Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/CTSWyneken - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CTSWyneken (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 21 April 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:44, 21 April 2006 by CTSWyneken (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

CTSWyneken

(26/27/5) ending 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken (talk · contribs) – has been a trustworthy, high-quality Wikipedian since June 2003, with the bulk of his activity (nearly 3,000 edits) occurring over the past year. His primary contributions have been to topics on Lutheranism, Martin Luther and Christianity in general. My ongoing experience with him at the Jesus article has left me particularly impressed with both his scholarship (he is the master of properly citing material) and his equanimity in dealing with diverse (sometimes quarreling?) editors. In addition to being an all-around nice person and member of the clergy, his editorial credentials are impeccable; in fact he is the coordinator of Project Wittenburg. I am very pleased to make CTSWyneken my very first nomination for administrator. --MPerel 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this kind nomination. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support with absolute pleasure! --MPerel 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Looks alright. Nephron  T|C 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. The opposition seems unable to launch a countering argument of sustainable merit :). Wait, this nom just started today...well...hmm, I still vote support. Homestarmy 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. I followed Talk:Jesus for a short while and was very impressed by CTSWyneken. --Allen 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support A knowledgable and experienced editor. --Siva1979 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support He and I have frequently been on opposite sides of issues on the Jesus talk page, but he has always conducted himself in a proper manner in these disputes, and I feel he would conduct himself in the same manner as an administrator. -- Drogo Underburrow 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per Allen and Drogo Underburrow.--Andrew c 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. Bucketsofg 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. From what I've seen of CTSWyneken at the Jesus article, he is extremely diligent about providing citations, and I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin powers. john k 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. It seems that CTSWyneken is a very experienced Misplaced Pages user and without a doubt I submit my vote of support. Cheesehead Fan 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Always willing to compromise and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. Stays even tempered works for NPOV. —Aiden 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. As per Aiden and John k. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Misplaced Pages. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support His edits always seem pretty good to me. 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. KHM03 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Misplaced Pages needs diversity, people from every walk of life. CTSWyneken has proven that he is eminently able to negotiate. I would ask that the persons that oppose him would please reconsider. drboisclair 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Why not?--Jusjih 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. --MonkeeSage 17:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strongly Support. Per Aiden, John K, and Schultz IV. He has always been a calming influence in heated disputes... a necessity for problem resolution. --StanZegel (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, clearly an excellent editor and no reason to fear misuse of admin tools. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. As one of those who worked with CTSWyneken on a compromise on Martin Luther and Martin Luther and the Jews, I support his nomination. ←Humus sapiens 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, a mature editor who I am sure will be conscientious in his use of adminship tools following the guidleines and policies associated with those tools, including the postings of warnings.--A Y Arktos\ 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support I have eddited with CTSWyneken before, and have found him to be a good editor --T-rex 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Weak Support Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Almost strong oppose. (Even if the edit counter is faulty right now) It shows that he only has 29 edits to the Misplaced Pages namespace. Although he might have a little more, maybe around 40, because the editcounter being broken right now I can't tell how many he actually has. Would like to see more Misplaced Pages namespace edits, at least 200, to meet my criteria for administrator. In addition, his answers to the questions below aren't very convincing. Moe ε 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I had a bad experience with this editor at Martin Luther and related articles. He seemed determined to delete all mention of Luther's anti-Semitism (which was extreme and unambiguous) from Misplaced Pages, repeatedly deleting even a link to one of Luther's texts, invoking copyright law because the link led to a translation. In the end I had to stop editing the articles because of his intransigence and revert warring. His partners on the Luther articles were User:StanZegel and User:drboisclair, who engaged in this exchange, with StanZegel expressing the view that: "Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming." I'm also concerned that CTSW has almost no project edits. SlimVirgin 00:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    What is the relevance to this Candidate of a talk page comment that he did not make, that was made by someone else (me) made about a third editor constantly pushing an extreme POV with gross intoleance? It might make some question whether this opposition is stirred up in good faith or not. -StanZegel (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    One example (of many) of CTSWyneken deleting relevant, properly sourced information just because he didn't like it. (And not deleting it once, but many, many times to the point of being disruptive.) Although the information about Luther's anti-Semitism was pushed right down to the end of the article, even there, CTSW tried to keep the section as short as possible, deleting quotes from Paul Johnson and even from Luther himself. SlimVirgin 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please note that, contrary to the claim, I was a part of a give-and-take on these pages to represent all sides of the scholarly debate. I worked there to properly document the information in the article and did a great deal of work to verify citations. This often required adaptation of the notes and the text. Please examine the first two paragraphs of Martin Luther and the Jews to see the final version. I do not believe it demonstrates that I am "determined to delete all mention of Luther's anti-Semitism."
    On the copyright issue, please see Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion.
    Rather than getting into a she-said, he-said here, however, may I ask that concerned editors view the record. Barring that, please ask the opinions of others who worked on these articles. --CTSWyneken 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps there should be diversity of opinion among Admins in order to ensure that everyone from every POV is represented; many of us feel that we are not fairly represented among Admins. drboisclair 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Here drboisclair suggests that we should vote for CTSWyneken because he represents a certain POV. This admission, by one of CTSWyneken’s closest collaborators is another example of why he should not be an Admin. Should we be voting for Admins on the basis of their POV’s? Admins ought to be Wikipedians not POV warriors.Doright 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Au contraire I was saying that he had a NeutralPointOfView by seeing to it that all POVs were represented. drboisclair 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Few project edits suggest that editor is unfamiliar with wiki-process. Xoloz 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose- mainly due to low Misplaced Pages namespace edits (only 29), with only a few votes on WP:RfA and WP:AfD. The edit summary usage is slightly too low, at 81% for major edits and 64% for minor edits. Near 50% of the edits have been on Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews, and their talk pages, and the range of editing is pretty narrow, with nearly all pages edited more than once being related to Christianity. Also, per User:Moe Epsilon, the answers to the questions below aren't very informative. AndyZ t 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Slimvirgin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per Above, Only one image, not active enough with the Misplaced Pages community. Please fix this and try again. Masssiveego 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Needs more time.—thames 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per SlimVirgin and Moe. Nothing personal. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, too narrow a focus, not enough participation in the day-to-days of what it means to be an admin. If all he's going to do is edit, he doesn't need aminship. User:Zoe| 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose CTSWyneken is always polite, and I've worked well with him, but I think his focus is still very narrow. Broader experience would be quite helpful. Jayjg 03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Grace Note 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose due to an extremely narrow range of editing and also a lack of involvement in procedural matters. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per User:AndyZ —Admrb♉ltz ( T | C | E ) 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Slim, Moe and Jay. JoshuaZ 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, too little community participation. JIP | Talk 05:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose a bit more edit distribution would be well recieved. _-M P-_ 06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Concerns about narrow focus of contributions and answers to the questions aren't convincing. However my main concerns are that for somebody who mentions vandalism fighting as a reason for needing the mop, he has never posted to WP:AIAV and doesn't seem to regularly post warnings on user talk pages when reverting vandalism. TigerShark 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - very low on Misplaced Pages namespace edits, and, while I don't have a threshold, actual article edits could be higher too. Recent (March 2006) edits on WP:AN/I suggest unfamiliarity with the warning/block process. —Whouk (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - very less contribution to wiki space. Shyam 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, not enough projectspace edits. Royboycrashfan 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Slimvirgin and Moe --Andy123(talk) 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Lacks diversity regarding article selection. Netkinetic 12:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I agree with the assessment of Generic69 regarding the conduct of CTSWyneken: "This is one of the most ridiculous, petty, and vindictive things that I've ever seen here on Misplaced Pages , and that's saying a whole lot." He is too "motivated by ... personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern ..." ref Is this conduct you expect from an admin? My experience with CTSWyneken is that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. One of his documented strategies is to enlist other Lutheran editors not as Wikipedians but as Lutherans to assist in his POV wars and prosecution of those who would defy his seemingly insatiable drive to control the content of "his" articles. For example, CTSWyneken says, "could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews." He continues, "It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment." ref CTSWyneken, then thanks his mate here for reverting non-Lutheran contributions ref Doright 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Moe. jacoplane 01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Can't support a candidate whose shown such minimal interest in administrative processes, regardless of other factors. To do so would be to endorse the unfortunate trend of administrators who, at best, use admin abilities only as a convenience, or even worse, become edit warriors with nukes. Nothing personal though, I've never heard of this candidate, I'm not saying he's that type of user, but I can't support until I know he isn't. — Apr. 20, '06 <freakofnurxture|talk>
  26. Oppose per the many valid concerns raised by other oppose votes. —Doug Bell 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose, reluctantly. This was close, and I almost supported, but in the end I have to agree it would be good for the nominee to have a little bit broader range of editing, as well as increasing the use of edit summaries. Will almost certainly support in the future if this is addressed. Jonathunder 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Needs more participation in process. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Mailer Diablo. DarthVader 02:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. A great editor, but needs more participation in the community.--Adam 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Per Adam. Computerjoe's talk 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Per Adam, for me not a reason to actually oppose. Fetofs 11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See CTSWyneken's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • To some of the opposing editors concerned with narrow focus, does not spending endless hours reading and footnoting articles count for something? There is room for diverse editor skills, some broad and general, some more focused. All do not have to be jack-of-all-trades, do they? I would hope someone's demonstrated integrity, character and wisdom, as well as knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies would be of prime consideration. --MPerel 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that most of his 840 edits to articles are to five articles only, all but one of them Luther-related, and that is a very narrow focus for an admin; and with almost no edits to the project, he's unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of our policies or process either. SlimVirgin 11:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most of my article edits and new articles are in the fields related to religion. This is my field of expertise in which I am published. Most of my labor have been in trying to achieve consensus and use my listserv moderating discussion and research skills on two subjects filled with much emotion. The result is, with editors of very different backgrounds, the near constant controversies in the Luther article and Jesus articles have died down and the result is what I and my fellow editors are very proud of. I am not exaggerating when I say dozens of hours of research and talk page negotiation and moderation are involved here. Are you saying that wikipedia wants to discourage experts from contributing in their fields?
If you are concerned about my knowledge of policy and wiki culture, please feel free to ask questions below. Pose situations I might encounter as an admin. I'm willing to answer. At the very least, I'll learn more that will be useful as an editor. Those who have interacted with me before can then vouch as to whether I'm likely to act as I say.
I'd also appreciate suggestions, perhaps on my talk page, as to what you all I think I should be doing that I'm not. --CTSWyneken 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning here that it's possible to be an excellent, conscientious editor and still not fulfil many people's criteria for adminship. Comments on RfA, although they will naturally include comments about contributions, are aimed at establishing suitability for adminship and shouldn't be taken as a judgment on editorship. As Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship says:
The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights. An editor should not construe the outcome of an RfA as praise or condemnation of their efforts as an editor. Instead, it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights.
—Whouk (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate this observation. What I'm trying to understand is why limiting activity, more or less, (Indiana High School Forensics Association is a bit out of my subject 8-) ) to one subject makes me unsuitable for admin duties. Can you all help me understand why this needed? --CTSWyneken 14:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, for me (I am not voting as it seems it would not make a difference), editing one narrow group of articles is not as important as the lack of edits in Projectspace. This suggests two things to me. Firstly, that you may not have enough knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy to be effective as an administrator. (Though you could have read a lot but posted little.) Specifically, I saw it mentioned above that although you are interested in reverting vandalism, you have never edited WP:AIV. AIV is a very important tool for vandalhunters. The second thing that it suggests is that you may not need admin tools. In fact, for an editor with edits like yours, having admin tools can be more a distraction from your strengths (actually building an encyclopedia) than it would add to your abilities. Admin tools are more for janitors than encyclopedia-builders. Don't get me wrong, you're a fine editor—I just don't think you need or should have the admin tools. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've not used the AIV because, with perhaps one exception, I've not found it necessary to do so. I've been more interested in preserving the content of pages than in tracking down individual abusers. Mostly, that is because I feel it is not my place. I do not like harassing admins, when one or two reverts will make the problem go away. I've also not liked warning IP address user pages. I want to deal with the vandalism, but am conflicted about bothering hundreds of people to go for one scribble kiddie. This would change were I an admin, in that I would feel increased responsibility for the wiki. I've also preferred to avoid asking for blocks on users or filing RfCs, if a way can be found to work with or work around an editor. Again, I might be inclined to warn and block more were I an admin, for the same reasons as just stated. --CTSWyneken 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that some of those who oppose this candidacy on the basis of "a narrow range of edits" support the candidacy of HumusSapiens who also has a narrow range of edits, raises the question of how legitimate a consideration that really is, or does it depend upon who the editor is, and what the subject of the range of edits is. Could some of those applying the factor selectively give an explanation, please? -StanZegel (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no comparison between the two editors. Humus has an edits/page average of 4.6, whereas CTSWyneken's is 9.6. SlimVirgin 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am most interested in swiftly reverting vandalism, semi-blocking pages in cases of severe vandalism and helping enforce the rules of the wiki. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my contributions to the Martin Luther article and the Jesus article. The former gave me a chance to learn the ropes and find ways that my experience as a listserv moderator needed to be adjusted to working with other editors. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Since I have a penchant for weighing in on controversial subjects, I do end up with a lot of friction with others. It has only gotten out of hand twice and in both cases I was able to work out comprimises with the editors willing to play ball. I intend to do a lot more conflict resolution work in future engagements. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by American Saga (talk • contribs)
A: Assuming a few things: the new user is a registered user. There is a discussion, probably heated, on going. I've just come to the page cold and have never edited there myself. I've had no personal interaction of substance with the parties. I'd remind myself of two things: it doesn't matter who the editor is, we all have equal standing here and, as an admin, my opinion of which edit is better is irrelevant. If I feel strongly or think I have a solution, I would weigh in as an editor and invite another admin to fill the role of mediator.

Assuming I'm going to work as an admin, I'd check to see if any rule violations, such as 3RR, NPOV, CITE and wp:NOR, etc. are involved. I'd note on the talk page any ad hominems, insults, etc. This sometimes works, though often not. Since a new person is not likely to have a trail of violations yet and an ArbCom member would know better, I would try an informal warning of any violations. If they continued, I would try again a time or two. Finally, I would try a formal warning. If that failed, I'd block the offending party for a short time.

If no violations are in play, which is the most likely situation, I would ask kindly if every would agree to a moritorium. If not, I would revert the page to the state it was in before the edit that touched off the war was made. I would then block the page for a few days or until the parties can agree. Such a block worked well on the Jesus page, where passions arguably run as high as anywhere in the wiki.

My guiding principle would be to be as least invasive as possible and to keep the page in its most stable form.

Does this get to it for you, or do you need more? --CTSWyneken 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)