User:Nae'blis/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro[edit]

I'm considering applying for adminship, because I think that I have acquired enough knowledge to become one of those "trusted users", I am finding it difficult in certain circumstances to edit/converse intelligently without being able to observed deleted pages, and I believe I have the skill to help out with some of the administrative backlogs. I'll still remain an editor primarily, mostly due to time issues, and thus I am taking this slow. However, my first (registered) edit was almost a year ago (August 17, 2005), and I have almost 5000 edits across the English Wikipedia in that time. This page is currently functioning as a drafting board, and a way for me to check with some valued editors on whether or not they think I am ready/able to pass at this time. If any of them oppose, I'll wait or reconsider applying.

  • Strengths: civility, compromise, lack of "ingrained" attitudes toward the project's processes and ways of doing things. I even yelled at Jimbo over the Category:Living people CFD once upon a time, and got a nice reply which modified my definitions of boldness somewhat. Also, I'm an admin over at A Wheel of Time wiki over on Wikia, so I have some familiarity with the tools.
  • Possible weaknesses: I don't do New Page Patrol or Recent Changes Patrol; I don't have the time or energy for that fight, and I don't use AWB or bots or automated scripts. Other people can do it better. My contributions are not as great as some would like for their standards, and it's unlikely I'll ever be in the top N admins for activity. But I'm deliberate and thoughtful in action, and wouldn't abuse any of the new tools at my disposal. Also, my typing is atrocious at high speeds, as anyone who's read my edit summaries can attest to. Oh, and I don't do IRC. Sorry.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Right now I help out with unambigous closes in AfD/RfD, and orphaning those that tend to look as if they're going to be deleted by the close. I've also got a penchant for patrolling CAT:CSD, as while I can't delete problems there now, I can occasionally help lower the backlog by redirecting too-specific titles, or expanding/sourcing/AFDing borderline articles.
In addition to those, I expect I'll be able to help out with copyvio articles and images (only the blatant ones at first), and one that's near and dear to my heart, Requested moves. Mostly, though, I don't operate with a plan for my time here, and just edit where I can make a difference at that moment. If my article editing ever gets subverted by my administrative duties, that would be a problem.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Articles I've started or significantly improved; no Featured Articles or the like, but to my knowledge no page I've started has ever been AFDed or Speedied, probably because I take time to ensure that even my first "progressive save" has some reliable sources and a summary of why the topic needs an article. I've also added sources on a number of articles that I both do and don't have an interest in; the {{fact}} tag draws me like a moth to a flame.
I'm particularly proud of the rewrite of the Roles section on Mafia (game) which kept that article from spiraling out of control, and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring, which I opted to create after I suddenly discovered the program was finished.
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: My edits tend to be to out-of-the-way articles for the most part (there's enough eyes on George W. Bush, but vandalism on domestic goat can stay for hours or days), so I don't get into a lot of tenditious editing or conflicts. The biggest situations that come to mind are:
  1. Rigoberto Alpizar - in January 2005, there was a persistent effort to label the shooting death here a "murder" before any trial or formal inquiry had occurred. The talk page ended up in quite a stink over the whole affair, but my NPOV edits/reverts had the backing of most editors involved, although it later led to related problems on Police state.
  2. Megadeth - on 16 May 2006, a user started adding what appeared to be fan art on this page in rapid-fire fashion. This was spectacularly frustrating because it was literally being redone every few minutes, with unrelated edit summaries. There seemed to be some language-barrier/policy understanding issues going on, but eventually the user got blocked for more than 3 reversions of the page, and has calmed significantly since then.
  3. Ancient Anguish - a MUD I still visit, and which attracts strong opinions from some players and ex-players. It's on my regularly patrolled pages list, and a user had some strong words about my tendency to remove opinions and criticisms from the article on the talk page.
Mostly, though, I don't edit often enough or contentious enough topics to get into edit wars. I'd rather fill in the blanks and tidy up the place, than get into a pissing contest. So I'll go edit elsewhere if things get hot, or go do something in the real world for a time.

Opinions I'd value before applying[edit]

The following users are some of those I've come to trust and value their insight and inputs most highly, over the past year. I am considering each of them to have a "veto" over my application to be an admin, as if I am doing something poorly enough for them to oppose, I don't want to even try yet. If you don't have time to vett my worthiness for the mop and bucket, that's fine and I won't count that as an oppose (if enough people stand aside, I'll find others on my list).

  • Durin: - Will review. I thank you for the kind words and consider it an honor to conduct such a review. Seeking the advice of several people like this is a very good step for you to take. Bravo! --Durin 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd seriously reconsider the current top content of your userpage. It comes off not as a call to action for improving the environment of Wikipedia, but as a rant of a seriously stressed user. I don't think this is what you intended. Regardless, if you were to have an RfA with that as your userpage, I doubt the RfA would go well whatever you contributions to the project. I'm not saying you shouldn't run. I just began the review of your contributions, and I hadn't even gotten to Special:Contributions yet...I was just going to your userpage to get them when I saw that. Will review more. --Durin 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ahh. Interesting observation; at this point, I do still think it's true (systemically rather than acutely, like I thought when I put it up there), but it's probably less than politic. I probably ought to build a slightly more comprehensive userpage anyway, so it'll probably get swept away/moderated then. On the other hand, I don't want to catch crap for "hiding my true opinions" by editing my userpage right before my RfA, but it's been there since...January? -- nae'blis 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, it was easy to do the surgery once I made the first cut...now, with 60% less bitterness. :P -- nae'blis 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just remembered you wanted this by the 17th. I'm really sorry :( I totally forgot about this until today. --Durin 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem; The 17th was just my anniversary date for my first logged-in edit, so it was nicely symbolic. No rush. -- nae'blis 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I went through your last 50 user talk page edits. Everything looks good. I'm especially impressed with these edits: [1] [2].
  • I went through all of your image space contributions. Not a ton of edits in this namespace, but where there is shows understanding of policy. For example, [3] [4] [5], and more.
    • Yeah, I toned down my message above about image copyvios when I realized I don't have as much breadth of experience as I'd like to just wade right in there. Fixing obviously false PD tags is one thing; determining fair use is quite another. -- nae'blis 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaron Brenneman: Having looked over your contributions the only think even slightly problematic was this one, and only since it's very near the top of the list for that name space and the edit summary screams "look at me!" The comment itself is mild and reasonable, but might send people looking for other interactions you've had with that editor. Barring that, I'm even more impressed with you than I was before. I'm going to keep diggin for dirt, though. - brenneman {L} 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NoSeptember: - I always get a good impression from what you write at wt:rfa and wp:ani etc. I think you are definitely qualified for adminship. Without looking into your contributions now, I seem to remember that you have disagreed with others about policy/procedure and perhaps deletion philosophy. It would be trite for some to oppose you on that (hidden behind another excuse) but it is possible. Improving the articles you listed should be enough to satisfy us as to your main space contributions. Your answer to Q1 is very good. Several things you offer to do (and have been involved in already as a user) are important and would certainly qualify you as an active admin in my book when you continue there (active cleanup (CSD, copyvio, req moves) is as important as active patroling). So in conclusion - VETO! (ah, the power :). Seriously, go for it, I can't see any legitimate reason why you should not be an admin. You are certainly civil and would not misuse the tools. NoSeptember 08:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nae%27blis/Review&oldid=70544947"