Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoM

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] SoM

final (26/19/2) ending 14:16 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SoM (talk · contribs) – SoM is a very good contributor to wikiproject comics and in all my dealings with the user I have found SoM to always seek consensus and respect it even when disagreeing with it. SoM has a high user count, what I believe to be a strong understanding of the many processes involved, and I think will use the tools responsibly and be a valuable addition to the 'pedia in an admin role. SoM has been a contributor since June 2004, has 9243 edits, with 6275 in article space and the rest well balanced in the other spacenames. SoM performs particularly strong work checking images are properly sourced and are fair use. Hiding talk 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. And since the question's come up, I'm a guy :)- SoM 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support -- unlikely to abuse admin powers. -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 14:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support as nominator. Hiding talk 14:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support for "inbuilt hatred of IAR". Impressive wiki-career, admirable nominator. Xoloz 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Based on the fact I see no real strong evidence to disallow his adminship. Moe ε 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Moe and nominee's long edit history. --Aaron 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support A year and half and over nine thousand edits on Wikipedia... of course. joturner 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. KHM03 00:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, well-rounded, thoughtful, dedicated editor. His answers to the questions have also impressed me. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support Unique amazing editor, will be a great addition to administration.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 05:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support The type of user meant to be an admin Juppiter 07:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support dedicated Wikipedian, although please remember edit summaries even for minor edits. Essexmutant 12:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, I see no major problems. Most of the oppose votes seem to be about one single incident. JIP | Talk 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. I've always been impressed by SoM's editing and his ability to deal with the conflicts that frequently occur in the comic/superhero articles. --NormanEinstein 14:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per JIP. -- Siva1979Talk to me 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. The "inbuilt hatred for WP:IAR" does bother me and I disagree very much with that stand. I have however no reason to believe that the candidate won't be able to function as a responsible admin because of this personal opinion. --Bjarki 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support seems to be a great editor.  Grue  18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Been thinking about this one. Decided to support. --TantalumTelluride 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Won't abuse admin powers, most people who may seem "controversial" don't. DaGizzaChat © 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Mjal 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support SoM has been a great asset to WP:COMIC and would be an even better asset to Wikipedia as a whole.--Toffile 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per Tvaughn, KHM, Phaedrial, etc.  IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. As I was walking on the pavement today, February the 25th, in a flash of blinding colour as if of burning petrol, the idea came to do so. David | Talk 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's clever, but "February the 25th" should be changed to "25 February." —David Levy 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. I don't think the 3RR is a problem. Sometimes you have just got to stick to a cause. You've got my support. Thistheman 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) * How can you say that. How is he supposed to enforce the rules when he doesn't adhere to them himself? Dstorres
  26. Support. Problems seem minor. Looks like he could do a good job helping out. Haukur 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Someone who hurls unfounded accusations of "very, very bad faith" ("at best") and attempts to wiki-lawyer around common sense, purely to force the use of a term from his variety of English, is likely to abuse admin powers. —David Levy 14:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have an inbuilt hatred of WP:IAR (See also my response to Johnleemk below on that). At the end of the day, I would (and did) abide by consensus, but the point of WP:RM's existance is to alert people to move requests, and trying to cut the notification period on that page to two days in a contentious move (of ANY kind, not just a UK/Int Eng vs. US Eng situation) is a Very Very Bad example IMO. - SoM 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    Further responses moved to talk page - SoM 15:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Having an inbuilt hatred of WP:IAR shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, or is supposed to work, that I feel would not be appropriate for an admin. Even though, yes, it should be petrol, not dowdy old "gasoline". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per fuddlemark. The candidate seems to have an unhealthy attraction to "process". Physchim62 (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, WP:NOT an anarchy. Some of the WP processes need reform (AFD being the most oft-quoted example), but that's different from saying we don't need processes. To use the example that sparked this above, I think people should be able to stay informed of discussions relating to move discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and that they should be able to do so by looking twice a week rather than having to look every day in case someone cuts a contentious move discussion, where it's appeared and disappeared from WP:RM between their twice-weekly visits. - SoM 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    (See also #respJLM my response to Johnleemk below) - SoM 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Lack of talk archives make it difficult to evaluate history, but the parts highlighted on this page and rather biting edit sums like this recent one lead me to reluctantly oppose. Jonathunder 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Trite as it is, "honesty is the best policy". As I've found out in the past, using "weasel words" sometimes causes an argument to be more prolonged than simply stating a fact. I'm forced to agree, however, that that particular edit summary is too aggressive in tone, but in my own defence, if you look through my contributions it is very much the exception rather than the rule for me nowadays. - SoM 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. An inbuilt hatred of IAR? Wikipedia is about breaking the rules (including the rule that says "break the rules", ironically), not hewing blindly to them. A healthy respect for both IAR and process is a main criteria of mine for any admin; ignoring one or the other without good cause is a major cause for concern. Johnleemk | Talk 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    There's a difference between "ignor[ing] all rules" and "hewing blindly to them." I find that IAR tends to be invoked in controversies, and tends to inflame more than calm the situation. Working within the rules where you can, and allowing that there will be situations not allowed for in the rules where you can't, is better than simply doing what you feel like and hoping others agree. - SoM 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    There is a big disconnect between hating abuse of IAR and hating IAR. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    There is, however, no reason for a page titled "Ignore all rules," to exist. I have no problem with the similar-in-sentiment Wikipedia:Use common sense, which renders the IAR page redundant for all but it's inflamatory title - SoM 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Then we have to agree to disagree. I find IAR and its corollary WP:SNOW very useful when deciding what to do next. IAR is meant to avoid policy wonking, not lead to wheel wars, and so as far as I'm concerned, it's useful. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I realise that deleting comments off your talk page is not against policy, but I still strongly dislike the practice. As you can see on my RfA criteria I see talk pages as a very important factor to take into account on RfA's. Also while I appreciate you said you wouldn't repeat the "very, very bad faith" comment, I am concerned by the much more recent edit summary brought up by Jonathunder. Talking about edit summaries, they are important for all edits, minor or major. My oppose is based on a combination of these factors, not any individual one. Petros471 10:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    As far as the talk page goes, I don't feel an archive is necessary as long as the earlier comments are preserved in history (and, with the exception of the Mais oui incident I mention in my answer to Q3, where I was desperately trying to get out of the mess, I only delete comments in large chunks, rather than after every conversation, so it's possible to see most of my talk page history through a few key revisions - [1], [2], [3] and the current User talk:SoM, and if I hit "move page", that would break any difflinks. And I make sure to keep the "minor edit" checkbox for genuinely small edits (I notice that your criteria include reverts as "minor," oddly. I've always thought of reverts as major), and I've been lax about putting edit summaries for them as a result. Something to bear in mind tho! :) - SoM 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    As this isn't the place for discussing this, I won't go into my full reasoning here as to why I think talk pages should be archived. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you want me to. To reply to your other points though- Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page suggests you copy and past posts into archive subpages (if you are using the subpage method). You don't use page move, and therefore you don't break the history/diff links etc. For minor edits sp for spelling or similar is all that is needed. As for minor edits on reverts the reasoning that the vandalism + revert = no change = minor edit, and therefore shouldn't appear to people only looking for major edits (similar to the reason given here about the admin rollback). People watching an article closely can see from my edit summary that I've reverted vandalism (rvv). If I've reverted something other than vandalism (or patent nonsense) I do try and make sure minor edit is not selected and put a fuller edit summary. Hope that helps explain things, feel free ask any more questions. Petros471 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose–has an inbuilt hatred of WP:IAR. Bratschetalk 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose– Is an unprofessional editor. On numerous occasions has reverted images that he doesn't like. (reference 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolverine_%28comics%29/Archive_3#Which_image_do_you_prefer.3F) & (reference 2: Carol Danvers History: I'm with Lesfer on this one. The Turner image is... abstractly... posed and hides her feet. And, if we're going by "current depictions", de la Torre is the ongoing artist, not Turner. - SoM 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)).Dstorres
    Oh! Until you posted this, I didn't realize that the aforementioned 3RR block was by handled by me. (I only remembered SoM from the Gasoline/Petrol debate). —David Levy 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. ^Strong Oppose, candidate frequently reverts changes to high-use templates to further the promotion of his pet wikiproject in an unabashed, spam-like manner ([4], [5]) sometimes with intentionally deceptive edit summaries ([6], [7]). I am also unsettled by some, but not all, of the other objections raised above. — Feb. 21, '06 [07:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    (changed to strong oppose upon learning of the behavior described below by David Levy.) — Feb. 26, '06 [08:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  10. Oppose. A lack of understanding of the importance of the name of WP:IAR and the important role it plays in showing policy obsession for the sillyness that it is is a strong signal that the applicant fails to understand the fine nuance of Wikipedia policy. The insulting edit summary in some of his fairly recent edits (200512291447 for example) also bothers me. --Gmaxwell 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, blocked within the last two months for breaking rules against reverting thrice. Thumbelina 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, for someone with such a hatred of ignoring all rules, he certainly seems to have broken a few. Night Gyr 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per freakofnurture. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I'm not 100% about this, as you seem like a good editor. I'm indifferent to your opposition to IAR, it's been abused a lot even if the concept is still sound. But the 3RR violation is still recent, and the revert immediately after being unblocked was a bad idea. Looking through your contributions I don't see much need for sysop powers with what you're doing at the moment, as your answer to Q1 implies. Leithp 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose sorry, I'm concerned about your behavior regarding the 3RR block and the insertion under deceptive edit summaries of a plug for your wikiproject.--Alhutch 06:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I find the 3RR behaviour troubling. Elf-friend 07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I am definately bothered by the 3RR behaviour as well as the edit summary given during edit wars. One main things I am looking for in admin canidates is someone who can explain his actions in a educational manner rather than adversarial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs)
  18. Oppose Rob Church (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, evidence to suggest admin powers would be misused. haz (user talk)e 20:53, 26 February 2006

Neutral

  • Awaiting answer to question below. Leithp 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'll review my vote when I get the time to have a more detailed look through you contributions. Leithp 11:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral good editing, but concerns about user page and process understaning. pschemp | talk 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Maturity doubts. Mukadderat 11:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 85% for major edits and 42% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 14:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See SoM's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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'd expect to start slow, and dip my toes in the water before diving in the deep end, as it were. Beyond that, I'd hope to avoid becoming bogged down in any one area of process, but instead help out where an extra admin was needed at the time, or whatever I ran across in normal editing, and avoid becoming seen as an "AFD admin," a "3RR admin," etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm too much of a perfectionist to be really pleased at the articles I've written. A few small things maybe, like doing most of the initial sorting of comics-stub into the three original subordinate stubs, but
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. Anyone who says they never get stressed is a saint, a liar or seriously insane :)
In the interests of disclosure, there is one incident I didn't enjoy at all, where I tried to ask Mais Oui to calm down, having seen his generally agressive attitude, got a return message saying I personally attacked him and had trouble extracating myself from the resulting mess, which can be seen in the history of both talk pages and nearly, although I didn't say so, caused me to take an extended WikiBreak, and I regret ever starting that mess now now.
Other than that, I've generally dealt with stress decently on WP, with a couple of short WikiBreaks here and there (only the last one labelled as such) where I've felt it getting out of hand rather than continuing the stress cycle.
4. I notice that you don't keep an archive of your talk page. This isn't a criticism, since it's a personal preference but unfortunately it makes it quite difficult to track your previous interactions with other users. Also, you were been blocked for a 3RR violation back in December, but you don't mention this in your answer to the question about conflicts. What were the circumstances around that block? Leithp 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That block was around the use of an image in the infobox of the page - someone else was pushing to replace it with a more smoothly scanned but more abstract/poorly drawn image. It was eventually resolved reasonably amicably when I pulled out the issue, which initially I hadn't been sure I still had, since I often borrow comics to scan images, and rescanned the original image. - SoM 19:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that I was the blocking admin. Your edit summaries (especially the fourth one) were rather troubling:
  • Reversion #1: "NO Khary Randolph images. None. Not at all."
  • Reversion #2: "A six-year old with crayons could redraw NM12 & 13 and it would still be better than KR's versions"
  • Reversion #3: "No, you find one. The Randolph pic is better only IYO"
  • Reversion #4: "And, much as I hate to say it, 'I was here first'"
"I was here first" is not a reasonable attitude for any Wikipedia editor, let alone an admin. And what did you do three minutes after your 24-hour block expired? You reverted again. —David Levy 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it fair to get SoM on a technicality; if the picture was really that bad, it is only fair to revert. Frankly, I think the block that you put because of 3RR is slightly unnecessary. Thistheman 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What technicality? This was a heated content dispute—precisely the type of situation to which the 3RR is intended to be applied. The picture was "bad" in SoM's opinion (because he dislikes its artist's style), but another user preferred it. The 3RR isn't about taking sides; it's about halting edit wars. SoM had recently reported someone else's 3RR violation, so he certainly knew better than to violate the rule himself. His "I was here first" rationale (which implied ownership of the article) was patently inappropriate. —David Levy 22:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That was in direct response to previous comments of the user elsewhere. And I had a migrane at the time, and got angry. I do know the 3RR and usually catch myself for that reason. - SoM 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

5. 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. Point the user towards Wikipedia:Deletion Review, as the proper forum to discuss such matters.
6. 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. My gut instinct would be to revert, and leave a note on the anon's talk page & the article talk page to please explain before removing the stuff again; although the exact course of action would depend on the specific section removed, and if it looks like straight libel, I would still drop notes but not revert myself.
7. 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 speedy it again as G4, temporarily protect the page to avoid a creation/deletion war, and leave a note on the user's talk page, explaining and asking him/her to calm down. If s/he continued to leave rude messages and/or try to recreate the page under a slightly different title, I would leave a note at WP:AN/I, asking for further advice and possibly for someone else to block the user.
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.