Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Triona (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 2 October 2006 (→[]: Poor judgement yes, but not as bad as it looks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rory096

Voice your opinion. (19/9/0) Ending 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 (talk · contribs) – Looking at the recent massive backlogs, and continuing to be annoyed that I don't have the tools when I need them and end up having to annoy admins on IRC, I'm here. I've been on WP for like 10 months, I have too many edits and too much backlog clearing experience (and too little of a life). I don't particularly care if I succeed on RfA, but the tools would be helpful to me. --Rory096 00:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See also:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rory096.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yep. --Rory096 00:41, 2 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would clear backlogs at CAT:CSD, WP:PUI, CAT:NR (which I created), CAT:NS, CAT:NL, and some other TLAs as I came across them. I would also help out on WP:AIV and do some vandal fighting.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I would describe myself as a WikiGnome, so I'm probably most proud of my backlog clearing, such as Special:BrokenRedirects which had about 10,000 things in it a few months ago and took me about a month to clear (as it only shows up to 1,000 at a time). I'm also proud of my image copyright work such as WP:UI, though that's been empty for quite a while because the enwiki toolserver is down, and my work on reverting vandals.

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: Of course. I've been blocked (for real, discounting jokes) 3 times, two of which were for my work during the transition to the current dated prod system (the one using CAT:PROD) after the toolserver went down and PRODKEY was shown to not work correctly. After I urged Sceptre to edit Template:Prod to switch to the new system, I started doing the necessary changes to change the current articles to the new system (which involved substing prod and fixing the date), which is when Kelly Martin blocked me. Another admin reverted him, but then the creator of PRODKEY reverted back to the dated prod system and when I was unblocked and the creator of PRODKEY personally requested on the prod talk page that somebody do the necessary substing, I started doing it. (Note that I thought this was perfectly all right because the reason for my first block was that I hadn't followed consensus in substing, but since there were no objections to the new system and now even the creator of the old one was asking for the substs, it seemed clear that there was consensus.) I was then blocked again by Kelly, and was later unblocked by Linuxbeak after Joshbuddy went to the trouble of actually writing a bot to fix it.

My other block was a circumstance where I made a joke on Lightdarkness's RfA that Pschemp felt was in bad taste (though I wasn't acting in bad faith), and I am sorry for that. Other than these two incidents, I have not really been in any major disputes, nor have I ever been RfCed or RfAred.

Question from T REX_speak 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Have you written any encyclopedia articles or do you have any major contributions to an article besides doing backlog jobs? T REX_speak 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question

5. It seems as if there is some concern in regards to this edit, in which a userpage was redirected to Bitch. Could you perhaps provide the context which led you to make the joke and perhaps shine light on the your views on using admin buttons for humourous endeavours? (Basically, I'm just asking how far you would take a joke with the added capabilities that the admin buttons will potentially afford you) Don't feel at all pressured to answer, by the way, as it is one edit out of thousands you've made. hoopydink 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Rory096's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Note that I'm currently at boarding school (though I hope to be getting out soon), so I haven't been very active in the past two weeks or so. --Rory096 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• Is there any reason people started !voting on this RfA 20 minutes before it was transcluded to the RfA page? -- Steel 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RC patrolling, perhaps? Naconkantari 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Is there any reason why people started !voting on this RfA 20 minutes before they're supposed to start !voting? Before it had been accepted, even. -- Steel 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And at least one person wasn't RC patrolling at the time. -- Steel 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rory did mention the RfA on IRC, but then apparently couldn't load the RfA page to transclude it. I don't think it's his fault that people voted early, really... some people just don't get that you need to wait until everyone can see the RfA. --W.marsh 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence why that particular part of my oppose has been struck. -- Steel 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. I-wanted-to-be-first support. --Keitei (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, won't abuse the tools. Naconkantari 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support, responsible user, excellent at interacting with newcomers, familiar with process, decent level of experience. Full support. --Draicone 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. sapport we need more admins who will work on backlogs.Geni 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support, committed user that would use the tools responsibly. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support per nom.--Coasttocoast 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support per nom. Rory would use admin tools responsibly. He also has a boatload of experience. Hello32020 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   I guess I exaggerated with boatload xD "Decent" is a better term :) Hello32020 01:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Strong support would be very productive and an asset as an administrator. --W.marsh 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Ixfd64 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support yea I guess Jaranda 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Disregarding his conduct on Thatcher's RfA (which I will forgive), I particularly appreciated his (eventually successful) attempts at compromise in WP:SRNC, which was on the verge of falling apart before he came in. I also appreciate him facing his past (aka block log) on this RfA, unlike many others who attempt to sweep it under the rug. --physicq210 01:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support why not? - Mike (Trick or treat) 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, lovely self-nomination, I stand here until something more comes under oppose. (edit conflict, wow that's a big signature above).--Andeh 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, good self-nom, cliched "I thought he was an admin already" support. --Coredesat (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Will become a good admin. DarthVader 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Good user, good history. Dryman 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. Michael 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support although please don't play games regarding blocking if you get the tools - its quite risky. Rama's arrow 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - for someone who wants the tools this much, I don't see any reason not give them to him. :-) —Khoikhoi 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. After seeing him campaign hard so recently against Thatcher's RfA, here and on IRC, including misreading of comments, I must oppose at this time. Jonathunder 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   Do you have some diffs to support this? Naconkantari 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

2. I strongly oppose Rory096's adminship per this diff: . While I understand that this was meant as an IRC joke, the fact that Rory096 finds calling someone a "bitch" funny makes me question his maturity. Ral315 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per both Ral315 and Jonathunder. I felt that Rory's campaign against Thatcher131's RfA went too far, and I question if it became too personal, and if he will exercise good judgment in difficult situations. Sandy 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per lack of real article contributions. It's not much to ask that someone being promoted to a higher rights level on an encyclopedia has actually contributed to it, and can explain and adhere to the various article writing policies. Per the maturity concerns above. Per advertising this RfA on IRC and allowing people to !vote before it was transcluded to the RfA page. -- Steel 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC

   While I do also oppose Rory096's adminship, and all other concerns are probably valid, it should be noted that I was on IRC when this was being mentioned, and when he was made aware that people were !voting on his nomination, he transcluded the page almost immediately. Ral315 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

   That bit's been struck. -- Steel 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per Ral315. Zaxem 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose - sorry Rory I almost never oppose RfAs, but as this is at 77% support I feel I must. The REDIRECT Bitch thing was only 4 <--sorry, only 3 weeks ago. This is completely unnacceptable for an admin. Glen 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge that was invited by User:Jasabella on IRC, although I agree its poor judgement. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - This diff - res ipsa loquitur - Richardcavell 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Ral315. I don't know the background for that edit, but I struggle to think of any acceptable justification. --After Midnight 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Ral315. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - That's not all he's been up to, he did this on my user page. Per Glen S "This is completely unnacceptable for an admin." Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral