of an ideal admin.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
15. Support absolutely. I asked them to run. Strong contributions across the board, talks sense. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
16. Support. I'm glad to finally see this RfA. BethNaught is level-headed, well-rounded, and a near-perfect admin candidate, in my opinion. Biblioworm 22:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
17. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
18. Support- seems an excellent candidate from what I have seen. Reyk _YO! 22:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
19. Stephen 22:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
20. Support. This editor has shown sound judgement in non-admin closures of discussions and responded with civility and eloquence when challenged. I'm also very impressed by the answers to Rubbish Computer's test-case questions. I dare to say BethNaught will make a better admin than I. Deryck C. 23:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. I have seen plenty of very good judgement from this candidate. Their communication skills are excellent, and their experience is ideal. I am confident that BethNaught will make fine use of the tools as an administrator. Begoon  23:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
22. Support - looks like a great candidate, and good answers to the questions so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
23. Support No worries here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
24. Support. I think that in almost 2 years of editing, the candidate has done pretty well and shown a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
25. Support as co-nominator. Jim Carter 01:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
26. Support – net positive. sst✈ 03:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
27. Support - Clean block record. As with some of the above editors, agree that this editor's responses to the supplementary questions were very good. Particularly liked their response to Reyk's question #6 regarding talk page blocks. Can see no issues with this person getting adminship. Onel5969 04:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
28. Support, nothing worries me about the candidate, and I can see no reason why they shouldn't be granted the bit. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
29. Strong support — long overdue. David Cannon (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
30. Support Right temperament, and sees the problems with Flow! Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
31. Support I have seen BethNaught's work in areas with which I am familiar and I agree the candidate does good work in those areas, has a good editng record overall and has a good temperament. Also, BethNaught writes clearly, has answered the questions posed to this time well and has a good temperament. I am glad to add my support to BethNaught's candidacy. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
32. Support - the closing of the TfD BethNaught mentioned in Q3 and subsequent comments in the deletion review were a pleasure to read - all comments were clear, well supported, and civil. It would be nice if all discussion participants were like this. "Pepper" @ 05:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
33. Support - Meets all criteria I can think of. Good answers to questions, sound judgement, call-mannered. An ideal candidate — MusikAnimal 05:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Very pleased with the thoughtfulness behind BethNaught's responses, and I have no concerns about their behavior. I'm glad to see they've done some non-admin closure work, which requires a bit of discernment about when knowing when to jump in and when to hold back. I am confident they will be able to contribute a lot of important efforts towards some of our less-patrolled areas like Template for discussion and Possibly unfree files. I, JethroBT 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
35. Support - . I have checked through the contributions and her work and the user has a strong record. She writes in full clear sentences. I can fully trust her as an Admin. For the short time she has been on Misplaced Pages she has shown to us that she has the right to the mop. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
36. Support. I don't usually comment on responses to questions when I voice my opinion on RFA, but I want to take a moment to let BethNaught know that I really appreciate the maturity and self-assurance I see in the response to #9. It is possibly the best answer I have seen at an RFA in quite some time. Risker (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Ironically I edit conflicted with Risker saying the same thing but she said it far more eloquently then I did. I liked the confidence in which they decided not to answer the question and the fact that they took time to research the issue before making an excellent call not to answer such a tricky question. I have no doubt that they will be one of our very best admins very quickly. Spartaz 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
38. I offered BethNaught a nomination, how could I not offer support? Worm(talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I like what I see of the candidate's work – quaint articles such as Alastair Simms. And I have a vague awareness of seeing them around and being generally sensible. But it's a shock to find that Beth is not a personal name and that the candidate is explicitly not saying what gender they are. I look at their early edits and these indicate that this is an experienced editor making a fresh start of some kind. The nominators don't say anything about this and seem quite tentative in their knowledge of the candidate. This doesn't feel right. Arbitrators have to declare exactly who they are and they only get a limited term of a year or two. Admin is a lifetime position and so similar standards should apply. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

General comments