Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221

Someguy1221

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (58/1/1); Scheduled to end 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) – Someguy1221 has been with us since January 2007 and has proven himself to be a reliable and trustworthy editor. I have known Someguy from the beginning of 2008 and we have worked together in WikiProject Articles for creation since then. As well as reviewing countless submissions and helping to clear the backlogs at AfC, he has also taken an active role in the management of the WikiProject and helped to design the templates for the project in the days when I barely knew what a template was!

Someguy is also a prolific vandal-fighter, and I am been unable to find a single instance of an inappropriate revert, which I personally find extremely impressive. He certainly receives a lot of queries at his talk page and he provides clear, thorough and unequivocal explanations about why edits were undone; for a random selection, see: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I feel that these demonstrate the candidate's extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia.

Someguy is active in many other areas of the project, including the help desk, the science reference desk, articles for deletion, occasional contributions to ANI, policy talk pages (most notably WT:NPOV), and frequently tags inappropriate articles for speedy or proposed deletion. In summary, Someguy is a great asset to Wikipedia and will not let us down.— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. I thank everyone who participates. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to utilize administrative tools in the areas of the project that I am already active in. These include Articles for deletion, candidates for speedy deletion, proposed deletions and administrator intervention against vandalism. I am also active across a number of noticeboards, and will utilize block and protection tools in the unfortunate situations where a dispute has risen to a level of disruption that warrants such a use of the tools. Another part of the project where I feel administrative tools would be extremely helpful is the help desk. Almost every day, inexperienced users come to the help desk and similar pages to ask why their article was deleted, or far more vaguely, something like "What happened to my edit?" (Very difficult to answer when the user appears to have no edits.) The ability to see a user's deleted edits would greatly assist in providing a complete and informative answer to such a user.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia have been those to the Articles for Creation project (AFC). I joined the project in December 2007 after happening across it on a recent changes patrol, as with other projects I have been involved in (they are listed on my userpage). I have reviewed countless submissions for the project, and helped other reviewers clear the nearly 2-year old backlog. However, even though I have started a number of articles, based on AFC submissions and otherwise, I feel my single greatest contribution was helping design the new (as of September 2008) system for submitting and tracking articles for AFC. My part in this included helping write the necessary templates, updating the instructions to reviewers, and creating and maintaining the system for locating botched submissions that would otherwise never be noticed by the reviewers.

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: Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that my demeanor has little effect on the outcome of a dispute, and so there is every reason to remain calm and collaberative at all times. These provide their own benefits, as it keeps my mind open to the possibility that I am wrong, and it helps others keep calm as well. I also find that cooperating with those who disagree with me can yield a compromise that we both like better than our original ideas. But of course, I'm not perfect. When a dispute is getting heated, or I feel myself getting stressed, I go over every comment I make before saving it, and ask myself if I'm really adding anything useful to the discussion. If I feel that I can't, I take a deep breath, sit back, and just see what other people think. If necessary, I will pursue dispute resolution, usually by asking for more opinions with a request for comment or posting to a relevant noticeboard, and these requests may include the occasional sanity check.

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

4. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you get some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A: Seeing as you hadn't been warned about 3RR until after you violated it, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith (AGF). I've seen that many heated disputes arise when one editor fails to fully explain Wikipedia standards to a newbie, or even when one editor goes further than necessary and debates the merits of the subjects instead of whether the sources are reliable, content neutral, etc. These situations are not a failure of AGF on either side of the dispute, but merely a breakdown in communication. I would leave you a comment and impress upon you the general consensus over which sources are considered reliable in a scientific context. I would also advise you to read the evolution FAQ, and inform you that there is a considerable consensus that the information you are trying to include doesn't belong at the article, and that when other editors disagree with your additions, you should attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion and not through edit warring. And finally, I would warn you that further additions of creationist material to the article may result in your being blocked.

Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46

5a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I'm aware that most new users don't operate at nearly the speed of newpage patrollers, but the deletion of this sort of page also doesn't cost such a user any real effort, as it's easy enough to recreate a page that has almost no content. Now I want to assure everyone that I don't mean to sound callous; I would probably give such an article 24 hours, assuming it hasn't been deleted previously at articles for deletion. I would also inform the author that placeholders for articles are usually deleted, and that if he plans to take a considerable amount of time to work on his article, he can do that in his userspace without risk of deletion.

5b. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter? Is that consistent with your answer in 4, above?

A: The major difference stems from the fact that deletion discussions have only two general outcomes, keep and delete, although of course they can also result in merge or redirect. The consensus at a deletion discussion is dependent on the strength of arguments over the suitability of the article's subject, its notability, and the reliability of its sources, and not merely on the majority. Building consensus in writing an article can involve discussion on the same basic issues, and should also be based on the strength of arguments, but the difference is in the degree of compromise that can accompany such a consensus. As for majority rule, it doesn't decide deletion discussions or article content because the consensus of the community as a whole cannot be determined merely by looking at who showed up to a discussion. However, such disputes have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and few generalizations can be drawn. The lack of clarity on this issue is why I would sooner comment on instead of close an AFD in which I felt that the emerging consensus was in conflict with community held standards.

5c. What is your philosophy about admin involvement in content disputes? Is that consistent with your answer in 4, above?

A: Administrators are simply editors with a few more tools. Aside from the ability to conclude deletion discussions or taggings with an actual deletion, they have no special authority in resolving a dispute, and their opinions do not count toward article content more than any other editor's (save of course those of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and banned users). However, administrators do serve a useful role in keeping a dispute on track towards consensus by preventing certain actions that prohibit rather than encourage collaberation. An article at the center of a substantial edit war can be protected (in the wrong version, of course) to encourage those involved to discuss the matter rather than repetitively revert. Users can also be blocked to prevent edit warring in and of itself, on a case by case basis. A user who consistently attacks other editors is disruptive to discussion, and can be blocked. A user who refuses to discuss his reverts can also be blocked if this proves sufficiently disruptive, and he has been well warned about it. This is, I believe, perfectly consistent with my answer to question four. That question has to be taken in a special context as it represents a situation in which the magnitude of the consensus and the strength of the arguments are so incredibly one sided. While any administrator should assume good faith and attempt to nicely explain the issue (if no one has tried that yet) to the new user, the assumption of good faith only goes so far. Once a new user knows that his edits will be reverted, and he knows why, then his continued edit warring serves only to make a point, and he should be blocked for disruption. And of course, an administrator should avoid use of these tools if he is participating in the dispute.

5d. In your answer to question 4, above, you quote WP:RS. Are all sources either reliable or not reliable or is there a middle ground, and if so can sources in that middle ground be used?

A: There is of course a middle ground, and a given source can also be reliable only in certain circumstances. Further, while a source can be reliable from its "reputation for fact checking and accuracy," no source is actually infallible. A source can also verifiy content or establish the notability of a topic without demonstrating its significance. These have to be dealt with on a case by case basis on article talk pages or at the reliable sources noticeboard. Some general issues that arise relate to newspapers and blogs. Any blog written by John Smith is perfectly fine for verifying what John Smith has said, but whether his claims can be stated as facts or his viewpoints as significant depends on Smith's credentials and the reputation of his blog, and these have to be decided by consensus on the relevant article's talk page or on the reliable sources noticeboard. And newspapers, when they do get something write about science, history, or medicine, are largely considered not to demonstrate the significance of a viewpoint. For example, media coverage renders intelligent design obviously notable, but in the absence of peer-reviewed scientific support, that coverage would never get it a section on evolution. Additionally, primary sources can be reliable for providing further details on a topic, and whether this is appropriate also has to be decided by consensus on a case by case basis.

General comments

• Links for Someguy1221: Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Someguy1221 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Someguy1221 before commenting.

Discussion

• I've been looking through your CSD and so far no real issues have emerged... but I just started. I do, however, have a request should your RfA fail. First, start using more detailed edit summaries when you tag an article. DB doesn't tell us much. Second, when tagging something as G4, it means that you've already looked up the original AFD discussion or know about it. I always like it when the person tagging the article includes a link to the discussion. Makes life a lot easier (same thing for CopyVios, but I haven't seen anything tagged by you as a CopyVio yet.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Good advice, but why should your request depend on whether the RfA is successful? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's advice for anybody who reads it, but if his RfA passes, he probably will not be tagging as many articles as he would be deleting them instead... but then the expectation for documentation is even higher...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We need more AIV and CSD admins Spacevezon (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I took a spin though his contributions, and this is a fine example of a worker bee with a clue. 216 AIV reports, and in looking at a sample of his earliest and most recent reports there, Someguy1221 would make a fine admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - I don't see anything alarming. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - Sure, why not. Not found anything worrying. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Delete He's just some guy, not notable! :-) ... oh wait, wrong queue, support Majorly talk 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Er, has Eco hacked into your account???---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   No, but I couldn't resist saying that. Majorly talk 19:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - Contents building (2 DYKs) and sufficient amount of activities in wikispace -> seems fine to me. --Caspian blue 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I've worked with Someguy at AfC and have been very impressed with what I've seen. He's a user that makes Wikiprojects go. TNXMan 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per Tnxman307. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support looks good to me, no alarms, builds articles and fights vandals. --GedUK  20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Looks good to me; per Ged UK. -download | sign! 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks fine. Why the hell not? GlassCobra 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support LittleMountain5 ^review! 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Weak Support taking short cuts on your edit summaries as relating to speedy deletions has me a little concerned... when you start deleting articles make sure you give good rational in your edit summary.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - Would trust him with the mop. Seen him around WP:AFC, a helpful editor. FingersOnRoids♫ 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support as default, I see nothing wrong. Tavix (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Trusted user, will do good with the tools. Xclamation point 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
21. No reason not to. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - Looks good! - Fastily (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong support. Wizardman 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support I am very impressed with what I see. Support! Basket of Puppies 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Don't see any problems, certainly see a lot of good in your substantial and numerous contributions. Full speed ahead! FlyingToaster 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support I approve of your answer to my creationism example question. I'm sure this answer can be extrapolated to other situations as well. JustGettingItRight (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    I must say, I really liked that question. It's the kind of question which can reveal something about a candidate. And you made it sound so plausible, I wonder if something like this ever happened to you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

27. Support, why not. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. A trustworthy candidate, I do not foresee any problems. Rje (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
29. the_undertow ^talk 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support, positive contributor in many varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - I see nothing that raises a red flag but I also see not much experience in CSD and XFD, although candidate claims to be active there. Looking through contributions, I can find only a handful of speedy taggings, but they seem to be without grave errors. But as the contributions here are limited, it's hard to judge the candidates knowledge in that area. In case this request is successful (and it looks like it) I advise the candidate to be open to let more experienced admins help him in those areas if needed. It's better to ask for help than to make mistakes here. Regards SoWhy 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you call a "handful" but there are well over 2000 deleted contributions and quite a lot of them seem to be speedy taggings. I've collated a random selection for you: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant recent taggings. Those were mostly from mid-2008, while there were only few within the last months. Also, I want to amend that I share I'm Spartacus!'s concerns and think the user needs to use edit summaries more effectively (not only "db"). Regards SoWhy 09:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

32. Support You have a good grasp of policy and guidelines and you don't seem like a magnet for drama. Nice work in AfC to boot. ThemFromSpace 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
34. I've seen Thisguy around 1221 times and never been deceived. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Great responses to the first question. You've thought this one through impressively. Ray^Talk 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Good gatekeeper on poor articles. AfD's look solid. Nevard (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 04:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support even though numerical palindromes are kinda silly. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Everything looks good. America69 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - No red flags. Tiptoety ^talk 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Seems fine. I do join in the suggestion of Spartacus, which I hope and trust the candidate will consider. Joe 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. I see no red flags or warning signs here, and A Nobody's two AfD links don't sway me. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support will be another useful addition to the ranks. Bencherlite^Talk 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support seems a good candidate. Dean B (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Erik9 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support has performed constructive work as well as the garbage removal side of the job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support keeps cool, hardworker, accurate judgements. LK (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. No worries. DiverseMentality 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Strong Support First it's tough to beat the nom. While I've never worked directly with Someguy on any particular article, I ran into him while reverting vandalism. I noticed that he had reverted a vandal edit - then went back, checked the article, and made additional improvements - that kind of attention to detail impressed me. Then looking at the answers here, seeing strong building skills, great efforts to protect the wiki from vandals, I simply don't see this strong a candidate often enough. Please give him a mop, and any other tools, (well, OK, those are the tools). No doubt what-so-ever that this is the type of admin we need. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 07:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: Looks like a really solid contributor and a great candidate. Plus, SoWhy and I'm Spartacus! are happy with the CSD tags . . . what more could one want?  :-) Maedin\^talk 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support - clearly exceeds my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support: Has been since Jan 2007 and vandal fighter and used rollback well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Would use the tools well. Timmeh! 01:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support – No problems here whatsoever. — RyanCross (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 24, 2009 @ 08:14

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   How could there be too many admins? Wikipedia is an ever growing projects and with only 800 some active sysops - there simply aren't enough admins working on the project. - Fastily (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   When any and all vandalism to any of the articles on Wikipedia is properly reverted, and the offenders dealt with within 12 seconds, then we will have "enough" admins. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   DougsTech, please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Since a few people have queried what I mean by this, I figured I should clarify - see here. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose, I have reason to believe that this user is actually a sockpuppet of Jack Merridew. I suggest a CheckUser, because as a condition of being unbanned, Jack Merridew agreed to edit from one account only. --Pixelface (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place for this, if you have any evidence for this accusation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   I do have evidence. And I've stricken my comment while I learn how to file an SPI and wait for the results. Since this is about a potential admin, I suppose email may be appropriate according to WP:SPI. --Pixelface (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, email may be best, although I have no experience of this. I think striking the comment above was the right course of action at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Based on Checkuser, they are editing from relatively stable addresses in different parts of the globe, so ..  Unrelated. However, feel free to initiate an SPI request to present more circumstantial evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   O RLY? I've never heard of User:Someguy1221. He's certainly not me, as whatever investigation might be afoot will show. Sneers, Jack Merridew 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. On the plus side of things, the candidate does have a barnstar and some DYK credits as well as having never been blocked. With that said, I am torn with something like this, i.e. is it more indicative of the positive quality of keeping an open mind or should the candidate have recognized that the article was improveable from the start? I feel similarly with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogger (2nd nomination). On one hand the candidate rightly challenges the call to speedy delete, but also the candidate's actual stance is essentially a WP:JNN. Thus, my concern is not adequately considering the merits of the articles in question from the get go. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. For comparison purposes, this is the version when the candidate !voted to delete and this was the version after Carcharoth's massive improvement to the article when the comment was struck. Yes, maybe the potential of the article (which is now B-class by the way) could have been recognised, but it might be worth mentioning that this article has been through 2 AfDs and a deletion review, so it was certainly not clear-cut! In any case, I am certainly of the opinion that being able and willing to change one's mind is a far more important trait for an administator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)