Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 25 May 2009

CactusWriter

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (47/1/0); Scheduled to end 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

CactusWriter (talk · contribs) – This might be the shortest nomination in recent memory.

CactusWriter is knowledgeable, civil, communicative, and a contributor to mainspace as well as other Misplaced Pages spaces.

I had no familiarity with the user until following up on a BLP related edit, and randomly approached the adminship suggestion. This response is, in my view, a perfect outlook on what a mop and bucket entails. Do what you can, don't mind what you can't.

CactusWriter has written content, added references to existing articles, works with the deletion of articles. An active member of Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Biographies, the user is familiar with BLP. Over the last several months the deleted contributions are pretty much on target of our policies and guidelines.

Even more positive for me, the user did not and was not seeking adminship; it is to be a mop and bucket to further aid in the contributor's efforts to better this encyclopedia. Not a reward for service, but a bond of duty .

This is not the most elegant prose I've ever written for a nomination, but I honestly feel I don't need to go that mile. It is also my feeling that this nomination doesn't even need additional questions; explore the user's history. My verbosity is familiar to many so I hope that my silence is relevant. Keegan 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I certainly appreciate Keegan's thoughts and accept the nomination. — CactusWriter | 06:50, 24 May 2009 (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: Because I enjoy wandering around Misplaced Pages, reading and writing new content, I have never focused on any one particular area. I'm neither a dedicated vandal fighter nor a frequent reader of the notice boards -- but I've jumped into those areas whenever the need arose. Over time, I've initiated the standard alphabet soup of reports -- SPIs, AIVs, UAAs, CVs, etc., -- but the majority of my "admin area" activity has been with Afd and Csd. So I expect those are two areas where I would initially linger to lend a hand. For those interested, I've compiled a list of some AFDs I have created and participated in. It should give you a fair idea of my approach to Afd policy.

As far as Csd goes, my deletion philosophy centers on the terms "blatant" and "obvious". Hot-button issues like blatant attacks, total copyvios, and obvious vandalism are where "speedy" really applies -- time is of the essence here and those pages should be eliminated without mercy. I think the rest can be dealt with in a more relaxed fashion. Pages with less critical problems such as notability, advertising, context, etc. should be deleted when they are obvious, blatant and non-correctable. But given any doubt or hesitation, than tagging them for issues, opening discussion, and then, if necessary, Proddng and Afd are appropriate avenues.

Looking back through my history, I noticed that a number of my Csd tags have been G12 copyright violations and I often added items to the WP:Copyright problems page. It's an area with fairly heavy traffic and, from what I have seen, the service of only one or two (obviously dedicated but possibly overworked) administrators. Since I enjoy remedying copy-paste problems, I believe that's another area where I could help out.

In general, I've found that editing Misplaced Pages (like most anything) only requires a willingness to listen and learn, a modicum of deliberation, and some common sense. My approach to adminship is the same. — CactusWriter | 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Ever since I registered, I have been a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Much of my writing has been on films and biographies, especially the cinema of Denmark. (There's a list of examples on my user page.) I tend to write small articles, but I feel they are mostly solid pieces. For example, this Bio was a Csd that I was asked to save and it became this DYK article. The film A Victim of the Mormons was another article an editor submitted to DYK. Last summer I came across the Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Biographies page, took it on as a pet project, rewrote the intro, and have spent the last nine months organizing the categories and watching over the additions. It's one of those WP back waters where BLP violations can get tucked away without much notice. I like it because it's a great pathway for initiating, writing and referencing new bios. — CactusWriter | 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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 wouldn't say conflicts. Certainly there have been the disagreements and extended discussions which are standard (and necessary) for any collaborative project like Misplaced Pages. Good arguments are the backbone of policy creation. But problems with vandals, sockpuppets, spammers and such are only mild irritants. Stress on WP is relative. The pressure of doing good work is present is anything we do. But stress? Let me put it this way -- in real life, I've faced the wrong end of a gun, life-threatening diseases, deaths of family; I've survived hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and a plane crash; and -- horror of the horrors -- I'm raising a teenager. Really, in proper perspective, WP doesn't make the cut on my stress list. After all, like most everyone here, I spend my time on WP because I enjoy it. And for anyone who finds it truly stressful -- I suggest hitting the computer's off button, taking a deep breath and enjoying the world outside the window for a while. There is plenty of other stuff to do. The work here should be taken seriously, it requires dedication, but it ought to be enjoyable and satisfying. — CactusWriter | 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. Would you delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it, and under what circumstances?

A: If an article has unequivocal problems as an attack page, copyright violation, vandalism or blatant hoax than the underconstruction tag is meaningless -- those pages should be be deleted regardless. As I've mentioned in Q1 above, my belief is that other types of problems can be approached at a more leisurely pace -- with a watch and see attitude -- giving the underconstruction page some time to develop and to see where it goes. It very well could right itself. — CactusWriter | 08:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from I'm Spartacus!

5. Hi Cactus, I've been reviewing your CSD work. I have some minor quibbles with some of your selections, but nothing major. You did tag a fictional character as A7, but that isn't enough to get me to oppose (especially as you've declined speedies on your own nominations after rethinking them.) The one thing that I've noticed is that you will often use COPYVIOCORE instead of tagging an article for Speedy per Copyvio. Can you explain your philosophy in this regard? When would you tag an article for speedy instead of using this template?---I'm Spartacus! 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

With that group of copy violations from the Vatican website, my sense was that there was enough of an intro, infobox and good references which would allow the articles to be rebuilt. As I am sure you noticed here that one you mentioned had previously existed and my next edit was to simply roll it back into pre-vio form. If there had been nothing worth saving and no better previous versions, I would have had no hesitation with tagging it as a G12. My philosophy is always to look for methods to rebuild content, but if it constitutes any problem in keeping it, than delete and start over. That was the sense I tried to convey in opening a discussion with the editor. — CactusWriter | 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:The issue of "rights" can be viewed in several ways. From the perspective of opinion, Misplaced Pages functions on the basis of complete equality -- everyone's opinion is given equal weight -- no one person has any greater right than another. As far as editing WP, it is the "community of Misplaced Pages" which has the rights rather than the individual Wikipedian. Everyone here has an equal right as long as they operate within the rules. That is, each of us has the freedom to edit so long as it does not harm, infringe or disrupt the community. Failure to do so can result in the loss of those rights through blocks or bans. As well, some people are trusted with some extra technical tools (admins, bureaucrats, etc.). It is possible to argue that these tools might embody an extra right -- the ability to act on the community's behalf -- however, it should be remembered that it is still the community which holds "rights" over the individual. Bottom line is this: upholding "rights" means the same thing for each of us -- we agree to work within the rules and boundaries of the community as determined by consensus opinion. — CactusWriter | 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Editing stats at talk page. ∗ \ / {talk} 07:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. ...as nom. Keegan 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Looks good to me. One two three... 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Icewedge (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support and strongly! Can't find anything in edit history that is even slightly concerning, answers to opening questions are perhaps the best I've ever seen. This is exactly the type of attitude and demeanor I'd love to see in all admins. (also per nom Keegan) — Ched :  ?  07:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support looks good to me. Even the declined A7 for the fictional character (I declined that one btw) was only a mistake in that sense that it was taged 4 minutes after creation, before the creator had time to establish the context. But other than that, the speedy work, the answers here and the candidate's overall contributions look fine. And I salute any user who wants to help with WP:SCV. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - contribs look good. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, I love your approach to editing and your answer to question 2 was great. Jozal 10:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Seen him around, practically flawless work. ceranthor 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --PirateSmackK 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support WP:WHYNOT? Looks good to me. hmwithτ 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support OK. Meetare Shappy 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Shappy and hmwith. Pmlinediter   12:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
13. To many administrators currently...lol just kidding. Your a pretty good candidate, a really good writer(when I read your reply on Keegan's page I thought I was reading a book), no major disputes(I don't think) and good little man work. But even as a little man, I would love to see a good candidate like you write a GA or FA.--(NGG) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
14. --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks really good. Malinaccier (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Cactus writer on Danish topics? Reminds me of an Ice hockey player from Israel. Go ahead, support. NVO (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose too interested in building 'pedia. Way too many editors like that around here. <joke; irony /> Dlohcierekim 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    • rotf-lmfao Thanks Dloh, that little gem will be stuck in the cobwebs of my mind for a while. Fair warning: You have released that !vote under the rules of GFDL, and I claim the right to re-use it in the future. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Support Erik9 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I see no reason not to. The user has enough experience and should use the tools responsibly and effectively. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. Happy to see this RFA, I'm a big fan of CW's writing and copyediting skills, and the answers to the questions are very good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak support I wish you had more article work. A few DYK's is good, but some GA's or FA's would have helped. But you seem like a fine candidate otherwise.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
22. I can support this editor. Nakon 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Well-rounded experience with nothing adverse in past history. Appears competent. --Anthony.bradbury 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - WP:WTHN?--Unionhawk 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Solid answers to questions, not too many automated edits, overall, good editor, and would make a fantastic administrator--Unionhawk 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong support. Wizardman 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Quick review of user talk page and recent contribs, as well as solid answers to RFA questions, demonstrate exceptional clue. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Absolutely -FASTILY 16:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Great answers to questions. -download ׀ sign! 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Per Keegan's nomination. MBisanz 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Limited content creation, but generally good quality edits. Good interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support – I, too, appreciate the good answers to the questions. MuZemike 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Liked what I saw in a quick review, like the answers to the questions. CSD tagging was solid and I liked how he handles different scenarios there (including declining at least two of his own CSD tags over the past month where he decided another option was better.) The fact that he will reconsider his own tags and reverse himself is a positive, not a negative, especially when dealing with CSD.---I'm Spartacus! 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Looks good to me.--Res2216firestar 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Seems very solid, readily admits mistakes (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">, and seems singlemindedly dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages. Scanned over most of their edits from March 2009, found no problems. -kotra (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support — Jake Wartenberg 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Antivenin 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support See no reason at all to oppose. dottydotdot (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support --t'shael mindmeld 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Actually I'll say strong support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that per the candidate's userpage, the candidate is an article rescuer who has earned some DYK credits in addition to having never been blocked. Also, good argument at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Julius Trumpler in which the candidate not only expresses an opinion, but also points to an external link, i.e. went beyond just glancing at the article and other comments in the AfD and demonstrated evidence of having looked for sources himself. Kudos! Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - Levelheaded, trustworthy, and hardworking editor. I see no reason to oppose that. Icseaturtles★ 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - No reason to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support – Excellent user, will do fine with the tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Answers are great and nothing in contribs to be concerned about. Aaroncrick 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support looks good with a good history, He'll do well. Valley2city 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, Can't see any major disputes, edit wars, or blocks. Hasn't created an astounding amount of content, but what he has created seems to be of good quality. I support.Smallman12q (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, Looks like a fantastic editor. OtisJimmyOne 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Clearly has an interest in article work, per q2. Otherwise, no apparent issues. Majorly talk 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of audited content contribs, little in the way of noticeboard edits that would show a lack of/ability to deal with disputes. Also, browsing the top AfDs he's contributed to, I'm not convinced of a strong knowledge of policies and his arguments aren't the clearest or best-presented. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   Just a placeholder to see if it prods the bot along. –xeno 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral