→General comments: IP address being used before the UnitedStates1000 account (and stil being used, in perfectly acceptable ways) |
FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 90:
::Sad to see you leave the rescue squad, your absence will be a colossal loss. Its no exaggeration to say your work for us has been over a hundred times greater than the contributions of a moderately active member like myself. It's also disappointing to see some apparently holding the resignation against you. It's a wise move, as said before on ARS talk, anyone wishing to one day serve as an admin would be well advised to leave. Considering the obvious value and nobility of the ARS, those lacking years of experience with wikipedia are sometimes perplexed by the dislike directed towards us. In several ways ARS stands in the same relation to the wider community as the early Christians did to the Roman empire. Despite them doing all sorts of valuable work (like caring for widows and orphans who would otherwise have to starve or sell themselves into slavery), early Christians were widely despised, with crowds gleefully cheering as church members were humiliated and killed in the arena. I guess the difference is that the blood of the early martyrs seeded the rapid growth of the church. According to the best historians like [[Adolf von Harnack|von Harnack]] , their unrelenting selflessness, love for each other, and valuable work for those in need caused their faith to be adopted by about 55% of the Roman empire's population in only 300 years. At which point even the elite began to convert. As nothing analogous has happened here, it probably means the virtues the ARS represents like inclusiveness and friendliness are seeking new and even better forms to express themselves. So nothing wrong with leaving the ARS, and thanks so much for all you've done for us. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment on earlier account(s)''': a fair amount of people have expressed concern over the earlier account(s) used by NorthAmerica1000. For those people feeling that the UnitedStates1000account clearly was not a newbie, and having reservations because they fear that another, earlier account is not being disclosed: while I of course can't disprove that, I have found quite easily that NorthAmerica1000 edited with a fixed IP address quite heavily before starting his UnitedStates1000 account, which explains how that account could jump in so quickly and easily: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/71.237.197.56&limit=730&target=71.237.197.56]. The IP address has made some 730 edits in total. Considering that the IP address is being used on the same articles and pages as the named account (though as far as I have checked never with any ill intent and always in perfectly acceptable ways; e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippine_cuisine&offset=20111015171236&action=history here]), I suppose this isn't outing but providing info available and useful for every editor here. If people feel that this is nonetheless a case of outing, I'll happily remove this info again. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:: You could perhaps have emailed North in advance to check he's cool with you saying this. But thanks for helping to suggest concerns about North's trustworthiness are baseless. I've seen you speak up for Squad memebers several times before when they've been unfairly accussed, which is especially good of you as you dont seem to share the same views many of us have concerning inclusion. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
----
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. -->
|
Revision as of 14:29, 8 November 2012
(talk page) (17/28/13); Scheduled to end 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my pleasure to nominate Northamerica1000 for administrator. He has been a part of this community for nearly a year-and-a-half, during which time he has amassed almost 100,000 edits. He has been entrusted with autopatrolled status, and he is also a file mover, reviewer, and rollbacker. A part of multiple science-related WikiProjects, Northamerica1000 fight vandalism and participates in articles for creation. He does good work here and granting him the mop will only increase his efficiency. With all the talk about the need to promote more admins and with the concern that RfA is dying, I ask you why, if adminship is indeed no big deal, should we not give this editor the mop? AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination for adminship, and thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: There are a great deal of avenues and choices in administrative work on Wikipedia. Foremostly, I feel that I have sound experience in contributing to the encyclopedia to assist in the administration of Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and consensus in an egalitarian and equitable manner. Being an administrator significantly increases one's responsibility on Wikipedia, and I would utilize the administrative tools in a productive, yet judicious and discerning manner. Particular interests include file organization and management, WikiProjects, collaborations, portals and featured portal designation, editor retention, Articles for creation, Articles for deletion and AfD discussions, the Teahouse, welcoming users, countering vandalism, making productive contributions to discussions, new page patrolling, copy editing, simply improving the encyclopedia and several other avenues. These interests being realized in administration have many potential forms. For example, I've made significant contributions to AfD and have performed several non-administrator AfD closures. A few closure examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Alliance for Life, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Do It (Niké).
- The process of discussion and consensus on Wikipedia is intriguing and ultimately, productive. The world is comprised of many people with divergent cultural backgrounds, ideation, knowledge, beliefs and values, and the manner in which this all eventually and ultimately meshes on Wikipedia in the form of productive articles and consensus is awesome. I'm interested in further contributing to discussions and performing consensus-based discussion resolutions and closures, including those at the administrators noticeboards such as Requests for closure and ANI. Additonal interests include countering vandalism in its many forms, utilizing page protection when necessary, helping out with updating content changes for the main page, various other deletion discussions (i.e. deletion review, Templates for discussion, etc.), article/file deletion and undeletion (the latter when warranted, i.e. Userfication), and additional areas. All of this would involve the cautious, rather than hasty, use of the tools from the start, per the learning curve for the use of any new tools on Wikipedia.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The best contributions are those that improve the encyclopedia for the viewing public, further the goals of the project and in the process also lend to the acquistion of personal knowledge and learning during the process of article improvement. Regarding the notion of my “best” contributions, I tend to favor article improvements and expansions that involve significant research and thoughtful copy editing. A significant part of the fun of Wikipedia is finding articles about subjects and areas of interest, performing research to locate various reliable sources, particularly empirical research sources when available, and then copy editing articles to improve their content, sourcing and presentation. The process of researching and copy editing is quite conducive to the acquisition of personal knowledge, and in the process the encyclopedia is also improved. In this manner, one can learn about new topics and expand their knowledge of already-known ones while also concurrently improving the encyclopedia. This equates to a win-win situation for both the editor and the reader. For people's perusal, I maintain a list of some of my contributions at User:Northamerica1000/Contributions.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Active editors will inevitably have occasional conflicts with other editors, and the most important thing to do when this occurs is to first consider the other person's viewpoint. From here, calm, rational discussion between those in disagreement can often lead to resolution or compromise. In some instances, a person may be in error, and through the process of discussion the error is corrected. Other times, people may have philosophical differences about an article, topic or matter and not ultimately reach a resolution, but compromise may be reached. If compromise isn't attained, sometimes editors may have to “agree to disagree.” These processes and others also often lend to the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.
- I personally don't become stressed from disagreements and their discussion, but I'm aware that others may. Tension and stress can interfere with cognition, which can be transferred in the form of negatively-affecting discussions. Conversely, calmness tends to lend to more productive discussions. It's important to encourage calm interaction. If a user is becoming overtly stressed out or even hostile, encouraging them to “take a step back” and take a break from the discussion often counters these matters. Afterward, the subsequent discussion often becomes more engaging and productive.
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: Here are some links to discussions I was involved in that had some conflict. I remained calm, civil and rational:
- ANI discussion that began on 12 January 2012 (UTC): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Article Rescue Squadron on AfD. Please note that I did make one error on this page, in which I typed "This is my first and only Wikipedia account. Your suspicions are incorrect in this case. I'm not another person that you may be thinking about, in this case." This occurred because I simply forgot about my short-term, abandoned User:Unitedstates1000 account.
- My nomination of Template:Rescue for discussion on 13 January 2012 (UTC): Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue.
- The above ANI discussion moved to Village pump (policy) page on 16 January 2012 (UTC): Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 92#Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad.
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 11:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Gwickwire
- 4. If given the mop, will you be subject to recall? If not, why not?
- A: I'd definitely give it consideration. Doing so would entail creating parameters for oneself and then volunteering to de-sysop if one's own parameters are not met. A concern, though, is that at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall it is stated, "The status of the approach on this page is currently unclear." (et al.) Further clarification of the procedures, methods of judgment and processes of implementation would increase the likelihood of my adherence to this option. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- 5. If you saw a new editor placing admin templates on his/her userpage, or otherwise claiming to be an administrator when they clearly arent, what actions, if any, would you take? What if it was a more established user?
- A: After first checking to ensure that the person is not an administrator, for example, by performing a check at Special:ListUsers/sysop, I would remove any erroneously-placed admin templates if present along with an edit summary explaining their removal and message them about the matter. In the case of a template simply being mistakenly placed, as could occur in a copy/paste error, basic discussion could resolve the matter. In the event of ongoing false claims, a sterner warning would be appropriate along with a request that the erroneous information be struck from their posts. Additionally, in the event of the latter, the user would also be warned that continued false representation can result in blocks for deliberately introducing factual errors, up to and including being blocked indefinitely if the behavior persists. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- 6. If you were reviewing someone's request for permissions, and you saw that they had been blocked in the past, how would you go about determining the outcome of their request? Would the amount of time be important, or just their contributions since the block(s)?
- A: The foremost considerations in this matter would be the reason and circumstances for why the block was enacted, whether or not this was the person's first block or if they have been blocked multiple times, and if so what for (for simliar or for different matters), and the timeframe of the block in the event that there has been more than one. If a person was previously blocked for a violation similar to the very permission they are requesting, this would have to be taken into consideration. For example, in an instance where a user who requests autopatrolled permission has been blocked for creating faulty, unreferenced, spam-like articles in the far past, but has since demonstrated significant changes in behavior and is following guidelines and policies, less weight would be applicable regarding the block and the outcome of a request for permission would be primarily based upon the efficacy of the request relative to the the requesters experience and abilities, along with the degree of congruence relative to the guidelines for autopatrolled permission. Conversely, if the person recently made such request shortly after a related block for said example, the request would likely be denied with advice to make said request in the future after demonstrating compliance with policies and guidelines. The amount of time that has occurred and the number of contributions an editor has made after a block can be subjective. Per the example above, if a user was blocked in the far past and has made few or no edits in the time between the block and the request, the gravitas of the block would be higher. Conversely, in a situation where a user who has performed many edits and has not made subsequent violations related to the rationale for the block, the distant block would have less gravitas. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Mtking
- 7. Given that your first 500 edits were done in less than 10 days, it is reasonable to conclude that you may have edited WP before opening this account, can you please disclose any other accounts you have edited with or confirm that ArbCom are aware of them and ask someone from ArbCom to attest to that.
- A: The first account I created on Wikipedia was User:Unitedstates1000, but I decided to change my user name. The pages for this initial, short-term account redirect to my current user pages. My contributions under the initial account can be viewed here. Prior to that I made occasional edits to Wikipedia under IP addresses while traveling. It's unclear why the arbitration committee would need to be aware of my initial User:Unitedstates1000 account, because there is no dispute inherent regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The ArbCom is only relevant if, for example you account was in your real name and you had decided to stop using it for reasons of privacy and therfore did not wish to disclose your real name.
- I am still a bit confused of over the change from account to another one, you stopped editing with Unitedstates1000 and six minutes later you created this one, then continued to edit in the subject area of Hotels, yet you took to last month before you linked the two accounts. That first account had been in use for less than a month and made over 1000 edits is that correct ? Mtking (edits) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The first account was in use for less than a month and a total of 1,119 edits were performed under it. I created the new account simply because I liked my current account name more than the prior one. I'd forgotten about the former, short-term account and upon reviewing some of my past edits, saw it in an article's revision history. From there, I then linked the old account user pages to redirect to my current ones. Under the former account, 1,119 edits were performed and the first edit occurred on May 12, 2011 (see Edit Counter), and the last edit was performed on June 8, 2011 (see User contributions). Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: I simply decided to begin editing under a new user name and abandoned the old account, because I preferred the new name compared to the former. I also requested deletion of the old account simply because it isn't being used whatsoever, but the request was denied (See this diff page and scroll down to the end to view the full discussion.) Since the pages couldn't be deleted, I redirected them to my current user pages. Hopefully this helps to significantly clarify this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: Also note that the last edit under the Unitedstates1000 account occurred on 11:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (See User contributions) and the first edit under the Northamerica1000 occurred on 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (User contributions). There was absolutely zero overlap between the accounts. When the former was abandoned it was never used again. I redirected the user pages to my current ones using my present account on 3 October 2012 after my request for deletion of the abandoned account pages was denied, as stated above. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: The first account I created on Wikipedia was User:Unitedstates1000, but I decided to change my user name. The pages for this initial, short-term account redirect to my current user pages. My contributions under the initial account can be viewed here. Prior to that I made occasional edits to Wikipedia under IP addresses while traveling. It's unclear why the arbitration committee would need to be aware of my initial User:Unitedstates1000 account, because there is no dispute inherent regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- 8. Since the toolserver resource cant help (due to your contribution count being so large) to to assess your contributions in some non-content creation areas of WP for example (but not limited to) in areas such as Speedy Deletion (perhaps with examples where you have added or removed CSD tags) or help in fighting vandals etc and Can you please outline the work you have done in the areas of WP that require the administration, such as AIV
- A: As an example of countering vandalism, I've performed over 1,000 edits using STiki (see User:Northamerica1000/Awards). In the process, I've learned about the procedures for countering vandalism such as warning levels and types of user notifications. These skills would be transferrable toward contributing at AIV. Some areas of my non-content contributions include AfD, AfC and Prods. Some of my contributions at AfD include:
- Additionally, here's an MfD example: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Khitan. Some of my AfC contributions can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive/Northamerica1000. My prod contributions are mostly prod tag removals and improvement of prodded articles, and some examples include [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from BarkingFish
- 9. Do you, personally, feel that you deserve to be an administrator on this project, and if so, what makes you more deserving than other candidates with more experience than yourself, who have lost out at this place? If you don't feel you deserve it, what qualities do you feel you will add to the admin base on this project?
- A: Rather than deserving, I feel qualified and competent per my experience and abilities. Regarding comparisons to other editors who have been declined, their reasons for being declined would be relative to their own contributions to the encyclopedia. Some of my personal qualities that would contribute to the administrative base of Wikipedia include a fair-minded, rational approach, respect of other's opinions and viewpoints and my ability to multitask. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Bagumba
- 10. In Q1, you mentioned your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession. Can you discuss your decision to perform the close in relation to "clear keep outcomes" described in the essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closure?
- A: The "Clear keep outcomes" section of the essay is a suggested procedure from an essay. I generally refer to the Non-administrators closing discussions section at Wikipedia:Deletion process because this is a guideline page and has more weight compared to an essay. Furthermore, it is denoted at the top of the essay that it is "intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." That said, ultimately, the outcome of the discussion favored article retention based upon the overall strength of the arguments in the discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- 11. What are your feelings on supervotes?
- A: Supervotes should not be performed because this style of discussion closure typically fails to take consensus within discussions into consideration. Furthermore, supervotes typically lend undue weight to the opinion of the closer. Discussion closures should be based upon consensus and the weight of the various arguments within discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Plutonium27
- 12 Your answer to Q2 refers us here [6] re your contributions to articles. There you have listed the article Weight phobia under the title of your "Articles Created". Its history shows that you did not create this article and have made just one edit there: three months after it was created from a redirect (which you had not been involved with, nor had you edited the original article) you added a portal link. A substantial contribution early on in an article's history can conceivably be confused with its creation - but one minor edit? A listing muddle between "articles created" and "articles edited" (however slightly) is also possible. But given the info revealed in Q7, could there have been other "initial, short-term account(s)" perhaps forgotten in the mists of time? See, I'm also intrigued as to how, back in July 2011 and also soon after you started here, that just two and a half hours after you created it and less than an hour after your last (for the time being) edit there, User: Neutrality took over writing of Angolan cuisine: [7] and that same morning sent it off for a (failed) DYK: (which was achieved a week later: ). I have looked at the article's and Neutrality's and your talk pages: none show any communication about this coincidental interest timing. Not a word about "Hey - that article you started 2 hours ago? I've just added heaps and sent it for a DYK! Well done us!" Not a word about this article between you, at all, ever. I would be interested to know your method of article-writing collaboration there. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: It appears that the Weight phobia link was added
in errorbecause it at one time appeared in an articles created summary, from which I copied and pasted it to the my contributions list*.I've removed the entry from the list.Regarding previous account usage, the User:Unitedstates1000 account is the sole one. Regarding the lack of a query in discussing the Angolan cuisine article, it appears that I simply moved on to other editing matters at the time** and didn't consider the option of seeking collaboration for the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC) - * (Addendum: See this diff page and the Revision history for the Weight phobia article, in which the first entry has my edit summary. This is why it was listed in an articles created summary.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- ** (Addendum: during the time of 25 July 2011; see Revision history.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum – Back in February 2012 I created the Weight phobia article, which currently redirects to Obesophobia. A unique series of events occurred in which the article was initially moved to Weight-Increase phobia (diff), which had been changed with a new topical focus upon Weight phobia, but the nominator for deletion objected to changing the article's content and hence the data from Weight-Increase phobia was moved back to the Weight phobia article (diff). Later, the content of Weight Phobia was merged to the Obesophobia article by another editor (diff). Also, the nominator of Weight-Increase phobia for deletion also kindly thanked me for moving the content back to the Weight phobia article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight-Increase Phobia and also thanked me for working to improve the Weight phobia article, which was nice. I learned from this experience that in some instances, some users may disapprove of changing the entire structure of article's that are at AfD. Conversely, in other instances editors don't object, and are actually positive about said changes: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big.LITTLE for an example. Ultimately, my edits to the Weight phobia article were realized as an improvement to the Obesophobia article when the information was merged to it. Please note that it takes significant time and energy to research these matters and then convey them here in written form. I truly hope this serves to better-clarify this matter, and please do not hesitate to ask for additional information. Thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: It appears that the Weight phobia link was added
- Additional question from Townlake
- 13. Why does your User talk page have so many graphics at the top? Do you believe this content facilitates communication with other editors? And do you maintain talk page archives? (I can't find them on that page.)
- A: I utliize my User talk page to convey various topics because it seems that most users go directly to this page, rather than to the User page. Graphics add visual appeal to pages, and can also be used to convey interests, along with humor. For example, the WikiProject Environment banner advertisement on the page may generate interest in that project, and the Wikimedia Commons banner ad serves to promote Commons. These likely don't facilitate significant editor communication, although they may in some instances. I will be adding a talk page archive to my User talk page shortly. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Worm That Turned
- 14. As a follow on from question 12, I had a look at Quiche, an article you state you have significantly contributed to. After merging information from French Quiche, your work was exclusively this set of edits followed a while later by this set. After the second set, you added it to your list [10]. I'm curious to ask what you feel makes a contribution "significant"?
- A: I formulated the list by reviewing my contribution history, and upon checking out the Quiche article, I also decided to make a few more changes to it. The contributions are significant because they involved merging information from the French Quiche lorraine article to the Quiche article (see also: Talk:French Quiche lorraine), layout improvements, style improvements, additional organization, research to find and then add additional sources to the article and the addition of entries to the further reading section, all of which take time and energy. In this manner, I also consider the time and energy invested in articles when adding articles to the Significant contributions section of my contributions list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Kraxler
- 15. I saw that about 5,000 of your edits have been deleted. Have you ever been engaged in an edit-war? How do you account for this unusual high number? Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: The Deleted edits are primarily due to participation in improving various articles that have been at XfD which were subsequently deleted. I've never engaged in an edit war, although there have been rare instances in which reversions have occurred below the The three-revert rule threshold. To avoid edit warring, it's best to discuss matters on an article's talk page in efforts to hopefully resolve any issues that may arise. I've never been blocked for edit warring, nor for any other matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from User:Scottywong
- Background: I've analyzed roughly your last 500 votes at AfD, from around the middle of 2012 until now. During that time, you voted Keep about 86% of the time. Also during that time, your voting was reasonably "accurate", meaning that your matched the eventual consensus often (in fact, about 83% of the time). These two statistics are contradictory to me, and I'll explain why. Historically, half or more of AfD's finish with a delete consensus, and less than 1 in 5 finish with a keep consensus. (See these stats from about a year ago which show 55.2% closing as delete, and 18.9% closing as keep.) If you're voting Keep 86% of the time, and your vote matches the consensus 83% of the time, then somehow you are consistently voting on AfD's that are much more likely to end up being kept rather than deleted. So, on to my actual questions:
- 16. Could you explain your process for selecting AfD's to vote on? Do you consciously seek out AfD's on articles that you believe are likely to end up being kept, and ignore AfD's on articles that are unlikely to be kept? If so, why?
- A: AfD is a continuously changing forum, and my selection criterion for topics to participate in vary per the constantly-updating nature of AfD. I have a strong knowledge base in a wide variety of subjects, so sometimes I participate in AfD discussions involving topics that I'm familiar with. Sometimes I participate because I like or enjoy a topic. Other times I work to improve articles that are nominated at AfD and also !vote at the discussion. Regarding the latter, sometimes a topic is obviously notable yet that notability is not recognized in AfD discussions. I enjoy participating in these types of discussions because it's in the interests of the encyclopedia for notable topics to be covered in the encyclopedia, per WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. I don't ignore entries when scrolling through AfD logs, but may not participate when the outcome of the discussion is obvious or if I have no interest in the topic. Some of the work I do involves article rescue, and in this manner when working to rescue an article I tend to work on those that have at least some likelihood of being retained, merged, etc. It would be counterproductive to spend a significant amount of time and energy improving an article that has a high likelihood of being deleted. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- 17. Following on the question above: As an admin, how would you select AfD's to close? Would your selection process for closing AfD's resemble your selection process for voting on AfD's? Would you be comfortable with going through a day's worth of AfD's and closing more than half of them (on average) as delete?
- A: Regarding selection of AfD's to close, a place to start would be the most dated entries, accessible at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and at Current and past Articles for deletion (AfD) discussions. My selection process for closures would not resemble my selection criterion for AfD discussions I contribute to. I would have no problem deleting articles per consensus in AfD discussions, because consensus is how these matters are decided. I also would have no problem in deleting Speedy deletion and Proposed deletion candidates, in congruence with the policies at those pages. I would have no problem closing discussions as delete and then deleting articles when consensus is to do so. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Northamerica1000: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Northamerica1000 can be found here.
- Comment – After careful consideration, which has occurred over a period of time greater than the span of this discussion, I have decided to resign from the WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron (See diff). Comments in this discussion such as "Oppose per usual "allegiance", "fanclub" membership, and "enabling"" and "Strong Oppose per the ARS issues TParis brought up." have contributed to this decision, but only to a very minor degree. I've noticed for some time that in some instances, membership in this project may possibly negatively influence other people's perceptions and judgments about editors, simply because some people don't like the project and then may transfer that dislike toward various members. This comment is not intended to influence this discussion in any way, shape or form: it's just a notification for the record. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sad to see you leave the rescue squad, your absence will be a colossal loss. Its no exaggeration to say your work for us has been over a hundred times greater than the contributions of a moderately active member like myself. It's also disappointing to see some apparently holding the resignation against you. It's a wise move, as said before on ARS talk, anyone wishing to one day serve as an admin would be well advised to leave. Considering the obvious value and nobility of the ARS, those lacking years of experience with wikipedia are sometimes perplexed by the dislike directed towards us. In several ways ARS stands in the same relation to the wider community as the early Christians did to the Roman empire. Despite them doing all sorts of valuable work (like caring for widows and orphans who would otherwise have to starve or sell themselves into slavery), early Christians were widely despised, with crowds gleefully cheering as church members were humiliated and killed in the arena. I guess the difference is that the blood of the early martyrs seeded the rapid growth of the church. According to the best historians like von Harnack , their unrelenting selflessness, love for each other, and valuable work for those in need caused their faith to be adopted by about 55% of the Roman empire's population in only 300 years. At which point even the elite began to convert. As nothing analogous has happened here, it probably means the virtues the ARS represents like inclusiveness and friendliness are seeking new and even better forms to express themselves. So nothing wrong with leaving the ARS, and thanks so much for all you've done for us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment on earlier account(s): a fair amount of people have expressed concern over the earlier account(s) used by NorthAmerica1000. For those people feeling that the UnitedStates1000account clearly was not a newbie, and having reservations because they fear that another, earlier account is not being disclosed: while I of course can't disprove that, I have found quite easily that NorthAmerica1000 edited with a fixed IP address quite heavily before starting his UnitedStates1000 account, which explains how that account could jump in so quickly and easily: [11]. The IP address has made some 730 edits in total. Considering that the IP address is being used on the same articles and pages as the named account (though as far as I have checked never with any ill intent and always in perfectly acceptable ways; e.g. here), I suppose this isn't outing but providing info available and useful for every editor here. If people feel that this is nonetheless a case of outing, I'll happily remove this info again. Fram (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- You could perhaps have emailed North in advance to check he's cool with you saying this. But thanks for helping to suggest concerns about North's trustworthiness are baseless. I've seen you speak up for Squad memebers several times before when they've been unfairly accussed, which is especially good of you as you dont seem to share the same views many of us have concerning inclusion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- As nom. AutomaticStrikeout 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Support per your articles for creation, articles for deletion, other admin are work, current user-rights, edit summary usage, -editing and basic main-space article work. Will be a great editor with the tools and I agree with the nominator, this user obviously deserves the mop. TBrandley 03:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Moved to neutral, reasoning is provided there
- Support based on interaction at articles for deletion, where we often seem to be on opposite sides of an issue, but civil, sane, source-based and policy-based. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Hard-working, level headed editor. I know this editor from many overlapping areas of content. In particular, on one controversial article we were both watchlisting, I didn't always agree with Northamerica1000, but they were invariably courteous and calm, and focused only on improving the article. I totally believe they can be trusted with the tools and will use them to improve the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Trusted user no reason not to give them the bit. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Support. I have absolutely no concerns at this time. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)After the opposes brought up I need to think on this a few days. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Support no issues. --Rschen7754 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Holding for now. --Rschen7754 20:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support I've seen this candidate around a fair amount and I have no concerns about his ability to
delete the main page and block meshare the admin backlog burden. BencherliteTalk 01:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- Still supporting; this is "requests for adminship" not "candidates for sainthood" and while Northamerica1000 may not be perfect, that is not the standard we should be aiming for. His mistakes are no doubt things from which he will learn rather than being proof positive of his utter unsuitability to be able to delete, block and protect, etc. There's a lot of stones and mud being thrown, and I can only compliment the candidate for remaining as calm as he is despite some of the commentary. BencherliteTalk 13:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Based on the answer to my question, in which Northamerica1000 actually says he doesn't deserve to be an admin, that's good enough for me to move to support - clearly not after power, and disagrees with his nominator. Sweet :) FishBarking? 02:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Dedicated editor; personal traits and edit history all clear positives. dci | TALK 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Well-rounded, solid candidate. SpencerT♦C 02:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Support - no issues, great history of edits.Moving to oppose per the issues brought up. More explanation there. Vacation9 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Support Excellent Contributions. I was surprised to see this RfA. I thought you were already an admin.Moving to neutral as per the recently brought out concerns about copyvio. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support — Absolutely. An excellent article writer with experience in maintenance areas, demonstrates an in-depth understanding of policy, and is forthright in his responses to some pretty hefty accusations. I feel very confident that we would be making the right decision in trusting Northamerica1000 with the sysop bit. Kurtis (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I've not interacted much with him but I have certainly came across his work many times. I was impressed by work especially on AfDs. Overall looks nice and handsome to me. TheSpecialUser TSU 08:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Support I'm mildly disturbed that the chap doesn't appear to sleep - analysing his edits and there is no hour where he hasn't made at least 2400 edits! But I'm happy he's willing to stand up for himself, he is clearly here to help out the encyclopedia and appears to have a decent temperment. I've seen areas for improvement, but I'm happy to support this user. WormTT(talk) 09:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)moving to oppose - upon further investigation, will provide further information there WormTT(talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A fine candidate. Good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Seems competant, I've encountered them around and never had a problem, examination of their history shows nothing that alarms me. WilyD 11:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Upgrading to strong support per their outstanding energy , productivity and collegiality. Per the exceptional stats from Scotty's question, North is good at consensus formation due to their persuasive contributions to AfDs, their willingness not just to vote but also to spend hours researching and adding sources to articles, and their keen discernment in rarely wasting time chasing lost causes. North is probably too modest to point this out, but for an editor who's been here for less than 18 months he has a most impressive collection of barnstars ( User:Northamerica1000/Awards ) showing how much the wider community values his work. He often awards barnstars too, and is frequently encouraging newbies and fellow editors in other ways. In as much as its accurate to view admins as role models, very few are more suited than Northamerica1000. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support He seems to specialise in food topics which can be surprisingly controversial (yogurt, hummus, pizza cheese, &c.). He seems to handle such work with good grace and little drama. Warden (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Despite the fact that many (most?) of our interactions have been disagreements, I have always respected Northamerica1000's reasoning and arguments. He's rational, level-headed and doesn't get stressed under pressure, plus he knows policy and can apply it. Very clueful, no concerns, give him a mop. Yunshui 雲水 13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Moving to Neutral, explanation below. Yunshui 雲水 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)- Support per the above comments from over twenty fellow editors! --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet vote indented. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per satisfactory answers to my (and other) questions above. I reserve my right to change answer if user answers some outstanding questions unsatisfactorily. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support per my relationship in respect to being involved with editing on Wikipedia with this editor on Tennis articles. This is one superb editor, even if the editor does not get to be an admin/sysops quite right yet at this time. I think we need to focus on getting admins from the editor base instead of the users that only deal with patrolling Wikipedia policy pages and discussions.HotHat (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Might as well keep things balanced. I feel at this time we don't need anymore administrators on this project - we're going to wind up with too many chiefs and not enough indians. Sorry. FishBarking? 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Moved to Support, based on answer to my question above - disagrees with his own nominator, that's good enough for me :) FishBarking? 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- This discussion has been boldly moved to the talk page so that irrelevant conversations about RfA in general don't derail this individual RfA. Please continue the conversation there. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 00:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Something does not just feel right with the answers to my question 7 and Plutonium27's question 12. As it appears to me you open a WP account make 1,119 edits in less than 4 weeks, then stop editing open a new one 6 minutes later, and then wait 15 months to link the account and do so 6 weeks before starting a RfA. This coupled with the editing at Angolan cuisine, the assertion that " it's likely that I simply moved on to other editing matters at the time and didn't consider the option of seeking collaboration for the article" seams week when you look article history as you came back to the article 8 days later. Mtking (edits) 06:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that I did not start this RfA, User:AutomaticStrikeout did after asking me on my User talk page if I was interested in the prospect (See User talk:Northamerica1000#RfA?). Also, I've added addendums to questions #7 and #12 in hopes to better clarify my answers. Hope this helps out. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Something just doesn't smell right about the answer to Q12. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It would be great if you provide some solid evidence to substantiate what you smell wrong. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus is topic-banned by Arbcom and "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." There is a grey area as to whether this includes a ban on him answering comments such as this in an RFA, or whether it only bans discussions about RFA. In any case, for understandable reasons, MF has previously indicated on his talk page that it is safer for him not to reply in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that means he's effectively incapable of participating on RFA, as he can't participate in any subsequent discussions in good faith. Hence stricken.--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The arbcom restriction specifically allows the editor to place his judgement on the page. Restored, please let's just move on from here. WormTT(talk) 10:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Could you (User:Anbu121) please be more specific regarding my answer(s) to question #12, if you're allowed to do so? Also, please note that I've addended my answer there after performing more research. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The arbcom restriction specifically allows the editor to place his judgement on the page. Restored, please let's just move on from here. WormTT(talk) 10:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, that means he's effectively incapable of participating on RFA, as he can't participate in any subsequent discussions in good faith. Hence stricken.--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus is topic-banned by Arbcom and "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." There is a grey area as to whether this includes a ban on him answering comments such as this in an RFA, or whether it only bans discussions about RFA. In any case, for understandable reasons, MF has previously indicated on his talk page that it is safer for him not to reply in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It would be great if you provide some solid evidence to substantiate what you smell wrong. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per his stances in the myriad of AfDs we've both participated in. He seems unwilling to acknowledge close criteria other than GNG, and willing to source-dump into an AfD content that belongs on the article's talk page or in the article itself. I believe him to be too overly inclusionist to be level-headed in closing AfDs. The change in accounts is also a concern, as is the fact that he hasn't been on Wikipedia with this account for two years yet pbp 07:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Mtking and Malleus. Answers to Q7 and Q12 don't ring true. While adminship is for life I need to be fully confident in a candidate before I can support, and I'm afraid I'm not able to support here. Sorry. I could revisit this vote if the answers are explained further.Begoon talk 08:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- Comment – Please note that I've added an addendum with a link to better qualify my answer to Question #7, and have added additional links to a diff page and Revision history pages to better-qualify my answers in Question #12. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm striking this oppose because, after more thought, my concerns should be weighed against the good work you have done on this account. I'm a suspicious old thing at heart, and I tend to see "red lights" when new editors are as accomplished as you appear to have been from the start - but just as important is what you are doing now, and have been doing for quite some time, and I can't fault that. I cannot, in all conscience, say that I am concerned you will abuse the tools or that you are not experienced enough, and that's really all that should lead me to register opposition. Sorry for putting you "on the spot" because of my doubtful nature. Begoon talk 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Please note that I've added an addendum with a link to better qualify my answer to Question #7, and have added additional links to a diff page and Revision history pages to better-qualify my answers in Question #12. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - User:Northamerica1000 suffers from WP:Editcountitis, and thus is IMO unfit to be an admin. Just one example: [12] : Everything is added piecemeal, including self-reverts (contrary to his assertion that he checks facts and sources). An admin who does not understand the function, or is unwilling to use, the "Show preview" button, would be a farce. To compare, see here (an article I started) what can be added in one edit. Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Editcountitis lists the symptoms of this condition. The only one that I'm noticing here is "voting support or oppose based on number of edits at Requests for adminship" but you're the sufferer, not the candidate. Warden (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Editcountitis says "Voting support or oppose based on number of edits at Requests for adminship, rather than by checking the user's actual contributions." That's exactly the point, the candidate here states that he has 100,000 or so edits, claiming experience. I checked his actual contributions and gave a link for other users to check too, and found that the number of edits is artificially inflated compared to the quality/size of the contributions. Check it out yourself, instead attacking me/my vote without argument, Col. Warden. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The nominator (not the candidate) mentioned the candidate's edit total. I'm not seeing any evidence that the candidate has boasted of this or makes anything of it. The candidate doesn't, for example, have a userbox with their edit count. So, the way that they edit articles just seems to be a matter of style. Some editors like to work in sandboxes. Other prefer to make separate edits in situ. This doesn't seem to be the big deal that you're making of it. You're welcome to oppose, if you wish, but let's be clear about the candidate's position, please. Warden (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I saw later that the edit count is published on the talk page, so you can check it out there. Please note that Northamerica1000 has accumulated in a year and ahalf almost 100,000 edits, of which about 5,000 (five thousand) were reverted. Holy cow, five thousand reverts!!!! In a year and a half. It's about 5% of all his contributions. Some voters farther down call this euphemistically "carelessness". Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're talking about "deleted edits", right? I don't think they are quite the same as reverts. I'm not sure what the normal range is for this but, for example, the editor DGG has 97,990 live edits and 11,301 deleted edits. Warden (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- A normal range is under 1,000 in any space of time (normally not more than 6 years, I'm not sure if there are records from before that). A very few Admins and Sysops have more, for reasons they probably can explain. DGG has 11,300 deletes in about 6 years, an average of under 1,900 per year, compared to over 3,500 for Northamerica1000.
and DGG has not applied for adminship.I'm still waiting for NAK's answer. Please give him a little time, and then we might proceed in our discussion. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- Please note that DGG is an admin. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, it was not mentioned on his user page, or I didn't see it. Kraxler (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that a deleted edit is one which is no longer visible because it has been deleted. A ordinary revert is not a deleted edit if it is still visible in the history. Deleted edits will tend to arise if you edit an article which is then deleted. For example, if you place cleanup tags on the article because it isn't very good. Presumably it's work of this kind which has given DGG lots of deleted edits. I suppose that the candidate has accumulated such edits because of his work trying to rescue articles at AFD. For example, in my experience, he will commonly make cleanup edits and place cleanup tags on rescue candidates. Not all these are saved and so the ones that are deleted give rise to "deleted edits". This seems like a reasonable consequence of patrolling work and so shouldn't be held against the candidate. Right? Warden (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through his deleted contribs, it does seem that a large portion of them are due to the work he does trying to clean up articles that have been nominated for deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone who works in CSD or rescue will have a high proportion of deleted edits. This is nothing to do with edit-warring. Only when an article is deleted do edits move from current to deleted. Edit-warring edits still count as edits when reverted, and only change status if the article goes west altogether. Peridon (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I rather discuss the subject again after getting answers to the very interesting questions 15, 16 and 17. Kraxler (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – I perceive edit counts as insignificant, because working to improve the encyclopedia is what's important. My internet connection is pretty good, but I've had occasional occurrences in which my internet connection immediately cuts off, and the data isn't present when pressing the back button on a web browser. There have also been occurrences in which Wikipedia becomes uneditable while maintenance occurs, and I've occasionally experienced data loss during these times as well. I've lost significant work when using the Show preview function due to these types of occasional sporadic occurrences. I want to further address this matter here. There are some benefits to editing as one goes along. For example, it's much easier and saves time to make edits in article sections by clicking the edit link for the article section, rather than for the entire article, scrolling down and finding the content to be edited, and then performing the edit. Sometimes people have a later realization about an article improvement that they didn't consider before, in which case it is functional to perform the edit to improve the article, compared to not doing so per other's potential concerns about edit counts. Sometimes people check in to articles they've contributed to in the past and make additional minor additions or edits. Some edits involving clean-up and copy-editing, such as layout changes, correcting layout and formatting errors, cleaning up grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc., and often don't require making significant edits. Again, in these instances clicking directly on the edit link for sections brings users directly to the content in a convenient manner. It seems that the opposer here disagrees with the style in which I perform edits, but this is not correlated with competence to accurately and fairly perform administrative duties on Wikipedia. Again, to reiterate, I perceive edit counts as insignificant; my primary interests involve improving the encyclopedia. I hope this serves to significantly better-clarify this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I rather discuss the subject again after getting answers to the very interesting questions 15, 16 and 17. Kraxler (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone who works in CSD or rescue will have a high proportion of deleted edits. This is nothing to do with edit-warring. Only when an article is deleted do edits move from current to deleted. Edit-warring edits still count as edits when reverted, and only change status if the article goes west altogether. Peridon (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through his deleted contribs, it does seem that a large portion of them are due to the work he does trying to clean up articles that have been nominated for deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that a deleted edit is one which is no longer visible because it has been deleted. A ordinary revert is not a deleted edit if it is still visible in the history. Deleted edits will tend to arise if you edit an article which is then deleted. For example, if you place cleanup tags on the article because it isn't very good. Presumably it's work of this kind which has given DGG lots of deleted edits. I suppose that the candidate has accumulated such edits because of his work trying to rescue articles at AFD. For example, in my experience, he will commonly make cleanup edits and place cleanup tags on rescue candidates. Not all these are saved and so the ones that are deleted give rise to "deleted edits". This seems like a reasonable consequence of patrolling work and so shouldn't be held against the candidate. Right? Warden (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, it was not mentioned on his user page, or I didn't see it. Kraxler (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that DGG is an admin. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- A normal range is under 1,000 in any space of time (normally not more than 6 years, I'm not sure if there are records from before that). A very few Admins and Sysops have more, for reasons they probably can explain. DGG has 11,300 deletes in about 6 years, an average of under 1,900 per year, compared to over 3,500 for Northamerica1000.
- You're talking about "deleted edits", right? I don't think they are quite the same as reverts. I'm not sure what the normal range is for this but, for example, the editor DGG has 97,990 live edits and 11,301 deleted edits. Warden (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I saw later that the edit count is published on the talk page, so you can check it out there. Please note that Northamerica1000 has accumulated in a year and ahalf almost 100,000 edits, of which about 5,000 (five thousand) were reverted. Holy cow, five thousand reverts!!!! In a year and a half. It's about 5% of all his contributions. Some voters farther down call this euphemistically "carelessness". Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The nominator (not the candidate) mentioned the candidate's edit total. I'm not seeing any evidence that the candidate has boasted of this or makes anything of it. The candidate doesn't, for example, have a userbox with their edit count. So, the way that they edit articles just seems to be a matter of style. Some editors like to work in sandboxes. Other prefer to make separate edits in situ. This doesn't seem to be the big deal that you're making of it. You're welcome to oppose, if you wish, but let's be clear about the candidate's position, please. Warden (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Editcountitis says "Voting support or oppose based on number of edits at Requests for adminship, rather than by checking the user's actual contributions." That's exactly the point, the candidate here states that he has 100,000 or so edits, claiming experience. I checked his actual contributions and gave a link for other users to check too, and found that the number of edits is artificially inflated compared to the quality/size of the contributions. Check it out yourself, instead attacking me/my vote without argument, Col. Warden. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Editcountitis lists the symptoms of this condition. The only one that I'm noticing here is "voting support or oppose based on number of edits at Requests for adminship" but you're the sufferer, not the candidate. Warden (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Well-meaning and hardworking editor, but lacks the diligence needed to be a good admin IMO. Moving a page from userspace to AfC space, and editing it afterwards, without checking that it is a copyright violation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc); Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chase Burns (possible Douche) was declined as being a joke, leaving "thank you" notes at the IP talk page that created it (User talk:165.95.53.203), when it was clearly a juvenile BLP violation which should get something a bit stronger than a "thank you"; in October, he moved Citizen Hearst from the AfC pages to the mainspace, only for the article to be then deleted as a copyright violation. His article creations are often very poorly sourced, only linking to e.g. Maplandia[13] or Wikimapia (Old Channal, Baragi, Uttur, Vajjaramatti, Jaliberi, Jeeragal, Kishori, ...). His actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight-Increase Phobia are also indicative of a lack of care. But the recurring missed copyright violations (not violations he created, but that he ignored when moving pages from e.g. AfC to the mainspace) are the most worrying to me, the article edits are a lesser problem. Fram (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – The thank you notes are automatically generated using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script gadget that is available in people's user preferences page. I didn't detect the copyright violation for Citizen Hearst, but I don't perceive this as a major oversight; just something that was missed, although copyright violations are very serious. Also, the first red link you provide above doesn't appear to be based upon copyright violation on the surface: the link just links to a create page and there's no deletion summary on the page. However, I don't have access to the deleted articles. Regarding your assessment of my article contributions as "poorly sourced," please feel free to nominate them for deletion if you feel they don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. On a lighter note, I appreciate your concerns about editors who are nominated for adminship making zero errors, but they will nevertheless occur by any editor from time-to-time, because we all make mistakes! Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – In the future I'll be sure to check each and every AfC submission for copyright violations prior to moving them into Main mainspace, even when it's obvious that they are not, using an application such as Copyvio Detector. I do fully understand the importance of copyright violations being eliminated from the encyclopedia. I didn't "ignore" any copyright violations as stated in User:Fram's comment above, they just weren't detected. I'm concerned about opposition to adminship based in part upon thank you messages that are automatically sent when users create or decline AfC submissions using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script. When I declined the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chase Burns (expletive deleted) article, the thank you note was sent by default using the script. In the future I'll go to the user's talk page, blank the template message, and then type out a customized message. Importantly, there are currently no links to copyvio detectors on the AfC Reviewing instructions page, so that page should definitely be updated, with either direct links to copyvio detectors or at the very least a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources. On the AfC reviewing instructions page it states, "Check that the submission has not been copied from another source. Search for a portion of the text of the article on Google or another search engine," to check the article's sources, and additional websites, which is fine, but copyvios are not always going to be plainly noticeable using these methods. Also, on AfC's main page, there's only one link to a copyvio script in the Bots section, but the script isn't functional. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Update – I've taken the initiative to start a thread at AfC talk about improving the Reviewer instructions page to include more information about better-detecting copyright violations, along with links to four copyvio detectors. See: Updating the Reviewer instructions with links to copyvio detectors. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is quite usual for people to move user drafts to AfC, and then check them for copyvio--even to move them, quickly mark them as copyvios, and then list them for deletion. I have deleted a few dozen such, from various editors. I do not know why they do it this way, but some people do. I haven't checked NA's moves, though, to see if he has been working this way. DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Primarily per the candidate's response to Oppose #1. In an era where the community seems concerned about how we can hold administrators accountable for their actions after RFA, here we have a candidate who doesn't even want to be held accountable for requesting the tools. How accountable would an administrator like this really be? Townlake (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – It was alluded in oppose #1 that I started this RfA myself. I was nominated by another user who asked me on my talk page if I were interested in becoming an administrator. I then answered the initial questions provided on the starter nomination page by the nominator, then notified the nominator that the questions were completed, upon which time the nominator made the RfA live. I was simply trying to be specific in response to oppose #1, because people may otherwise incorrectly perceive this as a self-nomination. I certainly participated in the nomination by answering the initial questions on the starter page, otherwise the nomination never would have went live! I truly hope this serves to further clarify this matter. I most certainly want to be held accountable for requesting the tools! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerns about AFD, somewhat evasive answers to questions, and coyness about previous accounts all lead me to oppose. Skinwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose due to concerns about past accounts. I feel bad about opposing, since he's overall a fine user--hopefully he won't be discouraged if this doesn't succeed. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Just to clarify, I've had only one previous account (User:Unitedstates1000), not multiple ones as stated in your comment above as plural. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - While the issues brought up above are more-or-less compelling, individually, the reason I end up in the Oppose section is because of the unorthodox nature of NAK's User: and User talk: page. Admins should be expected to be welcoming and open to new users; to a new user, the mop means "Seasoned and Experienced User...the kind of person who can help you". Going to a User page that soft directs to a User talk page that looks like a User page unless you feel like digging down to find the User talk page is simply too convoluted a system for new users to feel "welcome". That said, NAK does good work and our paths have crossed before. If the User page issue were cleared up, my !vote may change. Achowat (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment –
I'm initially leery of immediately changing the layout of my user pages to encourage the changing of a user's !vote here.Please provide suggestions on my User talk page about (further)* improvements, if you feel so inclined. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- * (An addendum.) Northamerica1000(talk) 04:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – I've updated my user page. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your talk page is still decorated like a Christmas tree, and makes it difficult to see where to leave a message. Please check WP:OWNTALK (quote "...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site..."). I suggest you try to understand, and comply with, the guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – I've now completely reworked my user pages as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your talk page is still decorated like a Christmas tree, and makes it difficult to see where to leave a message. Please check WP:OWNTALK (quote "...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site..."). I suggest you try to understand, and comply with, the guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment –
- Strongest possible oppose This user doesn't understand deletion nor canvassing policy. My concerns were outlined a year ago here as far as deletion policy. While I admit this user has done great work in ARS and they are improving, they have a habit of wikilawyering and getting it wrong. I've bashed my head against a desk over this user quite a few times because they just don't get it. At one point I was going to create an RFC over competence. Handing this user the tools would be a mistake.--v/r - TP 16:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Please feel free to elaborate upon your opinions on my User talk page. Your concerns from a year ago may be dated relative to my progression on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can discuss your opinions to a greater degree, and from there reach some sort of agreement. As we have had limited communication, this would be a functional first step. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to discuss, it was a year ago and I'll admit you've mostly stayed off my radar since then even though we overlap in AfD. I'll go back and review some of your latest AfDs to see if there has been change.--v/r - TP 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Here is the link to the entire discussion that I initiated over 13 months ago on 22 September 2011 (UTC), which User:TParis refers to: Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. It's a discussion thread I started to obtain people's opinions about ideas to improve deletion processes on Wikipedia, including improving checks and balances. The discussion is quite long, and in the process I learned a great deal more about the deletion process. Many editors contributed to the discussion. My knowledge of deletion and canvassing policy is literally very strong, quite the opposite of what User:TParis stated above in their oppose !vote. It appears that TParis and I may have some differences of opinion, but I remain fully competent to utilize the tools in a just manner despite these differences of opinion. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per MtK, MF, and TP. Intothatdarkness 16:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. TParis' concerns worried me, so I did a bit of digging. The fact talk page archives are missing didn't concern me too much until I really started digging. Northamerica1000 blanks his page rather than archives it, which is not against policy, but does avoid scrutiny. It is especially annoying because he has an archive box, but no archived conversations in it. Looking further, it didn't take too much to find this discussion with Fram (in Sept 2012), which highlights issues with the speed of Northamerica's editing. Similarly with this discussion from July 2012 where he was adding empty reference sections. On top of that, I'm not happy with his deleted edits. For example, he recently moved a userspace draft to AfC - despite it being a copyvio, I would expect an editor to be checking for this. (admins only) and removed a G11 at Yew Chung Education Foundation another copyvio. Worse than that, he actually created Citizen Hearst in AfC - another copyvio. There's enough here to persuade me to oppose. WormTT(talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion with Fram doesn't seem to have anything to do with the speed of the candidate's editing. That discussion is about the use of AutoEd to make cleanup edits. Now I've noticed the candidate making edits of that kind. I didn't fully understand what they were but supposed that he knew what he was doing and it seems that he does. How is this in any way a problem? And why do you present it as a problem when it appears that you didn't read the discussion enough to understand what it was about? Are you just flinging mud in the hope that something sticks? What's your real agenda? I have the impression that there's a lot of innuendo in this RfA with talk of "smell". Is there some canvassing taking place on back-channels like IRC? Can people please state their concerns openly. For example, I've seen it suggested in the past that this editor is really User:A Nobody, returning with a new account. This doesn't seem likely to me but, if that's the real issue, can we have it out in the open rather than disguised by feeble stuff like we're currently seeing. Warden (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to the piecemeal style of his editing - creating the extraordinary speed. Fram pointed out very recently that a large portion of Northamerica's edits were not showing to the front end, or in other words serve no purpose. I would have thought these things were pretty obvious to a long term editor, especially one who was up for adminship. You're welcome to dismiss my concerns as innuendo, but I have no agenda, I've not worked with this editor, I've not been on IRC for a long while. My concerns are simple, Northamerica appears to obfuscate his editing history which makes it difficult for me to assess him, and when I look in depth I find issues that concern me. I find it hard to trust a candidate under these circumstances. WormTT(talk) 18:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – I added the new archive box to my User talk page per the information in question #13 above. It isn't populated yet because I haven't archived anything there yet. All of my edits are freely viewable on the page's Revision history. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and simply chose to blank dated entries. I certainly have no intentions of "avoiding scrutiny" whatsoever, and please feel to scrutinize my edits at any time! Now and into the future, I'll be archiving dated entries on my newly-created archive page. Hope this helps to clarify matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion with Fram doesn't seem to have anything to do with the speed of the candidate's editing. That discussion is about the use of AutoEd to make cleanup edits. Now I've noticed the candidate making edits of that kind. I didn't fully understand what they were but supposed that he knew what he was doing and it seems that he does. How is this in any way a problem? And why do you present it as a problem when it appears that you didn't read the discussion enough to understand what it was about? Are you just flinging mud in the hope that something sticks? What's your real agenda? I have the impression that there's a lot of innuendo in this RfA with talk of "smell". Is there some canvassing taking place on back-channels like IRC? Can people please state their concerns openly. For example, I've seen it suggested in the past that this editor is really User:A Nobody, returning with a new account. This doesn't seem likely to me but, if that's the real issue, can we have it out in the open rather than disguised by feeble stuff like we're currently seeing. Warden (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns raised by WTT and TParis.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per usual "allegiance", "fanclub" membership, and "enabling" (thanks for the civility, NPA, and AGF, administrators!) and per IntoThatDarkness, WTT, TP, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per talk page (If users go directly to your talk page, they probably meant to do so, intending to use your talk page for its primary purpose. Serving up a bloated userpage anyway is hostile to those users.) and competence issues as documented by Fram and WTT above. Kilopi (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns raised by Malleus, Fram, WTT and TParis. --John (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per WTT, TParis and Malleus. Buggie111 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose (Moved from Support) - per concerns raised by WTT, TParis, and Malleus. I am sorry to oppose such an active and striving user, but edit count doesn't reflect accuracy. His AfD votes are not all that successful, and there has been concerns raised about copyvios. Solve these problems, and you have a support from me in your second nom. Vacation9 22:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I found additional information; candidate has made only a few non-admin closures,
including closing an AfD as Speedy Delete, something specified in Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#AfD as something only admins can perform.Among weak experience in other areas, this backs previous assumptions of small experience and non-complete understanding of Wikipedia policies. Vacation9 22:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- That speedy delete is a Housekeeping closure(closure of AFD, after the article is deleted under CSD), nothing wrong with it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, I did a lot of those before I was an admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – The above-linked AfD was simply a thread for an article that was already deleted but in which case the one who deleted the article didn't close the thread. There are limited types of closures that non-admins can perform, and I haven't stated anywhere here that I've closed a whole bunch of AfD discussions: I stated in my answer to question #1 that I've made "significant contributions to AfD," as in AfD discussions, and have "performed several non-administrator AfD closures." Hope this helps to clarify matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The guideline specifically says they can't - "Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Housekeeping closures do make sense, but since the guideline specifically says otherwise, I would be against it.EDIT: Just remebered this on the page - "Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed." Sorry about the controversy. I also wasn't saying you said you had closed many AfDs, but this is something I would like to see from an RfA candidate. Vacation9 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, I did a lot of those before I was an admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That speedy delete is a Housekeeping closure(closure of AFD, after the article is deleted under CSD), nothing wrong with it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I found additional information; candidate has made only a few non-admin closures,
- Oppose. For two reasons. Firstly the copyright concerns have me worried. As these concerns were mainly about not spotting copyright problems they may not have led me to oppose, although they may have stopped me from supporting, but their response to Oppose 5 (Fram's) was enough to make me oppose. Missing a copyright problem like that is a major oversight. I'm not so concerned about them missing it as that's relatively easily done but trying to down play the oversight like that is not something I like to see. My second reason is somewhat related in that I fear they get too defensive when being criticised as is shown in their responses here and in not archiving critical talk page conversations and again this is something that I don't want to see in an admin. Dpmuk (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Minor but numerous correctable concerns place me here. Q10 response struck me as WP:ONLYESSAY-esque, and concerning in light of TP's concerns of wikilawyering. The AfD would have been better !voted and left to an admin to close. The closing rationale was long-winded, and overstated GNG's impact, which was only specifically mentioned once by participants. Response to Oppose #9 of "I'm initially leery of immediately changing..." followed by "Please provide suggestions on my User talk page about improvements" seems disingenuous when suggestions were already given. In the response to Q13, I question how he concluded that "most users go directly to this page, rather than to the User page". Nonetheless, it seem poor judgement to burden users who are not interested, especially when he suppressed a table of contents on his talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The answers to questions (the important ones—1, 2 & 3) contain excessive irrelevant waffle. More significantly, the copyright violations are a serious problem. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per all of the above. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't trust nominator, badgering candidate. Keepscases (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the sentence. Are you saying that the candidate is a "nominator, badgering candidate", or are you saying that you don't trust the nominator AND the candidate is badgering? Or something else entirely?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it should have been a semicolon instead of a comma, but I still think it was clear what I meant. Keepscases (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the sentence. Are you saying that the candidate is a "nominator, badgering candidate", or are you saying that you don't trust the nominator AND the candidate is badgering? Or something else entirely?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per the ARS issues TParis brought up. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Well-intentioned candidate, valuable contributor to the project, but I agree with WTT and others. I also have concerns about the candidate's ability to communicate clearly (an essential skill for admins, IMHO) - some answers here have required a deal of clarification, some have taken too long to make a simple point, and the talk page issue rasied earlier (though I appreciate that this has now been addressed). — sparklism hey! 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Candidates need to demonstrate that they have that particular brand of clue that is required of administrators. I don't see evidence of that in the nomination statement, the answers to the questions, or in the supporting comments. Given that I barely visit AfD these days my most common place to cross paths with NA1K is on ANI, and I haven't been left with the same feeling of cluefulness from his contributions there that I did with, say, Dennis Brown. Ordinarily a mere lack of evidence to support would leave me neutral, but there are numerous troubling issues raised in opposition, specifically what seems to be an unfortunate tendency to attempt to rescue copvios and the blanking of his talk page (which is never not a red flag). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Skinwalker, Dpmuk, and Yunshui (Yes, that last one's a "neutral". Still.). Note, however, that I have no concerns about the use of multiple accounts here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - First, a person straight from WP:ARS becoming an admin and closing AfDs? No, that would be a huge detriment to the project; the keep-everything-I-see mentality is bad enough in the user base, we do not need to see it with the power to close deletion discussions. Second, I do to believe the answer to Q7 is truthful. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Actually, I resigned from ARS today. See my comment under the General comments section above. I don't possess the mentality you incorrectly delineate about me above. It's a poor mischaracterization, in my opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but it seems biased and in part based upon an editor having a (now previous) membership on a WikiProject. Also, please view the User contribution links I provided in my second addendum at question #7. It appears that you didn't bother to do so whatsoever. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Moved from oppose. As stated above, I can't oppose because of a "gut feeling" about answers to questions, but for the same reason I can't support, and I hate to strike a vote and "disappear" - so it looks like I end up here. Begoon talk 15:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. I find that because of your habit of removing contents from your talk page rather than letting it archive it is difficult to assess quickly your interaction with other editors. I've spent several hours and am still working my way through "ancient history" (Q1 / Q2 this year). In there I have found a few examples like this (the "Edit Warring" section forward, sorry, diffs are difficult because of your rapid minor changes meaning it is hard to capture a diff that illustrates my point) which I feel show an unhelpful or evasive attitude that would antagonise other editors - especially if you adopted this manner as an administrator. That is, in this example continually repeating "Please direct comments regarding this image here" eight times despite the comments of other editors is the sort of behaviour that can be hugely frustrating to the other party, regardless of whether you were right or not. I'll reconsider as I examine more. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 17:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Moved from Support per recent corcerns about copyvio --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now – I will be watching the questions and any further developments (particularly copyvio and talk page archives) to be brought up before I lean one way. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral (for now). I've seen some useful sourcing work in AfD discussions. I'll try to spend some time doing my own research, but for the moment there are enough concerns expressed above to make me feel uncomfortable about supporting right now. -- Trevj (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I much prefer the more conventional user/talk arrangement (and I see you've updated your sig accordingly). Still need to find time to check a few other things. -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment, neutral Something just doesn't feel right. I haven't done my typical digging as of yet, and I will, but at the moment, something just doesn't feel quite right, but I can't quite place my hand on it. Go Phightins! 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral May or may not move it based on answers, evidence, etc. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the candidate's work on the Gardening WikiProject, and would like to support, but there are some persuasive comments in the oppose section, so I cannot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral moved from to support to here. This is because of the many convincing opposes. You are still a great editor, though. Sorry. TBrandley 23:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now based on concerns stated above. Will keep an open mind. Kierzek (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- From what I can see from article histories regarding Q12 and weight phobia, it looks like you did in fact create the article at one point, in some incarnation. That makes me wonder why you didn't just say "Yeah I did create it, but the histories have been mangled up through merges and deletions", which appears to be the truth. I don't know if you were trying to hide the criticism you got at the AfD for changing the article topic entirely by starting it as a completely new article mid-AfD or what. It's OK to make mistakes, but you need to own them, not try to hide them. The way you source dump in AfDs leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, since many times the sources don't contain much more than a passing mention. I don't think you are a bad editor, but you need to consider that every time we keep a poor article based on AfD source dumping, that's basically assigning work to other editors that are going to have to maintain an article that will likely forever remain poorly sourced. Gigs (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – Please note that I've addended my response to question #12 above regarding the Weight phobia article. It took more time and energy to further research the matter and convey it here. Could you please provide recent examples in which the sources I have added to AfD discussions don't consist of much more than passing mentions? This will sometimes occur in biography article AfD's per WP:BASIC, wherein it's stated, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral I am aware (as, I believe, are many other editors) of Northamerica1000 primarily for his (generally very constructive) work as part of the Article Rescue Squadron. Whilst I appreciate that this discussion may only have been a partial influence on his decision to withdraw from ARS, it reads to me like a fairly direct response to the the fact that many !voters here disagree with the ARS's activities - I myself have never been a huge fan, although I appreciate the aims of the project and support it in theory at least. Maybe it's the badly-timed implementation of a long-considered intention, but to me, this smacks of an attempt to pander to the anti-ARS crowd - together with the alterations to his talkpage and the sudden interest in talkpage archiving, I get the feeling that Northamerica1000 really wants the bit, and is willing to make any changes necessary to convince the !voters. In itself, that's no bad thing - I appreciate an editor who is willing to adjust to the community - but equally, I appreciate an editor who sticks to his priorities and doesn't try to treat RFA as a popularity contest. Combined with some of the other issues raised (overly hasty editing being the main concern), I don't feel I can continue to support this nomination. Yunshui 雲水 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral (edit conflict) Looking through NA1000's contributions I am thoroughly impressed with the editor's demeanor and his approach to conflict in AfD discussions and on their talk page (e.g. this response to encourage stick dropping between himself and another editor before it got out of hand). His content contributions are outstanding, such as to pizza cheese (even if that article ends up elsewhere). Some opposes gave me pause, particularly about the user/talk page clutter, the copyvio issues, and AfC work, but many of these were addressed well: He has fixed his user and talk pages, the previous account does present any real problems, and I imagine that one is bound to miss a few copyvios when you are working on AfC as much as NA1000 is, and they may not even be very obvious. The discussion with Fram regarding the usefulness of automatic edits and empty reference sections does not seem consequential or indicative of anything in particular related to being a decent admin. I am, however, concerned about some of the AfD-related behavior and I also am not particularly happy with the answers to the opening questions. Given the extensive edit history of NA1000, I would have hoped to see the editor discuss their own cases of conflict resolution or a specific article to showcase their work. I am also somewhat disappointed the editor has decided to leave ARS, possibly as a result of this RfA. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)