Final (73/6/4); ended 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus ( talk · contribs) – I am very glad to have the chance to nominate Maunus for the admin tools. Maunus has been an invaluable and reliable content contributor here for over 4 years now, with two FAs to his credit ( Mayan languages and Nahuatl) and major expansions and improvements to many many others. In addition to his area of professional expertise in linguistics and Mesoamerican cultural histories, his substantive contributions are spread across a diverse array of other topics, from Greenlandic politics to the sociology of religion. He has uploaded a number of very useful original photos of otherwise hard-to-get objects and localities, and contributed to other language wikis as well, incl. translations of articles from one to the other.Maunus is no stranger to project– and policy–space contributions either. A review of his contribs will reveal numerous sensible and thoughtful comments to various XfDs, FARs, GARs, wikiprojects, policy & guideline discussions, &c. He knows how to foster a collegial atmosphere, maintain civility in disputes, uphold neutrality, respect the opinions of others and when to clarify or correct himself (couple recent examples: [1], [2], [3], [4].)
In short, over almost 12k of edits thus far Maunus has exhibited all the behaviours one might wish for in an admin—helpfulness, common sense, civility, maturity, depth of knowledge, self-reflection, ability to express himself articulately, thoughtfulness, rationality. In controversial topics and conflict scenarios Maunus has shown he is able to keep a cool head, contribute positively and retain the focus on the end goal of improving wikipedia content. Maunus gets the idea and intent of wikipedia, his actions demonstrate his commitment to its aims and support of the community ideals. He is motivated and ready to add the sysop string to his bow and thereby extend his contributions to WP, I have no doubts the tools will be in safe hands and used wisely to beneficial effect. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 15th of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Maunus before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
An editor who apparently has not thoroughly read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and seemingly refuses to read it again when asked, or can't comprehend it, or somehow fails to act on his reading of it, is an unlikely candidate for adminship. Maunus' ability to handle a dispute was incautious and blundering. When he was challenged, he persisted in fallacious policy positions after he had been asked to read correct policy. Engaging in irrational escalation of commitment by an admin candidate, who should be on his best behavior, is unacceptable.
The locus of the dispute was here (seems to be ended).
Maunus charged in to help an ally of his content dispute, but then he casually blundered over the policy line into a PA-by-unevidenced accusation. Initially he didn't know what he had done wrong – which happens to many – but then he aggravated his lack of knowledge by repeatedly ignoring WP:NPA policy reference to his mistakes:
• WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks"
• WP:NPA#Avoiding personal attacks: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."
Maunus made an accusation of "personal attacks", and foolishly entered an accusation into the edit summary, where he can't strike it if wrong [15], persisted the accusation, with WP:NPA unread or not comprehended or not acted on: "You also cannot back up personal attacks with evidence since that is irrelevant..." [16], even after that charge was declared as wrong with reference to WP:NPA: "accusation of PA is prohibited without evidence per WP:NPA" [17], followed by a more insistent request to read WP:NPA " WP:NPA says that evidenced statements are not considered PAs." (because "describe an editor's actions" implicitly requires evidence) ... "You can't casually throw around the words "personal attacks"." [18]. Yet he persisted with a third accusation of violating the "letter of WP:NPA", plus a co-accusation of "WP:CIVIL" [19] , also proved wrong [20].
Note the failure of good judgment and loss of emotional control in his re-edit of Maunus 12:26, 16 August 2009 (original diff) to Maunus 12:30, 16 August 2009 (re-edit diff). In the first diff he mutes the previous overt PA accusations to "disparaging remark", though that's still covertly a PA accusation. Unfortunately, four minutes later he couldn't resist twisting the knife by persistently adding back in a third overt PA accusation: "clearly in conflict with both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL."
Both accusations referred to an evident statement of fact, in response to a calumny by a third party, as explained in considerable detail [21].
That Maunus seemed unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and had a questionable understanding of it, casts further doubt on his readiness for adminship.
How many other policies has he not read well, or does not clearly understand? WP:CONSENSUS? Note his unqualified claim that "Major changes may be made to any article without discussion..." [22], which is consistent with his lack of regard for WP:BRD editing. [23]
WP:BRD is not required by guide or policy, but it is widely regarded as a model editing practice that good editors, and especially admins, should emulate. I requested that Maunus observe it: "...will you honor a WP:BRD revert and discussion or not?" [24] , to which he replied "I am honoring the BRD cycle by discussing this with you." [25]. In response I wrote, "I see a "B" (bold), and a preamble to a "D" (discuss), but no "R" (revert). In short, you are constructionally refusing BRD editing cooperation." Maunus' "honoring" reply is notable for its glossy failure to accept editing cooperation in a BRD cycle, coupled with a disturbingly un-admin-like morph of the facts ("BRD cycle" with no actual revert), to lightly cover what he seems to know makes him look bad (constructionally refusing BRD). [26]
Maunus has a different, more controlled self that he projects much of the time. I've seen that controlled, well-mannered self, but then I've known other editors who seemed outstanding as long as one didn't oppose them. A well-mannered self is civilized behavior, and good manners is sometimes a necessary polite fiction, but good manners isn't enough when a non-controlled self emerges under unexpected pressure. Admins face unexpected pressures frequently. As is often said, some people have the temperament to be editors, but not admins. My judgment of this editor is: not ready to be an admin.
Whatever, it looks like this nomination will sail through, so I'm serving notice of a personal dispute. Maunus is not to use his tools, or suggest his possible use of them in regard to any situation involving me.
I apologize for the page bloat of this oppose, but future victims of poor judgment, if any, deserve to know that there was a precursor to their plight. Hopefully, some other knowing admin would step in to help them. Milo 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As always, my 3 AFD discussions question was a complex test. It doesn't reveal any such problems as alluded to by Stifle above (Any pointers to specific discussions of concern, Stifle?), but it does suggest a need for a pointer from experience. Therefore I offer this advice: Maunus, if you get administrator tools, as seems likely at this point, remember that you're still an editor as well. Ignore what NVO implies above; it's not true. ☺ As administrators we still have editor hats, and we still have all of the tools that editors have. Sometimes the right response is to just be an editor. Sometimes it's an ordinary editor tool that is the right tool for the job. Your responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trifectant indicate that you automatically view your rôle as being the closing administrator. (Note that I worded the question quite carefully. The discussions weren't chosen completely at random, either. ☺) Whilst that's admirable enthusiasm for a new administrator, from your responses to the question it is clear that the right courses of action, that would have helped AFD and Wikipedia more, would have been for you to chime in as an ordinary editor and add your opinions to the discussions. Timmeh seems to have the same concern, that you are perhaps too willing to always wear an administrator hat. You clearly have views on the articles in question ("like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability" and "The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic") and those views would actually help the next person to come along, and any future discussion closer, more than just a mere re-listing would have. (You do, after all, claim some knowledge of the field in the case of one of those discussions.)
So here's a tip based upon experience: Remember that we can often help AFD and other processes by just being ordinary editors. We aren't forced always to be discussion closers and arbiters. The administrator tools are not the only tools in our toolboxes; and it's sometimes a far more useful and productive contribution to a discussion to , to write, and to find, read, and evaluate sources, than to simply be a person wielding a rubber stamp. You'll find that those are useful principles to remember outside of deletion discussions as well. Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Final (73/6/4); ended 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus ( talk · contribs) – I am very glad to have the chance to nominate Maunus for the admin tools. Maunus has been an invaluable and reliable content contributor here for over 4 years now, with two FAs to his credit ( Mayan languages and Nahuatl) and major expansions and improvements to many many others. In addition to his area of professional expertise in linguistics and Mesoamerican cultural histories, his substantive contributions are spread across a diverse array of other topics, from Greenlandic politics to the sociology of religion. He has uploaded a number of very useful original photos of otherwise hard-to-get objects and localities, and contributed to other language wikis as well, incl. translations of articles from one to the other.Maunus is no stranger to project– and policy–space contributions either. A review of his contribs will reveal numerous sensible and thoughtful comments to various XfDs, FARs, GARs, wikiprojects, policy & guideline discussions, &c. He knows how to foster a collegial atmosphere, maintain civility in disputes, uphold neutrality, respect the opinions of others and when to clarify or correct himself (couple recent examples: [1], [2], [3], [4].)
In short, over almost 12k of edits thus far Maunus has exhibited all the behaviours one might wish for in an admin—helpfulness, common sense, civility, maturity, depth of knowledge, self-reflection, ability to express himself articulately, thoughtfulness, rationality. In controversial topics and conflict scenarios Maunus has shown he is able to keep a cool head, contribute positively and retain the focus on the end goal of improving wikipedia content. Maunus gets the idea and intent of wikipedia, his actions demonstrate his commitment to its aims and support of the community ideals. He is motivated and ready to add the sysop string to his bow and thereby extend his contributions to WP, I have no doubts the tools will be in safe hands and used wisely to beneficial effect. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 15th of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Maunus before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
An editor who apparently has not thoroughly read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and seemingly refuses to read it again when asked, or can't comprehend it, or somehow fails to act on his reading of it, is an unlikely candidate for adminship. Maunus' ability to handle a dispute was incautious and blundering. When he was challenged, he persisted in fallacious policy positions after he had been asked to read correct policy. Engaging in irrational escalation of commitment by an admin candidate, who should be on his best behavior, is unacceptable.
The locus of the dispute was here (seems to be ended).
Maunus charged in to help an ally of his content dispute, but then he casually blundered over the policy line into a PA-by-unevidenced accusation. Initially he didn't know what he had done wrong – which happens to many – but then he aggravated his lack of knowledge by repeatedly ignoring WP:NPA policy reference to his mistakes:
• WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks"
• WP:NPA#Avoiding personal attacks: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."
Maunus made an accusation of "personal attacks", and foolishly entered an accusation into the edit summary, where he can't strike it if wrong [15], persisted the accusation, with WP:NPA unread or not comprehended or not acted on: "You also cannot back up personal attacks with evidence since that is irrelevant..." [16], even after that charge was declared as wrong with reference to WP:NPA: "accusation of PA is prohibited without evidence per WP:NPA" [17], followed by a more insistent request to read WP:NPA " WP:NPA says that evidenced statements are not considered PAs." (because "describe an editor's actions" implicitly requires evidence) ... "You can't casually throw around the words "personal attacks"." [18]. Yet he persisted with a third accusation of violating the "letter of WP:NPA", plus a co-accusation of "WP:CIVIL" [19] , also proved wrong [20].
Note the failure of good judgment and loss of emotional control in his re-edit of Maunus 12:26, 16 August 2009 (original diff) to Maunus 12:30, 16 August 2009 (re-edit diff). In the first diff he mutes the previous overt PA accusations to "disparaging remark", though that's still covertly a PA accusation. Unfortunately, four minutes later he couldn't resist twisting the knife by persistently adding back in a third overt PA accusation: "clearly in conflict with both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL."
Both accusations referred to an evident statement of fact, in response to a calumny by a third party, as explained in considerable detail [21].
That Maunus seemed unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and had a questionable understanding of it, casts further doubt on his readiness for adminship.
How many other policies has he not read well, or does not clearly understand? WP:CONSENSUS? Note his unqualified claim that "Major changes may be made to any article without discussion..." [22], which is consistent with his lack of regard for WP:BRD editing. [23]
WP:BRD is not required by guide or policy, but it is widely regarded as a model editing practice that good editors, and especially admins, should emulate. I requested that Maunus observe it: "...will you honor a WP:BRD revert and discussion or not?" [24] , to which he replied "I am honoring the BRD cycle by discussing this with you." [25]. In response I wrote, "I see a "B" (bold), and a preamble to a "D" (discuss), but no "R" (revert). In short, you are constructionally refusing BRD editing cooperation." Maunus' "honoring" reply is notable for its glossy failure to accept editing cooperation in a BRD cycle, coupled with a disturbingly un-admin-like morph of the facts ("BRD cycle" with no actual revert), to lightly cover what he seems to know makes him look bad (constructionally refusing BRD). [26]
Maunus has a different, more controlled self that he projects much of the time. I've seen that controlled, well-mannered self, but then I've known other editors who seemed outstanding as long as one didn't oppose them. A well-mannered self is civilized behavior, and good manners is sometimes a necessary polite fiction, but good manners isn't enough when a non-controlled self emerges under unexpected pressure. Admins face unexpected pressures frequently. As is often said, some people have the temperament to be editors, but not admins. My judgment of this editor is: not ready to be an admin.
Whatever, it looks like this nomination will sail through, so I'm serving notice of a personal dispute. Maunus is not to use his tools, or suggest his possible use of them in regard to any situation involving me.
I apologize for the page bloat of this oppose, but future victims of poor judgment, if any, deserve to know that there was a precursor to their plight. Hopefully, some other knowing admin would step in to help them. Milo 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
As always, my 3 AFD discussions question was a complex test. It doesn't reveal any such problems as alluded to by Stifle above (Any pointers to specific discussions of concern, Stifle?), but it does suggest a need for a pointer from experience. Therefore I offer this advice: Maunus, if you get administrator tools, as seems likely at this point, remember that you're still an editor as well. Ignore what NVO implies above; it's not true. ☺ As administrators we still have editor hats, and we still have all of the tools that editors have. Sometimes the right response is to just be an editor. Sometimes it's an ordinary editor tool that is the right tool for the job. Your responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trifectant indicate that you automatically view your rôle as being the closing administrator. (Note that I worded the question quite carefully. The discussions weren't chosen completely at random, either. ☺) Whilst that's admirable enthusiasm for a new administrator, from your responses to the question it is clear that the right courses of action, that would have helped AFD and Wikipedia more, would have been for you to chime in as an ordinary editor and add your opinions to the discussions. Timmeh seems to have the same concern, that you are perhaps too willing to always wear an administrator hat. You clearly have views on the articles in question ("like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability" and "The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic") and those views would actually help the next person to come along, and any future discussion closer, more than just a mere re-listing would have. (You do, after all, claim some knowledge of the field in the case of one of those discussions.)
So here's a tip based upon experience: Remember that we can often help AFD and other processes by just being ordinary editors. We aren't forced always to be discussion closers and arbiters. The administrator tools are not the only tools in our toolboxes; and it's sometimes a far more useful and productive contribution to a discussion to , to write, and to find, read, and evaluate sources, than to simply be a person wielding a rubber stamp. You'll find that those are useful principles to remember outside of deletion discussions as well. Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply