Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Editorofthewiki

Editorofthewiki

Voice your opinion (talk page) (3/3/1); Scheduled to end 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) - I'm proud to present Editorofthewiki (or Ed for short) for your consideration. Ed has been a Wikipedian since January 3, 2008, so very nearly nine months. He has made a grand total of 12,000 edits in this time, with well over 1000 edits made most months.

Ed is not a vandal fighter like a lot of candidates. His high count is down to his excellent work on articles, and his collaboration with other editors. He has contributed to 7 Good Articles (Mary Meader, 1992 Nicaragua earthquake, Hell's Gate National Park, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Jean-Hilaire Aubame, Nki National Park and Paul Gondjout) and 2 Featured Articles (Lazare Ponticelli and 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake), and has worked on and nominated others that unfortunately did not pass their nominations. He has over 50 Did You Know articles, oh and did I mention, he has created 2880 new articles. I first came across him when he came to my talk page congratulating me on my efforts with my first Good Article (Jeanne Calment) and suggested we collaborated on a FA. We've yet to do that, but he's been very helpful to me so far, giving me an editor review, and reviewing Mark Speight for me, without me even asking.

He has had an ongoing editor review since March, and shows him to be less than perfect, but the whole point of an editor review is to improve, right? One point that came up was his use of edit summaries - they were pretty poor. His edit summaries have now improved greatly, and while he still doesn't all the time, it's above 90% for major edits. Another point was his username; a user suggested it might imply authority. He very nobly put his name up at WP:RFCN, and it was decided it was fine. This kind of humble act is exactly the kind of admin Wikipedia could do with: one who admits their errors, is willing to co-operate with others and is here to build an encyclopedia.

So without further ado, let's start this thing, and make this guy an admin! -- how do you turn this on 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel very honored to be nominated for adminship by an editor I've known for barely a month. I accept. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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: I am primarily an article writer. We volunteers at Wikipedia are here to create the best possible encyclopedia, using our methods of collaboration and review. However, of late "admin-related" forums such as ANI, AIV, RFC have usurped this idea, and my involvement as an admin will not be here. Rather, I view adminship as a way to help me in my day-to-day editing, such as deleting articles to make way for redirects, blocking particularly disruptive users, etc.

However, I shall not shy away from "admin-related" areas altogether. If I am given "the mop", my primary "adminy" related work would be at WP:DYK. As Hdytto stated, I have more than 50 DYKS to my name (52 creations/expansions and 1 nomination, to be precise, plus a couple at T:TDYK) and am very familiar with this area of Wikipedia. It is frequently backlogged, which is in part due to the relatively small amount of admins who work there. And they are often quite busy with their workload. It used to be an even bigger problem, but hey, the more the merrier? Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A: It is very hard to pick out my best contributions to the wiki. I value each and every one in a different way. I have 2 FAs and 7 GAs to my name, which is usually judged as one's best. In addition, I am working on a 1964 Gabon coup d'etat featured topic. I have succeeded in bringing Paul Gondjout and Jean-Hilaire Aubame to the GA standard, though my work here is far from complete. Before myself and User:Nishkid64 (I must mention him--he did most of the work at Leon M'ba) came along, there were no articles at WP:GABON above B-class status. Furthermore, that sole article at B-class was written by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, an editor I closely work with and highly emulate. So that's basically the definition of poorly covered.

I am also active at WP:QUAKE. My involvement there has ranged from the major (featuring 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake with User:LordSunday and hopefully doing the same with LS and Blofeld on 2003 Bam earthquake) to the minor (uploading maps to several earthquake-related pages and going on a recatting spree). I do not particularly like earthquakes, it's just that thay are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy undercovered in comparison to tropical cyclones. My mission here is to develop poorly covered areas such as quakes and Gabon (and practically all of Africa, with the exception of South Africa). Combatting systematic bias, shall one say, as it goes against arguably our most important policy, WP:NPOV.

Oh, and I must mention my work in stub creating. This is probably the biggest factor in my relatively high edit count, for I rarely use automated tools. I began working in this area back in February, when I was recent changes patrolling (something I don't do often) and noticed an ungodly amount of edits by who other than Blofeld of SPECTRE. He, along with User:AlbertHerring were on a stub creating spree for all the communes of France. Realising how incredible that Wikipedia, with its 2,000,000+ pages, had neglected such an important area, I decided that I would help. I soon found this was the case for much of the rest of the world outside the US or UK, and since Blofeld had been incredibly busy with this, I thought "Why not?" and began helping him with the task. I was, in fact, one of the two editors (guess who the other one was) behind the controvercial User:FritzpollBot, which unfortunately has not been working on its stated task of helping us through this. However, we (and now User:EJF) remain undaunted. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:10, 28 September 2008 (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: Hell yeah. And if this should destroy my RFA, so be it. It really should be no big deal, although even our founder has retracted this statement via of our mind-boggling process which I am currently undergoing. For one, I do not have a clean blocklog. I was blocked (and rightfully so) for the harassment of User:Misza13 while a newbie. To be clear, I did nothing more than nominate her page for deletion twice, though this was a very stupid and immature action of myself. Hover, neither did my blocking admin, User:East718, which shows the power of good faith and a decent reformation.

More recently, I opposed User:Karanacs at her RFA for this edit, which I felt was uncivil. Others may disagree, though I was not the only person who thought this way. I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up. Drama ensued, and the RFA shifted from her to my and Eco and User:Gears of War's opposed, which is unfortunate I think. Karanacs and I have since made up, and we lived happily ever after. The end. :)

To prevent another fatal mess up, I will immediately list myself at Administrators open to recall. I understand this process has been controvercial at best. However, if I fail to live up to my duties as an admin, and one user in good faith thinks I messed up, I shall immediately resign and hold a reconfirmation RFA. If I don't do this, block/ban/ desysop me. Please. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Tznkai

4. As an administrator you will be the first editor many newbies and more experienced Wikipedia go to, to settle content disputes, to complain about harassment, and otherwise threaten to drag you into the drama. How will you handle this?

I will try to handle this with a fair bit of common sense and never, ever, any biting. I will try to guide these editors along their path to Wikiholicism. After all, we all were newbies once, right? If I don't do this, refer to question 3. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Would you be willing to change your user name, and can you guess why I might be concerned by it?

Yes, I would. The matter was already disgussed, however, a couple of months ago at WP:RFCN, and the concensus was that my username was not against our username policy. Hover, if the matter arises I will be happy to do such a thing. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Editorofthewiki's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Editorofthewiki: Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• So...

Lighten up people

Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment here. The last two editors to cast their !vote haven't specified any kind of rational/reason. I urge people, for the benefit of the candidate, to elaborate further. Thanks! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Sure, why not?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Synergy 03:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen him around; he does good work.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. There are quite enough misguided civility police on the admin payroll already. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I have acknowledged the error in my ways, and I will try not to join the "cabal of misguided civility police". I will try to confine myself to relatively calm editing which is my norm shall I be accused of such again. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. (edit conflict, I should've expected that). I think Editorofthewiki does a great job in the mainspace. And he's a very competent editor. But when I asked Editorofthewiki for some feedback about what he thought of my RFA standards I got a very revealing and concerning response here. First of all, know that I am not opposing this RFA just because Editorofthewiki doesn't like my RFA standards, please don't think I'm that vindictive and/or trying to retaliate and/or delivering a low-blow. It's the other content I was able to glean from that edit. Here are my reasons:

   • As per the edit linked above, Editorofthewiki believes that being blocked for harassment is minor.
   • As per the edit linked above, Editorofthewiki believes that "vandalism is often worse than blocks." I'd have to completely disagree with this philosophy. I'd say that getting blocked or something would almost always be worse than getting a vandalism warning. Maybe in the case of a 3RR block would vandalism be worse.
   • Editorofthewiki refuses to take suggestions from multiple editors to improve his editing.

   He said here regarding edit summaries that, "I understand their purpouse [sic] and all, but I don't see why we have to use them ALL THE TIME." Perhaps he doesn't understand their purpose as well as he claims there. He was later given the suggestion to use edit summaries more by Basketball110 here and Xenocidic here. His response to them was, "I am not the biggest fan of edit summaries and I think it is a fault of Wikipedia for all of its editors to use them all the time. I use them when conveniant [sic]." found here) and "I said it was a fault for wikipedians at rfas to require them. For example, not every minor edit needs one, nor every single freaking edit if the es tells you nothing important." (found here). I disagree; edit summaries are very important as they make it much easier for another editor to discern what you're doing and/or your reason behind it, and it is not a fault for Wikipedians to want you to use them. This point is not so much that I have a problem with his opposition to edit summaries, but his opposition to learning from suggestions by other editors and instead he points the finger at other Wikipedians and the system itself.

   • Poor use of edit summaries.
   • On the 11th of this month he retired here, only to unretire 23 hours later here.
   • On the 26th of this month he decides he needs 25 supporters before considering adminship with this edit, but then decides here against that because he was nommed here. These two very recent incidents indicate an indecisive nature.
   • Also, from Q3, "I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up." I assume that was errantly typed, but even so, I don't think demanding apologies is the best practice.

   For these reasons, mostly because of his vehement refusal to take suggestions on how to improve himself and subsequent faulting of others, I will have to oppose. Useight (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is a completely valid reason to oppose. I have been known to be indecisive and porr judgement. However, we are all human, and we all will make mistakes. Since June I have thought over most of those "citeria" for a bureaucrat, and think you probably would have been a fine one. Other than edit summaries (does every single minor little edit deserve one? (this is a rhetorical question)). I am completely open to suggestions, especially as an admin. regards. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose. Your friend Everyme 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Uhh, why? Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Firstly, add a certain amount of lack of clue to my oppose rationale. This is mostly because my oppose, in a rather non-cryptic way, illustrates the reason why I can never and will never support anyone with a sig like yours. No smileys, no "your friend". Just imagine how would it look if you block someone, and your message on their talk page reads: You have been indefinitely blocked for persistant vandalism. --Your friend... It would quite possibly incite further anger. And that is the reason I strongly oppose: You are apparently not someone to be trusted with such subtleties. Just stay on your civil course, then you may never be inconvenienced with having to double-check your own somewhat stereotypical and rather simpl-ish idea of civility with the just-as-valid ideas of others. Everyme 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about you tone down the condescension in your response. Your tact is sorely lacking. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards support. Bwrs (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Nope, and I never will. Specifically, what makes you "neutralise" instead of support? Not trying to badger anyone, just curious. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am explaining off-wiki; I do not intend for my neutral vote to influence anybody else's decision. Bwrs (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)