Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TwinsMetsFan

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] TwinsMetsFan

Final (53/4/3); Ended Wed, 2 May 2007 20:42:50 UTC

TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs) - TwinsMetsFan has made many important contributions to road related articles, and is one of the three main Users in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, Along with User:Rschen7754 and User:Vishwin60. Bernstein2291 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: Clearing any backlogs, including but not limited to WP:CSDs and other items in Category:Administrative backlog. I can also extend my assistance to Requested moves.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Road articles, particularly those related to New York. The reason I place these in high regard is, one, it is the state I live in, and two, it was a long, drawn-out process to bring each article up to standards, a process that is still ongoing today.
One article that I take pride in, and also one that I helped start, is U.S. Route 9 in New York. After I laid the groundwork for the article, other users came in and added to the quality of the article, making it one of the best road-related articles produced in New York.
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: There have been some scattered conflicts, most due to a small misunderstanding and usually resolved fairly quickly. One major conflict was WP:SRNC, which was a large naming conventions poll involving some 100 editors and designed to end move warring that was taking place in numerous states. However, this conflict was resolved by the community at-large.
In the future, I plan on dealing with conflicts in much the same way; that is, in a cool, level-headed manner, with discussion rather than pure reversion.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: One should ignore a rule if the rule prevents others from improving the project (that is, Wikipedia). Take WP:SRNC as an example. Pure consensus was never really achieved, as evidenced by the close final margin in part one of the poll. However, to improve the wiki and to put an end to the numerous move wars that had been occurring up to that point, it was decided to bypass consensus (ignoring the rule) and to treat the simple majority as consensus in an attempt to make progress.
IAR should not be blindly applied. An example is that, let's say, a template that I believe is useful and improves Wikipedia is up for deletion. However, the vast majority of editors believe that the template is not useful. Would I invoke IAR and close the TFD as keep, just because I believe that the template contributes to Wikipedia? No, as consensus is clearly and overwhelmingly pointing to delete.
To close, rules are made for a reason, and should only be ignored when there is a valid reason to do so. The example I gave above regarding SRNC is one (as it shifted focus from something trivial like the article name to improving the articles, which is where the focus should be). The hypothetical TFD example is not a valid reason to IAR.
Feel free to ask me to elaborate on this issue, as I realize that the examples above may be a bit vague to some.
Questions from Polaron (feel free to ignore)
5. In response to an anonymous user's persistent vandalism, what, in your opinion, is the most effective response: just keep reverting (no warnings), revert and leave warnings then block if he/she still continues, semiprotection of the page, or some other action? Why?
A: Based on personal experience that I've had with anon vandals, the most effective response is to revert, go through the user warning ladder ("uw-test", switching to "uw-vandal" when appropriate), and then, when the vandalism reaches a blockable point, block the IP address. If the vandalism continues from another IP, I would then turn to WP:RFPP for a second opinion on the situation.
The reason that I would go this way and in this order is that leaving warnings on the IP talk page to start with gives the anon the opportunity to cease vandalizing and to contribute productively to the encyclopedia. If the anon keeps vandalizing after the warning, then it would be clear to me that the anon is not here to improve the encyclopedia and that the blocking of the anon from editing would be beneficial to the wiki. As for RFPP, the reason that I would ask for a second opinion is that if I protected a page that I was continually reverting for vandalism, it would give the impression that I am supporting the pre-vandalized version. Yes, I know this example would be more applicable in content disputes, but my personal policy would remain the same nonetheless. Having the page protected by someone not involved with the article guarantees that there is no bias toward the version being protected.
6. In AFDs or RMs, how much would you value comments that only say "Delete per nom" or "Move per nom" without giving additional reasons? If one side has a very strong argument but is overwhelmed by the number of "votes" on the other side mainly composed of such "per nom" votes, under what circumstances would you ignore counting "votes"?
A: Not very, as unless the nominator outlined every potential reason for deleting the article, there is almost always something more that can be said. Simple "per nom" comments sometimes imply votestacking and, while often more than enough for TFDs dealing with deprecated templates, are not nearly sufficient for a discussion regarding the deletion or moving of an article, especially if the deletion/move is fairly controversial. So, to sum it up, I would definitely value elaborate comments with detailed rationale much more than simple "per nom" comments.
I think the second part of that question got touched on in the end of the above paragraph (oops). I would consider ignoring counting votes if it is apparent that spamming or votestacking is occurring, such as heavy participation by anon editors, or if the "per nom" voters do not elaborate on their comments after they will be surely questioned to do so by the side who has the strong argument.
I know that this second issue is often a touchy subject, and there is no conceivable way to give a single answer that would cover every possible situation. However, I can expand on my thoughts if requested.
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: If I see this occurring on an article, or if I hear that this is occurring on an article, I will fully enforce this policy and block editors who attempt to circumvent this policy. From the perspective of the person whose article is being vandalized, I certainly wouldn't want slander being placed on my article.
As far as how I will enforce the policy, I will give warnings initially and block if it becomes clear that the user's sole purpose is to vandalize the aforementioned article.

Optional Questions from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

8. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, especially for an administrator, and if so, how would you go about in applying this guideline?--U.S.A. cubed 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Assuming good faith is important, as trusting that editors are improving the encyclopedia with their additions is the only way that the wiki will improve. Personally, I believe good faith should always be assumed unless the editor has explicitly shown that their edits are not made in good faith. For an administrator, this is even more important for many reasons, including the rollback feature and the power to block editors. If AGF is not followed, then an editor with good intentions but poor writing form could have their potentially productive edits reverted and, if not enough patience is given, the editor could be blocked, creating ill will in the mind of the editor.
I would apply this guideline as I described above; that is to AGF unless there is a clear reason not to. I will also attempt to give potentially productive editors the benefit of the doubt, preventing a situation like the one described in the last sentence of the above paragraph.
General comments
  • See TwinsMetsFan's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Is there any reason why this spammed as a faux "you have messages" box on User talk:Vishwin60? Is it spammed anywhere else? --kingboyk 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I have no idea why it's being spammed there. I did not place that message there, nor did I ask the editor(s, in case it's in multiple places without my knowledge) to place it there. For the record, I do not endorse these messages nor am I campaigning for votes. I believe that this RFA should be an honest assessment of my ability, and the potential for votestacking that these messages create could cause this assessment to become a bit cheapened, something that I hope doesn't happen. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you the answer, which is also the answer I had hoped you would give :) Cheers. --kingboyk 13:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TwinsMetsFan before commenting.

Discussion

  • Consensus not numbers: This is an intelligent and well thought-out nomination of a Wikipedian experienced in the often-contentious highways project. I'm particularly impressed by the way he has responded to questions. I propose that we promote this editor to sysop. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Troppus Looks like a good user. Particularly like answer to Q1 (backlogged areas). Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this user will do a good job. Funpika 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Looks good to me, good luck with your RfA. Adambro 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support -Will make a pretty fine Admin..--Cometstyles 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - interactions with this user through WP:USRD have always been positive. TMF is a good, hard-working user who always displays a thorough knowledge of policy and will make an excellent admin. —Scott5114↗ 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak support Looks good, but think about doing more administrative work, and please be more specific than "fill the admin backlogs". I haven't seen you doing much vandal work overall, and this troubles me (even though it isn't required, but strongly recommended). Also the fact that you don't seem to participate in XFDs much, and this troubles me as well. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Looks good to me, seems to have firm grasp on policy, excellent contributor. Arkyan • (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support. Excellent user, good work, good policy knowledge, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support No problems here. Acalamari 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support positive interactions with the candidate... helped me out by answering two questions I had about road articles. Would ask questions to again. A+++ --W.marsh 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Oh yeah. The edit count shows a year of experience and broad activity. Working in a WikiProject and general content contributions are also assets. As the saying goes, no big deal. YechielMan 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I agree with Vishwin that a more specific answer than "fix the backlogs" would be great. But this editor is probably the most level-headed editor at the U.S. Roads WikiProject – rarely if ever fails to keep cool. Any editor at USRD has experience at XFD, and he gives some of the better-reasoned arguments I've seen. And even if not, XFD is probably the smallest of all the admin responsibilities. This user deserves the mop if he wants it, and I was pleased to see him accept the nomination. -- NORTH talk 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Sounds okay and has a cool username. Yanksox 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good luck. --Shirahadasha 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support. TwinsMetsFan has a long history of good contributions, and I can find nothing that would indicate the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support: I see no issues with the user. Has the experience and seems civil. As stated above amd below a better answer than "fill the admin backlogs" would be nicer however the questions are optional and the contributions speak for themselves.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support: Fantastic editor. Is always insightful and willing to help and offer his opinions and solutions in a calm, cool manner. --MPD T / C 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Many good things and no bad things. Captain panda 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support. I see him all over the place. Great work, will be a superb admin. -Mschel 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Good fellow who I'm sure will only further help the project with some extra buttons (on a personal note, I also like the fact that he doesn't like the Yankees, hehe) gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support per responses and candidate's overall record. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support John254 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. A highly dedicated editor, who will undoubtedly put the tools to good use. Krimpet (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support no concerns here. Good user and candidate. —Anas talk? 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - a very conservative user, would not abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Terence 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - Succinct and to the point, I see nothing to suggest handing this user the flag would be bad for Wikipedia... so why not :-)? Good luck. Matthew 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - will make a fine admin. -- Pastordavid 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support seems alright.-- danntm T C 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per more than adequate experience and no meaningful concerns. Nothing wrong with short answers. Addhoc 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - keep on truckin'! The Transhumanist 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support, his contributions to USRD are incredible. I trust his as an admin as well. -- JA10 T · C 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per interactions in WP:SRNC. At least this RfA doesn't seem to have turned into a Highways Dispute Round 2: Losers' Revenge debacle like mine, to some extent, did. —210physicq (c) 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per above. I seem to have run out of witty comments ... sorry. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Good all-around editor. Jmlk17 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Excellent editor and has been very level-headed in all our interactions. While he lacks experience in actual vandal fighting and participation in AFDs etc., his answers to the questions above indicate sufficient knowledge of basic policy to be able to do the job of an admin. I would suggest you also try wading into contentious AFDs/RMs and/or mediation to gain a better feel for dispute resolution. --Polaron | Talk 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support A.Z. 06:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Seems reasonably clued up and there's no indication he'd abuse the tools. --kingboyk 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Fair and good editor.--Agha Nader 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Naconkantari 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Great roads editor, and lots of experience WP:SRNC Metallic95 User Page | Talk 14:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support let's go! Good luck... The Rambling Man 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support per nom, or answer to Q6. Khukri 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Switch to support Per an adequate answer.--U.S.A. cubed 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Seems like this editor will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. --dario vet (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. I support this excellent contributor, having seen him around for quite a while on various pages. I always assumed he already was one: I know he'll do fine. Jonathunder 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support-- Definitely a good editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, checks out for me.--Wizardman 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support very good editor.Shindo9Hikaru 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support We need admins who know how to write articles.--Simul8 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support TwinsMetsFan has been an asset to Wikipedia as an editor and I am confident that he will continue to be an asset as an admin. ~ BigrTex 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Large number of divisive and irrelevant userboxes on the candidate's userpage compel opposition. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    If you don't mind, could you clarify which userboxes do you consider divisive? I can't see any. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed. I have many more "divisive" userboxes on my userbox page, would you consider me a poor administrator? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    The divisive userboxes include, but are not limited to, the one declaring his sexual preference and the one declaring that he "despises" a sports team. The irrelevant ones, well, there are dozens of those. As to Rschen, if you want to know, resign your adminship, waive your right to reinstatement, and run again. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    In America, sports rivalries like that are quite common. Furthermore, everyone has a sexual preference- it's not divisive to share it with others. A userbox saying "GAYS ARE DUMB" or something like that is divisive, yes. But a simple statement of sexual preference is not. Furthermore, I'd wager that many administrators have many more userboxes that are more divisive than those that I or TMF have. If you are against the use of userboxes, then please start a WP:VPP discussion; this is not the place to garner support against userboxes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Your opinion has been noted. Have a nice day. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. —freak(talk) 23:51, Apr. 28, 2007 (UTC)
    Just curious but any reason in particular? Khukri 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    I suspect this has something to do with WP:SRNC. —210physicq (c) 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Opppose I have not seen strong evidence on assuming good faith in others. But, depending on the answer of the question of AGF, I may think otherwise. You may be on the right track with the answer to question 5, but I don't know how many warnings you will give, and more importantly, that you'll use a proper tone aswell, especially for newcomers.--U.S.A. cubed 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    So uh, you're assuming he won't assume good faith? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? --W.marsh 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    I also think that this comment of yours was not assuming good faith, either. I tried very hard to follow those directions on the RfA.--U.S.A. cubed 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Uh apparantly and all I said was that you needed to follow the directions that I was linking you to, which you did need to do. No assumption was made on my part. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this... --W.marsh 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe I did jump too soon to oppose, and you're right. I don't understand enough how the canadate will assume good faith, but I see no evidence how the canadate will not assume good faith. I'll switch to neutral for now.--U.S.A. cubed 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    I switched to support for an adequate answer.--U.S.A. cubed 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, just not convinced. ~ G1ggy! SPEAK! 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Sorry I am not at all into the "Kelly Martin" thing but I am perturbed in this case that one of the two people that are listed as part of your project group (in your nomination) does not even support your candidature - considering that you should do more pre-admin time. I have run across a couple of your edits and have no personal complaints but something doesn't sit right when 50% of your fellows do not support you at this time.--VS talk 08:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's a fault on the nominator in writing his nomination, not on the nominee. Myself, MPD, Polaron, and JA10 (support votes #11, 16, 32, and 36) are all also active members in WP:IH and/or WP:USRD (the parent project), and it's certainly possible I've missed a few. -- NORTH talk 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Looks good, but think about doing more administrative work, and please be more specific than "fill the admin backlogs". I haven't seen you doing much vandal work overall, and this troubles me (even though it isn't required, but strongly recommended). Also the fact that you don't seem to participate in XFDs much, and this troubles me as well. To other users: please look at his contribs carefully before voicing. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm sorry, but your nominator advertising your RfA on his userpage makes it hard to support. I hate to change my opinion because of something someone else did... -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    And I hate to see you changing your opinion for this reason. The notice of the RfA, which was not even placed by the candidate, is tasteful and neutrally worded. I find this rationale for withdrawing support from a candidate to be totally unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    I still don't like advertising RfAs at all, but this doesn't even persuade me now that you've said that. I'll make a proper evaluation tomorrow. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    --U.S.A. cubed 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral You need a little more time on Wiki, but you seem to have what it takes. just give it some more time.The juggsd86 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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.