User:Davidwr/RFAs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is my subpage for Request for Adminship-related issues.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report is the canonical list of current RFAs.

General philosophy[edit]

Knowing policy is important, but the bottom line on AFDs for me isn't so much "does he know policy" but "does he recognize areas where he should stay out of decision-making because he's not qualified to answer," "when he does use the tools, will he use them properly," and "does he have a demonstrated need the tools at all?" If all 3 of those are yes, there's no negative history, and the candidate has an overall positive "vibe" then I'll usually give at least weak support. I'll usually withhold support for even a perfect candidate if there's no possible reason he would ever use the tools, on the grounds that "if you don't need a key, you shouldn't have one." I expound on this in this reply ("Recall that the purpose of administrators and other tool-bearing editors is to do the necessary cleanup work that cannot be done without access to special tools") to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Radical suggestion, dated 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Additional notes as of 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC):

I will generally overlook issues more than a year old, and will overlook minor issues if enough time has passed and/or enough apologies have been given that it's clear it won't be repeated. Serious issues in the past may warrant a minimum delay even if the candidate is otherwise excellent.

Editors on other Wikis will have that taken into consideration, but I still want to see a few weeks to a few months and a few hundred edits including edits that demonstrate you know the English Wikipedia's rules and culture. I generally don't go for "courtesy sysop" requests, but I might make an exception if multiple English Wikipedia bureaucrats strongly endorsed you and specifically said they knew that you understood the English way of doing things. This assumes there are no other issues besides lack of tenure here.

I generally view an previous admin who is not eligible for courtesy re-sysoping as "starting over," which generally means 6-12 months of reasonably consistent editing, with 6 months reserved for the best candidates. Support or better yet strong support from one or more then-active who endorsed your desysoping is helpful. Some former admins who are not required to run for RFA choose to do so, I will view such an RFA without prejudice, if not outright favorably.

Other's takes on RFAs[edit]

Note to anyone reading this: Don't bother trying to please someone for the sake of pleasing them. However, if the majority of people say "this is a good criteria" it's a pretty good hint that it is in fact a good criteria. Use common sense and your own judgment though, everyone else could be wrong, it's just not likely.

If you add your criteria to this list, please sign it. Anything not signed is probably added by me.

Wikipedia:-space pages[edit]

Pages of interest should I ever be a candidate[edit]

Note: I am no longer interested in adminship This page is kept for posterity and in the hopes it will be useful to others who might want the bit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 10:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Several times in the last year I've thought about running for administrator. I've even had a nomination offer by a now-retired Wikipedian, but I did not feel I was ready at the time.

These pages may be useful to anyone considering me for nomination:

Also, about my May 2007 block: It was over what amounted to a private arbcom action. This issue was resolved in July 2007. While the circumstances are private and I will not discuss them, they have not recurred and will not recur. The major lesson I took from that is that there are certain topics which cause me to think and edit emotionally rather than with a level head.

Would I accept a nomination now? Probably, but I would not be a heavy user of the tools in the near future, as the vast majority of my work doesn't require it. Recently, the only things I've done that would require it are expiring-prod patrol, new-page patrol, small-pages patrol, and other cases where speedy- or expiring-prod deletion decisions are pretty much a formality. I have had a couple speedy-deletion requests declined, in "iffy" cases I'd likely tag an article rather than delete it outright. Also, I'm familiar with policy as it was a few months ago, but some of those policies have changed and I would need to re-read them before making decisions that weren't obvious, such as iffy speedies, close or low-trafficked xFDs, blocking editors in non-obvious cases, etc.

What mistakes would I likely make if handed the tools? I'd probably be heavy-handed on 24-hour blocks of vandal IP addresses, particularly those with a history of being abused. It's not that I go looking for vandalism, but I grow impatient after someone has been warned 3 or 4 times. Some editors would call this a mistake, I would call it within the discretion of an administrator.

Before you nominate me, check me out well. Look at my user subpages. Spot-check my edit history and talk page archives. Ask me if I'm ready to go through the process now, as I may be on a Wikibreak. Consider finding a co-nominator.

Could I survive without the tools? Yes. I'm hear to build an encyclopedia, not clean up messes. Could I survive an unsuccessful RfA? Yes, but I'd rather not go through the process if it won't succeed. If you don't think I would survive, save us both the trouble and let me know your concerns now so I can fix them before I accept someone else's nomination.

Additional notes as of 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC):

I do occasional work at expiring-PROD patrol, CSD patrol, IFD, TFD, and MFD. I also do some userfication as an alternative to speedy deletion at CSD patrol. Having the tools for these would lessen the load on other admins.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My RFA participation[edit]

RFAs in which I nominated, co-nominated, or made a major contribution to such as rescuing a failing candidate or tanking a candidate who was headed for success. Frankly, I don't expect to ever do the last one, but if I do, it goes here. When I'm ready to run, my own RFA or RFAs will be listed here as well.

Other significant RFA participation[edit]

Standard RFA questions[edit]

Serious questions[edit]

TBD

Humorous questions[edit]

If I asked you to pick one of these as part of your RFA, please note that it's completely optional and I brought you here to give you a good laugh, nothing more. If you do choose to answer, please make it clear to other RFA readers that per my request your answer is not to be taken seriously. "When should the main page be deleted?" "Why every day, of course, and twice on Sunday" is a perfectly acceptable reply.

Also, feel free to add your own questions here, on your own RFA, or on your own user page. If you add them here please add your signature to the end of each question so everyone knows it is yours, and please add some form of disclaimer saying you aren't serious, so people know off-the-wall nonsensical answers are expected.

  1. Under what conditions is it okay for an administrator to delete the main page? Remember, this question is not serious, so please answer accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
  2. Under what conditions do you expect to be a net positive to Wikipedia? Remember, this question is not serious, so please answer accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
  3. Which aspects of a modern wikipedian are important to have before becoming an administrator? Remember, this question is not serious, so please answer accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
  4. Nuts or bolts? Remember, this question is not serious, so please answer accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

My answers to some common questions[edit]

  1. Q: When should non-free pictures of living persons be allowed?
    A: See this comment from 12/29/2008 on Majorly's talk page. The last paragraph sums it up: "Having said that, if the person is still realistically available to be photographed and the proposed image doesn't add significant value beyond the best possible free image that could be taken, if only I had a camera and were close enough to shoot, then it's not appropriate to use a non-free picture of a living person in an article about that person, and it's not appropriate for me to use a non-free picture that's "just a picture of that person" for any other purpose."
  2. Q: When does WP:IAR apply when taking administrative actions?
    A: Rarely. When it does it's either a unique case or the policies and guidelines need revisions. A recent case is the CSD of Donaher. The proposed reason was WP:A3: an article which contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images As of 19:16 10 January 2008, it technically fails that test, in part due to an out of place paragraph on Ireland. If this had been about a person, or an organized family, rather than all persons with a particular surname from a particular country, A7 would apply. Given the inevitable WP:SNOW at WP:AFD, deleting as "reason=other" with a good dose of WP:IAR applies. In any case, this is rare. If this wasn't contested, WP:PROD would be more appropriate, as it's not harming anyone and not wasting people's time at AFD. The best solution is to educate the user and get the author to withdraw it as db-author. I did both.
  3. Q: #Nuts or bolts? Remember, this question is not serious, so please answer accordingly.
    A: Anything but chains.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davidwr/RFAs&oldid=957451476"