Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheAustinMan (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 24 November 2013 (→Questions for the candidate: Minor fix of word). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TheAustinMan

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (6/3/0); Scheduled to end 23:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm TheAustinMan. I created my account on June 4, 2009. During that time I was admittedly an intermittent and userspace editor, and spent a majority of my Misplaced Pages time maintaining the well-being of my userpage. After a few months I began to shift towards working in the article mainspace instead, and attained by first good article in April 2010, and first featured list about a year later. Despite those accomplishments, I was still a rather inexperienced editor, and lacked a firm grasp on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. In 2012, I decided to undergo the request for adminship process, which in retrospect was an immature albeit learnable move. I ended up snowballing that RfA, primarily due to concerns of my rather young age and lack of editing experience. However, following mid-2012, I began to become more involved with Misplaced Pages and joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones since the topic was of interest to me and as such I could improve my editing experience there. During that time I became much more proficient in editing and understanding of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. This has continued up until today.

I currently only have 5,930 live edits, though many of these have primarily large edits; one example of such can be found here. In that time and to my knowledge I have not made a single vandalism edit. For full disclosure 69 (1.18%) of my edits are automated, though these were all made on two separate days only. I am primarily a high work-per-article contributor, and despite making 38 articles during my time here on Misplaced Pages I have taken 26 articles to GA status and two to FL status, with one co-FA. My edit summary usage currently stands at 98/97% in my last 150 major and minor edits, respectively. Lastly I am currently an reviewer, rollbacker, and autoreviewed user. TheAustinMan 23:21, 23 November 2013 (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: Though I wish to participate a broad range of administrative work, I feel like moving pages, blocking and preventing vandalism, protecting pages from such vandalism, and closing deletion requests would probably suit my Misplaced Pages-editing and work style. That being said, these are only my preferences and I hope to not be restricted to these fields and instead work in a broader range of administrative activities.

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

A: As I am currently an active member of the Tropical cyclone WikiProject, a lot of my quality work can be found there. I feel that Hurricane Janet exemplifies my work here on Misplaced Pages, as a result of my efforts that I put into that article. List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present) and Typhoon Kujira (2003) are two other articles that I feel are good examples of my contributions. I am currently working on another sandbox

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: Up until this point I have never been stressed on Misplaced Pages as a result of a conflict in editing. I'm a strong believer in the cooler heads prevail philosophy, so I don't let my stress control my editing patterns and ability to resolve conflicts. In the future, if I do come to a point where I do become stressed, I think it would probably be best for me to take a short break from editing; I feel that such a break would help me cool down and prevent me from engaging in acts of disruptive behavior on Misplaced Pages.

Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius

4. You have expressed an interest in closing deletion discussions, but from the AfD counter it seems you have only ever participated in four discussions at AfD. I'd like to see how you would handle closing AfDs, so I have gone through and picked three of the more difficult deletion discussions from the November 19 log: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Paranormal Society (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clarence Jey and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hollow Men in popular culture. These AfDs are due to be closed after November 26, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are ready to be closed now. How would you deal with them?

A: Thank you for question. I'll go through these in the order they were presented. Dhaka Paranormal Society (2) – Currently the case for a delete appears to be much more stronger then keeping. Currently, the argument for keeping stems from WP:ORG and WP:N in general. While the article does have two sources from two rather large media agencies, one is a 'club review' and the other is an interview. However, WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly states that these kinds of sources are trivial (I'd consider 'restaurant review' to be on par with 'club review'). There are also two keeps coming from editors who have made no edits outside of the paranormal society, and may be WP:COI. While I wouldn't really mind if they provided a strong argument, these two editors pretty much reflect the sentiment of the other keeps. Clarence Jay – No consensus. There is WP:GNG against WP:COMPOSER. The strength of argument seems to be slightly towards oppose. There is a sustainable amount of information in the article, but the references are rather weak and there are only pinpoint single events that greatly establish notability. As such, NC, but due to the small amount of reliable sources I would follow the option prescribed by COMPOSER and merge with ARK Music Factory. The Hollow Men in popular culture – This one also appears to be no consensus. Delete arguments are trivia, indiscriminate, and probably some OR. Keep arguments are significant items and not indiscriminite. I'm surprised no one as brought up WP:IPC bar the nominator. IPC indicates that passing mentions should not be included unless verified, and as of this edit it appears that the references are only on a few selections. One user has indicated a very selective merge – this appears to satisfy IPC, thoughe this option would occur after AfD closing as no consensus.

General comments

• Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan
• Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan 2

• Links for TheAustinMan: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TheAustinMan 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. Although I respect TParis very much and understand where he's coming from, I'll have to disagree with him here. TheAustinMan is definitely younger than the average Wikipedian, but he seems very mature for his age, and that's the important part. ~6000 edits is a little on the light side, but so what? He's experienced and a very decent editor. The GA example cited below shows a substantial series of copyedits on his part; it's not as if he made a couple of completely inconsequential changes here and there. I think he'll do just fine as an administrator. Kurtis 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Haha, I'm not offended you disagree with me :). But edit count is very much a minor point of my oppose, I did support you when you only had ~4000.--v/r - TP 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Support -- Despite what TParis brought up, I think this user could end up being a fine admin. Indeed, they appear to be a good content contributor and they seem to have clue, so that satisfies me. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support The user seems to be a competent content builder who knows enough about Misplaced Pages's core policies and guidelines. I don't see the harm in granting this user the tools. The age doesn't bother me as the user appears to be fully coherent. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - I see no problem in giving young users the bit as long as they are mature; I also see no reason to believe this user is not. His small edit count shouldn't count against him, as most of them are of high quality, as shown by his rather large collection of recognized content. This also shows that he knows how the site works. Also, he has a clean block log, which is definitely another plus. TCN7JM 01:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Ageism is evil. User appears clueful even by adult standards. We should embrace this user's participation in the encyclopedia and gain a lifelong contributor. Andrevan@ 01:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. Content creator, and a consistent one at that. Misplaced Pages needs more content creators as admins, and less drama queens and MMORPG contestants. The answer to Q3 is telling - the candidate is uninterested in drama and squabbles. God knows, we need more admins like this. (Full disclosure: I have a vague idea of how old the candidate might be - within a year or so - and I couldn't care less. Maturity and constructive edits count. The candidate has a great deal of both.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As this is a second RFA, I think the candidate got their one free gentle WP:NOTNOW RFA already so I'll lay it out. I don't like seeing a 2nd RFA with < 6000 edits still. The candidate appears to be trying to reach a "status" rather than accept "responsibilities" and I'm not sure the candidate views adminship as janitorial duty. The candidate's age isn't a confidence builder either. I also took a look at a random one of the candidate's many "GA"s and I'm not impressed. I see very little content building on Tropical Storm Colin (2010) and rather did a number of copyedits that someone else pointed out. I don't see what exactly gives the candidate a claim to have done the hard work to make a GA. I'll hold the rest of my thoughts on that since they get to be a bit mean after this point. But I'm sternly opposed.--v/r - TP 00:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - due to age --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Reasonable self-nom covers past RfA. Weak Q1; statement on vandalism not matched with WP:AIV reports. Q2 looks OK, but see TP's comments. I need a stronger Q3 for an admin who wants to step into it. User page states on break. Glrx (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral