Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 26 September 2010

Armbrust

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/9/3); Scheduled to end 21:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) – I have worked with this user for over a year now, mainly on tennis related articles. Furthermore, I have monitored this user’s work in the pages for deletion category and saw he has Admin experience already, and would use the features of this wisely, which would free up other Administrators to do other categories of admin work.BLUE_DOG 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept your nomination. Armbrust _Contribs 21:06, 25 September 2010 (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: At the beginning I would mainly work on the deletion process of articles (AfD and speedy deletion), because I have the most experience in this area. I plan to participate later in DRV and other XfD areas too.

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

A: I have created more than 200 articles on Misplaced Pages and contributed to three articles to reach GA status. Have been participated in the AfD process, where I have recently performed non-admin closures (mainly procedural by nature) and relisting of discussions. I am a member of the Birthday and Welcoming comitee, which advocate Wikilove.

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 try to solve problems by discussion. It is true, that discussions are mostly not initiated by me. I try to be as polite as possible in every discussion, assume good faith. Interacting with other can editors can cause stress, because editors have other opinion about things, which is, I think, a good thing. If I feel stressed about something, than I don't make edits in these area. I cool down, and step over it. Being an admin, I think, will not change this.

Additional optional question from Kraftlos

4. I see a lot of minor edits. Are there articles where have you done substantial content work and if so which articles?

A:

5. In your own words, what is the purpose of WP:N?

A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support --Inka 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Support User has been around since 2008 and has over 47000 edits and has created over 200 articles and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry. I think an essential quality of being an admin is judiciousness in decision-making and the ability to explain a decision to people disappointed by it. Those qualities are particularly important in deletions. Looking through your contributions (and I have had a good look) I see a lot of very quick AfD !votes, often within one minute of each other. I think it would be unusual for an editor to have a proper look at an article and the sources that might be usable for the article in such short periods of time. Admittedly, most of your delete !votes are on uncontroversial deletions. But you get caught out: here on a delete !vote; and here !voting keep without checking verifiability. You usually change your mind when new sources become available - which is great - but it is better to be careful first. So I don't think you are careful enough with your delete !votes and they are often cursorily explained. That leads me to have doubts about AfD closes, particularly as there are questionable recent NACs (). Having said all of that, I am willing to listen to any response to this oppose, for example, if I am unfairly considering things out of context. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. Multiple issues. Has a strange tendency to edit articles immediately after someone else has edited it, sometimes with pointless edits that add or remove space , or which introduce grammatical errors , style changes without gaining consensus . (Bizarreness factor.)

   Understanding of article-writing and content policies is poor; see here at His father section, where he argued to erase mere mention of Ronnie O'Sullivan's father, despite his father having a critical role in his life, with arguments such as "The article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan not about his father" and "It was removed, because the article was not focused enough. Article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan, not about his father, who isn't notable. (If he were he would have an own article, where this information should be.)" (Was later persuaded that this information could be included.) See also here at Nicknames.

   AfD participation is high, but the majority of comments consist of "Delete as fails ". Rarely is the justification explained. Many times when he was the first person to comment, he has had to strike his comments when subsequent editors voted to keep. Also made an inappropriate non-admin closure at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. Also don't see too many speedy tags applied in recent history.

   I first encountered this editor when trying to get Shaun Murphy (snooker player) (see history) to GA—one of the GA he cites—and found his participation less than optimal. For example, he added spaces before and after em dash (against MoS) , I reverted, then he changed the em dashes to commas, completely messing up the sentence . Also unnecessarily added otheruses template to the article after I had deleted it. Whilst some of his edits were improvements, the vast majority were minor, and overall I found his participation less than entirely helpful. The other GA he cites, Jasmin Ouschan, was largely done by TonyTheTiger (see history). The candidate made 10 edits, 8 marked minor, the 2 non-minor also insignificant.

   Has a tendency to delete comments off his user page without explanation, so would not trust his talk archives to be an accurate record of his interactions, see . Regarding a RfC of KnowIG, another editor User:TreasuryTag attempted to contact the candidate about it. His response was to simply delete the comment multiple times

   Also rarely uses edit summaries, even when making controversial edits and reverts, and NACs etc. Has a tendency to edit war without engaging in much discussion. Lack of significant content creation aside from minor tweaks and formatting. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose: Though in my few interactions with this user in the past he has appeared to be a good editor, unfortunately some of the issues raised above are too problematic to ignore; I had noticed previously that the user's !votes in AfDs often seem rushed and could be better researched prior to coming to a decision, and upon being reminded, I also recall the inappropriate NAC referenced by User:Christopher Connor above, as I reverted it myself at the time. It's a reasonable mistake for an editor to make, but illustrates that the user may have some work still to do before they can be an effective sysop. GiftigerWunsch 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I've taken a look at your 'tribs and you appear to be a valuable Wikipedian; however, I cannot ignore some of the issues raised by Mkativerata and by Christopher Connor, which make me feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, especially when it comes to AFDs (your rushed !votes and that NAC are unreassuring, IMHO); and, finally, your use of edit summaries could definitely be improved... Salvio 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
5. OPPOSE: Christopher Connor's thorough analysis SHOCKS me. I've seen Armbrust at AfDs, generally making rational comments, but those diffs exhibit utter incompetence in content work. Also, he closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J. L. Langley inappropriately as "speedy keep" in violation of #3. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm not going to be nearly as dramatic as the actor above my vote, but the lackluster AFD !votes, wonky edits that create problems instead of fixing them, and especially no edit summaries in controversial edits and/or reverts is a dealbreaker. I cannot trust the candidate at this time. Vodello (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Well said Vodello. Mlpearc powwow 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. Christopher Connor sums it up well and after following up, I don't want to pile on more rationale. Armbrust appears to be a friendly, helpful and civil editor, and we all make occasional mistakes, but his editing pattern is still to unstable. If he can work on those deficiencies of AfD judgement, lack of edit summaries, and other points, I would probably find my way to support a new RfA in about six months time.Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Multiple issues raised by review of candidate's talk page, including questionable policy interpretations and iffy command of English language. Townlake (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I've seen him do good work in various areas, as well as make some poor decisions and questionable comments in deletion discussions (Christopher Connor's oppose above mentions some of these things). Overall, I've found Armbrust to be a good user, but I can't bring myself to support right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral established editor, but the above oppses do not allow me to support at this time. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral On the fence for now. Answers to my questions will likely tip my vote one way or the other. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)