Final (125/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Such skill in dispute resolution and mediation would be enough for me to nominate an editor, but Mr. Stradivarius has far more to offer. He's the top contributor to the dispute resolution noticeboard, has an excellent looking CSD log, spends time at articles for deletion and even finds time to write about teaching and learning foreign languages.
Mr. Stradivarius has an excellent combination of knowledge and demeanour, helps out all over the place and knows how to handle difficult situations. I cannot recommend this candidate strongly enough. WormTT( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Hi all - I'm happy to offer a co-nomination for Mr. Straidvarius. Worm that Turned has left me very little to say that's not already been said. Mr. Stradivarius has all the qualities I look for in a potential administrator - excellent knowledge of policy, broad participation in all areas of Wikipedia, quality contributions to articles, and most importantly, excellent performance in dispute resolution. The way he handled the verifiability mediation and the fact that as a result of his efforts a workable conclusion was brought to the dispute is monumental. I admire his dedication to the project and know that he will do a superb job as an administrator. I wish him my support and the best of luck. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
I have also written a few articles as a result of my experiences at AfD and doing new page patrol. I expanded Armada 2526 from a two-sentence stub after it was kept at AfD, and I started New York University Abu Dhabi after a related article popped up at Special:NewPages. The idea for writing Performance calligraphy came after I noticed the Shodo Girls article while doing new page patrol, and I thought that it was an interesting gap in our coverage that could be filled. Then there are the other stubs that I have written as a result of new page patrolling, which are nothing special content-wise, but which I hope have helped to make the experience of our new contributors a little bit less confusing. For example, I wrote Nicklaus Design to create a redirect target for this page, and I expanded Enable Scotland from this version to save it from speedy deletion.
Recently I have been spending time working with templates, particularly the speedy deletion templates and notices. My contribution here with the most impact must be my rewrite of {{ db-notice-multiple}}, which solved a long-standing problem with pages nominated for speedy deletion under multiple criteria. Previously, editors who had their articles deleted under multiple criteria just saw a generic warning message on their user talk page, which didn't really give the author much idea of what they might have done wrong. With the update users get advice on how to deal with each specific reason for deletion, which hopefully has saved a few new editors from leaving the project. I also wrote {{ NewDRNsubmission}}, the old template for submitting disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and {{ csdcheck}}, to help other authors of speedy deletion templates.
Having said all of this, my best overall contributions to Wikipedia are probably in the area of dispute resolution. I am a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard and have managed to rack up over 650 edits there. I was also one of the coordinators at the Mediation Cabal (before it recently shut down), and in May this year I became a member of the Mediation Committee. I've lost count of the number of disputes I've helped to deal with, but this link might give people a rough idea. A couple of the more memorable disputes from DRN were the Lotus E20 dispute and the Flag of Western Sahara dispute (plus accompanying RfC). If I had to name one dispute which I was the most proud of being involved with, however, I would choose the MedCab mediation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the resulting RfC which was closed yesterday (July 30). That is the biggest dispute I have dealt with, and I am very pleased that there is finally some consensus on the issue. Also, dealing with a mediation this big has taught me a lot, and hopefully should stand me in good stead for my next project.
The next big template job I did was {{ db-notice-multiple}}, which I noticed through new page patrolling. This one required me to learn how to deal with "switch" functions properly, which was a challenge I thoroughly enjoyed. {{ csdcheck}} was really a simplification of the db-notice-multiple code, but rather than make it a sub-routine I turned it into its own template as it seemed like it would be useful elsewhere. (Sure enough, I ended up using it with {{ db-multiple}} as well.) Csdcheck reduced the size of db-notice-multiple from 46k to 23k, and made the code more portable. For example, if a new speedy deletion criterion is introduced then adding it to the template will now require much less work and be less prone to error.
I also did a fair amount of work on {{ db-multiple}}, which involved also updating {{ db-meta}}. Now, if someone includes the G10 criterion, the template automatically blanks the page, and displays a notice that the page has been blanked at the bottom of the template. (Before, the blanking notice was sandwiched in the middle.) Also, now the suggestion to use {{ subst:db-notice-multiple}} on the author's talk page is automatically updated with the relevant speedy deletion criteria. And perhaps most importantly, now the source URL of any copyright violation etc. is automatically included in the deletion summary, making it easier for new page patrollers to find copyright violations in pages that have been reposted after being previously deleted.
Most recently I have been working on the documentation for the speedy deletion templates. This was centralised at {{ db doc}}, and although this template is very well-coded, its complexity meant that people have generally been reluctant to update the documentation for the individual deletion templates. This has meant that various errors have crept in, for example saying that a template lists pages in the wrong speedy deletion category, or saying that a template is included in the standard Twinkle installation when it is not. And in my case, it meant that I couldn't easily update the documentation for {{ db-g10}} after I added a couple of new parameters. So I have been moving the speedy deletion templates back to using the standard {{ documentation}} template. As part of this process I will need to update most of the speedy deletion warning templates as well, so you might see me doing this over the next few days.
Regarding the second half of that section, which talks about sanctions: I think it is only fair that administrators should stay in their position only as long as they have the trust of the community. Administrators are appointed because the community has expressed trust in them through the RfA process, and if they have lost that trust, then it would seem disingenuous to me for them to continue to serve. How we determine whether that trust has been lost is a whole different matter, however, and I think it is beyond the scope of this question. I will just note that there have been a few promising developments on this front recently (for example this, this and this).
Now for WP:WHEEL. I can't imagine any circumstance in which wheel warring might be a good idea. It's bad for everyone concerned: it has a strong negative effect on the working relationship between the administrators involved, and more importantly it is disruptive to the editors who are affected by the administrative actions. It is much better to discuss things than to take action too hastily. Through discussion administrators might find a common ground on an issue that might have seemed completely divisive at first. If administrators can't agree after an initial discussion, then community noticeboards such as WP:AN and WP:ANI are there to help find a wider consensus.
First, I would try and ascertain whether the image met all of the non-free content criteria. If I was sure that it did, then no action would be necessary. If any of the criteria weren't met but it was possible to fix the situation, then I would do so. This could mean providing a non-free use rationale, tagging the image with an appropriate copyright tag, fixing broken links to articles on the image description page, or resizing the image. If I was sure that the non-free content criteria could not be met, then I would either nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion or tag it for speedy deletion, depending on the circumstances. I would be very careful with this part, as the only files I have nominated for deletion so far have been on Commons. And if I was unsure whether the image met any of the non-free content criteria, then I would try and fix the file description page as best I could, and start a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to try and find a consensus on the matter.
Finally, in all but the first of the cases above, I would leave a message on the talk page of the user who uploaded the image explaining the situation and giving advice for the next time they uploaded an image. A message wouldn't be necessary if all the non-free content criteria were fulfilled, although I might leave a thank you note depending on the circumstances, and I would welcome the user if they were new.
Personally, I always prefer educating users to sanctioning them, and I would only use the block button after all reasonable attempts to fix the problem have failed. Having said this, sometimes a user can be so disruptive that a warning is not necessary. This would apply to vandalism-only accounts and obvious sockpuppets, for example, although for sockpuppets I might choose to file a sockpuppet investigation rather than blocking immediately. If a block is made in error, then it will always remain in a user's block log; that can affect the perception of the user among the wider community, and so I think blocking should be approached very cautiously indeed. I hope this answers your question.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Final (125/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Such skill in dispute resolution and mediation would be enough for me to nominate an editor, but Mr. Stradivarius has far more to offer. He's the top contributor to the dispute resolution noticeboard, has an excellent looking CSD log, spends time at articles for deletion and even finds time to write about teaching and learning foreign languages.
Mr. Stradivarius has an excellent combination of knowledge and demeanour, helps out all over the place and knows how to handle difficult situations. I cannot recommend this candidate strongly enough. WormTT( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Hi all - I'm happy to offer a co-nomination for Mr. Straidvarius. Worm that Turned has left me very little to say that's not already been said. Mr. Stradivarius has all the qualities I look for in a potential administrator - excellent knowledge of policy, broad participation in all areas of Wikipedia, quality contributions to articles, and most importantly, excellent performance in dispute resolution. The way he handled the verifiability mediation and the fact that as a result of his efforts a workable conclusion was brought to the dispute is monumental. I admire his dedication to the project and know that he will do a superb job as an administrator. I wish him my support and the best of luck. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
I have also written a few articles as a result of my experiences at AfD and doing new page patrol. I expanded Armada 2526 from a two-sentence stub after it was kept at AfD, and I started New York University Abu Dhabi after a related article popped up at Special:NewPages. The idea for writing Performance calligraphy came after I noticed the Shodo Girls article while doing new page patrol, and I thought that it was an interesting gap in our coverage that could be filled. Then there are the other stubs that I have written as a result of new page patrolling, which are nothing special content-wise, but which I hope have helped to make the experience of our new contributors a little bit less confusing. For example, I wrote Nicklaus Design to create a redirect target for this page, and I expanded Enable Scotland from this version to save it from speedy deletion.
Recently I have been spending time working with templates, particularly the speedy deletion templates and notices. My contribution here with the most impact must be my rewrite of {{ db-notice-multiple}}, which solved a long-standing problem with pages nominated for speedy deletion under multiple criteria. Previously, editors who had their articles deleted under multiple criteria just saw a generic warning message on their user talk page, which didn't really give the author much idea of what they might have done wrong. With the update users get advice on how to deal with each specific reason for deletion, which hopefully has saved a few new editors from leaving the project. I also wrote {{ NewDRNsubmission}}, the old template for submitting disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and {{ csdcheck}}, to help other authors of speedy deletion templates.
Having said all of this, my best overall contributions to Wikipedia are probably in the area of dispute resolution. I am a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard and have managed to rack up over 650 edits there. I was also one of the coordinators at the Mediation Cabal (before it recently shut down), and in May this year I became a member of the Mediation Committee. I've lost count of the number of disputes I've helped to deal with, but this link might give people a rough idea. A couple of the more memorable disputes from DRN were the Lotus E20 dispute and the Flag of Western Sahara dispute (plus accompanying RfC). If I had to name one dispute which I was the most proud of being involved with, however, I would choose the MedCab mediation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the resulting RfC which was closed yesterday (July 30). That is the biggest dispute I have dealt with, and I am very pleased that there is finally some consensus on the issue. Also, dealing with a mediation this big has taught me a lot, and hopefully should stand me in good stead for my next project.
The next big template job I did was {{ db-notice-multiple}}, which I noticed through new page patrolling. This one required me to learn how to deal with "switch" functions properly, which was a challenge I thoroughly enjoyed. {{ csdcheck}} was really a simplification of the db-notice-multiple code, but rather than make it a sub-routine I turned it into its own template as it seemed like it would be useful elsewhere. (Sure enough, I ended up using it with {{ db-multiple}} as well.) Csdcheck reduced the size of db-notice-multiple from 46k to 23k, and made the code more portable. For example, if a new speedy deletion criterion is introduced then adding it to the template will now require much less work and be less prone to error.
I also did a fair amount of work on {{ db-multiple}}, which involved also updating {{ db-meta}}. Now, if someone includes the G10 criterion, the template automatically blanks the page, and displays a notice that the page has been blanked at the bottom of the template. (Before, the blanking notice was sandwiched in the middle.) Also, now the suggestion to use {{ subst:db-notice-multiple}} on the author's talk page is automatically updated with the relevant speedy deletion criteria. And perhaps most importantly, now the source URL of any copyright violation etc. is automatically included in the deletion summary, making it easier for new page patrollers to find copyright violations in pages that have been reposted after being previously deleted.
Most recently I have been working on the documentation for the speedy deletion templates. This was centralised at {{ db doc}}, and although this template is very well-coded, its complexity meant that people have generally been reluctant to update the documentation for the individual deletion templates. This has meant that various errors have crept in, for example saying that a template lists pages in the wrong speedy deletion category, or saying that a template is included in the standard Twinkle installation when it is not. And in my case, it meant that I couldn't easily update the documentation for {{ db-g10}} after I added a couple of new parameters. So I have been moving the speedy deletion templates back to using the standard {{ documentation}} template. As part of this process I will need to update most of the speedy deletion warning templates as well, so you might see me doing this over the next few days.
Regarding the second half of that section, which talks about sanctions: I think it is only fair that administrators should stay in their position only as long as they have the trust of the community. Administrators are appointed because the community has expressed trust in them through the RfA process, and if they have lost that trust, then it would seem disingenuous to me for them to continue to serve. How we determine whether that trust has been lost is a whole different matter, however, and I think it is beyond the scope of this question. I will just note that there have been a few promising developments on this front recently (for example this, this and this).
Now for WP:WHEEL. I can't imagine any circumstance in which wheel warring might be a good idea. It's bad for everyone concerned: it has a strong negative effect on the working relationship between the administrators involved, and more importantly it is disruptive to the editors who are affected by the administrative actions. It is much better to discuss things than to take action too hastily. Through discussion administrators might find a common ground on an issue that might have seemed completely divisive at first. If administrators can't agree after an initial discussion, then community noticeboards such as WP:AN and WP:ANI are there to help find a wider consensus.
First, I would try and ascertain whether the image met all of the non-free content criteria. If I was sure that it did, then no action would be necessary. If any of the criteria weren't met but it was possible to fix the situation, then I would do so. This could mean providing a non-free use rationale, tagging the image with an appropriate copyright tag, fixing broken links to articles on the image description page, or resizing the image. If I was sure that the non-free content criteria could not be met, then I would either nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion or tag it for speedy deletion, depending on the circumstances. I would be very careful with this part, as the only files I have nominated for deletion so far have been on Commons. And if I was unsure whether the image met any of the non-free content criteria, then I would try and fix the file description page as best I could, and start a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to try and find a consensus on the matter.
Finally, in all but the first of the cases above, I would leave a message on the talk page of the user who uploaded the image explaining the situation and giving advice for the next time they uploaded an image. A message wouldn't be necessary if all the non-free content criteria were fulfilled, although I might leave a thank you note depending on the circumstances, and I would welcome the user if they were new.
Personally, I always prefer educating users to sanctioning them, and I would only use the block button after all reasonable attempts to fix the problem have failed. Having said this, sometimes a user can be so disruptive that a warning is not necessary. This would apply to vandalism-only accounts and obvious sockpuppets, for example, although for sockpuppets I might choose to file a sockpuppet investigation rather than blocking immediately. If a block is made in error, then it will always remain in a user's block log; that can affect the perception of the user among the wider community, and so I think blocking should be approached very cautiously indeed. I hope this answers your question.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |