Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:21, 24 April 2008

Horologium

Voice your opinion (talk page) (9/0/0); Scheduled to end 11:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

Horologium (talk · contribs)

Horologium is a user I originally nominated for adminship back in January. He declined, and I tried again recently, which he has accepted. He's been editing for quite some time, and has done a lot of work for the Florida WikiProject. Where I've come across him mainly is at WP:UCFD. He participates there plenty, and we could always use more admins there to help with the occasional difficult close where all the other admin frequenters already voted. He contributes over all namespaces, even doing things as simple as adding rationales to images. Horologium will, quite bluntly, be a great addition to the administrators of Misplaced Pages. Wizardman 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Black Falcon - I am happy to join jc37 and Wizardman in nominating Horologium for adminship. Since joining Misplaced Pages in 2006, Horologium has become a regular participant in WikiProject Florida and an active contributor to Misplaced Pages's coverage of Florida (example diff). He has made around 8500 edits, these two impressive edits to Environment of Florida ( DYK) and History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, both of which essentially created full-length articles, being among them.

In addition to mainspace editing, Horologium is involved in multiple areas of project maintenance, including various deletion discussion venues and admin noticeboards. He is knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and processes, and also possesses the patience and diligence that is needed for adminship, as evidenced by his tremendous work (see here for one example) to clean up and standardise our collection of language user categories (used to assist translation efforts).

Horologium is an experienced, responsible, and trustworthy contributor, and the project could only benefit from giving him the tools. Black Falcon 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by jc37 - Well the two above pretty much said much of what I was going to say. (User:Black Falcon in particular, with his incessant bad habit of doing research, and adding supportive references and links to everything. What does he think this is? An encyclopedia, or something?) - And before you wonder if that parenthetical joke is out-of-context and has nothing to do with the nom, let me set you straight. One of the reasons I'm nominating Horologium is his sense of humour. See, it takes the ability to "step back" sometimes and "find the funny". And he can and does. Has he been frustrated at times? Yes, he has. Has he also "stepped back" a bit from the situation at those times? Yes he has. And I have to tell you: The day he dropped a note on my talk page asking me to look over his version of the article on Environment of Florida, not knowing if I had even a clue about florida. (Little to none - isn't that a suburb of Disneyland or something?) And then when I looked, I was stunned at the difference between the previous stub and his new fleshed out version, the very next edit. (The references in particular, enough to make Black Falcon jealous, I would think.) Expansion and ReOrg just don't give the work he did justice. Since then he's also been pretty heavily involved in policy and process discussions throughout Misplaced Pages. Opinionated? He is. Trustworthy? That too. In short, I support : ) - jc37 08:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to accept the nomination. Horologium (talk) 11:36, 24 April 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: Much of my activity has been in one of the more neglected corners of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion, and I would assist the handful of other admins there in closing discussions. I'd also participate in closing discussions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. While I have not been particularly active at Misplaced Pages:Candidates for speedy deletion, I do understand the criteria, and can work on that backlog as well. Of course, I can always look at the Misplaced Pages:Administrative backlog and see where backlogs currently exist.

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

A: As far as creation of new content or expansion of old material, I was a significant contributor to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Coral Springs, Florida, both of which have achieved Good Article status, and I was the primary author of two well-referenced articles, History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Environment of Florida, both of which are probably close to Good Article status. On the "removal of inappropriate content" front, my contributions at WP:UCFD have assisted in the elimination of an astonishing number of needless or divisive categories.

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: Like most editors, I have encountered a few situations where I have come into conflict with other users. I tend to stand my ground, but will withdraw from articles where there is little or no chance of convincing the other party that policy trumps personal views. Matt Sanchez was the most controversial article in which I have substantially participated; after several conflicts on the talk page with a now-indefinitely blocked editor, I withdrew from participation in that article for almost three months. My contribution history shows a large number of contributions to article talk pages; I try to avoid unilateral editing, and look for consensus before making major changes. As an admin, I will tend towards the Egour admin mold rather than the Rouge admin archetype, but I recognize that occasionally bold edits are necessary to jump-start improvements to a stagnant article.

Optional questions from jc37

4. In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:

• 4a. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?

• A: Blocking should be used as a preventative measure when warnings and discussion fail to remedy a continuing behavioral problem. Edit-warring, vandalism, hostility towards other users, spamming and copyright violations should be dealt with through a series of escalating warnings, with a block issued after a final warning. Legal threats, disclosure of another user's personal information, threats of violence, and illegal activities (such as the upload of child pornography) are grounds for an immediate block. Blocking a user with whom you are directly involved with a conflict is not acceptable; another administrator should issue any blocks. Use of the various administrators' noticeboards is available if assistance is required.

• 4b. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?

• A: During an edit war among multiple registered users, full protection may be required. Persistent attacks from multiple sources or even a single user IP-hopping may be combated through semi-protection. Certain high-risk templates and pages should be fully protected indefinitely to prevent widespread disruption by a vandal familiar with template syntax.

• 4c. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?

• A: Any page that fails Speedy deletion criteria may be deleted. Tagged articles should be read through to verify that they qualify, and their history viewed, to ensure that there is not a prior revision which does not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. I personally will not tag or delete any article under CSD categories A1, A3, or A7 that was created less than 15 minutes previously or has been edited multiple times by the article creator in the previous 30 minutes, because often article creation is done through sequential edits, and waiting allows the creator time to build up the article to assert notability and establish context. Tagging such as , less than one minute after the article was created, is absurd.

• 4d. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A: Consensus is highly dependent on context. On article talk pages, content discussions should be resolved based on the strength of the arguments, and often requires finding a common middle ground, where most editors are satisfied with the result. Consensus does not mean that everyone is satisfied, and sometimes a few editors will not agree to any compromise; in cases where that is an issue, attempt to reduce the scope of the discussion to make incremental changes which satisfy all concerned. Keep in mind that consensus does not trump policy. XFD discussions are different, as they are often a binary decision (keep or delete, with "no consensus" defaulting to keep), and the closing admin must weigh the merits of the issues before deciding. Five users who cite relevant policies may often provide more weight than 20 users whose arguments consist of "I like it/I don't like it" or "It's useful/It's not useful" or the like. (Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay which provides a lengthy list of examples.) DRV is based on weight of arguments, and should not be a re-debate of the original XfD, but rather a determination of whether the closure was correct according to policy. Page move discussions are handled similar to article talk pages, but again, are ultimately a binary choice (move or remain).

• 4e. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First, ask myself if this is a page on which I have a substantial editing history or a closely related topic (in which case intervention would be inappropriate), a subject in which I have no knowledge (intervention might not be appropriate) or the participants are ones with whom I have interacted previously (which could bring up CoI issues, particularly if the interactions were especially cordial or acrimonious). If that is the case, address the issue on the appropriate Aministrators' noticeboard. If that is not the case, go to the page in question and view the edit history to determine if there is an edit war in progress. If only one or two people are edit warring, warn the participants and block (in necessary) for 3RR violations. If multiple editors are involved, protect the page as appropriate (full protection if one or more of the editors are established editors, otherwise semi-protection), and urge the involved parties to solve their dispute on the article talk page. Before locking an article with full protection, ensure that there are no BLP violations or other policy violations, but otherwise do not engage in editing. If the dispute between JohnDoe and JaneRoe is a protracted reversion tussle rather than an edit war, urge both parties to discuss before reverting, and inform them of the various dispute resolution procedures available.

Optional Question from Dominik92

5 What group of editors do you dislike the most on Misplaced Pages (i.e. vandals, trolls, spammers etc.), why and have you had any really unpleasant encounters with them?

A: Well, the group I dislike the most would be vandals, because there are so many of them. I've had a few encounters with trolls and spammers, but vandals far outnumber both of those groups combined. (I'd consider spammers to be a form of vandal, for what it's worth). The only vandal that I have had significant negative interaction with was actually a spammer; you can see the confrontation we had in my at this discussion in my talk archives. I had only been actively editing for a month at this point, and my responses to this incident were not my best moment, but the links I supplied show that the conflict was not just with me. Most of the vandals I have encountered are one-offs who log in under an IP address, deface a few pages, and then disappear forever. Horologium (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Horologium: Horologium (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/Horologium before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. beat the nom support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Beat all three Nos; Support Clearly dedicated to the project and knows how to take it easy. The Placebo Effect (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. Should have accepted that earlier nomination :). Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Excellent answers. Axl (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Rudget 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, we need more admins with a sense of humour. Perusing this user's edits, there is no indication that they will abuse or misuse the tools if they get them, so there is no reason not to Support that I can see. Lankiveil 13:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
8. Definitely. --Kbdank71 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Number 9 and still beat the noms? Anyway, excellent editor with lots of experience. Useight (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support I see declined past nominations as prima facie evidence of a healthy view of oneself. This candidate seems both competent and trustworthy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Ready for the mop. --Sharkface/_C 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support as nom number one. Wizardman 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

• Requests for adminship