→Oppose: reply to Andrew Davidson |
→Oppose: Wikipedia is not a game |
||
Line 84:
#'''Oppose''' I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like [[J. B. S. Haldane#Quotations|beetle species]] – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
#:I've checked your contributions to RfA (and those as Colonel Warden) over the years and find that of your over 100 votes you oppose over 75% of the time, and that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
#::This is not a prediction game, {{U|Kudpung}}. [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
=====Neutral=====
|
Revision as of 00:40, 8 October 2015
Thine Antique Pen
(talk page) (28/4/2); Scheduled to end 15:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Nomination
Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you Thine Antique Pen. I've known Thine Antique Pen for a few years now, having helped to mentor him in the past. Over that period, I've been amazed at the skills he has shown. Looking at his track record, he's written some excellent articles, a small portion of which are listed at his user page - the quality and diversity of the article is quite stunning (one example is Perijá tapaculo, currently a featured article candidate. Recently he has been helping out at CCI, repairing or removing copyright violations (which I spot-checked and looked good to me), one of the most important maintenance tasks on Wikipedia.
You may have noticed I mentioned I helped mentor Thine Antique Pen in the past, well he had a rough start on Wikipedia. Like many, he arrived keen to help out and was over-zealous with his some of his actions, especially user-right requests. He refocussed on article writing and attention to detail as part of the mentorship and it really shows. In the subsequent 3 and a bit years, he's discussed user-right requests in depth with me prior to requesting them, even long after that restriction was lifted. He is always willing to ask for advice if he's unsure and is considerate of his actions. I talked to him recently about his history and he told me his early behaviour actually makes him cringe! I sincerely believe Thine Antique Pen has redeemed himself of those 3-4 year old actions and has gone on to be one of our best editors. Those who have worked with him surely must agree.
Today, we have an experienced content creator, willing to help out in important areas of Wikipedia carefully. He is constantly helpful and asks for help when he needs it. What more could you want in an administrator? WormTT(talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Co-nomination
I'm delighted to see Thine Antique Pen running for adminship. My experience of him has been very positive, right from our first interactions when he assisted me in fixing a series of copyright violations. He knows what he's doing, understands how Wikipedia works, and has a good record of content creation; he also has a fair amount of experience in admin-related areas such as deletion (see the swathes of red in User:Thine_Antique_Pen/CSD_log). His approach to editing is collaborative, and avoids excessive drama; he strikes me as someone who can keep a calm head in a difficult situation, which is a very useful skill in an administrator.
There will, as noted above, undoubtedly be opposition based on his early history here; I would urge voters to review his more recent work and note the drastic improvements he has made. TAP is an excellent editor and would, IMHO, make an equally excellent administrator. Yunshui 雲水 10:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm very grateful to Worm and Yunshui for their nominations, and I accept. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2015 (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: I plan to start with CCI work, for which the administrator toolset would enable me to delete infringing content and evaluate revisions that have already been deleted. I also intend to work on page protections and speedy deletions, make procedural contributions to SPI, and help reduce various administrative backlogs such as non-free files with orphaned versions.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am most proud of my content contributions, where I have brought 19 articles to Good Article status, a few list articles to Featured List status, and am still working on achieving my potential first Featured Article. I have a lot to learn about what the perfect Wikipedia article looks like, and I should mention that, just as in my meta activities the advice of Worm and Yunshui and others has been essential, in the development of content a wide range of editors have guided and corrected my sometimes rambling prose. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library initiative, I also benefit from access to numerous journals and archives.
- 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: Back in 2012 I had a very haphazard approach to editing and became obsessed with gaining user rights. As well as overwhelming administrators with demands for various user rights, I was also editing far too carelessly, and too quickly for my level of experience and understanding at the time. As a result I was indefinitely blocked following this discussion and unblocked by agreement with the blocking admin just under four hours later.
- Subsequently I completely changed my approach, learned to slow down, and focused on content creation rather than on meta areas that I was not well suited to handle at the time. As my knowledge and experience grew, I moved back into administrative related tasks, taking part in AfD and page patrolling, and more recently Contributor Copyright Investigations. My approach over the last couple of years has been to treat editing disagreements dispassionately rather than personally, seek advice from more experienced Wikipedians, and resolve disputes through Wikipedia process rather than argument.
- Additional questions from Steel1943
- 4. Do you have any examples of experience you have in the venues you mentioned in Question 1 (WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI) that you feel can inspire confidence in others that you have knowledge of how these processes work and that you will be an asset to these venues?
- A:
- 5. Above, you have mentioned WP:RFPP, WP:CSD and WP:SPI as focus points if granted the tools, but since becoming an administrator gives an editor access to the entire toolset, can you provide any experience in participating in other heavily administrator-handled venues, such as all of the WP:XFD forums, having to be the uninvolved party to close a rather exhausting thread on a WP:AN board or any of its subpages, WP:AIV, etc?
- A:
- Additional question from Noyster
- 6. Could you explain why 27 different, though related, articles were all nominated for DYK recently at the same time and using the same hook? (See this and this)
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Thine Antique Pen: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Thine Antique Pen can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support The content creations and stats look okay, he has lots of GAs and DYKs, and on his talk I see he was approached last year to see if he was interested in mentoring other editors. 130 AfDs with 85% called correctly is enough to know what you're doing, and he has a prolific CSD log, which is enough to reassure me he understands policy. He's got the experience and the clue as far as I'm concerned. I'll say now that I did look into nominating Thine Antique Pen myself, and my previous notes showed me he's got one ancient block with a small amount of extenuating circumstances; the admin he conflicted with was rude and sarcastic and there was no clear consensus on the block when it went to ANI. It's over 3 years old, and I've lost the diffs but I recall digging through deleted talk page threads to find it, so I say it's irrelevant ancient history. In summary - give him the mop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, and Ritchie's thoughtful endorsement. RO(talk) 16:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - to be honest, based on the co-nominators I considered not even bothering to read the rest. Some users will surely use Thine Antique Pen's early rough start as a reason to oppose, which will be regrettably short-sighted. This user even back then was willing to accept criticism and advice from more experienced users, learn how we do things, and grow into an excellent contributor, which is clearly the best outcome from a rough start that can be achieved. Excellent deletion record by AfD and CSD logs, nearly 75% contributions to mainspace with several quality achievements (as noted by Ritchie333), and clean block log discounting the first. CCI and SPI are areas that desperately need admin help. You'll certainly be an asset to the community with the mop; no concerns at all here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support. I have felt for some time that Thine Antique Pen should be an administrator. (I actually suggested it to him recently, but Worm beat me to it.) Thine Antique Pen is a strong content contributor, with lots of articles created and a WP:Triple Crown. His comments at AfD are thoughtful and helpful, and his CSD log shows an excellent understanding of speedy deletion criteria. He has experience at other admin-type areas like RFPP, AIV, and UAA. And he brings a rare skill to the table: experience with copyright investigation. I'm sure he will be a net asset to the project as an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support- no concerns here. Reyk YO! 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support willing to tackle copyright and has shown clear understanding in content creation and improvement. clpo13(talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support after some time of sifting through contribs, I am convinced. In fact, this is the first time in several months I've felt truly enthusiastic about an RA candidate. I see solid work in admin areas, excellent content creation, and endorsement from some of Wikipedia's most respected admins. I could not care less about hat collecting three years ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Both of your nominators were my nominators so I know they've carefully checked out you and your editing history and discussed this RfA process with you. I trust their judgment and will support. And the fact that you want to help out in the Copyright area is a big plus in my book! Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support as nom. On phone, will comment more later. WormTT(talk) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The candidate is a content creator, so he knows about content. He's also willing to help out in admin areas, so that is a plus. Thine Antique Pen seems to be a user trustworthy of the admin tools. Epic Genius (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support: the hat collecting incidents appear to have occurred when the candidate was younger and significantly less mature; I won't post the age of them now here but that information hasn't been deleted. I think it's very condescending to tell a clearly competent person that they should be focusing on school work, although I can understand people opposing due to the candidate's seemingly young age. The user has an interest in a much ignored area (CCI) and has shown clear understanding of Wikipedia through their GA nominations, work on articles, CSD log etc. I'm particularly pleased to see them intending to work on this category, which seems very backlogged despite the fact that it's easy (albeit repetitive) work. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom, Ritchie333 and and Bilorv. --Rubbish computer 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support A very prolific content writer that also has a fair amount of experience already doing administrative tasks. Arguably an ideal candidate right down to the two co-nominators. Mkdwtalk 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support and agree with both noms and Ritchie's analysis above. He needs the tools to be more effective in CCI and SPI.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) - Support I've interacted with TAP in the past and I find him balanced and thoughtful. Good article space work on good subjects. Respected nominators. I think Ritchie's discussion of that old block is spot on. Work in CCI is an extra reason to support. --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support It seems like the candidate has really learned from their past behaviour and has an impressive amount of experience with contributing to/improving articles. Their interest and involvement in admin-related areas is also clearly a plus. I think they'd be a great asset as an admin. Ririgidi (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Solid user, well rounded and will use the tools well. Opposition concerns over age are unfounded especially without editorial evidence of immaturity; I was an admin at quite a young age without incident. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support I've seen TAP around, and like what I've seen. Was, honestly, unaware of his history—a clean start indeed. It's always good to have another admin willing to mop those difficult corners. Miniapolis 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - MrX 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - CCI needs help and tools are absolutely essential to being able to work there effectively (there is a real need to be able to read deleted material and to delete and revision delete material). Based on the strength of the nominators' recommendation, I'm on board with this nominee. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support precious European quality, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Frankly, the age thing concerns me a bit, but as the father of a 16 year old, I'm very aware that some at those ages are very mature, and others are not. I'm more than willing to accept the assurances of the respected co-nominators that TAP, whom I don't know at all, is mature enough to be an admin. BMK (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Easy decision. Very solid editing and content creation history, evident command of core policies and guidelines, and a demonstrated commitment to the project over time. As one of my favorite RfA commentators likes to say: "no evidence of assholery." (At least not in recent history.) If I have one mild criticism of the candidate, it's that I would like to see more in-depth experience at AfD and a greater depth of understanding of the general notability guidelines and various specific notability by subject area. That said, I see a personality that is willing to grow and assume responsibility incrementally and will not over-reach himself in the steep learning curve phase of his adminship. If he makes mistakes, I trust he will recognize them and self-correct. Good luck, and please don't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Trusted user and prolific content creator. Age doesn't concern me: Teenagers can be mature, and are far more tech-savvy than the rest of us. It'll be good to see younger sysops. utcursch | talk 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- SUPPORT. First candidate I've supported per my criteria. Great work on articles... Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly is an interesting read. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support excellent work that's all the more impressive if he's really as young as claimed. As for how he spends his time, well, I'm 500 million years old and I should really be doing my "schoolwork" too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Cautiously, because I knew this RfA was coming and I was asked off-Wiki for my opinion and did my research. As a retired educator with 40 years or working with young people and having worked intensively at WP:PERM and seen all the hat collecting by younger editors, and having blocked dozens of delinquents on Wikipedia, I need a vast amount of convincing before I would suoport a bid for adminship from someone who hasn't even nearly reached the age of majority. However, in this instance I feel reassured by WTT and Yunshui and I'm not impressed by the lower section of this RfA which at the time of this vote is populated mainly by regular RfA opposers, and I certainly believe Thine Antique Pen's edit total of 61,000 to be somewhat more demonstrative of the workings of Wikipedia than those of one opposer's 93 edits to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to the talk page. ~~~~ Esquivalience t 20:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per Eric Corbett. The candidate self-identified in 2012 on their user page as being 12-years old. User_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/11#Hello That information, and other self-identifying information, was, quite properly,subsequently removed by an admin for protection of this minor's identity.User_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/12#Your_userpage I do not think that any 15-year old, no matter how precocious is mature enough to be handed the mop. Banks Irk (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly I'm going to have to oppose. Back in 2012 during a ANI discussion (I'm not saying which), TAP ridiculed me and turned my attempts to correct my mistakes into a self-indulgent 'racing game'. It was one of those things that contributed to my year and a half retirement, and I remember him joining in on the 'witch hunt' that turned my life (both on and off-wiki) into a misery at the time. I'll always remember how irrational and spiteful people can be. JAGUAR 22:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, you're opposing him over something he said three years ago? ‑ iridescent 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar? I don't see any ridicule, and after the discussion was over, TAP gave you a barnstar requesting you not to leave. I'd like to know more about the alleged "witch hunt", though. If this accusation is true, it'll impact my support vote, no matter how old the incident is. utcursch | talk 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like beetle species – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've checked your contributions to RfA (and those as Colonel Warden) over the years and find that of your over 100 votes you oppose over 75% of the time, and that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a prediction game, Kudpung. Samsara 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've checked your contributions to RfA (and those as Colonel Warden) over the years and find that of your over 100 votes you oppose over 75% of the time, and that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
- Sitting here until my questions are answered. However, I would like to state to the current opposers that the age of a candidate isn't a valid reason to oppose. I honestly think that the opposers above have the term "age" confused with "competence"; they are not one in the same, especially since competence and age are not directly related in the least when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- For now, just to register my objection to candidates being judged on their physical age. Samsara 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
General comments