Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerthat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Rogerthat

final (25/25/9) ending 04:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Rogerthat (talk · contribs) – Rogerthat has contributed to the exspansion of AFL in Wikipedia and has been a great editor in the past on Australian and Entertainment related articles. I think he would make a welcome impact on WIkipedia especially on Australian related issues. He has also been seen to be able to handle disputes well while still believing in his own opinion and sticks to his guns.Mike Beckham 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept reluctantly. Rogerthat Talk 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Rogerthat has been very helpful in introducing me to WP:AFL and generally is not a "lazy" admin. TheRealAntonius 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Edit summaries are a joke--the fad criterion of the month. This is a good user. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-17 05:04
    Thanks for the support guys but looks like I've been thrashed by the anti-content establishment here. Rogerthat Talk 05:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think is cause you actualy contribute to Wikipedia and not delete everything on the face of the earth Mike Beckham 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Roger but strongly advise TheRealAntonius to knock it off. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Rogerthat is an excellent editor, and will likely not abuse his admin privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I have found Rogerthat a pleasure to deal with and has certainly proven himself to be a wiki asset. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support I Nominated but understand I can vote as well if not I will remove this if proven not. Mike Beckham 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Ben May 07:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment-User's second edit, the other was his userpage.Blnguyen 07:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I believe he used to edit under a ip Mike Beckham 09:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. I was wondering what "Articles For L..." meant but then I actually went to WP:AFL and found out that it was something else entirely. JIP | Talk 07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. User has shown willingness to start using edit summaries. Great contributor, won't abuse the flag. jacoplane 10:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Rogerthat's contributions never go unnoticed, and he has all of my support. mdmanser 10:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Throughout my time at Wikipedia, Rogerthat has shown to be nothing short of an outstanding contributor to the project. Chairman S. | Talk 11:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support A great contributor. Siva1979Talk to me 14:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Very good article contributions, not been involved in any serious editing disputes. The requirement for edit summaries is there so we can check contributions and verify that the user is in good standing: where this can be found any other way, I don't see a problem. David | Talk 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Reluctant acceptance appreciated. Juppiter 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Mjal 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I can understand his frustration at his huge contributions as an editor being ignored because of a nitpick like edit summary. Tintin (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Terence Ong 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive. // paroxysm (n) 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak Support I have seen my fellow AFL fan friend do heaps of great work on Wikipedia, I'm sure that he'll start using the edit summary thing now after the critism below. DaGizzaChat © 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support for his tireless contributions to WP:AFL, Brendanfox 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
  22. Support, adminship is no big deal. Seems a good editor, I don't see lack of edit summaries as indicating a liklihood to abuse the tools, and in the spirit of good faith I'm sure edit summary usage will now increase. I think it might behoove those people who seem to invest so much stock in edit summaries to mention it on people's talk pages when they stumble across users not using edit summaries, I know I've done that in the past. A gentle prod early on might stop the issue being a contentious obstacle when they get here. Hiding talk 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Mjal 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support A major contributor and driving force on the Aussie collaboration and Portal. Bobby1011 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Moral Support. I like your contributions, although the lack of edit summaries is irritating but isn't a reason to oppose (I can think of some Bureaucrats who don't use edit summaries). We need admins who actually contribute to articles in the encyclopedia, you seem to fit the bill nicely. Leithp 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per lack of edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps you should actually take a look at what the guy has achieved in terms of starting WP:AFL particularly. Idiots like you run this site, which is why it will never get anywhere. TheRealAntonius 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. NSLE (T+C) 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't go that far, but ever since I started voting on RFA I have noticed a faction that will look for any reason to oppose. This particular reason is ridiculous. I ask those opposing per Oleg, do you READ edit summaries when you see a user with 100% for both minor and major? Do you actually sift through all 150 of them and read them? Because a person wanting to become an admin could make a bunch of bogus edits and always use edit summaries just to attain adminship through that logic. Really, edit summaries mean squat in RFAs. Juppiter 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    It is sad you think people oppose nominations just because they have nothing better to do. From my experience, it is very hard to deal later with people who are putting their admin powers to misuse, that's why it is important to weigh a potential admin from a lot of point of views. As for why edit summaries are important, see oppose vote #10 below. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, you could certainly go to Torino and win a gold medal for patronization. Juppiter 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'll split that with you. Or you're competing in a different category? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Er, Juppiter & Oleg, please try and remember WP:CIV and WP:NPA...you can agree to disagree, fine, but I don't think in my opinion, this is the place to be aiming broadsides at each other! Thor Malmjursson 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose due to an extreme lack of edit summaries, as well as personal attacks being made by his supporter. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    What a supporter says has nothing to do with the nominee and that vote should be cancelled. Mike Beckham 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    The closing bureaucrat has that say. No one else. NSLE (T+C) 05:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I concur with Rspeer. This was a vote against TheRealAntonius, not RogerThat, and it should be striken from the record. Juppiter 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    What do I have to do with Rogerthat? Anyway if you look at the effort he's put into articles (Austinn Jones is a good one I remember him writing and Brett Montgomery), why does he need an edit summary? do you just want him to write one line and then put a detailed edit summary instead? TheRealAntonius 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I will clarify. My vote served two purposes. One is to object to Rogerthat's non-use of edit summaries. (Even with good contributions, edit summaries are important because they help people distinguish your good contributions from vandalism.) Another is to counteract the "Support" vote of TheRealAntonius, because I don't trust the judgment of someone who makes personal attacks on his opposition. There's a new reason now: if he can't brush off criticism, he wouldn't do very well as an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose due to edit summary usage. Project edits could be more, but I'm satisfied. Glad to support if you increase use of ES. NSLE (T+C) 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Initially I didn't use edit summaries at all, but more recently I have been using them. Noone has had a problem with it before, why should they now? Rogerthat Talk 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Fuddlemark's comments below explain the need for edit summaries. NSLE (T+C) at 11:37 UTC (2006-02-17)
  4. Oppose. Although Rogerthat is a very diligent, helpful, polite and enthusiastic contributor (large scale rallying to the AFL project), and would only use his administrative tools in a constructive manner, there are issues of etiquette which need to be addressed, as administrators need to be role models for other wikipedians.
    • Edit summaries - as per Oleg Alexandrov
    • Hagiographic edits on sports-related figures is disturbing - implies a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. See the following links where Rogerthat is the only significant editor thus far to the article (excludes edits outside the main body of the article) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],
    • Not sure what janitorial related stuff Rogerthat does at the moment because he doesn't use edit summaries - all the ones that are there seem to be automatic section headings and the like
    Rogerthat does a great job on wikipedia and helping to organize AFL newbies, but admin status requires that he improves on the edit summary and the NPOV etiquettes, as well as diversifying to other things which justify the need for admin privileges, such as tagging speedies, participating at AfD, and reverting vandals, which would correspond to a need to have admin powers to speedy delete nonsense/attack pages, closing AfD and blocking vandals. This can easily be done and Rogerthat would then get unequivocal support. Blnguyen 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Very fair analysis Blnguyen. Much fairer than the other negative opinions on here, good to see some constructive criticism. The result is a foregone conclusion, people on wikipedia don't like proactive users, mostly preferring the ones who have one or two minor spelling fixes and deleting every article they come across (despite the WP:NOT not paper policy). We need more users like myself who are focusing on the one aim of adding to the total sum of human knowledge. Rogerthat Talk 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please don't take it personally at all Rogerthat. Sam Vimes at WP:CRIC is one of the most diligent and welcoming members (he welcomed me) on that project and yet he was also initially rejected (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes) on the grounds of hagiography, which was pointed out by Ambi, who judging by her vote in many AfDs is definitely an inclusionist. Despite this Sam Vimes has had stacks of barnstars, cookies, etc glued onto his page, so he is a very much admired and respected member of the community.People who only do vandalism patrol and pruning (deletion or destruction depending on your viewpoint) are also rarely promoted, so it is somewhat harsh to label admins as aggressive/negative/non-proactive deletionists. Most successful RfAs require a diverse range of contributions to WP, janitorial (to justify possession of the tools) and constructive. As I have pointed out, and can be seen in candidates who have had multiple RfAs, the edit summary and etiquette thing is just something that is literally a matter of time, there are no scars or black marks at all (you have not engaged in any conflicts or vandalism)- it is just a waiting list. Keep your chin up, start doing more janitorial work to justify janitorial tools, and a promotion will be a formality in a couple of months. You are definitely a valued member of the community - everybody at WP:AWNB knows that you are renowned for your AFL contributions, especially the Aussie admins. Blnguyen 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
    You know, despite appearences sometimes, adminship isn't a medal of honor -- it's a mop. Cleaning up typos, redirects, category schemes, etc., are the sorts of things janitorial types do because no one else would ever want to; that sort of work is what admin tools are for. I think you'd find that if no one made those minor edits, this place would fall apart very quickly. Xoloz 05:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for user's ill-thought, slightly uncivil appraisal of those he feels oppose him. User needs to learn, and to temporize his views. Xoloz 05:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's going a bit harsh on Rogerthat's reaction. I think that Rogerthat hasn't really looked around RfA much before to see what the janitorial/etiquette standards are, and is somewhat taken aback by what is required of an admin. He is just a bit hurt and incorrectly taking it to be a sign that his edits are not constructive - which they definitely are.Blnguyen 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Meaning that Rogerthat's edits ARE constructive.Blnguyen 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    I agree completely with your analysis, Blnguyen, and don't mean my comment to be read too harshly; however, Rogerthat clearly does need to learn more about Wikipedian norms before seeking adminship again, and someone should be direct enough to tell him so in a calm way. That is what I have tried to do. Xoloz 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, his reactions here don't bode well - maybe slow down a bit before responding...? Maybe next time. --AySz88^-^ 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    "Very fair analysis Blnguyen." Yeah, that's a very bad reaction... When I saw "Oppose per lack of edit summaries." I knew that was it. I'd like to thank Mike for the nomination, and Blnguyen for your constructive and balanced criticism on the issue. Rogerthat Talk 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I meant the tone of things like "Much fairer than the other negative opinions on here, good to see some constructive criticism. The result is a foregone conclusion" and "I've been thrashed by the anti-content establishment here". I also forgot to mention temporarily switching the acceptance of the nomination to decline (and then switching back), which doesn't attest well to thinking things through first, which is why I suggested slowing down. --AySz88^-^ 06:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, the comments made on this rfa, both in his replies to the comments and his answers to the questions are enough for me to oppose by. Making random judgemental comments aimed towards pretty much everyone ("other admins see poorly constructed incorrectly as vandalism", "I find various overseas admins are very ill-informed" "people on wikipedia don't like proactive users, mostly preferring the ones who have one or two minor spelling fixes and deleting every article they come across") doesn't seem like a good quality in an admin to me. - Bobet 13:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: good editor, but not yet ready for this role for reasons already discussed on this page. Jonathunder 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, not using edit summaries is inexcusable. So is incivility. - ulayiti (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Firstly the edit summary thing. It's not just the fact that edit summaries help people on RC patrol, it also helps people who are watching articles. It helps to make the edit history mean something - i.e. not just a long list of dates and names, but also a summary of how the article has developed, very useful if you're trying to work out when something got added/changed etc. Also before casting my opinion here in RfA I always want to get an overview of someone's edits, which is easiest to do by going through the edit history, seeing the edit summaries and picking out some diffs. If it was just that I'd probably either not vote or cast neutral (depending on whether or not I'd spent much time looking at your history).
    • However, my second point is that you seem to want to be an admin as a reward for your great article contributions. Obviously Wikipedia needs create article editors that will add loads of content, but you don't need to be an admin to do that. So don't think people (or me at least) are opposing your RfA because of that, but simple because you have not demonstrated that you will significantly increase your benefit to Wikipedia with admin powers.
    • Finally comments like "Wiki doesn't need people like you." on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Jantzen don't seem the most appropriate. I hope that makes some sort of sense, that you'll find the comments on this RfA helpful, allowing to pass out of it an even better editor. You might also be interested in viewing my general RfA criteria. Petros471 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per Bobet and Petros471. --pgk(talk) 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per all the above. Moe ε 18:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. oppose - poor reaction to other oppose votes, e.g. people on wikipedia don't like proactive users William M. Connolley 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. The reactions to the opposers is deeply unsatisfactory raising questions about how this editor would handle the inevitable criticism and/or conflict that can result from taking admin actions and how well the editor appreciates the usual progress of an RfA. Criticism is not all bad; it is possible to learn from it if one does not simply dismiss it. -Splashtalk 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah I've decided to take this criticism on board, I've only used edit summaries sparingly prior to this but that's something I've been rectifying before this RfA and will continue to do so. Didn't really think I was a chance after the first two O's, surprised I'm still in this ;). But thanks for everyone's suggestions here. Rogerthat Talk 04:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Reluctant Oppose. I don't like to oppose people from receiving adminship. Rogerthat has done an excellent job on getting the Wikiproject AFL up and making a difference. I am pleased Rogerthat seems to be taking on board the criticism he has received here, and if he learns from it, I will be more comfortable voting support in a couple months time. The particular issues for me are lack of edit summaries (makes it difficult to follow article histories, or understand "odd" edits), and an appearance of enthusiasm for the superlative. This combination makes it difficult to be confident that balance and NPOV will be adhered to as an admin. Rogerthat's mature responses to comments and questions here suggest that he probably is a suitable candidate for admin, but needs to make it easier for people to be certain. --Scott Davis Talk 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Thanks for the encouragement Scott, the edit summaries I understand but I have a question regarding superlatives. On some AFL players I include using the phrase "highly skilled" which has been considered non-NPOV, however I have considered information from numerous sources that consider the player to have good skills. How is being "highly skilled" quantifiable (bearing in mind statistics of efficiency for past players is not what it is today). Rogerthat Talk 11:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pleased to find I'm having trouble finding recent edits to use as examples. A few articles I looked at still read more like a sports magazine than an encyclopaedia, but your overall style seems better now than I recall from when I first noticed you last November. I'm thinking of phrases like "...was a handy forward at AFL level but was inconsistent ..."[6] for example. This reads more as opinion than fact. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose: Edit summaries themselves don't tell you much, but Rogerthat seems relatively abrasive based on some of his edits and his responses to the questions that have been highlighted above (see Bobet's comments in particular). Seems like a valuable contributor but does not seem fit for adminship at this time. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: Usage of edit summaries by this user is totally unacceptable. Way too low, and doesn't seem to respond too well to criticism. Needs to calm down before he is offered a hat... Thor Malmjursson 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Blnguyen evidence, personal attacks are a no --Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose due to personal attacks, unfortunate as the user is a good contributor on Australia-related topics. I advise you to chill out, familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility, and also to stick around because your contributions are necessary and important. Also, try not to use the easy generalization of calling people "deletionists", and especially not to use it as a pejorative term. You could say I'm a deletionist, but I've also written plenty of new articles. there are two sides to every story.--Alhutch 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose for lack of edit summaries. I wonder if this candidate will have the same habit when deleting pages with NO reasons left.--Jusjih 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. because of his "reluctant" acceptance. AFAIK wikipedia needs admins to clean garbage more than to play politics. I don't believe a "reluctant" person will be useful for the first category of work, while politics players is more than enough. Mukadderat 12:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    OUCH! That one really smarts ... fuddlemark fuddle me! 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong Oppose. As a member of the Welcoming Committee, civility is very important.Zaheer89 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting you should say that Zaheer, while the evidence regarding my "lack of civility" is accepted, I certainly believe that welcoming and dealing with new members is one of my strengths. See the way I've recruited new members to WP:AFL such as User:Shapot, User:Lonie_From_50 and User:ben.carbonaro (the list goes on...). My civility with newer members is certainly one of my strengths. Rogerthat Talk 07:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Various reasons, which I do not want to bicker about and consequently will not give here. I generally very much support making content contributors into admins though, so I'll be willing to reconsider if you've chilled out a bit in a month or two. Grace Note 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Sorry. Don't know anything about football and thus can't quantify your contributions there. What really bugs me is the lack of edit summaries. This makes it a pain in the ass to go through my watch list. Really, it's a courtesy thing. Try branching out to other areas of the encyclopedia? Also, I dig the username. Half expect a User:Wilco to come along now. ... aa:talk 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough re the edit counts (I'm using them just about all the time now ;)), but I can assure you I don't just edit football articles. I have begun and edited many Australian biographical articles. I even started the article on Wijnand Ott. Why don't I branch out from football articles and writing biographies of people? It's because these areas are the ones that need the most attention - I find it astounding that the thousands of new articles I've created have needed to be created. Rogerthat Talk 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I think civility may be the most important prerequisite to being granted admin powers, and unfortunately, I don't see enough evidence of it with this candidate. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral - I think Roger could maybe benefit from a little research into what the qualities of an admin should be (Fuddlemark's comments below wouldn't be a bad place to start), and try again in a few months, this time asking his friends to refrain from jumping on people for expressing their opinions. Proto||type 11:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Roger, you do come off a little belligerent in your comments. While Antonius is certainly not helping your case, I'm not counting that as a strike against you. However, your own comments do make me slightly uneasy. --Ashenai 12:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - the lack of edit summaries prevent me from supporting (and Roger's recent contributions do not indicate that usage has commenced.) As such he does not meet my standards at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards which I consistantly adhere to out of fairness to all. This all said, if Roger re-applied after the standard period with a decent edit summary history and without some belligerent comments in his support, I will likely support him. Essexmutant 13:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per lack of edit summaries. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I just think I should make a matter of principle here -- while edit summaries are highly desirable, I see them as a rather pedantic reason to oppose. Adminship should be no big deal, and I can't see why Rogerthat wouldn't start using them frequently after this RfA finishes, whatever the result. On the other hand, I find the thin-skinnedness a bit worrying -- as an admin, you will take a lot of heat, even from other admins who disagree with you. If not for this, however, I would probably support. Adminship isn't a medal, but I don't see why it can't be, and why does it hurt to have more admins if these admins: 1. Know policy; 2. Act in good faith? Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per lack of edit summaries.--Ugur Basak 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutralper responses to comments and edit summaries. pschemp | talk 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. You know what to do now Roger to get your admin stripes, and either way, the footy season starts soon, so I'll expect a stub for every player added to a team by the middle of March. Sound reasonable? :) Harro5 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hopefully we'll have a few more people on board to help with the footy contributions, so I won't have to play a lone hand. Cheers mate :) Rogerthat Talk 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Adminship wouldn't do any harm, not sure if it would do any good either. Found this in contributions :) --Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hahaha, yeah for a time that category existed, and thought Yeltsin would have definitely earned a place there. But I suppose rightfully, the category was subsequently deleted :) Rogerthat Talk 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 11% for major edits and 29% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 04:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Rogerthat's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Okay, so what's the big deal, here? I'll try to go through some of it. First up, using edit summaries is a Very Good Idea: it helps other users gauge your intentions, and oftentimes will give enough information on what you're doing to an article that no other user (say, someone with an article on their watchlist) will have to review it. It's common courtesy to use them; I would not oppose someone for lack of edit summaries, but there are several people who consider it rude not to use them (I don't see the necessity of Mathbot counting them, but evidently at least one person does). Your response on this RfA — and, fairly or not, that of your supporters — is going to get a few people upset with you. This is for two reasons: firstly, the whole political thing of not being rude to people whose support you want; and secondly, because admins are expected to keep their cool under fire (and trust me, there is a lot of fire), and being unable to do so on an RfA is a Bad Sign. Not everyone will know about the excellent work you've put in elsewhere on Wikipedia, and first impressions are important. Finally, the whole janitorial tasks thing: I don't personally believe that every admin has to be a you-beaut vandalism-fighting machine; adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and if an admin can make use of the tools in some way and won't abuse them, then that's good enough. However, many people here on RfA expect admins to be primarily vandalism-fighters, and will support or oppose based on their perception of your willingness to do that. That's nothing personal, it's just the way things work. I hope this helps some. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, people don't expect admins to become primarily maintenance workers, at the cost of contributing in their field of knowledge, it's just that powerful tools will bring more damage if used incorrectly - which begs the question: Why leave the dangerous tools lying around if they aren't being used? I think most people want some evidence of maintenance work which would justify the need for this - not an indication that they expect Rogerthat to stop expanding the realms of wikiknowledge/ that writers aren't appreciated. I am 100+% confident that Rogerthat's lack of maintenance work would not raise concerns about him wielding greater powers, but this may set a precedent where more abrasive/ political POV/edit-warring admin candidate would then expect powers that they do not require in their day-to-day activity, and could abuse for their own biased uses.Blnguyen 06:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that while my comments on here regarding deletionists may come across as abrasive, my efforts during discussion of the editing of pages have been more balanced and well considered. Rogerthat Talk 06:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Comment. I stumbled across this other AfD which is quite shocking(personal attacks). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20 to 1: One Hit Wonders.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:01, 20 February 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would help with image deletions and notifying users properly on the implications of copyright. Many users have been "scared off" the site due to what they see when they find an image copyright problem, but my explanations have saved a couple of users. I would also assist in vandalism, which I have seen many instances of, however many times other admins see poorly constructed incorrectly as vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I believe in my short time here (I joined in late October, 2005) that I have really helped contribute to weaker areas of the encyclopedia. Compared to many users of Wikipedia who are concerned with fixing minor spelling mistakes and receive their 10,000 edits that way, I have gone to many proactive lengths to really add information of substance on this site. When I came to this site in October I was surprised there was no article on The Mick Molloy Show, so I promptly created it, and since then I have been documenting the glaring omissions of famous people in particular that do not have articles. While I have created simple stub articles, many have been expanded into quality articles due to the input of others (see Dermott Brereton, Malcolm Blight).
My proudest achievement however would be the entire, single-handed set up of WikiProject AFL. Initially there was a handful of articles on AFL players, but now the number is approaching 1,000 (not to mention all the other categorising and various other articles I've created) - a large % of which I have written. WikiProject AFL has now grown to 35 members, and would have no members if it wasn't for my recruiting to other Wikipedians with an interest in the sport. This displays my organisational skills and my ability to bring together a community.
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. Yes. Recently I have been involved in the discussions concerning the internet phenomenon Lee Hotti, in which the article, which was entirely noteworthy, was deleted. Many came to back me up on my willingness to keep the article and request a cleanup, but ultimately the stronghold of a handful of deletionists meant that the many new users who protested did not have a voice. Another situation was in the deletion of the 20 to 1: One Hit Wonders article. Fortunately, due to my work on this article sanity prevailed in the candidate for deletion, and the article was rightly kept. Before something is deleted, proper research on the article's notability should be conducted, instead of hastily deleting things. I can understand obvious vandalism being deleted, but one thing I will lobby for is the protection of noteworthy articles from deletion. Being from Australia, I can provide the information on determining an article's notability, whereas I find various overseas admins are very ill-informed.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. Articles such as Lee Hotti can be deleted not due to their lack of notability, but due to the fact they are poorly written. If the user was keen to have their article reinstated, I would ask them to properly address the irregularities and propose a re-write of the article. If the re-write was seen to be of a higher quality, then consideration would be given to having it re-instated.
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would add the deleted information to the discussion page, where other users can tell me their thoughts on adding it to the article. Whatever consensus was reached, I would consider.
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would attempt to analyse the external link and add more meaningful content to the stub article, and calmly explain to the user that he/she should add more depth to the article if he wishes for it to remain. I'm all for adding things to the 'pedia, and would ask him to consider that his article perhaps wasn't up to scratch - and from the expansion I would have done, would have asked them to take my modifications and advice on board.
The above 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.