Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rebelguys2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Rebelguys2

Final (35/1/0); Ended Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:52:29 (UTC)

Rebelguys2 (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Rebelguys2 for Adminship. I have worked with him on several articles and I find his edits to be of the highest quality. He has been editing on Wikipedia for over one and half years, and he has over 7,000 edits, including more than 3,000 to the main article space. He contributes to a wide range of articles and collaborations, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting and Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. He has started and improved several articles, including being the prime factor in getting University of Texas to GA quality. His interactions with others are helpful and courteous, even on somewhat heated topics such as whether Gibraltar should be included in WikiProject Spain [1] He is an active member in community discussions such as WP:AfD[2] and WP:ANI[3]. He makes important contributions to image uploading/review/and deletion such as WP:IFD. He practices good use of edit summaries (Mathbot says Edit summary usage for Rebelguys2: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)[4], and he has set his e-mail. Giving him the admin tools will help him build and protect more great articles for Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Last I checked, there was an over two-week-old backlog at images for deletion. A significant backlog is still a fairly common occurrence over there, though there are a few regulars that do a swell job. I do a lot of work tagging images for blatant violations — no source, no license, copyright violations, and the like. If the community trusts me with the mop, I'll be able to lend a knowledgeable hand in cleaning up over there, as well as on related pages like possibly unfree images and copyright problems.
I also intend on helping out at articles for deletion, a place where my participation has waxed and waned over my time here. I'm familir with closing procedures, having performed them for uncontroversial "keep" and "redirect" votes intermittently over the past year when the backlog got big, and I hope to help more effectively with some more tools in my hands.
Finally, I intend on continuing to fight vandals. With the "undo" link, VandalProof, Twinkle, popups, and the rest of the rollback options available to non-admins, reverting is, admittedly, a pretty simple task. It sure would be more efficient to have the ability to block those IPs after their last warning, though.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I do a lot of cleaning up in the mainspace, but there's a number of articles I've helped write that I'm fairly pleased with. I made my first few edits about the Spanish town of Cádiz. I think my additions turned out pretty well, considering that it was my first swing at revamping an article.
A couple of articles I've written or expanded might not have been on crucial topics, but I think they're pretty unique and have definitely caught peoples' eyes. The Great Rose Bowl Hoax comes to mind, as well as the bizarre incident on British Airways Flight 5390.
I've also helped bring two articles up to Good Article status (University of Texas at Austin and Robinow syndrome), and I've had a number of articles show up on Did You Know?
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: Certainly. I think it's nearly inevitable that an editor run into someone with a different view on how to best improve our encyclopedia.
However, I've learned that it's important to remain civil. You can be firm, and you can completely refute the other editor's argument. (And I suppose you were both being WP:BOLD, right?) But there's no need for incivility towards the other user — despite whatever he or she has done. If it really does get a bit out of control, forget about it for a while. Walk away, relax, and put your feet up for a bit. Don't worry — you'll be back — but both sides will have a clearer head to work towards that ideal consensus.
Finally, I'm sure that every once in a while, we all run into someone that, from your view, has just completely crossed the line. We've assumed good faith and had that good faith thrown back in our faces more than once. But is similar incivility going to fix the problem we were originally discussing? Nah. If this guy really and truly is a problem, we have good, working avenues for dispute resolution.
And if you do slip up every once in a while, or if you find yourself eating crow about something, well, you're only human. If the other side's still willing to listen, swallowing your pride isn't going to hurt anything.
4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A: Well, {{bv}} stands for "blatant vandal," doesn't it? I tend to use the {{test1}} to {{test4}} sequence unless there is obvious evidence that the vandal really knows what he's doing. I suppose that, in the end, it's going to be a bit subjective — if it wasn't, there'd be no reason to ask this question — but certain actions lend me to believe that a user is out to be malicious.
For example, the editing of transcluded templates to mess up today's featured article very badly is probably going to deserve a {{bv}}. The addition of sneaky, but correctly-formatted "facts" could merit a {{bv}}. And I'd probably slap a {{bv}} tag on the talk page of any editor whose edits pay homage to something "on wheels" or the "communism" vandal. These are but a few examples of cases where the editor obviously knows his way around here, and he or she clearly knows how this place works, but still performs these obviously unwelcome acts.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A: I don't think it's required to bring up every possible technical violation at the 3RR noticeboard. I've seen plenty of experienced editors feel the same way, leaving a message on an offender's talk page noting that, while he or she isn't going to perform any blocks for the offense, the offender should really watch what he or she is doing.
That said, there's not much of a reason you should accrue 4 reverts in 24 hours in the first place, save for obvious exceptions. You might only be violating the letter of WP:3RR, but you're certainly violating the spirit of working towards consensus through rational discussion. That's not to say that blatant and unrepentant violations of the three-revert rule ought to go unstopped, but we're primarily looking to stop edit-warring before it gets too ridiculous — not to go out and punish bad judgment.
6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: As far as editing in general goes, I could go for better writing. I see plenty of featured articles passed with unresolved objections about poor writing. At the same time, those objections are sometimes met with hostility, as good prose can admittedly be quite subjective.
Now, these articles aren't always horrible by any means, and I don't think mediocre or weak writing in a few sections should unquestionably condemn an article to non-FA status. If the article is readable, and the only remaining actionable objection deals with prose, go ahead and promote it. Yeah, some users are better at writing, and some are better at making that writing sound good — hopefully one of the latter will eventually find their way to the article.
That said, there remains any number of legitimate reasons that not all of our articles are brilliantly-written. This was a pretty idealistic question, though, wasn't it?

Question from FayssalF

7. Could you please tell us a bit about yourself as there's no single info on your userpage? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A: I like editing, and I have edited, just about anywhere. To give you a better idea, I have a subpage at User:Rebelguys2/articles with a few articles I've written or expanded, though I can't promise it's up to date.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • Thanks for your contribution; unfortunately, anonymous contributors can only contribute to the "Discussion" section of requests for adminship, so I have moved your comment here and struck your use of the word "Oppose". —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - Good answers, experience, and IfD could use all the help it can get. —dgiestc
  2. Support level-headed and experienced. Definitely qualified. - Anas Talk? 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Rebelguys2 was one of my first wiki-friends, over a year ago. He is fair, level-headed, and a fine prose writer. He has already been working with image issues. He volunteered to help me get my first article to FA status. I know he'll make a fine admin.Rlevse 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I haven't had any direct dealing with him, but I've seen Rebelguys2's work and I think he'll be an excellent admin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumoeagle179 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2007 March 15
  5. Support - The last thing we need is another Longhorn admin but I guess I'll let this one slide.↔NMajdan•talk 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - a great find by Johntex. The Evil Clown 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Seems like a great person to trust with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Michael 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Yuser31415 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support -Loads of Wikiexperience and also Pretty good answers to all of the questions..Yay..--Cometstyles 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I see no problems with this application - a good spread of edits in the main spaces and responsible editing too. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Great user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Sorry for the trite cliché, but I could have sworn you already had the flag. Support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Hey, why would I not support, eh? Captain panda In vino veritas 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support as I see nothing that would dissuade me, and plenty which leads me to believe he'd be a great admin. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Overdue Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. I see some good image work here. Keep it up! >Radiant< 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support: Seems pretty fine. --Meno25 11:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Yep, no prob here.--Jersey Devil 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 07:30Z
  22. Support this Texan cowboy! :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Terence 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Generally well qualified and interest in image work is a plus. -- Jreferee 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Solid. (I will bypass both Longhorn and Aggie jokes for the moment.) Pigmandialogue 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support--MONGO 08:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 15:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Everything looks good here. IronDuke 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Duh. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support → It seems to be a good user who can be trusted with the tools. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Definitely need more admins willing to do image cleanup work given the backlog at CAT:CSD (unknown copyright status = 17 days, no fair use rationale = 17 days, RFU = 14 days...) Looks trustworthy and experienced. Enjoy the backlogs mate... WjBscribe 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rebelguys2 has chosen to specialize in image cleanup, a rather touchy area. As such, the behaviour should be above reproach, and I am sorry to find that it is not, and I do not trust this user with the tools. This discussion is one example of this user's behaviour. First, this image was nominated because Rebelguys2 looked through my logs during a dispute about an unrelated issue. This is not comparable to checking the logs of someone recently discovered to have uploaded 3 or 4 CV images, and this sort of targetting is, in my opinion, unbecoming an admin. It blurs the distinction between behaviour and neutral policy enforcement, and that is a bad thing in the long run. I would oppose for this reason alone, but in addition the original nomination showed poor research, suggesting a lack of future diligence as an admin. When this error was pointed out, the response was not to apologize for the error or suggest solutions, but rather to create yet more arguments for deletion. In fact, during the remaining discussion, the user not once used his image expertise to help or make any suggestions about how to resolve the problem. We don't need admins who prefer confrontational approaches to collaborative ones. Gimmetrow 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hi, just thought I'd express agreement with Gimmetrow's above comments. And add, as further evidence, another unpleasant experience with this candidate. Here he is conspiring with a known copyright troll to drive away a fellow contributor (before discovering that IRC is the proper channel for such activities). Once he gets his mop, he will have a much easier time of it and won't have to worry about anything but the arbcomm. Just Block, Ban, Delete, Ignore. But convincing the majority of you of this, much like the project itself, is an exercise in futility. In the RFAs of almost every defrocked, disgraced or contraversial admin, there are a quiet few voices of dissent who raise key concerns. Concerns which, though ignored at the time, are proven 100% spot-dead on right. In the end Wikipedia will get the admins it deserves until it finally collapses under the weight of its own crapulence. So Congrats Rebelguys2 and see you at the Arbcomm.--70.171.22.74 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.