Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 9 June 2010

Soap

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/0/0); Scheduled to end 13:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Soap (talk · contribs) – I'm especially pleased to nominate Soap for adminship, after months and months of deliberations on his part and hounding on my part. I've known him for at least a year or two, and while my participation on Misplaced Pages is gradually winding down, his activity has remained consistent and steady. I feel Soap is, in many ways, already an administrator, familiar with the ways of the wiki and well-versed in its history, both social and technical. In particular, his knowledge of even the most obscure features has proven extremely helpful in the past. Soap is one of only six non-admins (including at least two former admins) entrusted with the powerful ability to manage the Edit filter. Thus, in essence, he already has indirect access to some of the sysop tools.

Soap's contributions are also remarkably similar to that of the most experienced administrators of the project, ranging from reverting vandalism to maintaining XfDs and SPI cases. Worthy of note is his long-term presence at Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, where his efforts to help new and confused users have earned widespread recognition. Statistically, he has 13,000 edits since January 2006. He regularly tags pages for deletion, reports problematic users, and partakes in community discussions; I turn to him daily for the latest updates on things like flaggedrevs. While not a prolific content creator, he has started more than a few respectable stubs. Granting Soap the sysop bit would, I feel, be a major achievement by the RfA system. Juliancolton (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Soap— 13:05, 9 June 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 will continue working in the areas I work in today: the edit filter and its associated false positives page, the various title blacklists, WP:UAA, and WP:AIV. I also plan to answer protected edit requests, as this is similar to answering many of the false positives reports, although I realize that articles that are full-protected are usually so because the content is under dispute, and that I should never make an edit that does not have consensus on the article's talk page. I would like to work at WP:SPI as well, though my involvement there so far has been minimal, and I will start slowly and tread carefully.

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

A: I’m best known for my edit filter modifications, which make it harder for vandals to get through and easier for us to track them. I have also done quite a few fixes to eliminate false positives because the edit filter sometimes frustrates legitimate editors as well. I’ve also done similar work at the Title blacklist and would be able to help by editing the blacklist directly and performing page moves denied by the blacklist. (Although, as above, I know better than to make a controversial edit without consensus, it seems that the majority of page moves and creations denied by the blacklist are obvious false positives, as can be seen by browsing MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and its archives.) I have presented evidence in various sockpuppetry investigations, both to exonerate innocent parties and to convict guilty ones.

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: Most of what I’d call conflicts are fairly one-sided anti-vandalism efforts; however, I have been involved in content disputes, mostly revolving around differing interpretations of the WP:V guidelines. Often, content disputes can be solved merely by engaging in discussion with the involved editors (example here). The kind of conflict that is most stressful to me is when an editor inserts content that I know to be false but hides behind claims that their information is verified only in paper sources, whether the sources exist or not. When I see claims cited to a source that I believe is fabricated, I do my best to make my case for it (example here), and if the editor uses a real source that I can't access I do my best find someone who has access to that source to verify it (example here, although since my communications were mostly through email it isn't clear what steps I took). This is a long-running problem, and I realize that adminship is not a magic solution to the problems of verification, so I won't change my methods of dealing with these types of problems. However I feel that some people believe that administrators really do have a magical solution and will come to me in the belief that I am a final authority. If I find myself drawn into a content dispute that I myself can do little to resolve, I will ensure that the conflict is resolved, if necessary by devolving the dispute to another area such as the reliable sources noticeboard.

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

4. Can vandals be rehabilitated?

A: Definitely. We have a userbox that identifies reformed vandals, and I'm sure that there are quite a few long term editors who could identify themselves as reformed vandals but don't want to advertise their past because it might make them a target for suspicion even today. But the will to reform really has to come from the person himself; I don't believe that simply offering rewards for good behavior can, in itself, turn a bad editor into a good one; in most cases it would only convince them that they can game the system.

5. Define when it is appropriate to IAR as you would to a new user

A: I think that the one-sentence definition on the WP:IAR page itself is the best way to summarize the meaning of the rule and when to use it. To someone who feels that the page doesn't tell them much, I would say that it's written that way because IAR cases need to be examined individually, with full attention given to the present situation. Only by addressing the individual problem can we determine whether the rule being questioned really is standing in the way of productive editing. Hopefully that would make it clear that IAR is not a license to ignore rules just to advance one's own agenda; like everything else, an IAR-based edit has to achieve consensus if questioned.

Additional optional question from Jclemens

6. Please expand on #2, specifically with respect to encyclopedia content: What articles have you created or improved? Have you contributed to any evaluated content, such as a DYK, GA, or featured content?

A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Two supports before transclusion? Wow! Airplaneman ✈ 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Mine had quite a few supports before it went live... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • As much as I hate to remove support !votes I feel it's probably best for me to stick to the letter of the law as stated here; after all, if they had been pre-emptive opposes, I would certainly want them removed. The three early !votes are visible in this diff (without timestamps). I appreciate their enthusiasm and I will let them know what I have done. —Soap— 12:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Haha, it's funny to think that your removal of these votes (in accordance with policy) will probably get you more votes! Good luck!. — CIS | stalk) 13:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Absolutely the strongest support I could think of. I have interacted with Soap for a few months now, and he has given me good advice when I was a newbie. Soap has done some great around the 'pedia, including his work at WP:UAA and WP:SPI, as well as helping the newbies, including me. Soap is an excellent choice for the mop, and Misplaced Pages will certainly benefit from it. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Support without hesitation. I've seen this candidate's good work in many places. P. D. Cook 13:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Beat the nom support I thought he was an admin. FinalRapture - † ☪ 13:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Support – not much more to add, as it is already stated above and in the nom. Good luck! Airplaneman ✈ 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Beat-the-nom Strongest possible support Absolutely. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
6. OK folks, enough of your beating-the-nom fun! I support, natrually. Juliancolton (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
7. About damn time. I would have put stronger words, but even with WP:UNCENSORED it is not, as they say, "couth" to say exactly how I feel. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Strong Support responsible editor who will make a good addition. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Soap cleans things up!  7  14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support An excellent choice. Immunize (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - agree, great name for an admin. This is a person who has done much to improve the Wiki, and my best wishes go with this !vote. Jusdafax 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Long overdue. Soap tends to be a voice of reason in discussions and is very experienced with the ways of the wiki. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Jafeluv (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Support with the sincere hope this makes it to WP:200.--~TPW 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Nothing to say other than that he's fit for adminship. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)