Little Mountain 5 (
talk·contribs) – After
several years of my gentle prodding, I am extremely proud to present
Little Mountain 5 as a candidate for adminship. Little Mountain has been a Wikipedian since early 2008. In that time, he's become a well-rounded editor. You want content creation? He's written seven featured articles, including the excellent
Roxy Ann Peak. Anti-vandal work? He's used Huggle and taken on the thankless chores of
AIV. Worried about his edit count? He has over 20,000. He's also uploaded a plethora of images to the Wikimedia Commons. While real life forced him to cut back on editing in 2012 and 2013, Little Mountain has continued his excellent work since returning, so there's a lot to like here. I firmly believe that Little Mountain has the experience and temperament to be an administrator, and I can't be happier to be nominating him.
Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
It is my honor to co-nominate Little Mountain 5 for adminship. As with The ed17 above, I have known Little Mountain 5 for many years (since 2008) and I also offered to nominate him a long time ago, but he politely declined. I'm pleased that he has now decided to accept.
Why do I think that Little Mountain 5 would make a good administrator? For starters, he’s proved himself capable of doing a fine job with his
existing toolset. He is an effective vandal-fighter and is proficient in article clean-up work. Beyond small edits and anti-vandalism, Little Mountain 5 is also an incredibly strong content contributor, with one GA, seven FAs, twenty-seven DYKs and multiple new pages to his name. In regards to his personality, in my experience and many interactions with him, Little Mountain 5 has always been a friendly, helpful, sensible and trustworthy editor and person; he has never behaved in a less-than-cordial manner.
I am fully confident that Little Mountain 5 would make an excellent and low-controversy administrator; I have no doubts whatsoever about him and again, it’s an honor to co-nominate.
Acalamari09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words and continued support. I gratefully accept. LittleMountain518:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work in the areas where I have the most experience, namely at
AIV and
CAT:EP. I've been active in the anti-vandalism field for nearly six years now, and have been answering protected edit requests since I received
template editor rights last October. Also, I would like to help out by performing uncontroversial speedy deletions occasionally, specifically those listed under criterions
G6,
G7/
U1,
G8, and
F8. If I ever decide to work elsewhere, I will take the utmost care to ensure that I understand the processes fully before using the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my content creation work, particularly the eight articles I brought up to good or featured status:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. (I must note that most of the credit for #7 goes to Finetooth.) Many of the articles I've worked on are about local geographic features that I became interested in after visiting. It's always a learning experience, one that I find to be enjoyable, challenging, and satisfying. I take pride in the fact that I have made small improvements to this very large encyclopedia.
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: I've managed to avoid major conflicts and stressful situations for the most part. In general, I try to be friendly and constructive when communicating with other editors. After all, most of us have the same goal, to improve Wikipedia, but just have differing opinions on how that might be achieved. If I find myself entangled in a major conflict, I will make sure to remain calm (or take a break if I can't; posting angrily will only inflame the conflict), assess the situation, consider each person's rationales, and attempt to come up with a viable solution or compromise, or at least facilitate a move in that direction.
4. You say you have been in no major conflicts. A search indicates that you've never posted at any of the more conflict-ridden noticeboards (ANI, AN, and (less so) AN3). Most administrators encounter major conflicts in the job. I know I do. Sometimes such conflicts aren't best resolved by being nice. What would you do if you had to be less nice, more blunt, etc.? --
Bbb23 (
talk)
22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
A: Thanks for the question! While I don't plan on performing controversial actions or spending much time at the listed noticeboards, I realize that there may be times when I will have to be sterner in order to get my point across and resolve conflicts. However, stern posts should never be
rude or condescending towards other editors, because that simply worsens the conflict and leads to a
poor environment to work in. Rather, they should be written in a way that maintains
civility. For example, Wikipedia's
warning templates are very blunt, straightforward messages that still remain civil; I would try to write my posts in a similar style. I hope that answers your question. LittleMountain523:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
5. You become aware of a situation where an IP with no prior contributions has repeatedly blanked the contents of a biography of a living person, and they have been reverted several times already by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what to do other than to also keep reverting. Both are now over 3RR. The IP has three warnings in their talk page, and refuses to respond to questions about their behavior. They have not used summaries at all when blanking. You examine the contents of the article and see that it is largely unsourced, but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information. You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. What steps do you take to resolve the issue, and why?
A: Interesting question. In most articles, the IP's edits would
constitute vandalism, the editor would be
exempted from the three-revert rule, and if the IP continued to blank the page without explanation, I would give it a final warning and block it temporarily if necessary. However, since the article is a largely unsourced BLP and I have little experience with BLP-related issues, I would take the situation to
BLPN for discussion immediately and would implement whatever consensus is reached there. Regarding my own opinion, my thought process is this: First, I would leave a stern note on the IP's talk page (below the three warnings it already received), asking it to explain its actions or risk being blocked for vandalism. I would also leave a note on the editor's talk page detailing the situation and my planned course of action. Hopefully that would get the IP to either explain itself or stop, but if it continued, I think the most effective way to force discussion would be to semi-protect the article for a day or so. After that time, if the IP still blanked the page without explanation, I would block it temporarily for vandalism. But again, that is only my opinion, and I would adhere to the consensus achieved among more experienced editors at BLPN. LittleMountain518:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
6. I apologize if you were already asked this, but do you know the difference between a block and a ban?
A: Nope, no one asked me that yet, so thanks for the question. Yes, I do know the difference: Basically, a block is a technical measure that removes a user's ability to edit. They are often used to prevent vandalism or disruption and are imposed by a single admin. On the other hand, a ban is a "formal prohibition" forbidding a user from editing either a specific page (page ban), any page in a specific topic (topic ban), or anywhere on Wikipedia at all (site ban). There are also interaction bans which forbid any interaction between two or more users. Bans are used to stop persistent, wide-scale disruption. They are usually long-term, and are imposed by community consensus, ArbCom, Jimbo, or the Foundation. A user can still edit while banned, but will be blocked if they violate the terms of the ban. LittleMountain503:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
7. Hello and best of luck for your RfA. Please explain the significance of a "vote" at AfD.
A: Thank you. A "vote" at AfD carries little weight by itself, because the outcome is determined by consensus, not tallies or percentages. In other words, AfD is a "!vote", not a "vote" (explained below). Participants must provide rationales to support their positions in order for their "!votes" to receive any consideration. LittleMountain522:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
7 (b). Do you know the difference between a "vote" and a "!vote"?
B: Yes, I do. In a straight "vote", participants select a desired outcome and the final result is determined by a tally or percentage. However, in a "!vote" (or "not-vote"), participants select a desired outcome and provide rationales to support their positions. The final result of the discussion is determined by consensus, which is based on the strength of the rationales, not the numbers alone. Many processes on Wikipedia operate by "!voting", including this RfA to some extent. LittleMountain522:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
8. You've shown a lot of interest and aptitude in stopping vandalism, do you have any interest in
sockpuppet investigations (which seems eternally backlogged)?
A: Unfortunately no, I don't have any intention to work at SPI at this point, simply because I have no experience there. I certainly won't preclude myself from ever helping out, but if I become interested, I would have to observe and familiarize myself with the process extensively first. That's probably not the answer you wanted to hear, sorry! LittleMountain500:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Additional questions from
Carrite (Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA, 52, OSU BA 1983)
9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?
10. Will you tell us a few details about yourself such as your real name, the city or country in which you live, your age, and your educational background? If revealing is uncomfortable to you, please let us know why you think maintaining anonymity is important for contributors to what is regarded by many visitors as a trusted and scholarly resource. Thanks. ///
Carrite (
talk)
13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
A: Wow, small world! I'm practically your neighbor. Beyond that, I don't want to disclose any more personal information than I already have. I would honestly prefer to be more open in that respect, but doing so would create a much greater potential for off-wiki harassment (especially when dealing with irate vandals), something I wish to avoid. LittleMountain500:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
10. Many editors complain they are hounded by others on Wikipedia. What can they do about it?
A: If Editor A feels that they are being
hounded by Editor B, I think the best course of action would be for them to start a polite discussion on Editor B's talk page in an attempt to resolve the issue. This gives Editor A a chance to express their feelings, and gives Editor B a chance to explain their actions. For instance, Editor B may not be intentionally irritating Editor A, or may have a valid reason why they are following them, such as "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Alternatively, Editor B may be legitimately hounding Editor A, and if the problem persists, Editor A should ask an uninvolved editor to weigh in. If none of that works, the last resort would be to take the issue to
ANI for resolution. LittleMountain518:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per Acalamari and Ed. If they trust you, so do I. Though for one second I thought this was your fifth RfA! → Call meHahc2118:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
It will (I jumped to the same conclusion). On a positive note, it will give editors something non-controversial to talk about, always a good thing at an RfA.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I've worked with Little Mountain for years and he will be great with the tools. He is one of the kindest and most level-headed Wikipedians I have had the pleasure of interacting with and will definitely stay cool when the editing gets hot. And I'm always happy to see an admin who does great content work.
Valfontis (
talk)
18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Two nominators I have a lot of respect for and a quick look around says you can be trusted to do good things with the mop. Like the others, I thought this was your 5th RfA when I first saw the title, and that brought me here out of curiosity. Glad I came.
Dennis Brown |
2¢ |
WER20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Welcome to your fifth RfA ;-). This could be a record total of !votes by the time the week is up! On a serious note, I see no problems here. Ronhjones (Talk)23:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm very impressed with this candidate and everything they're doing to help Wikipedia (and this is my first decision on a RfA :) -
Newyorkadam (
talk)
00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Newyoradamreply
Support. The fifth RFA seems to be doing the trick, as I can find no fault in this candidate. Quality nominators, good body of work, and a long history of reasonableness make this an easy support. Good luck.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did00:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I've never come across LM5 before, but looks like a sensible choice for adminship: lots of experience, great contributions, no drama etc. Good luck!
— sparklism hey!06:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Great all-rounder, who will make good use of the tools. Trusted nominators. Thank you to whoever added the note above that this isn't the user's 5th RFA, as like others that was my initial impression! It's certainly a good way of driving traffic to this request! Pedro :
Chat 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
BTW, @Dennis Brown, it would be "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Little Mountain 5 2", not "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Little Mountain 52".
Epicgenius (
talk)
00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - from all I can find, not just a "net positive", but an unconditional positive. So let's make sure it doesn't get to the 52nd, then --
Stfg (
talk)
12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Lol, I was about to say that your vote is like the longest time between the nom goes live and the nominator supporting (in a while) and then I saw that
The ed17 has yet to vote! → Call meHahc2102:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Good answers, solid contributor, well rounded, should be a good administrator. Areas of interest always need help. Recent editing history alleviates any concern about lowered edit counts in 2012 and 2013.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support No question. We haven't collaborated a lot, but I'm well aware of, and have learned a lot, from his great work and know of his reasoned temperament around the wiki. ---
Esprqii (
talk)
00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm convinced that this user can be trusted with the uniform, the keys, and the mop and pail. He is very competent and a friendly editor to work with, as far as I can see. Good luck on your adminship! --k6ka (
talk |
contribs)
11:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Familiar with this editor's work - high quality. Review of talk page posts shows good communication style. Experienced enough to have a good grasp of policy. Price of this vote - Little Mountain 5 must work on at least one
British Columbia watercourse article in the next six months ;) The Interior(Talk)15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. Although I share to some extant Axl's concerns, I think that the thoughtful answers to questions and edit history give enough assurance that this editor will not do anything overly hasty with the mop. --
Randykitty (
talk)
20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support My question hasn't been answered yet (I just posted it) but I'm ready to support now. The editor shows a great amount of knowledge in policy and guidelines, has a good attitude, has a focus on what areas of adminship to start out in, and has a great body of work in article space. If there was anything else I'd hope for, it was more experience in dispute resolution, but I can't fault someone for avoiding conflicts. -- Atama頭23:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I can't see LM5 rushing into CSD and nuking the lot. I've not seen him around that I can remember, which sometimes is a good thing... I am impressed by the answers and the support.
Peridon (
talk)
18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support – I'm all for it! Although not a deciding factor, I especially like the candidate's name and dedication to their WikiProjects. Impressive work, and fine administrator they shall be —
MusikAnimaltalk22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I think LM 5 is too nice to become an administrator, but perhaps it will offset those of us (like me) who aren't as tactful. More seriously, but along the same lines, I don't agree with LM 5's answer to Q5. If there is actionable vandalism or BLP violations, an uninvolved administrator doesn't require a consensus to block the editor. In addition, BLPN is sometimes used as a springboard for a block, but it is not the same as ANI, AN, or AN3 in that regard. Nor is a consensus at BLPN required if an administrator believes there are clear BLP violations. LM 5's answer is too deferential, in my view.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - With this level of pile-on, I admit to reflexively looking for trouble. I checked the content contributions, one or two of which reflect areas I've worked in as a photographer, and was both impressed and learned some things. I looked for interactions with another editor I respect in the geography biz, and saw this editor had a barnstar from them. I looked for drama, couldn't find it. I looked for clue, could easily find that. What took you so long to RfA? ;-) --
j⚛e deckertalk17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Although I've never before interacted with this editor, the experience and temperament seem excellent, as does that featured article about a little mountain. I hope that the editor will consider writing an article or two about big mountains, as well as using the administrative toolset wisely.
Cullen328Let's discuss it05:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't have that much familiarity with the candidate, but everything that I have read here looks like a clear net positive. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
17:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Little Mountain 5 is a good editor, with many helpful contributions. However I am concerned about his intention to work with CSD. Even with "uncontroversial" CSDs, some understanding of deletion criteria is necessary. Little Mountain 5 has not !voted at AfD for over five years, nor does he have a history of CSD tagging. There is potential for harmful deletion of CSDs.
Axl¤[Talk]11:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
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.
Little Mountain 5 (
talk·contribs) – After
several years of my gentle prodding, I am extremely proud to present
Little Mountain 5 as a candidate for adminship. Little Mountain has been a Wikipedian since early 2008. In that time, he's become a well-rounded editor. You want content creation? He's written seven featured articles, including the excellent
Roxy Ann Peak. Anti-vandal work? He's used Huggle and taken on the thankless chores of
AIV. Worried about his edit count? He has over 20,000. He's also uploaded a plethora of images to the Wikimedia Commons. While real life forced him to cut back on editing in 2012 and 2013, Little Mountain has continued his excellent work since returning, so there's a lot to like here. I firmly believe that Little Mountain has the experience and temperament to be an administrator, and I can't be happier to be nominating him.
Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
It is my honor to co-nominate Little Mountain 5 for adminship. As with The ed17 above, I have known Little Mountain 5 for many years (since 2008) and I also offered to nominate him a long time ago, but he politely declined. I'm pleased that he has now decided to accept.
Why do I think that Little Mountain 5 would make a good administrator? For starters, he’s proved himself capable of doing a fine job with his
existing toolset. He is an effective vandal-fighter and is proficient in article clean-up work. Beyond small edits and anti-vandalism, Little Mountain 5 is also an incredibly strong content contributor, with one GA, seven FAs, twenty-seven DYKs and multiple new pages to his name. In regards to his personality, in my experience and many interactions with him, Little Mountain 5 has always been a friendly, helpful, sensible and trustworthy editor and person; he has never behaved in a less-than-cordial manner.
I am fully confident that Little Mountain 5 would make an excellent and low-controversy administrator; I have no doubts whatsoever about him and again, it’s an honor to co-nominate.
Acalamari09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words and continued support. I gratefully accept. LittleMountain518:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work in the areas where I have the most experience, namely at
AIV and
CAT:EP. I've been active in the anti-vandalism field for nearly six years now, and have been answering protected edit requests since I received
template editor rights last October. Also, I would like to help out by performing uncontroversial speedy deletions occasionally, specifically those listed under criterions
G6,
G7/
U1,
G8, and
F8. If I ever decide to work elsewhere, I will take the utmost care to ensure that I understand the processes fully before using the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my content creation work, particularly the eight articles I brought up to good or featured status:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. (I must note that most of the credit for #7 goes to Finetooth.) Many of the articles I've worked on are about local geographic features that I became interested in after visiting. It's always a learning experience, one that I find to be enjoyable, challenging, and satisfying. I take pride in the fact that I have made small improvements to this very large encyclopedia.
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: I've managed to avoid major conflicts and stressful situations for the most part. In general, I try to be friendly and constructive when communicating with other editors. After all, most of us have the same goal, to improve Wikipedia, but just have differing opinions on how that might be achieved. If I find myself entangled in a major conflict, I will make sure to remain calm (or take a break if I can't; posting angrily will only inflame the conflict), assess the situation, consider each person's rationales, and attempt to come up with a viable solution or compromise, or at least facilitate a move in that direction.
4. You say you have been in no major conflicts. A search indicates that you've never posted at any of the more conflict-ridden noticeboards (ANI, AN, and (less so) AN3). Most administrators encounter major conflicts in the job. I know I do. Sometimes such conflicts aren't best resolved by being nice. What would you do if you had to be less nice, more blunt, etc.? --
Bbb23 (
talk)
22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
A: Thanks for the question! While I don't plan on performing controversial actions or spending much time at the listed noticeboards, I realize that there may be times when I will have to be sterner in order to get my point across and resolve conflicts. However, stern posts should never be
rude or condescending towards other editors, because that simply worsens the conflict and leads to a
poor environment to work in. Rather, they should be written in a way that maintains
civility. For example, Wikipedia's
warning templates are very blunt, straightforward messages that still remain civil; I would try to write my posts in a similar style. I hope that answers your question. LittleMountain523:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
5. You become aware of a situation where an IP with no prior contributions has repeatedly blanked the contents of a biography of a living person, and they have been reverted several times already by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what to do other than to also keep reverting. Both are now over 3RR. The IP has three warnings in their talk page, and refuses to respond to questions about their behavior. They have not used summaries at all when blanking. You examine the contents of the article and see that it is largely unsourced, but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information. You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. What steps do you take to resolve the issue, and why?
A: Interesting question. In most articles, the IP's edits would
constitute vandalism, the editor would be
exempted from the three-revert rule, and if the IP continued to blank the page without explanation, I would give it a final warning and block it temporarily if necessary. However, since the article is a largely unsourced BLP and I have little experience with BLP-related issues, I would take the situation to
BLPN for discussion immediately and would implement whatever consensus is reached there. Regarding my own opinion, my thought process is this: First, I would leave a stern note on the IP's talk page (below the three warnings it already received), asking it to explain its actions or risk being blocked for vandalism. I would also leave a note on the editor's talk page detailing the situation and my planned course of action. Hopefully that would get the IP to either explain itself or stop, but if it continued, I think the most effective way to force discussion would be to semi-protect the article for a day or so. After that time, if the IP still blanked the page without explanation, I would block it temporarily for vandalism. But again, that is only my opinion, and I would adhere to the consensus achieved among more experienced editors at BLPN. LittleMountain518:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
6. I apologize if you were already asked this, but do you know the difference between a block and a ban?
A: Nope, no one asked me that yet, so thanks for the question. Yes, I do know the difference: Basically, a block is a technical measure that removes a user's ability to edit. They are often used to prevent vandalism or disruption and are imposed by a single admin. On the other hand, a ban is a "formal prohibition" forbidding a user from editing either a specific page (page ban), any page in a specific topic (topic ban), or anywhere on Wikipedia at all (site ban). There are also interaction bans which forbid any interaction between two or more users. Bans are used to stop persistent, wide-scale disruption. They are usually long-term, and are imposed by community consensus, ArbCom, Jimbo, or the Foundation. A user can still edit while banned, but will be blocked if they violate the terms of the ban. LittleMountain503:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
7. Hello and best of luck for your RfA. Please explain the significance of a "vote" at AfD.
A: Thank you. A "vote" at AfD carries little weight by itself, because the outcome is determined by consensus, not tallies or percentages. In other words, AfD is a "!vote", not a "vote" (explained below). Participants must provide rationales to support their positions in order for their "!votes" to receive any consideration. LittleMountain522:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
7 (b). Do you know the difference between a "vote" and a "!vote"?
B: Yes, I do. In a straight "vote", participants select a desired outcome and the final result is determined by a tally or percentage. However, in a "!vote" (or "not-vote"), participants select a desired outcome and provide rationales to support their positions. The final result of the discussion is determined by consensus, which is based on the strength of the rationales, not the numbers alone. Many processes on Wikipedia operate by "!voting", including this RfA to some extent. LittleMountain522:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
8. You've shown a lot of interest and aptitude in stopping vandalism, do you have any interest in
sockpuppet investigations (which seems eternally backlogged)?
A: Unfortunately no, I don't have any intention to work at SPI at this point, simply because I have no experience there. I certainly won't preclude myself from ever helping out, but if I become interested, I would have to observe and familiarize myself with the process extensively first. That's probably not the answer you wanted to hear, sorry! LittleMountain500:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Additional questions from
Carrite (Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA, 52, OSU BA 1983)
9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?
10. Will you tell us a few details about yourself such as your real name, the city or country in which you live, your age, and your educational background? If revealing is uncomfortable to you, please let us know why you think maintaining anonymity is important for contributors to what is regarded by many visitors as a trusted and scholarly resource. Thanks. ///
Carrite (
talk)
13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
A: Wow, small world! I'm practically your neighbor. Beyond that, I don't want to disclose any more personal information than I already have. I would honestly prefer to be more open in that respect, but doing so would create a much greater potential for off-wiki harassment (especially when dealing with irate vandals), something I wish to avoid. LittleMountain500:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
10. Many editors complain they are hounded by others on Wikipedia. What can they do about it?
A: If Editor A feels that they are being
hounded by Editor B, I think the best course of action would be for them to start a polite discussion on Editor B's talk page in an attempt to resolve the issue. This gives Editor A a chance to express their feelings, and gives Editor B a chance to explain their actions. For instance, Editor B may not be intentionally irritating Editor A, or may have a valid reason why they are following them, such as "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Alternatively, Editor B may be legitimately hounding Editor A, and if the problem persists, Editor A should ask an uninvolved editor to weigh in. If none of that works, the last resort would be to take the issue to
ANI for resolution. LittleMountain518:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support per Acalamari and Ed. If they trust you, so do I. Though for one second I thought this was your fifth RfA! → Call meHahc2118:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
It will (I jumped to the same conclusion). On a positive note, it will give editors something non-controversial to talk about, always a good thing at an RfA.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I've worked with Little Mountain for years and he will be great with the tools. He is one of the kindest and most level-headed Wikipedians I have had the pleasure of interacting with and will definitely stay cool when the editing gets hot. And I'm always happy to see an admin who does great content work.
Valfontis (
talk)
18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Two nominators I have a lot of respect for and a quick look around says you can be trusted to do good things with the mop. Like the others, I thought this was your 5th RfA when I first saw the title, and that brought me here out of curiosity. Glad I came.
Dennis Brown |
2¢ |
WER20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Welcome to your fifth RfA ;-). This could be a record total of !votes by the time the week is up! On a serious note, I see no problems here. Ronhjones (Talk)23:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm very impressed with this candidate and everything they're doing to help Wikipedia (and this is my first decision on a RfA :) -
Newyorkadam (
talk)
00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Newyoradamreply
Support. The fifth RFA seems to be doing the trick, as I can find no fault in this candidate. Quality nominators, good body of work, and a long history of reasonableness make this an easy support. Good luck.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did00:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I've never come across LM5 before, but looks like a sensible choice for adminship: lots of experience, great contributions, no drama etc. Good luck!
— sparklism hey!06:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Great all-rounder, who will make good use of the tools. Trusted nominators. Thank you to whoever added the note above that this isn't the user's 5th RFA, as like others that was my initial impression! It's certainly a good way of driving traffic to this request! Pedro :
Chat 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
BTW, @Dennis Brown, it would be "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Little Mountain 5 2", not "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Little Mountain 52".
Epicgenius (
talk)
00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - from all I can find, not just a "net positive", but an unconditional positive. So let's make sure it doesn't get to the 52nd, then --
Stfg (
talk)
12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Lol, I was about to say that your vote is like the longest time between the nom goes live and the nominator supporting (in a while) and then I saw that
The ed17 has yet to vote! → Call meHahc2102:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Good answers, solid contributor, well rounded, should be a good administrator. Areas of interest always need help. Recent editing history alleviates any concern about lowered edit counts in 2012 and 2013.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support No question. We haven't collaborated a lot, but I'm well aware of, and have learned a lot, from his great work and know of his reasoned temperament around the wiki. ---
Esprqii (
talk)
00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm convinced that this user can be trusted with the uniform, the keys, and the mop and pail. He is very competent and a friendly editor to work with, as far as I can see. Good luck on your adminship! --k6ka (
talk |
contribs)
11:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Familiar with this editor's work - high quality. Review of talk page posts shows good communication style. Experienced enough to have a good grasp of policy. Price of this vote - Little Mountain 5 must work on at least one
British Columbia watercourse article in the next six months ;) The Interior(Talk)15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. Although I share to some extant Axl's concerns, I think that the thoughtful answers to questions and edit history give enough assurance that this editor will not do anything overly hasty with the mop. --
Randykitty (
talk)
20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support My question hasn't been answered yet (I just posted it) but I'm ready to support now. The editor shows a great amount of knowledge in policy and guidelines, has a good attitude, has a focus on what areas of adminship to start out in, and has a great body of work in article space. If there was anything else I'd hope for, it was more experience in dispute resolution, but I can't fault someone for avoiding conflicts. -- Atama頭23:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I can't see LM5 rushing into CSD and nuking the lot. I've not seen him around that I can remember, which sometimes is a good thing... I am impressed by the answers and the support.
Peridon (
talk)
18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support – I'm all for it! Although not a deciding factor, I especially like the candidate's name and dedication to their WikiProjects. Impressive work, and fine administrator they shall be —
MusikAnimaltalk22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I think LM 5 is too nice to become an administrator, but perhaps it will offset those of us (like me) who aren't as tactful. More seriously, but along the same lines, I don't agree with LM 5's answer to Q5. If there is actionable vandalism or BLP violations, an uninvolved administrator doesn't require a consensus to block the editor. In addition, BLPN is sometimes used as a springboard for a block, but it is not the same as ANI, AN, or AN3 in that regard. Nor is a consensus at BLPN required if an administrator believes there are clear BLP violations. LM 5's answer is too deferential, in my view.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - With this level of pile-on, I admit to reflexively looking for trouble. I checked the content contributions, one or two of which reflect areas I've worked in as a photographer, and was both impressed and learned some things. I looked for interactions with another editor I respect in the geography biz, and saw this editor had a barnstar from them. I looked for drama, couldn't find it. I looked for clue, could easily find that. What took you so long to RfA? ;-) --
j⚛e deckertalk17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Although I've never before interacted with this editor, the experience and temperament seem excellent, as does that featured article about a little mountain. I hope that the editor will consider writing an article or two about big mountains, as well as using the administrative toolset wisely.
Cullen328Let's discuss it05:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't have that much familiarity with the candidate, but everything that I have read here looks like a clear net positive. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
17:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Little Mountain 5 is a good editor, with many helpful contributions. However I am concerned about his intention to work with CSD. Even with "uncontroversial" CSDs, some understanding of deletion criteria is necessary. Little Mountain 5 has not !voted at AfD for over five years, nor does he have a history of CSD tagging. There is potential for harmful deletion of CSDs.
Axl¤[Talk]11:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply
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.