Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Accounting4Taste: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/1/0); Scheduled to end 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I am proud to offer up for adminship Accounting4Taste hereafter known as A4T. Originally joining us back in April, A4T has amassed well over 5,000 edits (for those who like to count 'em!) that are nicely spread across the project. A review of his contributions should show the following;

Article Work

• Substantial additions to his field of interest - Ellery Queen and Perry Mason and related articles.
• Associated article talk page comments evidencing his desire to collaborate.

Speedy Deletion Work

• Admins will be able to verify, but A4T has amassed nearly 1,500 deleted edits since the end of August through his accurate tagging of articles as candidates for speedy deletion.
• A4T also makes efforts to revisit to check on his tagging and possibly change his mind.[1]
• A4T advises the creating editor accordingly.

WP:AFD Work

• A look through his contributions shows substantial commitment at AFD. Pleasingly A4T brings real value to the table - citing firm policy reasons for his comments.

Housekeeping Items

• Clean block log
• Contributions to WP:AIV showing understanding of the process leading to a preventative block
• WP:HELPDESK contributions
• A civil manner evidenced by talk page and his use of welcome templates along with Speedy Deletion warnings
• Edit summary usage was generally okay, and has been spot on for the last couple of months.
• Un-offensive user page
• Sensible Signature
• E-mail enabled

All, I firmly believe A4T is a polite, modest and dedicated editor. His generous commitment here can only be furthered by allowing him access to administrative tools, and I hope that the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  07:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination with pleasure. Accounting4Taste 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I started by doing random page patrol, then new page patrol, which led me to articles for deletion, and those areas have been where most of my “backstage” work has been done. I think those would be good areas to start working from the other side of the coin, to see how decisions by editors are carried out by administrators. So I would get started by doing speedy deletions and closing out AfD discussions, I expect. I’m not sure exactly where I will contribute in the future... I wouldn’t have known at the outset that I would enjoy contributing to AfD, but I do. I have experimented with the help desk and deletion review, and those areas also interest me. I think that gaining a well-rounded view of all of Wikipedia’s functions would be the most sensible thing, and then I could lend a hand where needed; I suspect that a year from now I will be doing something of which I’m only vaguely aware at the moment.

I can definitely say that I intend to be a very cautious administrator while I learn the ropes. I will not be handing out blocks or deleting new pages willy-nilly; having the privileges of the mop will make me more determined to make sure that whatever I do reflects well on Wikipedia.

I haven’t learned enough about other areas to contribute yet, but I’m interested in improving some Wikipedia policies that I don’t think are sufficiently detailed, such as WP:MOVIE and WP:PORNBIO. I’m also interested in helping new users create articles using article templates -- I think, for instance, new users need a template to help them create articles about fictional characters that span multiple media platforms. I’m also interested in Wikipedia:Third opinion and similar functions because I found that one helpful as a newbie.

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

A: In terms of editorial contributions, I think Ellery Queen has been my best and most thorough work, although my user page lists a number of articles connected with detective fiction that I think I have improved; Erle Stanley Gardner/Perry Mason, Phoebe Atwood Taylor, Clayton Rawson, and some general mystery-oriented articles. I’m a member of the crime fiction task force.

As I’ve done backstage tasks around Wikipedia, I have gleaned a couple of basic principles that seem worthwhile tenets: they are (1) the bottom line is improving Wikipedia, and (2) work to retain every editor who cares to contribute. So in one sense, I do my best work when I keep those principles at the front of my mind. When I first encountered AfD, for instance, I thought the best way to contribute was to ruthlessly delete almost everything. Since then, I’ve taken pleasure in saving some articles from deletion by researching them and contributing citations, etc., to them... perhaps I started as a stern deletionist, but over time I have become more and more inclusionist. Principle (1) tells me to get rid of crap quickly, but also to improve articles that are worth saving. Principle (2) tells me to get rid of incorrigible vandals quickly, but also welcome people who might start out by introducing some nonsense words to an article, just to see how it works, because they may stay and contribute. I was very impressed by the statistic that most of the basic work of creating new pages is done by new editors, and I want to facilitate that. So some of the best work I’ve done for Wikipedia is in connection with explaining Wikipedia policy to newbies; some stay, some don’t.

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: In my early days with Wikipedia, I ran up against another editor in connection with a page that I’d hit with the “Random page” button and tried to improve -- Mark Kirk (convict). I found an article that I felt was quite overboard with POV and cut it back to a neutral stub -- the other editor put it all back and tried to convince me that the POV material was NPOV. I let it stand, but put a (disputed) tag on it, which he removed. That surprised me, and made me a little angry, but I decided to take advantage of a Wikipedia mechanism for dealing with such situations and asked for a third opinion. The assistance I got in that context led me to really research an article in which I had little natural interest and try to make it both well-researched and neutral; whatever emotions had been aroused, I tried to channel into making the article better, and that led me to principle (1) above; the bottom line is improving Wikipedia. I learned that it wasn’t about my ego or my emotions, it was about making the article better.

Just recently I had a conflict with a fairly new editor who has had an intermittent and contentious history with Wikipedia. I had made quite a few contributions to Philo Vance and when it showed up on my watchlist as having been blanked without an edit summary, I restored it and, noticing that the editor had started on Wikipedia about the same time as I had, gave him the benefit of the doubt and left him a message that assumed that it had been an accident. When he blanked it twice more in the next five minutes, I actually thought his account had been hijacked, and when he replaced the entire article with his own creation (in need of serious wikification, with all the exterior references removed and the links broken, no edit summary and quite a bit of original research by synthesis, IMHO) I freaked out for a few minutes and left him a note that was, in retrospect, angrier than it should have been. Then I took a few deep breaths and realized that this editor wanted to contribute, thought he WAS contributing, and decided to do two things -- back away, and indicate that I wanted to cooperate to make the article better. I also had to let go of any lingering feeling that it was somehow “my” article, because there’s no such thing. I may not be able to help that particular editor contribute, but now I know how to deal with that situation.

I figure if I get stressed about what I’m doing here in the future, I just have to reorient myself to those two principles and the right path will sort itself out, which will relieve my stress. If it doesn’t, I’ve learned that there are a few friendly editors here who can lend a hand if I find myself confused. And if nothing else works, I can always take a wiki-break.

• See Accounting4Taste's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Accounting4Taste: Accounting4Taste (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/Accounting4Taste before commenting.

1. Strong Support per my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support for the favorable impression I already had back then when the 3PO issue mentioned in Q3 took place as well as the nomination. --Tikiwont 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Heh, Pedro sees no problems, I certainly trust his judgment, and the user seems to be competent in all facets of the 'pedia! Phgao 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support excellent user. I seem to recall, very long ago, alerting A4T to some small point of policy he had slipped up about (very small - don't bother go looking for it in order to oppose :p) and he reacted extremely quickly, politely and pleasantly. Wonderful thing to see in a user. Bonus points for great answers. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Has been recognised by the community, so yes! Rudget _{Contributions} 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I trust Pedro, and A4T appears to be a very experienced user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support with pleasure. My encounters with this editor's work (primarily at the help desk and CSDs) gives me strong confidence that he will make good use of the tools. Every time I've encountered him and in what I see in his contribution logs, he is extremely polite and helpful, and he seems meticulous about user notifications, which in terms of CSDs I think has an important function in keeping new contributors active in the face of a first, disappointing experience. I believe under the circumstances his confusion about the behavior of the other editor involved at Philo Vance is understandable; in the absence of an edit summary or response to notes, repeated blanking of the page is hard to interpret in a positive light. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Support A very excellent editor who has remained civil and respectful to other users. It is my pleasure to support this great contributor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support east.718 at 14:59, 10/26/2007
11. Support. Deb 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Good candidate. Acalamari 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. The candidate is a good, helpful member of the community and has made solid editorial contributions. Majoreditor 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support nothing is wrong with this user. NHRHS2010 talk 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per all. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Impressive. Jauerback 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I see A4T on AFD quite frequently, always making positive contributions. A scan of the last couple pages of his contribs yields quite satisfactory results, and as some others have mentioned, answers to questions are impressive as well. Good luck, man! GlassCobra 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Why not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Great job, you definitely deserve to be a sysop.   jj137 (Talk) 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Will be fine admin. - Darwinek 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Qualified, to say the least. --Sharkface217 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Speechless! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong Support Solid contributor, amazingly insightful, and possessed of a great deal of civility and respect for others. I have no doubt at all that A4T will make a fine admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support experienced user which needs of the tools. Carlosguitar 06:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support He's doing very well--sensible and willing to learn.DGG (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, I recognise the name from AFDs and his contributions there already outweigh any reasons I might oppose for. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong Support Answers are good and I've observed excellent judgment in AfDs. Pig^man 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support As per Riana ,Moonriddengirl and Track is good .In particular your detective editing is very good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support John254 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support As per the impressive amount of work shown in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
32. Support A respected editor who certainly will not abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support per Pedro. Plus my dream girl just rejected me and flew away on a jet plane. Okay, that's irrelevant. Would be nice for someone to get what they want though, and Accounting4Taste is a worthy one. 203.220.12.229 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon vote struck out. Jmlk17 07:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support. Per everyone's reasoning. • Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Jmlk17 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Looks solid. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Quickie Support on the integrity of everyone else's supports --Pumpmeup 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support evidence of coordinated 'pedia building a definite plus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. This guy looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I have seen this editor around a few times and i think he has all the requisite qualities to be an admin. Woodym555 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support this editor has been super active in new page patrolling. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Brief scroll thru last 1000 edits shows that like 90% of his work is greeting of newcommers and other non-encyclopedic work. To be an admin a person mut have a real feeling what it means to write an article and to take part in a dozen of edit disagreements. `'Míkka 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I intend no offense with this at all, but I just wanted to point out that I think A4T has twice as many mainspace edits as talk edits. (And the bulk of those welcomes seem to result from new page patrolling. I.e., leaving combo speedy/welcome notes). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Míkka You are certainly kind to comment here but I think you have not reviewed his contributions in full light. Extracting the data into Excel reveals from the last 1,000 contributions 346 to WP:AFD and 101 actual article building contributions (i.e. not vandalism reversion.) Yes there are a lot of welcome notes - but these are only associated with the speedy deletion tag that has been applied to the editors article. To assert that 90% of the last 1,000 contributions are "welcoming editors" is clearly inaccurate - actually 0% is the figure if you ignored the welcomes that the candidate made whilst warning the user in a civil fashion about the proposed speedy deletion of their article. Re-consider? Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I find this flurrly of accusations wildly disgusting. I am entitled to my opinion and I explained why. You wrote: "from the last 1,000 ... 101 actual article building" - do the math - only 10% is actual editing, the rest (i.e., 90%) is "greetings and other non-encyclopedic work". And I didn't even use the excel - the extremely low level of content building is glaring. With such lax attitude to adding new admins, no wonder we have more and more administritis instead of actual article writing. And yes, I opposed several FRAs for the same reason: this influx of underqualified "police academy" is quite worrisome to me. And this is what I am exactly trying to achieve: higher standards for admins. And I am doing this in the only way possible: opposing to those I see unfit. `'Míkka 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You're welcome to your opinion, just as others are welcome to disagree with you. Tossing around AGF links while simultaneously reverting good-faithed messages as "wikilawyering" [2] isn't the most constructive attitude to have, though I'm more than willing to let it go, as you've at least fully explained your opposition (which was my only purpose in leaving you a note). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "You're welcome to your opinion" - very thank you, and my opinion is that supplying each and every my vote with a recommendation to ignore it is thoroughly disgusting. I gave my reasons, and this circus with my voting only reaffirms them. What is more, I will consider opposing to each and every self-nom: I don't think people with administritis itch improve wikipedia. `'Míkka 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidates excellent all round abilities would be clearly demonstrated by reviewing his contributions fully, rather than your "Brief scroll thru". If you can't be bothered to do that then it's up to you. I'm sure the closing 'crat will give due balance to this thread and your concerns. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   OK I scanned thru 3,000 cotribs. the impression didn't change: not enough content-building experience. `'Míkka 16:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]