Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/monotonehell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] monotonehell

(29/6/3); final Andre (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

monotonehell (talk · contribs) - Self nom. - I've been involved for a long time in parts of Main Page which are protected. It would be advantageous to be able to carry out maintenance without needing to bother admins. Other than that I'm a self admitted WP:GNOME in both article-space and Wikipedia's 'backrooms'. Occasionally lack of adminship is a barrier to this activity. Adminship would be an extension of my current activities. Monotonehell 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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 do you intend to take part in?
A: General maintenance to keep the project running smoothly. Extension of my involvement with Template:In the news to help with more regular updating. Whatever problems I come across in my extensive wanderings around the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Contributions to Age of consent and its associated pages. Along with others we've taken those pages from unreferenced hearsay to something approaching a GA (a work still in progress). Helping new users on Talk:Main page finding resources and information they seek which is something I've been doing for ages. Trying to make sense of nominations on WP:ITN/C.
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: If I said no, that would be a lie. Who hasn't? The only time I've been stressed is with people who refuse to discuss their actions. Generally I try to talk it out with people and try to come to a compromise. Several times I've simply backed down and gone with what they've said if it's not a major point. There's generally no right answer with some things.

Live and let edit.

Optional question from Iridescent

4. You say you want sysop powers in order to change the main page; what changes do you envisage making?
A: Not so much "change the main page" as maintain. As I said above, I'm involved with WP:ITN which is constantly updated. But the actual template is protected. So if I spot small errors that need no discussion I can repair those. I can also help with updates, recently updates have been slow due to the small amount of admins that watch the candidates page. Often suitable items are not included because no admin has noticed them.
As for the main page itself. Any changes to that would need a great deal of discussion and consensus. I'm not about to go make whole sale unilateral changes there. --Monotonehell 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Iridescent

5. Given that you only have three contributions to XfD in the last 12 months, one of which was this, do you envisage yourself using deletion powers when you're given the extra buttons? Under what circumstances?
From what I've seen, the deletions process is well patronised with admins, I've watched a few discussions and found that I would only be repeating what so many others have already said. I may participate in the future, but I'd rather help out in areas that lack attention from admins. --Monotonehell 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly optional question from Iridescent

6. You're an active member of WikiProject Pedophilia and your edit history shows large numbers of edits to pedophilia-related topics (Age of consent, Statutory rape, Child grooming etc); given that when you're given sysop powers you're likely to come under scrutiny from other users and WP-attack sites, how will you respond to critics who allege (rightly or wrongly) that you're agenda pushing?
In the past I've been accused of pushing right wing and left wing agendas from unhappy editors on some of these pages. Which I think means I've been successfully walking the line down the middle. I was invited to join PAW as I was seen as an editor with a level head and no agenda to push. I don't envision wielding admin powers in those articles. I mostly look for vandalism as a lot of the issues are too complex for me to make any serious edits. Please understand that even though WikiProject Pedophilia has that hotbutton word in it, it's purpose is to balance any possible POV content in articles between pro- and anti-. Don't just look at the word and make assumptions. --Monotonehell 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that - the point I'm trying to make is that if/when you're given sysop status, your WannabeKate summary will almost certainly end up plastered over A Certain Site That It's Now An Autoblock Offence To Mention, and I'm trying to determine how you'll react to that when it happens, given that it will be repeated by certain people - we all know who they are - and possibly find its way into the mainstream media — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's good, sometimes people see the word in the title and assume it's all about promotion of the paedophile agenda, nor is it about the promotion of the anti-.. but that's another story. To tell you the truth, other than obvious vandalism, I've all but stopped trying to edit the more on topic articles. There's already several very good admins who are much more familiar with the subject who do a great job trying to keep both sides of the POV out of the articles. I've restricted myself to the Age of consent series of articles where all we're doing is stating legislation where things are much less controversial.
I doubt that I'd ever make any contributions that would end up on *ahem* that site. But if I did, it wouldn't trouble me much. It certainly would not affect the way I carry out my activities on Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide. I'm very open with how I go about things.
You do realise that I edit a LOAD of other things as well right? lol --Monotonehell 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by DarkFalls

9. What is your stance on WP:BLP, and how would you deal with violations of the policy?
A:
10. In what circumstances do you block an editor indefinitely?
A:

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Ooh, he doesn't contribute to deletion debates much. He must be completely clueless. (Gah. More like completely sensible, if you ask me) -- 86.139.86.174 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are IP's even allowed to comment? PatPolitics rule! 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    They may comment here in the discussion section or on the talk page, but any opining in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections are discounted. Keegantalk 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    OK. PatPolitics rule! 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    "Are IP's even allowed to comment" indeed. Dear me... -- 81.129.47.109 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. While the editor does work on controversial pages from time to time (as he points out, he edits lots of other types of pages), he does not seem to have a controversial or contentious personality which is what we'd actually want to look out for. Looks experienced and willing to help the project. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Jimbo Wales has said it: adminship is not a big deal. No bad record, and a demonstrable need to have the extra buttons (main page work), I support. User:Krator (t c) 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support? I am kinda confused. His edit count is good, but Hiorhsat makes a dead on point. I am thinking he will not abuse tools! PatPolitics rule! 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. + I trust the user to not meddle in areas where there is inexperience. I recommend reading my little essay. Keegantalk 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC) - (Thanks for the link to the essay. --Monotonehell 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
  5. Support With comments. I can see why the tools would help you, and an inspection of your edits earlier revealed nothing problematical. My concern is that you have very little experience in wider areas outside of the Main Page. I trust that should you be granted the buttons you will take it easy, and ask for other admin advice if needed. Reviewing your contributions I think I see an editor that will do this, and therefore support. Pedro |  Chat  19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support nothing suggests he'll actually be abusive. Acalamari 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, ITN and other main-page departments need more active admins. monotonehell makes good contributions.-gadfium 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Why not? Melsaran (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support,meets my standards Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I usually am not crazy about self-nominations, as I don't trust their ambitious nature. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here at all. A potential admin who is interested in something other than blocking, deleting and protecting?! How could I not support? :) faithless (speak) 10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Change to Support. Yes, he might not have much experience with deletions, but I'm sure plenty of admins wouldn't know the first thing when it came to, say, reformatting the front page. I'm very impressed with the sensible answers given to some (deliberately) awkward questions — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Trustworthy, and has experience in the areas he wishes to contribute to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. A sensible editor. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak support I'd feel more confident if monotoneshell had experience with a wider variety of processes but I'm with Pedro above. The candidate's judgment and demeanor seem sound enough, there's no reason to think he would abuse the tools and I believe he'd be responsible enough to not get involved too fast in areas he's less familiar with. Pascal.Tesson 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Seems like a good, trustworthy editor. He clearly states why he needs the sysop tools and what he will use them for. Although I'm mildly concerned that he has little experience with deletion policy, he doesn't indicate that he intends to perform controversial deletions, so I'm not too worried. His work on a controversial WikiProject also suggests that this candidate has the courage to edit in difficult areas that many Wikipedians (including myself) wouldn't dare touch. WaltonOne 19:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Brianherman 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Candidate have shown sound judgement in dealings with controversial topics. As long as the candidate make sure s/he make sure understand relevant policies in new areas that might be dealing with in the future (such as XFD), which I expect the candidate to, I am happy for the candidate to become an admin. KTC 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Seen the good work he's done on main page, hoping to see it expanded with more tools Mbisanz 06:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Like his attitude and work at ITN. Recurring dreams 13:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Good general attitude, sufficient experience imo, no reason to assume he would misuse the tools. I trust in the candidate's ability to keep on learning and to consult policy pages whenever he's in doubt. —AldeBaer 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - Fine. No problem here. I support this user's engagement in an extremely controversial wikiproject (while acknowledging it is a small portion of the work the user does) - the phrase "where angels fear to tread" comes to mind. I think we should support those gutsy ones who go in and succeed in difficult areas. Anyone can create a storm (in a teacup) in those areas, but to consistently edit well there without causing major rifts takes raw talent and diplomacy. - Philippe | Talk 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support -- a consistent editor, who needs tools occasionally. All signs indicate they will apply them fairly and intelligently. --Haemo 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Will not abuse tools and is experienced. More edit summaries would be nice! --Banana 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Confident that this candidate will remain cool in a crisis. Good judgement evident from previous contributions within Wikipedia-space. Daniel 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Based on a review of contributions, I trust monotonehell to conscientiously edit the mainpage and to refrain from using tools where they are unfamiliar.--Chaser - T 04:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose for the moment. All this editors contributions seem perfectly valid and it may be horribly unfair, but in the current climate I don't think it's appropriate to have a sysop with such a controversial edit history. I'm also concerned about the lack of experience with XfDs. I'm willing to change my stance if satisfactory answers can be provided to my three optional questions above — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that his edits are controversial or only that he edits controversial articles? Because if it's the latter, I don't see how that's a problem. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
See my comments on Q6 above for more clarification on the above (now struck-out) position. On reflection, it's inappropriate to allow "what Andy, Daniel et al might do" to indirectly determine who can & can't be admins — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose for the moment. I hope my concerns will be addressed, however, through answers to my questions. Xiner (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We have no ability to give limited admin powers, and I can therefore not support giving the full powers to an editor who lacks evidence of familiarity with general Wikipedia policy questions. DGG (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    DGG, is that really fair? I'm sure plenty of admins wouldn't know where to begin with changing the design of the interface or editing the main page, but are still given the power to do so - you can't expect everyone to do everything — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    knowledge of policy is rather basic to WP. DGG (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I think of RFA as a test of trust in two ways. First, does the community trust monotonehell enough to competently edit WP:ITN? Second, do we trust him or her not to use those tools that are unfamiliar, by, for example, making complex image deletions or sockpuppetry blocks, until watching other admins for a bit and participating initially as an editor? In other words, can administrators be trusted to limit themselves to their own areas of competency? I haven't formed an opinion on this candidate specifically, but I've said my bit for now.--Chaser - T 08:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The user's consistently vague and evasive answers to direct questions all throughout this RFA give me serious pause for concern. Someone who intends to work on the main page and PAW topics needs to be specific and open when answering. Assuming good faith, I would say that the user's vague answer about what he intends to do as an admin reveals a lack of familiarity with the position and its duties. VanTucky (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Insufficient evidence of familiarity with policies that govern deletion, protection, and blocking, though a fine editor. -- Y not? 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The user doesn't have the knowledge to be trusted with the tools (as above). In a few months filled with AFD, AIV, and other Projectspace edits, I will support •Malinaccier• T/C 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Reluctant Oppose I think you are well on your way, but are not quite there yet in regards to all-around editing. Also, I would prefer you to work around areas admins frequent. Jmlk17 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, Dead Neutral - With 4700 edits and editing for almost 2 years, I can't say monotonehell is inexperienced, and would rather like to support. However, I am worried about your knowledge in blocking vandals. I think editing the Main Page is important, but further more that is not the only thing that an admin will do. I cannot, however, oppose on that since I think that is too harsh. --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, I'm with Hirohisat on this one. monotonehell, you're a very consistent editor and you do edit in many areas, but I think you need a tad more experience — say, 2000 more edits. Keep up the great work, and I will definitely support you fully in the future. *Cremepuff222* 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're not with Hirohisat, because Hiro is asking for broader experience and you're asking for an inflated edit count. The 6700 edits you demand is more than most current admins have ever made. You are welcome to cast a neutral vote, but please don't contribute to editcount inflation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral My thoughts exactly are mentioned by Hirohisat - keep going strong though, and your edits are much appreciated --Bencomplain 09:30, 7 September 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.