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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

final (15/10/6) ending 02:47 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs) – Self-nomination.

I have access to historical newspapers and original material placed in archives at Rutgers. For copyrighted material I contact the author or publisher for permission to use their work. My philosophy is that if information isn't on the Internet it might as well not exist. Material in libraries remained unread because no one knows they exist. Thanks to all who have read my articles.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self nomination accepted

Support

1. Support - Svest 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™} reply
2. Support, I'd say being here a year and having over 5,000 edits is experience enough... nothing in contribs suggests he would misuse admin priviliges, which must be the only consideration. Dan100 ( Talk) 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Need more admins. This is an encyclopedia first, a community second. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 18:10
4. support. Per Brian. His encyclopedia edits cancel out his low WP space activity. Job e 6 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support. Plenty of experience. freestylefrappe 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support. I was looking at this nomination to see if it should be removed early. But looking at Mr. Norton's reasoning for wanting to be an admin seems like a fine (if small--but many bricks make a wall) contribution to the overall advance of historical writing. Unless someone can show me that think he will abuse adminship, I wish the opposers would reconsider. -- Cecropia 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Strong Support - This guy is a great editor, an ambassador for wikipedia. He may not have the usertalk or project edits, but he actively speaks to people outside of wikipedia for permissions and for research purposes. Too much, I see wikipedia as just being a regurgitation of things that can be found on google, we need more of these editors. If he believes adminship will help him in his contributions, then I think he should get it. I would hate for him to switch over to RC patrol or CVU to get more "community" edits. Keep on doing what you are doing. Like Cecropia above, I wish opposers would reconsider. - Hahnchen 04:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support per above.  Grue  07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support: you don't need to be a computer geek with the ability to properly list your RFA the first time in order to be an administrator. Matt Yeager 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Very Strong Support He's a cool guy. He will be a good Admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk 12:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Techno-illiterate Geezer Support, I'd rather have an admin who can COMMUNICATE effectively, than an inarticulate, semi-literate techno geek. Besides, the admin corps has enough Wiz Kidz with 133t sk1llz. It needs more Geezers who can write.:>-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support User has made some valuable contributions, and seems quite unlikely to abuse tools. -- rogerd 02:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support - this is the first editor I have seen in a while who has even mentioned copyright and sourcing in articles on an RfA. We need more help at WP:CP. If the community is not ready for this user to become an administrator this time around, then I earnestly hope that the next time around, it will be. All the concerns listed here can be rectified given enough time and patience. -- HappyCamper 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Oppose. No excuse not giving any description of one's self and not answering the questions in a self nom. Blackcap (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

All were added after a brief delay -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Too new, not enough edits to prove to the community. Perhaps come back in a month or two. Best wishes as an editor. -- Natalinasmpf 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Is this an attempt at a joke? One year and 5,000 edits is "too new"? Dan100 ( Talk) 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Agh, sorry I took a look at the contributions page and it didn't go past 500. It must have been a bug in the software. -- Natalinasmpf 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, inexperience shows when he tried to list his self-nom - check WP:RFA history. NSLE _{( T+ C+ CVU)} 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   All were added properly after a brief delay -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Richard is doing better than he did initially, but I'm not ready to say I trust him with administrator privileges. -- Michael Snow 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Oppose as per Michael Snow. -- King of All the Franks 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Oppose Not enough experience with Wikipedia: namespace, User interaction (Talk or User_Talk)or work with items such as Templates. xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to Neutral xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU reply

   • I have been concentrating on adding new biographical content, but will contribute more widely to group projects now that my biographical backlog is complete -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

3. Oppose Lack of wiki namespace edits and talk edits -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Oppose per Blackcap. Valuable contributions so far, but the editor needs some familiarity with Wikispace before applying. Xoloz 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   Oppose per Blackcap. Tux256ac 05:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

4. Weak oppose. The user recently blanked his talk page. Please explain why you did this. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • I blanked my talk page to be able to find more readily the new messages people would be leaving me concerning the request for administratorship, as you know all the info is never deleted, just not displayed on the opening page -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
     • In such a case it's common procedure to move the removed messages to an archive page, such as User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Archive 1, and leave a link to it on your talk page. I have done it eight times so far. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
     • You may want to see WP:ARCHIVE for details. Blackcap (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
     • Users archive their talk pages as a service to other users, not because they have to. This is certainly not a valid reason to oppose someone's RFA. silsor 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
       • Huh, and here I thought being an administrator was about service to other users. Run that by me again? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
         • I help serve other users by maintaining a tutorial and a custom watchlist under my user page. But not every administrator has to do these exact things in order to be an administrator. Like archiving your talk page, they're voluntary services. Archiving talk pages is customary and useful for some users but not mandatory and IMO does not reflect on their suitability to administrate. silsor 05:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
         • Editors may be free to flaut some conventions; admins are held to a higher standard. Uncle G, an excellent admin, failed in his first candidacy for lack of a user page. The community (or a sufficiently large portion of it) has endorsed, I think, the view that admins should abide by all curtesies unless they have a very compelling reason. Certainly, if Mr. Norton didn't archive because he did not that archiving existed, or how to do it, that would be one indicator of inexperience on which an oppose might be based. Xoloz 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. I realise that this user has heaps of encylopedia edits, but with only 9 project edits, the user probably wouldn't be able to do any admin tasks anyway. I will support in a couple of months if the user makes way more project edits. DarthVader 09:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • I have been concentrating on new content, mostly biography, but now that my backlog is complete, I plan to concentrate on admin tasks, hence the self-nomination -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. He appears to be a solid editor, but with hardly any WP: or talk participation, I don't think he's been tested in interactions with other users very much. Although, with all of his contributions to images, helping other users navigate the jargon at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags might be a good place to start, along with the usual AfD, CfD, RfD, and TfD areas. Given more participation there and more consistent use of edit summaries, I would probably support in a few months. (I like your user name also!) -- Idont Havaname 20:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose - see Commons:Village_pump#Is_this_Commons_material.3F just an illustration of his unfamiliarity with the project. The user contributes great and well researched articles (sometimes maybe too obscure). But I don't believe he needs admin powers for that. Renata3 22:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • This quotation is not relevant to Wikipedia. It is a comment from Wikicommons, a distinct entity with its own editors. No rule of Commons.wikimedia was broken or bent. The rules of Wikicommons allow adding material for "current and future projects" including the proposed Wikipeople project, which is similar to whos-who -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • This vote is invalid, as it addresses past unfamiliarity with a different project. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:12
     • I'm fairly uncomfortable with declaring votes invalid, unless they are clearly duplicates, anons, or unsigned. Let the closer do that please. For the record, I object to the above comment.
8. Oppose - User does excellent edits, but should enter the policy namespace and get comfortable there before beginning to operate as an admin. Would happily support in a few months if he has done so. Learn to ride a regular bike before you hop on a motorcycle. -- Improv 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose per Improv. NB:I realize that I had voted before, and that vote was stricken without good reason or notice to me. See my comment below. I ask the striker please to account. User needs more namespace experience. Great article writers who are very unfamiliar with policy don't make good admins. Happy to support in future if his projectspace participation increases. Xoloz 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • Familiarity with policy comes from editing the policy itself? It used to be that reading it was enough to become familiar with it, but now a minimum of 76 edits must be made to policy for a user to be considered "familiar" with it? — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 22:36
     • I suppose you'd feel comfortable riding in a car where the driver had only read the manual, and never been behind the wheel before? Project space isn't just for "editing policy" -- it is where the maintenance of the encyclopedia goes on, and admins are supposed to be good janitors. Any user can be a great editor without adminship; adminship is for those who what to clean up, and they have to know what they're doing through experience first. To be frank, although you often make good points, your question here seems very ill-conceived to me. Xoloz 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
       • Thanks for the false analogy. Adminship allows people to more easily do their job, which could involve deleting large numbers of categories, or blocking repeat vandals. You don't need to edit Wikipedia namespace to know how to do that, and any suggestions to the otherwise are unfounded. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 14:07
10. Oppose. The tone of this RFA gives me a great deal of pause regarding whether this user would be a suitable admin. The supposition that you need to become an admin before you can get your feet wet in "admin-type-tasks" particularly makes me think the user hasn't looked around a lot outside the space of his articles. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral - This isn't a support because I'm concerned you haven't contributed at all on the Wikipedia: side of things. But I don't really see how anyone can argue with over one year of experience and nearly 5000 edits on the "too new, not enough edits" level, so I don't see the point in piling on. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 07:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   I apologize, I have been concentrating on biographies, but now that my backlog is complete, I plan to concentrate on admin tasks, and group projects. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2. I'm in favour principally, but more user interaction would be nice. Will likely support next time. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 12:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. That has to be the strangest candidate statement ever. I'll vote neutral because the RfA wasn't posted in a way which makes me comfortable with your abilities with the Mediawiki software/Wikipedia policies at this time. Also, seems his replies have messed up the numbering in the oppose section. I'm not comfortable that he's good with the Mediawiki software yet. Hedley 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral Not enough experience with Wikipedia: namespace, User interaction (Talk or User_Talk)or work with items such as Templates. Edits look promising, would support next time if items above increase. xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
   • So, were he to leave 1000 "welcome" messsages on new users' talk pages, that would up his number enough to make you comfortable with supporting him? Or, if he made 1000 minor stylistic changes to Wikipedia: pages, then the number would be high enough for you? — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 23:06

   Its true I have been over-concentrating on biography, at the expense of more complex "macropedic tasks" and group projects. I think we all carry a mental list of things we think should be incorporated in an encyclopedia, and that list is the first to be added. Now that I have completed my list, I hope to work on admin tasks, and more complex group tasks. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

   • • No it wouldn't, I don't base my votes on RFA's on a magic edit count number per category. But having only 9 edits in WP:, never participating in WP discussions, and having little ammounts of User talk, meant I didn't even have anywhere to start looking at how this canditate deals with items such as project policies, how they tend to vote on items such as deletions, or how they interact with other editors. I originaly voted Oppose based on these criteria, as well as a below average use of edit summarties, but due to their other edits looking good, and having a long track record I moved it to Nuetral. Maybe I was a little too concise in my message above, if their numbers in those categories increase, but it is all crap, I would vote Oppose if this came up again; but there would be an opportunity to review them. xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. King of All the Franks 07:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. This seems like one of those "Hey, i'm a new user, so being an admin would be cool since it's no big deal appparently" rfas. Come back in a bit. Also, would he need a username change when he dies? karmafist 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Regarding 'too new' and 'not enough edits', unless I'm really not seeing things straight tonigt, this user has been here for about a year and has almost 5000 edits. Please provide a Contribs, Kate's tool, or other type of corrected link here to dispute this. xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• This is easily one of the most ridiculous reasons for opposition to date. This sort of event is what turns valuable contributors away, out of some self-absorbed belief that "everyone has to be as obsessed with the Wiki namespace as myself, because Wikipedia is an online message board first, a blog second, a community third, and an encyclopedia never." Let's hope Mr. Norton doesn't go the way of the Rl, and where is SPUI to add "Oh the drama!" — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:08

• I believe my first vote was stricken here for no good reason. I had said per Blackcap, but I had provided additional words. If I am correct, I will be quite angry. Votes should not be stricken for such flimsy reasons without notice to the voter. I voted (turns out, for the second time) all the while thinking... I've done this before. It seems I had. I ask the striker to come forward and explain himself or herself please. Xoloz 06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This edit [1] identifies Brian0918 as the striker in an edit marked minor. Brian, account please. I am most displeased. Xoloz 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A.

I would like to be able to stop vandalism quicker. I also would like to be able to extract deleted articles for incorporation into other venues. Some biographies considered non-notable may be of value to other websites. I would also like to work on automating find and replace tasks such as finding the "-" in between birth and death dates and replacing them with "–"; and other related tasks.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A.

A typical article of mine would be: Middlebush Giant. I contacted the author of a reference work that cited the giant, and he gave me permission to quote him. He plans to use my newer information in his next version of the book. I used newspaper archives, searched for information in the census, and orderered a copy of his death certificate.

In Osborne Titaman Olsen I contacted the descendents for a photograph, and based on my article, I was invited to speak at a convention on china decorators. I received permission from the author to quote the work cited in the article, and the author asked to use my work in his upcoming new edition. I am scholarly and rely on original documents from archives, such as birth certificates and social security applications

I also am proud of finding errors in our rival Encyclopedia Britannica. They have the wrong birth date for Buster Crabbe and Ben Turpin, I have sent copies of the original documents to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Buster Crabbe online version has already been updated. EB has relied heavily on Hollywood press kits which have fabricated birth years to make stars look younger as they age.

For the article on Oscar Neebe I was able to contact his grandson, and recorded an hour interview in digital format, he was able to supply the names of siblings, and confirm birth and death dates found in the Illinois Death index.

I don't do original research, but I do my research using as many primary documents as possible. Descendents, letters, and original newspaper accounts.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A.

I am very mellow, I have had only one encounter with someone inpolite, and he was later banned for vandalism. I do have pet peeves such as using quotation marks around words as a way of denegrating the information: The "riot" was started when a rock was thrown... . I also have a dislike for parenthetical information. I prefer the information integrated into the narrative, rather than squeezed inbetween sentences: In 1923 (when he was 12 years old) ...

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.