Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trebor Rowntree

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] Trebor Rowntree

Final (59/4/0); Ended 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I started editing in April 2006 and now have over 3000 edits. I have tried to contribute widely and get experience in many different areas, and think and hope I have developed a fairly thorough understanding of policies and guidelines. I think with the tools I could be an asset to Wikipedia, and will welcome any comments about how I can improve. Thanks. Trebor 00:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, self-nom. Trebor 01:03, 20 February 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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate helping with a variety of chores, but aim to start slowly with non-controversial issues. I would help with deletions: reviewing and dealing with articles in CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD, and closing discussions in AfD. I would deal with requests on WP:AIV, which I feel can always do with another pair of eyes, and on WP:RFPP, as well as reviewing pages that have been protected for a while to see if it is still warranted.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the greatest article writer, but I was pleased with GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies, both of which I got up to GA/A class standards (in the process learning how to reference properly). More recently, I've been keeping a close eye on Anna Nicole Smith (after I saw it was one of the most highly-visited articles this month), trying to keep the references as tidy and accurate as possible, and make sure new developments are cited and phrased neutrally. I have been heavily involved with reviewing, in peer review, FAC and FAR, and find it very satisfying to work with other editors to improve articles. I'm also pleased with my contributions to the help desk; while generally simple, it feels good to be helping other editors.
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: Outside of a few displeased vandals, I don't think I have been. I deplore ad hominem arguments and strongly support the no personal attacks policy, and so always try to argue on the merits of the issue at hand. We are all working towards a common goal, so while I may disagree with people, it's not worth getting stressed over.
Optional question by Dgies
4. Ral315 has made the very serious charge that you may be a sockpuppet of ForestH2. While I am not familiar enough with this dispute to say if you are or are not a sockpuppet, would you be willing to consent to a checkuser to see if the IP(s) you edit from correlate with ForestH2 or his sockpuppets? —Dgiest c 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Issue resolved. —Dgiest c 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This question appears to be moot. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

5. What do policies of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean and how would you apply them?
A: I see WP:IAR as a safety net in case our self-written policies have left us in a situation where obeying them would detract from the encyclopaedia. But I think it should be used consciously (so you are deliberately deciding to ignore a rule) and with reasonable consensus on the issue. I view WP:SNOW as a dangerous essay if used wrongly, and can't think of a situation where I would use it to close a discussion (speedy keeps have their own guidelines).
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: Put bluntly: no. They should be purely preventative, and help stop disruption to the encyclopaedia.
7. What is one exception to the three-revert rule?
A: One exception is when removing unsourced controversial information in biographies of living persons. This is important, so that damaging or potentially libellous information is not left in articles. Trebor 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support, based on edit count and experiance. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. While I appreciate the sincerity of Ral315's sockpuppetry investigation, and one must never underestimate the ingenuity of those who wish to maintain multiple accounts, I find the evidence of sockpuppetry that has been offered here to be less than completely convincing. Although User:Trebor Rowntree began editing on April 14, 2006, his account was actually created in October 2005, several months before ForestH2 and some of his confirmed socks (although the fact that the accounts both started editing on April 14, 2006 is noted). ForestH2 appears to have potentially been a younger editor; his article contributions are heavily weighted in the direction of SpongeBob SquarePants and Harry Potter, and in his attempt to maintain multiple accounts he made lots of elementary mistakes, such as signing one username instead of the other, which Trebor Rowntree shows no evidence of doing. ForestH2's command of English was questioned at least once; Trebor Rowntree is evidently a fluent English speaker. His old userpage (before being redirected to his talkpage) stated that he was (then) a "part-time Wikipedian" (hence lower edit counts in those months) resident in the United Kingdom. Although I hesitate to mention it, it appears that "Trebor Rowntree" may be the user's real name, and that there is someone named Trebor Rowntree living in Britain; a Google search for hits on "Trebor Rowntree" outside Wikipedia reveals a contribution by an individual of this name to a BBC site. Perhaps I will be revealed as naive and assuming good faith to a fault, but on the record before us to this point, I am not persuaded.
    Putting aside the sockpuppet allegation for the moment, on the merits of this account I find dedication to the project and sufficient activity in all namespaces as well as a dedication to policy and principle. A profound disagreement I had with the candidate's views in a controversial ANI thread over this past weekend tells me that this is a person who, even with his RfA approaching, was not afraid to stand up for principles as he saw them. I hope there can be a definitive resolution to the accusation that has been made so that this RfA can be unsullied by suspicion and concern. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Important addendum: The prior checkuser case reflects that ForestH2 was editing via RoadRunner. I am not an expert on reading WHOIS results but If I understand this correctly, it appears the user was located in California, though RoadRunner's headquarters is given as Virginia. Checkuser should be able to determine readily whether Trebor Rowntree is editing from the United States or the United Kingdom. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Checkuser result. Newyorkbrad 04:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Take a look at the history page of previous edits. A previous comment I had made was deleted and no edit summary suggested this. Also, the user, Carpet9, a sockpuppet of ForestH2 has made an edit to this RfA. I believe that Carpet9 deleted it because ForestH2 controlled him. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Your comment has simply been moved to the talk page of this RfA, along with the rest of the threaded discussion it was part of. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oops. You are right. However, if you will look on the history of edits, you will see that User:Carpet9 has edited this without providing a edit summary. (That user is suspected of being a sockpuppet) Captain panda In vino veritas 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support pending further investigation. Newyorkbrad has put it very nicely. Sock allegations aside, I support you because you seem like a good user and you pass my criteria. Allegations included, I find the evidence and counter-evidence presented at this time to be unconvincing of a link between you and ForestH2, but I will continue to watch the matter develop and may reconsider. Until then, I wish you the best. Dar-Ape 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Investigation completed, full support. Dar-Ape 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Socks have been disproved, we're on cruise control now :P. Yuser31415 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Trebor has been consistently reasonable, constructive, and articulate in peer reviews and FAC, and invests time in helping the author resolve problems. I'm surprised at the sockpuppet thing, as Trebor could write circles around any of ForestH2's incarnations. Opabinia regalis 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The dust has settled support - good editor. The Rambling Man 08:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Herpes support ViridaeTalk 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support dedicated and excellent user, qualified for the tools. - Anas Talk? 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. I have never known Trebor to be anything other than an exemplary Wikipedian and receiving the tools would only make him a greater asset to Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Carpet 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support good user. --Tone 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per how he handled the incident with Ral315's accusation. Just Heditor review 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think he slept through it. :) Newyorkbrad 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly :-) Just Heditor review 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, per Brad et al. Proto ► 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support A fine editor, I was considering nominating this user. Nishkid64 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Michael Snow 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Certainly capable. PigmanTalk to me 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I guess if you aren't a sockpuppet, then I will support you. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support good user, and with sockpuppet allegations retracted I see no reason not to support. James086Talk 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - as above, enduring the unpleasantness last night proves he can handle anything. ;) --BigDT 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Hell yes. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Glad you were able to get through what could have been an unpleasant situation. — MichaelLinnear 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support seems fine to me. You handeled that sockpuppet situation well. Darthgriz98 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Stong Support an excellent Wikipedian, very helpful editor and useful contributor who handles himself well in the face of conflict! Mike Searson 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support -- Tawker 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. PeaceNT 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support BJTalk 09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Reasonable answers to the questions. Haukur 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support you took the sockpuppet allegations well, and you seem like a well-rounded contributor who will only be of benefit with admin tools. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. All evidence suggests that he is level-headed and will not abuse the tools. My encounters with him suggest that he cares about process and will not be a corner-cutter. Bucketsofg 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Excellent work in reviewing, no reason to suspect he's going to go mad with the tools. Yomanganitalk 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support good work, and hand the stress of sock allegations well.-- danntm T C 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support A fine editor to Wikipedia, I once asked a question on the help desk and this user provided detailed and helpful answers, although I could not fix this problem, his effort and quick reply proved to me that he cares not just about editing but generally to Wikipedia and its community, Good luck!! TellyaddictEditor review! 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. I've encountered Trebor at FAC. Very impressive contributions there, showing advanced knowledge of editing principles and producing genuine improvements in the articles he reviews.qp10qp 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong support per his dedication in reviewing featured articles. Addhoc 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Excellent, very fair-minded candidate. Xoloz 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Level headed user with excellent contributions. John Reaves (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent contributor. Impressive contributions to FAC and PR. Gzkn 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:15Z
  44. Support Seems good all round. Bubba hotep 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Sockpuppet Support Answer to question #5 is good. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. No big deals -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, looks good to me. --Conti|✉ 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support-Seems okay. Have seen the user before.--TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Seems like a level-headed editor. --Folantin 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Have always found Trebor to be a reasoned and intelligent editor. A safe pair of hands. Ceoil 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support- Excellent. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)23:19, Saturday, 24 February '07
  52. Support John254 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support anybody who monopolises my watchlist this frequently... :) – riana_dzasta 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support we need more users like this guy --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  55. Weak support. I find the comments by Hipocrite, Peter Dodge, and Chaz Beckett to overstate the case somewhat, but they do have some validity, and I've observed similarly un-bold behaviour elsewhere. However, I believe TR has the best interests of the project at heart, and that those interests would be served by giving him sysop rights. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support A bolder admin might do more good stuff, but Trevors actions will be good. Which is better, 10 good administrative actions a day or zero? For me the answer is obvious. Though I do think Trevor should be more willing to delete things after Prod has run - they should be overturned immediately upon request by anyone, so the cost of holding AFDs is greater than the benefit of bumping them there if the only flaw is failure to notify the articles main editors. GRBerry 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Anyone with a namee like that deserves to be an admin :-) Seriously, looks good. --R613vlu 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support per nom. —SaxTeacher (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support per nom and after reviewing the oppose comments below. (If anything, I think a focus on process is especially important for new admins and I appreciate Trebor's cautious nature.) --A. B. (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose vote removed; a checkuser request has proven that I was mistaken. Ral315 » 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I have found my proof of sockpuppetry and I must oppose this threat to Wikipedia. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) apparently I am wrong. changed vote to support Captain panda In vino veritas 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you reconsider this and apologize to Trebor, as checkuser has disproved the sockpuppet allegations. Additionally, I'm keen on an explanation for this apparently unfounded bad faith assumption, on the talk page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have provided both on the article talk page. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tentative oppose per Ral315, pending further discussion and a possible Checkuser? – Chacor 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Glad it's cleared up. – Chacor 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I do not trust this user to apply WP:IAR correctly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but may I ask why? Trebor 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Of course. The statement you endorsed here includes the statement "I believe it was closed early and incorrectly." I will not support any administrator who believes that fruitless debate over foregone conclusions is a good thing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Okay. Just in case people hadn't spotted my other comments on it, that was purely to do with the debate being open only 11 hours. I think, to be fair to users from certain timezones and with busy jobs, that 24 hours should be the minimum for discussions. But thank you for your response; I can see where you're coming from. Trebor 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose • I have serious concerns that this user does not have an accurate handle on what consensus making entails and how to determine consensus, which is a large and exceedingly important part of adminship. They also seem to need to understand the importance of snow and Ignore all Rules to the project. To put it in a decidedly blunt manner: The last thing the project needs is a process wank. Let alone an administrator that is a process wank. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I find Hipocrite's and Peter M Dodge's points to be well-founded. Ral315 » 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I agree with the above comments. Trebor seems to put too much weight on process and not quite enough on product. ChazBeckett 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    My saying that was because half the people were focusing on content and the other half on the process of the closure (the latter being the standard topic to discuss on DRV). I thought it fairly fruitless to have two different debates, so suggested making it explicit what this was about. Perhaps in response to my comment (perhaps not, I can't be sure), a note was added at the top to frame the discussion. In response to comments about WP:SNOW, the snowball close of the DRV and resulting furore (taken to AfD, then moved back, then reopened the DRV) make me more certain of my views on that (and the discussion is no longer anyway near a snowball situation). So while I respect your right to disagree, I still stand by everything I said. Regards. Trebor 21:58, 23 February 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.