Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 23 January 2008

Rodhullandemu

Voice your opinion (talk page) (44/0/4); Scheduled to end 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I present to you my first nominee for adminship, Rodhullandemu. Rodhullandemu is a tireless contributor who has achieved an impressive record in his time here. He is already involved in activities where he is exposed to administrative responsibilities, as evidenced by his extensive record with CSD and AN/I. He also has significant vandal patrolling experience and some competent article building to boot. Rodhullandemu has demonstrated the judgment and patience necessary to be an admin, and I believe he would be an invaluable asset with the mop. - Revolving Bugbear 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept User:Revolving Bugbear's kind nomination. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the community here is prepared to express its confidence in me, I will do my best not to let the side down. Sure, I've made mistakes, but in doing so I have taken the opportunity to learn from them. I'm sure they won't be my last, but having spent some time here and here, I think I'm aware of most of the pitfalls, and I do try not to rush into things in any event. Knowing that any action I might take as an admin would be under scrutiny would make me even more aware of thinking before pushing that button. My editing experience I leave to speak for itself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially, much the same as I do now, reverting vandalism, of which I have seen a lot, and dealing with CSD & AFD; I have learnt our fair-use policy the hard way and feel confident that I can be of use there. Meanwhile, there are always backlogs here and I would take a part in WP:AIV and WP:RfPP. I would of course study Admin School and over time would seek to develop skills to deal with more contentious matters as my abilities improve.

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

A: I have started a number of articles and improved others; whenever I have seen incorrect or clumsy language, I have tried to improve it. I have reviewed one article as a WP:GA candidate and as a result I hope it's better for that. Vandal-fighting is sometimes invisible, but necessary, and I have made a useful contribution there too, I feel. In general, I consider my contributions have improved the encyclopedia, and that is a good enough reason to be here.

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 am lucky to have escaped some of the more contentious issues which seem to produce so much drama here; when conflicts have arisen, they are normally matters of sourcing or interpretation which I have normally been able to resolve through achieving agreement or consensus. Dealing with some editors can be stressful, because they may be less aware of our requirements for reliable sources and verifiability, but if I advise them of policy, even in informal language, it's frustrating when they just don't get it. However, I've usually got the angel of mercy over my left shoulder. In future, even based on recent experience, I will walk away for a while, take a deep breath and then return with, hopefully, a clearer mind.

Question from The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

4. What is your opinion of editors who make a spectacle of "retiring" from Misplaced Pages only to return a short time later?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't be asked to judge another editor personally; but in general terms it can be all too easy to get carried away by the drama, and it is always difficult to tell whether editors who "make a spectacle" of retiring are merely trying to make a point. The fact that they return shows either masochism, self-confidence, addiction, or commitment to the goals of the project, and we have only their edits by which to judge any of these things. I've heard it said that in human communication, body language conveys about 80%, tone of voice 15% and the actual words used, the remaining 5%. All we see here are the latter and some part of the former. However, if such an editor returns, we should assume good faith and accept that they want to edit here, and let water pass under the bridge. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Tiptoety

5.What are your thoughts on administrators open to recall? Would you add yourself, why or why not? Tiptoety 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A: I would always consider myself accountable to the community, however, I'm not yet convinced that recall is a properly constituted process given that I would be able to set out both the mechanism and the criteria for that procedure myself. I am aware of the need to defend against frivolous complaints, which occasionally happen, but if it became obvious that I no longer deserved my colleagues' confidence, then I would resign the mop anyway, and if I felt strongly about it, launch a new RfA. I am open to persuasion, and for the time being would not subscribe to that category, but reserve the option to do so at a later date. If I am trusted with the mop, I hope I would also be trusted to do the right thing should things go wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

6.What is the difference between a ban and a block? Tiptoety 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A: Both are ways of protecting the project. A block is a mechanism for preventing an editor from editing and may be temporary or indefinite, but is appealable. A ban is a community policy decision, or a decision by ArbCom, that an editor is not welcome to edit here under any circumstances, which include an existing account, as an anon IP, or by using a sockpuppet account. In practical terms, banned editors will have already been blocked, and the effect of a ban is that no admin is prepared to unblock that editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from NASCAR Fan24

7. Suppose that you were CSD-tagging and came across the following articles. What would you tag each page as, if necessary? NF24 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"John Roberts is a well-known amateur film-maker from Tallahassee, Florida. Most of his videos have been viewed over one million times on YouTube."

A: It doesn't fall within any of the general criteria for speedy and it's not a CSD#A7 since notability is asserted; would probably do a search for independent reliable sources and send to WP:AFD if none were found or tag with {{Unreferenced}}, bearing in mind YouTube is not necessarily regarded as a reliable source in itself.

"Elroy Budkip is an auto mechanic from Las Vegas, Nevada."

A: Delete using CSD#A7 as no assertion of notability.

"Bob's Gutter Cleaning Company is the best gutter cleaning company on the east side of the Mississippi River. With their friendly, professional service, you know that you are getting the best treatment possible!"

A: If that's all it consists of, it's a CSD#G11 - blatant advertising.

Redirect: Misplaced Pages, la enciclopedia libre -> Spanish Misplaced Pages

A: Not being a Spanish speaker, I can't tell if the language is correct, but it seems to be a plausible valid redirect not obviously falling foul of CSD#R3. If I hadn't seen anything like that before, I might take advice before deleting it.

"The Manchester Southern Connector Motorway is a proposed upgrade of the A556 that connects the M56 motorway to the M6 motorway. Construction is due to start in 2028."

A: Even though WP:Notability (highways) is not policy, I would take it as persuasive and regard United Kingdom motorways and A roads as inherently notable. If unable to find reliable and verifiable sources, given that projects like this usually have a long lead-time, would probably send it to WP:AFD per WP:CRYSTAL.

General comments

• See Rodhullandemu's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Rodhullandemu: Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• I have said above that I have made mistakes here, and learned policy the hard way. I make no bones about that. I did not wish to air my past health problems here, but User:Edward Morgan Blake's comments below, despite the fact that he has only 237 edits to the project, mean that I now may have to, and it is only fair to the community that there is an explanation. It is late here now and there are still other issues besides the Wikistress of going through this RfA; so if I can, I intend to sleep on this for now and return refreshed tomorrow. I would ask any concerned colleague to either wait until I am in a position to deal with those comments rationally, or to pose further questions if you prefer. I will do my best to address them. But not right now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You could sleep on it and ignore it. I don't see anything you need to address, unless you feel like you want to clear the air. Otherwise, take care of yourself. the_undertow 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have many edits, but I would have hoped a focus on my comments if you were to respond (which, as noted, is not necessary) instead of an ad hominem attempt at belittling me as you did to Gustafson. That is un-called for and sadly unbecoming, yet again. And whatever health problems you had are not important as long as you are fine now - the point is the unprofessionalism, ignorance of policy, and veiled personal attacks exhibited during that incident (and, frankly, above). Instead of accusing me of being a sock-puppet (and showing further reason to oppose based on your lack of knowledge on what kind of activity warrants a checkuser), you should either address the issues or ignore them. It is up to you, but don't insinuate I am violating policy when there is not one I have crossed... such haste is troubling for a potential admin. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made 5 edits to the above post. It appears you are obsessing. Perhaps you will allow the candidate to respond. the_undertow 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Watchlist for the win. - Revolving Bugbear 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - I've been generally impressed with Rodhullandemu and from interaction with him, I believe he is ready and has the required knowledge to use the mop effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - I've noticed the user around wiki and have found their involvement to be helpful and calm. Jehochman 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Concur with those above, and add that I have no reservations about the candidate's judgement or use of the tools. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support per having most mainspace edits to an article that I wouldn't touch. I mean I would, just not the article. the_undertow 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Aye. BLACKKITE 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support no concerns here NHRHS2010 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Obviously trustworthy. VanTucky 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Uber support! - Yes yes yes! I guess i missed co-nominating you, sorry. Tiptoety 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Super special awesome support I looked over his recent contribs and I believe he is ready for the job. --EinsteiNewton 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Contribs look good. Plenty of mainspace experience. Keep up the good work and good luck. Timmeh! 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Looks good from here. --Sharkface217 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen this user around doing good work. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - no reason not to. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support: Yes, for sure going to support here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Suppoer active and trustworthy. Bencherlite 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support just don't go fiddling with your aerial... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, a good vandalism fighter. King of the NorthEast 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per Ryan. Nick (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
21. There's somebody at the door --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support per interactions we have had in the past and solid record of contributions. Kim Dent-Brown 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - good editor.   jj137 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - Seen this user many times around AFD, and in recent changes reverting vandalism. - Ohmpandya 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Seen the user around many times, has the required knowledge and experience. Woody (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
28. From what I've seen, I have two words on the topic. Heck and Yes. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Won't abuse the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak Support The diff below worries me, but I think he still can be trusted. Spencer 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. bibliomaniac15 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. No worries at all here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Personal interaction based. A pleasure. As ever, Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support No objections and knows the CSD well. NF24 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, regretfully changed to Weak Support. This user appears to have a good understanding of policy, and everything I've seen has been positive. Was very helpful to me whilst I was making improvements to The Jeremy Kyle Show (see that article's talk page). However, I'm changing to weak support as this diff is worrying for an administrator hopeful. The article both provides enough context to identify the subject, and makes a definite assertion of notability. I hope this diff is a one-off, as everyone makes mistakes.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
37. I read the stuff in neutral; all I say to the candidate is remember to chill. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Seen him about, seems good. Majorly (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support without hesitation. I've looked through your contribs and your userpage/usertalk and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have the admin buttons. Absolutely spot on (IMO) with answer to Q7 by NF24. Keeper | 76 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - Good editor --Chetblong_Sign 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - The diff listed below, while a bit beyond snarky, does not change the fact that the user has a solid understanding of policy and is a positive contributor to the project. If that's the worst we're going to see out of Rodhullandemu, then I see no reason to oppose. --jonny-mt 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Good editor, understands policy. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - Good answers to questions, strong editor, knows policy. Jauerback/_dude. 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Weak Support - all-round good guy but got .. umm ... "twitchy" about page protection some months back over the constant vandalism of the theft article. Has moved on a lot since then, however, and is involved in many areas. Should be just fine - Alison 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Good answers, good record. ~ priyanath talk 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose My contact with Rodhull have not been the most pleasant for the most part. After an issue on RFPP a little while back, I felt as if he overreacted quite badly. This is not to say I was not in the wrong whatsoever, but I am left with a bad taste in my mouth from the whole issue. I know I will be asked for diffs, etc., and for the time being, this is the only one I have time for right now. I felt as if he jumped the gun right away, and am concerned about what this would mean if he was to get into an argument or issue elsewhere as an admin. Jmlk17 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry you feel like that, but I was in the line of fire and virtually the only editor protecting that article at the time. But at least you did wish me a Merry Christmas here! You ought also to bear this in mind --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose Sorry. This user's done a lot of good stuff; however, I can't help but worry that he may use his tools when he doesn't get his way. The diff from Jmlk was presumptuous and arrogant, and I can't support someone who talks to another editor that way. GlassCobra 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. GlassCobra 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Unprofessional editor with a track record of image upload violations and one troubling incident involving admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Rodhullandemu left this note on Jeffrey's talk page, a note Jeffrey was thoroughly creeped out by (told to me via private correspondence, sorry, so make that what you will). After Jeff had soon removed two fair use images from Rodhullandemu's user page (a common and accepted practice), Rodhullandemu reverted (as vandalism, no less!) and left a note on AN/I actually questioning Jeffrey's sanity. Those familiar with Jeffrey O. Gustafson know about his ... eccentricities... but to question an admin's sanity for enforcing policy is a bit much. Then Rodhullandemu had the gall to, after noting Jeffrey's failings (a rather troll-like move, IMO), question Jeffrey's commitment to the project (something Jeffrey believed in vehemently and devoted much of his time to) by saying "I've created several pages from scratch. I've taken several pages from sows' ears towards silk purses in the few days since I joined the Wikification project. I don't see you doing that. Again, nothing personal, but exactly why are you here?" (Which, of course, is not just insulting but ignores his many many contributions, including featured content.) Rodhullandemu then flipped out, and stormed off in a huff claiming he was going to be dead soon and that the removal of the fair use images from his userspace meant that no-one would have any clue who he was. Lovely. Veiled personal attacks in retaliation of policy enforcement, even against a certain controversial admin few had love for, followed by dramatic overreaction is just not acceptable to me (but maybe I am a little biased). --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

   Finally, when I made this oppose, Rodhullandemu accused me of being a sock-puppet to an admin and exhibited both a shocking rush to judgment and ignorance of certain key policies that would be dangerous in the hands of an admin. Detailed above. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Rodhull made a good point. Jmlk17 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I have seen a lot of good work from this user, too much good to even consider opposing. However, the diff that Jmlk17 posted above concerns me. Having a bad day or not, I don't care for his seemingly difficult time remaining civil. And I really unimpressed with his rather insulting implication that Jmlk did not care about the situation the article was about because he's in the US. Trusilver 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. The diff given by Jmlk17 bother me, but I won't oppose you over it. Good luck anyway, Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I'm still rather worried about how this editor may react under pressure; however, I guess if Jmlk himself has moved on from the incident, I can't hold it over Rod's head. GlassCobra 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral per above. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)