Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nosebagbear
My RfA, closed on 03/10/2019, closed as successful. It did, however, have a number of significant concerns raised, causing both a number of opposes but were also shared by many who supported me and those who !voted neutral. These concerns were not made without merit. My thanks to those who raised them, and those who asked questions to clarify them.
This subpage is intended to let me highlight the principle points of concern, their specifics, and consider potential actions to avoid problems in the future. In the case where a reason was disputed as a problem I'll also include that. My thanks to Xeno for permission to utilise the layout of his RfA analysis - this is somewhat similar, but with some differences.
I've intended to include all who opposed or were neutral specifically partly or wholly on the basis of the issue as concerned users. I will also include those who were in one of those and changed. I've noted the cases where a significant number of support !voters also tagged it as a "beware/considered" point, but I believe it's quicker to summarise that aspect than relist much of the RfA participator list in certain instances. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Struway2 raised an instance of failure to source controversial content here and asked for an explanation. I replied with this response, stating that I'd been working to clarify a statement but that I'd incorrectly relied on an already present source without confirming that it supported my statement, and that it was a clear error in BLP compliance, and apologised.
A follow-up question (Q13) was posed, however I chose not to respond (and will not clarify why/why not here).
A number of editors either partially or primarily cited an insufficient tenure (mostly by active time, partially by edit count), not giving sufficient ability to understand Wikipedia to the level needed as an Admin or to provide a sufficient positive basis to be assessed from.
There weren't any dedicated questions on this issue, though a couple of partially related ones such as Q11b.
I've separated it into its own category, as it's used as a self-standing reason in its own right, but it was often tied to several other oppose reasons. I've tried filtering to specific instances of edit count/tenure rather than opposes based on not enough experience in certain fields or general unclassified inexperience.
Some editors, such as feminist, Vadder, Lepricavark and Iridescent specifically repudiated opposes based on my tenure/edit count.
I've looped these two aspects, both first indicated in TonyBallioni's oppose (though the SPI was first highlighted in Snaevar's oppose immediately before for a somewhat different reason), as they both pertain to the same area of expertise (or a failure to demonstrate such). Only a handful of RfA !voters separated the two aspects as well, so they would be difficult to judge the comparable importance placed on either to a precise degree - in fact I'm confident there would be a "more than the sum of their parts" issue at hand. That said, I'll cover my position towards them separately for clarity.
The CU not linking registered accounts to IPs is something that (beforehand) I hadn't considered - a genuine lack of policy knowledge.
The block/ban, particularly egregious, issue was a mess of confusion - I could put it down to tiredness given the time of post but I'd still expect not to get something as wrong as that. It was meant to say that the most common reason for blocks (as opposed to limited bans like IBANs/TBANs) for experienced users appeared to be 3RR blocks, but clearly it went very wrong indeed, including an AE policy error.
Q18 is a related check to block vs ban and the capabilities of any individual admin.
Some opposes felt that I could do with creating more articles, with a subset having a more general concern about needing more mainspace edits/higher mainspace % in general.
As well as it being mentioned in my nomination by WTT I named Fairness Project, which I recently took through GAR, as one of my best accomplishments on Wikipedia. On request to name my second best content creation (Q10) I gave Measures for Justice as my answer.
There are a few other areas which received more than one or two concerns - lack of conflict/content dispute resolution is the next most considered specific concern. If I get some time in the next few days I'll work to include it. If you have other aspects you think I've missed in the RfA that I should analyse just let me know below.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nosebagbear
My RfA, closed on 03/10/2019, closed as successful. It did, however, have a number of significant concerns raised, causing both a number of opposes but were also shared by many who supported me and those who !voted neutral. These concerns were not made without merit. My thanks to those who raised them, and those who asked questions to clarify them.
This subpage is intended to let me highlight the principle points of concern, their specifics, and consider potential actions to avoid problems in the future. In the case where a reason was disputed as a problem I'll also include that. My thanks to Xeno for permission to utilise the layout of his RfA analysis - this is somewhat similar, but with some differences.
I've intended to include all who opposed or were neutral specifically partly or wholly on the basis of the issue as concerned users. I will also include those who were in one of those and changed. I've noted the cases where a significant number of support !voters also tagged it as a "beware/considered" point, but I believe it's quicker to summarise that aspect than relist much of the RfA participator list in certain instances. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Struway2 raised an instance of failure to source controversial content here and asked for an explanation. I replied with this response, stating that I'd been working to clarify a statement but that I'd incorrectly relied on an already present source without confirming that it supported my statement, and that it was a clear error in BLP compliance, and apologised.
A follow-up question (Q13) was posed, however I chose not to respond (and will not clarify why/why not here).
A number of editors either partially or primarily cited an insufficient tenure (mostly by active time, partially by edit count), not giving sufficient ability to understand Wikipedia to the level needed as an Admin or to provide a sufficient positive basis to be assessed from.
There weren't any dedicated questions on this issue, though a couple of partially related ones such as Q11b.
I've separated it into its own category, as it's used as a self-standing reason in its own right, but it was often tied to several other oppose reasons. I've tried filtering to specific instances of edit count/tenure rather than opposes based on not enough experience in certain fields or general unclassified inexperience.
Some editors, such as feminist, Vadder, Lepricavark and Iridescent specifically repudiated opposes based on my tenure/edit count.
I've looped these two aspects, both first indicated in TonyBallioni's oppose (though the SPI was first highlighted in Snaevar's oppose immediately before for a somewhat different reason), as they both pertain to the same area of expertise (or a failure to demonstrate such). Only a handful of RfA !voters separated the two aspects as well, so they would be difficult to judge the comparable importance placed on either to a precise degree - in fact I'm confident there would be a "more than the sum of their parts" issue at hand. That said, I'll cover my position towards them separately for clarity.
The CU not linking registered accounts to IPs is something that (beforehand) I hadn't considered - a genuine lack of policy knowledge.
The block/ban, particularly egregious, issue was a mess of confusion - I could put it down to tiredness given the time of post but I'd still expect not to get something as wrong as that. It was meant to say that the most common reason for blocks (as opposed to limited bans like IBANs/TBANs) for experienced users appeared to be 3RR blocks, but clearly it went very wrong indeed, including an AE policy error.
Q18 is a related check to block vs ban and the capabilities of any individual admin.
Some opposes felt that I could do with creating more articles, with a subset having a more general concern about needing more mainspace edits/higher mainspace % in general.
As well as it being mentioned in my nomination by WTT I named Fairness Project, which I recently took through GAR, as one of my best accomplishments on Wikipedia. On request to name my second best content creation (Q10) I gave Measures for Justice as my answer.
There are a few other areas which received more than one or two concerns - lack of conflict/content dispute resolution is the next most considered specific concern. If I get some time in the next few days I'll work to include it. If you have other aspects you think I've missed in the RfA that I should analyse just let me know below.