Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Alan16: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:50, 6 August 2009 editTriplestop (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,697 edits →Neutral: re← Previous edit Revision as of 02:51, 6 August 2009 edit undoTriplestop (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,697 edits →Neutral: movedNext edit →
Line 55: Line 55:
=====Neutral===== =====Neutral=====
#I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. ] ] 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) #I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. ] ] 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
⚫ #:Long discussion moved to ] ] ]</font> 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#:Flimsy? You're not even taking a stand one way or the other, so you may want to dismount that giant ''equus caballus'' of yours. ] (]) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::He has just yet to make up his mind. He is stating that in order to convince him to oppose he will need a more solid argument.--]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#:::Like Gordon said, I'm ] reviewing this candidate, making sure I have a good all-around perspective in them. Better than automatically opposing someone for their beliefs. ] ] 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::If you think anyone's being opposed for his beliefs, you need to work on your reading comprehension. ] (]) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#:::::No, it's obvious that you've used RFA as your soapbox against atheism. Perhaps you should try and review the candidate's contributions and their article work to give you a better idea of what kind of an admin they would be instead of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). ] ] 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::Oh? Surely, then, you can provide an example of a time when I've taken issue with atheism itself, as opposed to elitist and confrontational attitudes that make someone of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) look awful. I'll wait. ] (]) 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::In ], you go as far as to bar good-faith users of WikiProject Atheism from becoming administrators due to a few users carrying a certain userbox. While not a bias against atheism per se, it shows that you have an unacceptable predisposition against good-faith users who are interested in the subject of atheism. ] ] 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#:::::::::The group in question proudly displays that userbox on its page to this day. I do not trust anyone who is associated with such a hateful group; the religious preferences of such a person are irrelevant. ] (]) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::: When you see a candidate using an atheism userbox you instantly infer that they are going to act inappropriately and cannot be trusted. Please please please explain in detail why this is. I do not like these userboxes, but boxes do not make the candidate. You are going out of your way to check if the candidate has at one point in time had an atheism related userbox. Can you also please explain why this is? I do not wish to sound mean, but I am utterly puzzled. --]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::::Sure--because I simply can't fathom how any responsible, respectful, and thoughtful individual--the sort of person I want to see promoted to administrator--would '''ever''' display such a userbox, or associate with a group who did. For anyone who paints me as anti-atheist--find me any other userbox, religious or otherwise, that is so intentionally disrespectful towards other Misplaced Pages users, and I will enthusiastically oppose its proponents with the same vigor you've all come to know and love me for. ] (]) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
⚫ #:::::::::::You are attacking a specific subset of editors with a specific belief. I can't see how that isn't worse than displaying a few pixels on one's userpage. ] ]</font> 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::::::I only agree with you if by "belief" you mean "belief that being condescending and confrontational towards other users is a 'cool' thing to do". ] (]) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::::::: (edit conflict) I'm not trying to stop you doing so; I knew before this argument. I just gave you advice on other ways to review RFA candidates. You've also been told by many editors that your stereotypes are just as, if not more offensive that said userboxes. ] ] 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
#:::::::::::: (ec) No, by belief I mean atheism. Hate/smugness between people of different groups happens everywhere. And I don't see you opposing based on this "condescending and confrontational" from any other belief than atheism. Again, Rfa is not your soapbox. ] ]</font> 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:51, 6 August 2009

Alan16

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (3/2/1); Scheduled to end 01:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Alan16 (talk · contribs) – Hello. I feel I need to start this by saying that I know I don't pass the minimum requirements by very far, however I would ask that you consider more than just my not-huge edit count. I joined Misplaced Pages in May 2008, however it wasn't until January of this year that I started editing on a larger scale. I do approximately 300 article edits in a month, and although I see that increasing some, I do not believe it will ever really get beyond 500 edits. This may seem like a reason for not allowing me the privilege of becoming an administrator, however I say this because I want you to know that edit-wise I am at my peak. My life outside of Misplaced Pages simply does not allow me the time to do more than that. Of course, it is not the number of edits that make the editor, it is the quality, and it is here where I feel I am strong. I feel that my edits are well written - something I put down to the excellent education the SQA provided me - and are always with an eye to improving Misplaced Pages. I also think, that for my edit count I am very experienced - I have come into contact with many AfDs, I have used "Request for page protection" many times, and I have done much work for WikiProject Novels (of which I am now assistant coordinator as well as newsletter writer/editor). I feel that every editor should edit with the aim of becoming an administrator at some point, the same way all articles should be written with the intention of become featured articles, even if you do not want or expect the honour. That is what I've been doing my whole time on Misplaced Pages. I know that less than 0.02% of editors become administrators, but even with my edit count I feel that I have the experience and the understanding to become a benefit to Misplaced Pages as an administrator, not a hindrance. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 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: If I were to be granted administrative powers, I will certainly help with Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. I have requested protection perhaps half-a-dozen times and I know how annoying it can be to have to wait until an admin shows up, especially when instant protection is necessary. I'd also help out at WP:ANI. When I was granted use of AWB, I knew that I wasn't going to be needing it everyday - I needed it for f&r and spellchecking on novel related articles where bad spelling seems commonplace - so I decided to help with the tasks people needed done by users with access to AWB. What I'm trying to say is that I will help wherever I am needed, whether that is AfDs, at the ANI, or at the page protection. I don't mind - I just want to edit Misplaced Pages, and help people whilst I'm at it.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: The edits I am most proud of are those where and article has been in a dilapidated state, and I've turned it into a more encyclopaedic looking and sounding article. For example, the work I did to the John Byrne (Scottish playwright) and Bernard Hill articles. How such dilapidated articles on such amazing talents could remain in that state for so long amazes me. I am also proud of the work I have done to Steven Erikson's article and those relating to his seminal work, the Malazan Book of the Fallen series. Finally, I am also proud of the fact that I managed to set up a Coordinator Election for WikiProject Novels - it took a lot of hard work, and in the end was successful - and the fact that I have resurrected the newsletter - something I will continue to write and edit.
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 will freely admit to having broken 3RR in the last few days. It occurred on the British Pakistanis article which a blocked user (the infamous Nangparbat) continues to edit in a hate-filled POV manner. I felt that it was in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to revert his edits, and the administrator Nishkid64 was aware of the events and they seemed to accept that my reverts were for the best of Misplaced Pages as no action was taken against me. This has happened once before on the same subject matter - one which I have no interest or connection with, but I edit and revert so that nothing malicious gets left there, and many people try - but apart from that I have not been in any major conflicts over my editing. Some people have occasionally disagreed with my editing, but a civil discussion on the article talk page has almost always solved the problem. As for stress, I think an editor would be lying if they said that other users had never caused the stress. If I am ever in a stressful situation I walk away, the best solution. Anything else will almost certainly inflame the situation. That has always been my policy and always will be: walk away from the situation; give it a day or two; then go back and try again. If the break has not made a difference then just leave it and try and get someone with no opinion on the matter to deal with it - nothing is worth raising my cholesterol level for - I intend to live a long life. If you want an example of me in a stressful situation see this AfD. I feel that I handled the situation civilly, and this was at the point where I was still learning - and even though I am still learning, you never learn as quickly as the first few months.

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Alan16 before commenting.

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Support Alan16 has worked hard to get the Novels wikiproject moving and has thus shown that he cares about building this encyclopedia. A net positive as far as I can see. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support Looks good so far.--Gordonrox24 |  02:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support, moral or otherwise. I think you need a bit more experience to be honest, but I've seen you around, and you seem to know what you're doing. I'm confident you can learn on the job and prove to be a capable admin. Juliancolton (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. Keepscases (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Keepscases, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That has nothing to do with his qualifications as an admin. Please do not use RfA as your soapbox. Thanks, Triplestop x3 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    It has everything to do with his qualifications as an administrator. It shows disrespect and incredibly poor judgment to choose to display an offensive and confrontational userbox such as that. I want no such person representing Misplaced Pages as an administrator, even if he's crafty enough to pretend to be a nice person when the situation calls for it. Keepscases (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that in the edit in which he removed those userboxes he also removed lots of others, and that he still does have an atheist userbox on his page. -- Soap /Contributions 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have seen your participation, Keepspaces, in these events before, and you vote oppose on everyone who has ever had that userbox in the past. As you can see, that userbox along with many others was removed at the same time, and it was because there were too many, and because it and the rest made my user page look very unprofessional. And that was over a month ago: I wasn't actually considering an RfA at that time, so your complaint is unfounded. I would ask that you read my answers, or post a question, and vote on whether you think I will make a good admin, not on the fact that I am an atheist and once used a childish box to display such a status. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC).
    That userbox was from only a month ago. Come back in a year, when you're an adult and you've proven you can be respectful, and perhaps you'll get my vote...even if you're still an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Keepscases, whatever you think he is doing wrong, you are doing 10 times worse by opposing every atheist. Misplaced Pages is made up of people of all different beliefs and backgrounds and I am very disappointed that you would think having a particular belief makes one unfit. Triplestop x3 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S_Marshall I'll await your apology. I have no beef with any atheist who doesn't proudly display elitism and contempt. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Keepspaces, I would ask you to consider the fact that I removed it because I realised that it was childish. As Soap pointed out, I display a more appropriate userbox now, and I feel this is important because it means that my position on religious matters is always upfront. It solves the possibility of any misunderstanding or misleading. And I do not feel that I showed contempt - I feel it was merely a poor choice of userbox.
    (ec) Isn't it unfortunate that virtually every other RfA candidate associates himself or herself with such hatefulness? If that weren't the case, you might not ever even hear from me. Keepscases (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like it to be known that I realise the inappropriateness of the userbox and that is why I removed it - it was nothing to do with this RfA. I would prefer that people judged me on my merits and faults displayed in my editing, rather than on one userbox. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC).
  2. Oppose - I'm just not seeing the necessary experience that I've come to expect for RfA candidates and admin hopefuls. Also, for some reason, your answer to question 1 strikes an odd cord with me. Administrative powers? A half a dozen times to RFPP and you want to work there? Same with the drama-fest that is ANI? Sorry. I could see myself supporting in the future though. Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. Shappy 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    Long discussion moved to WT:RFA Triplestop x3 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)