Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/FOARP

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful administrator election candidacy. Please do not modify it.

Final (268/106/242); See official results (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

FOARP (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm FOARP (short for Fear Of A Red Planet, a handle I chose during my days living in China based on the colour of the Chinese flag and the famous Public Enemy album, and with no meaning beyond that). I've been on Wiki since 2007 but first got really interested in editing Wikipedia back in 2013 or so when I came across the Shark Island concentration camp article and saw that it was in need of a heavy edit. I pottered away on bits and bobs, mostly in the history area, up until about 2018 when I became interested in the policy area and AFD, and from then on I've been contributing regularly here.

The thing I like best about Wikipedia is writing and improving (and then reading!) informative articles together with other people who share that interest. Wikipedia is a powerful tool for educating and informing people across the world from a neutral point of view.

To cover off the formalities: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, I’d also be open to a recall vote though AFAIK typically Admins-gone-rogue are just desysoped via ARBCOM and this route is almost never used. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I've been interested in becoming an administrator for a long time because I'd like to do more to help clear backlogs, particularly in closing RM discussions and AFDs. In my work on the RM backlog I think I've shown reasonable competence at reading consensuses, but there are some RM discussions that really require the mop to be able to handle correctly, without the "RMNAC" tag at the end of the close sparking doubts in the minds of the community as to the challengeability of the close. I'd also like to do more to contribute at AFD, where I have a reasonably good record for nomination/voting but closing AFD contentious discussions is difficult as a non-admin. Similarly, I'd like to do more to help with the backlog in RFCs eventually when I have a bit more experience of making admin closes at RM/AFD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The successful GAs I did together with Hog Farm/Haukurth/GhostRiver are, in terms of content and the process of production, my favourite work on here because it really was good to do a deep dive in to these topics collaboratively with other editors who knew the topic area and sources, and produce something that was informative to the reader and a contribution to the project. I also enjoyed the mini-project I did for a while making articles about female authors from Sweden, which I really should pick up again. In terms of sheer numbers of articles, the work I did together with other editors too long to list in full (Hog Farm, BilledMammals, Shahram, Dlthewave, Reywas92 and many others certainly more prominent than myself) may have had more effect on the project, particular in (relatively) obscure corners like Iranian village articles. I've also done my best to contribute to policy discussions around mass creation of PAG-failing articles, a field that continues to develop in Wikipedia.
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: Yes. I think the important thing is always to stay calm and assume good faith: nearly all the time, if someone looks like they're having a bad day, that's exactly what's happened. It's also worth remembering that this encyclopaedia is built on consensus, and that won't always go your way and it is never the end of the world if it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but there is a thread of consensus that your should try to interpret and follow here, and you can't go far wrong, most of the time, by doing so.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Z1720

4. In your response to question 3, you mentioned that you have been involved in some conflicts. Can you please give an example of a conflict you have been involved with, and describe how you successfully navigated that conflict or what you would have done differently? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:
This is a tough question to answer because you always wonder whether you could have done a better job of things, whilst also you tend to think you were on the right side of everything whilst other people might not see it that way. Conflict is anyway, for me, nothing to be proud about or actively seek out - I'm assuming, of course, that "conflict" here goes beyond a mere content-dispute which might go to MRV, AFD, or an RFC.
In terms of "good" handling of conflicts, I was involved in the issues surrounding two mass creators of PAG-failing articles, one of whom who was eventually blocked (I don't see any reason to bring their name in to it here but this ARBCOM case is the most relevant one) and another of whom retired under a cloud after being desysopped. In both cases I tried my best to see things from their POV and assume good faith, whilst also remaining clear that their behaviour was unacceptable.
In my ORCP back in 2021 I disclosed all of the "bad" conflicts I think I had been in up until that point (see here) and I don't think I've had any more since then. Getting temporarily blocked on Basque Wiki back in 2019 due to a Google Translate issue was a dumb mistake and I shouldn't have reacted the way I did, so I guess "don't be dumb, keep calm" is the main lesson I got from that.

Optional question from Thryduulf

5. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A:
I've been working on an RFA for several months and had a nominator lined up, and was due to go live with it this month. I actually didn't know these elections were happening until the person who agreed to nominate me pointed out that this was going to happen - it seemed like a good opportunity to try out something new so I went for it. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

6. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A:
I don't plan to forswear doing anything permanently but there's areas I won't claim any deep understanding of and wouldn't simply jump straight in to using the tools in. Anything on BOTPOL would be a straight-forward example of this. Anti-Vandalism is also not something I'd claim a great knowledge of. Anti-sockpuppet another. User names also. EDIT: Mike has correctly pointed out I haven't had any involvement in FAC so that's another area, but I have done a bit of work on FLC so hopefully it wouldn't take long to learn.
If I was going to go in to any of these areas I would looks first at what other people experienced in the area do, read up the PAGs they reference, ask for advice, and then move from there.

Discussion

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

GAN & FAC notes. Three GAN nominations, in 2019 and 2021, listed here. All were promoted; some thorough reviewing was done on them. No reviews. No activity at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks asilvering, Femke, and Mike Christie for your comments. Being in the middle of the pack - a large pack - like this seems to have resulted in not that many people dropping by to ask questions. You can see the pageview stats versus Queen of Hearts (currently listed at the top of the list) and the most recent traditional RFA (AirshipJungleman29) here. It is what it is. Anyone interested in asking anything after the discussion closes is welcome to drop by my talk page for a chat. FOARP (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If your nominator has time to do up a statement, I think it would be nice to see it. I'm surprised so many people went without nominators entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/FOARP&oldid=1263427722"