Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goodnightmush

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Goodnightmush

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) at (34/0/0); Scheduled end time 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnightmush (talk · contribs) - I've been with the project for about two years now, first editing anonymously in mid-2005. I created my account about 16 months ago, and have been truly active for about 5 months now. I believe the administrator mop would aid me in vandal-fighting, which accounts for the vast majority of my contributions. I accept going into this process that I will face opposition on the grounds that I am only not the most active contributor apart from vandal-fighting, a valid criticism. Beyond that I contribute regularly the the 3 dozen or so pages on my watchlist, (A number around which I like to keep it. A close eye on a few pages is more important than a brief look at hundreds, I think.) come and go in XfD, and, of course, cleanup and correct pages I come across in actually using Wikipedia (reading it like an encyclopedia). I am well versed in just about everything at WP:ARL, and, while the scope of my contributions is narrow, my understanding of policy is fairly broad, I believe. That said, there are areas I will not employ the administrator tools, such as with improper fair-use image deletion, until I am very confident in my understanding of policy, as I am in the areas I work in more often. I have just over 5100 edits if thats relevant, which I know it is to some, although I want to be the first to point out that probably 150 of those are to my own userpage, several hundred more done with AWB, and countless on top of those aided by Twinkle or, occasionally, VandalProof. GoodnightmushTalk 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As mentioned above, I would use the tools most often in vandal fighting. I currently investigate cases at AIV and note if, for instance, the user has not received a final warning. With the mop I could take appropriate action if a vandal has received the full spread of warnings and continues to vandalize, and so on. It seems everyone plans to work on the backlog at CAT:CSD at their RfA, and yet it lives on, so I’ll do my best to help fight that as well. I also will delete pages on sight that I previously would have tagged with a {{db}} tag, taking more pages from the backlog. That said, if I have any doubt that a page meets the criteria for deletion, I may tag it instead of delete it, bringing another admin into the fold to ensure a debatably or legitimately belonging page isn’t deleted in error. I also would help out at almost anything on the backlog except, as mentioned, probably not replaceable fair-use images, at least at first.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are my efforts at fighting vandalism. I have only created a handful of pages, all of which are just above stubs at present I believe, and instead believe the best thing I do in the project is to maintain what others have written. (That and possibly my intermittent Wiki-vendettas against the use of “passed away” in place of “died” and other euphemisms.)
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: I have been in conflicts in the past, although very few. I can’t say they caused me any true stress, at best a fleeting aggravation. After all, we’re just building an encyclopedia, a noble and important cause, but disputes over its wording aren’t worth losing sleep about in my opinion. In the cases that have arisen, I usually see to its resolution one way or another (as opposed to leaving in the middle) and step away for a while to relax. A sad truth of being human is that our judgment is worst when our desire to act is greatest, so I take a leave of absence (on the order of hours or days, not weeks or months) to calm down, and make sure to return with some task unrelated to what upset me originally.
4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? ··coelacan 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The most appropriate, and probably most common, implicit invocation of IAR is when new or even experienced users take actions without knowledge of the rules. It encourages the timid and unfamiliar to be bold about contributing on the whole, or in ways they are unfamiliar with. It isn't a justification for going around how one pleases, ignoring policy, but an invitation to act boldly, even if unsure of the absolutely correct method. It's funny coming from me, not the most bold editor out there, but almost any action can be reversed and IAR helps prevent potentially valuable contributions from being lost for fear of inadvertent violation of policy. As for explicitly, IAR is useful when challenging the rules. One should never act directly against consensus against them, but IAR provides grounds for users to call for a needed change in the rules. I like how Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules - a beginners guide put it: "Since Wikipedia is consensus, think of it as Wikipedia's Jury nullification."
5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? ··coelacan 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm actually having trouble coming up with one right now. I'll dig through my contributions to XfD and look through recently closed discussions, but for now, no I can't give an example. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the recommendation of YechielMan, I went through recent deletion reviews and managed to find a closure I disagreed with here. In that instance the closing admin saw consensus in a 4 vs. 3 vote in favor of deletion, when two of the votes for deletion were just "per nom" or "i agree", whereas all three of the keep votes made valid points in favor of keeping the article. In that instance I think a no consensus keep or, at the very least, relisting would have been appropriate. GoodnightmushTalk 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. How useful to the project is it for an administrator to spend a major portion of their time reviewing the new user logs and indef blocking usernames that in their personal interpretation violate WP:USERNAME?
A: Disruptive user names are, well, disruptive to the project. That said, an administrator's time might be better spent dealing with cases that have already been reported WP:UAA. This would filter out accounts that never end up being used anyways. However, I don't see that as a waste of time, if that's what your asking. It is useful to the project to prevent disruptions that arise from problematice usernames. I would hope, however, the direct these users attention to WP:USERNAME, which they might have been ignorant of up to that point. I also find the phrase "personal interpretation" a little suspect. If the name is borderline or debatable in its inappropriateness, the admin should reach out the user and ask them to choose a new user name, rather than indef blocking immediately. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Do you think that becoming an administrator will reduce your ability to write and edit articles or will you be able to continue to do so and balance your work as a full-time student?
A: Becoming an admin should not reduce my ability to write and edit articles. The administrator tools will only become another way for me to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. Having them should not, in any way I can foresee, decrease the (admittedly small) proportion of the time I spend writing and editing article content. As for time I have to invest in being a student, I have had no trouble so far finding a balance. My contribution level has dipped during exam week the last two times, but I cannot see my position as a student interfering with my abilities to serve as an administrator or my administrator duties interfering with my schooling. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. What would your opinion be of an administrator who indef blocked a user for "Colbert vandalism" but failed to revert said vandalism? (Examples: [1] [2])
A: I'll refrain from drawing conclusions about the administrator, but I disagree with the action. The blocking admin clearly saw the vandalism, as he or she noted it in the block description, and yet did not revert it. I hope, if I pass RfA, that I don't become too enthralled with the new tools that I forget my purpose and duties in fighting vandalism, reverting the vandalism. All that said, my assumption is that in such a case the administrator just forgot to go back and fix the vandalism. It would take 1 click to roll it back, so I figure he or she just forgot or was urgently drawn away from the computer. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Goodnightmush before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. I've seen you often, and I've never seen you do anything crazy. ··coelacan 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As Coelacan, I don't see any reason to expect that the net effect on the project of Goodnightmush's being sysopped should be other-than-positive. Plus, anyone who abhors that perniciously unencyclopedic locution passed away must be wise. Joe 04:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Your contributions seem pretty much entirely anti-vandal in nature and I can't see any serious errors, so I think that the tools would benefit your activities on the project. (aeropagitica) 04:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per above. PeaceNT 07:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Nothing wrong with specialists. —AldeBaer 08:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Nothing concerning. We can use another vandal-fighter. —Anas talk? 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support despite Gaillimh's concerns, looking through your edits you do add content abeit not often. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support, Would be slightly happier if this wikipedians Wikipedia space edits were higher, but otherwise looks good. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I think his conservative approach to the admin tasks is admirable. I do not foresee any problems. JodyB talk 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see no makor concerns here, it would be nice to see more article work but I think your vandal fighting is great and AIV reports are good. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I see no issues or problems with this user or the contributions, anything to make me think they would abuse the tools. Arkyan • (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - being overly focused on anti-vandalism is not a sufficient reason to oppose, IMO, particularly as adminship is no big deal, and we desperately need more admins. Candidate seems competent enough. WaltonAssistance! 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Vandal fighting is an important part of Wikipedia. We should support vandal fighters who qualify for getting adminship. Captain panda 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support great vandal-fighter, can surely use the tools for a positive effect on the project. —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb ) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Vandal fighting is a big contribution, and while this user is a big vandalism fighter, that is not all they do. Jmlk17 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Yes he does fights vandalism and that's good but he has done much other work on here like working with tags and welcoming new users which is great. Oo7565 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support and thanks for mentioning me by name in Q5 and giving the barnstar. It shows respect, a trait I value highly in admins and in everyone. YechielMan 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Good fellow gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Very good vandal fighter. --Carioca 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - a good editor as well as a vandal fighter..--Cometstyles 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, I've seen him around and looks like a good user. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. My 1800th Edit Support - Why should I use my 1800th edit here? Because I believe that Goodnightmush will make a fine admin. (and because NP is boring at 10:10PM)--tennisman sign here! 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Hell yes. This user's been here for the long haul, and has shown nothing but great stuff in doing so. Daniel 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support sounds good, good luck to you. Gryffindor 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Davewild. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support frbzzzzzing!! yap. --Infrangible 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per AldeBaer. My review of the candidate's record revealed nothing concerning. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Another fine editor that needs a mop! Nice answers knows there way around an article. Æon Insanity Now! 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"opposeEurocopter tigre 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Eurocopter tigre removed his vote diff with edit summary "mistake". I have restored it and struck it instead, assuming he meant to withdraw it. GoodnightmushTalk 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please supply the reason for your opposition? Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you are not required to, I would appreciate it if you could provide reasoning for your opposition, Eurocopter tigre. Additionally, your vote will carry more weight if you do. Thanks. GoodnightmushTalk 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leery of giving extra responsibility to someone who joined this project to warn others and revert vandalism. For me personally, this is an irksome reason to join Wikipedia, and while his contributions are certainly valuable, I don't believe that Goodnightmush's oeuvre coincides with our primary goals. Specifically, his affinity for automated edit making programs and a lack of content addition and/or article collaborations are a concern gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed something Goodnightmush said, but it looks to me like the first edits were content additions and not vandal reversions, so I don't think the purpose of registering the account was anti-vandalism. The candidate also takes an interest in cycling articles (fourth edit) although some of these have been deleted (Industry Nine, Seven Cycles). A search of "for d" in Goodnightmush's contribs shows intermittent but not insignificant participation in XfD, and work at Keith Olbermann (apparently a watchlisted item) shows referencing and BLP. I do see a lot of anti-vandalism in the candidate's contribs, and other work as well. ··coelacan 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My original purpose for becoming involved with the project was with the intent of expanding and cleaning up a few articles, such as Ambergris Caye, Cannondale and Mountain Bike, projects I have made progress in to various degrees (little with the former, more with the latter two and Keith Olbermann as coelacan mentioned). However, I do concede vandal-fighting got me involved with the project to the degree I am now, and accounts for most of my work. GoodnightmushTalk 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cheers Goodnightmush. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to clarify, as it appears as if I've made a mistake in interpreting your previous responses to the optional questions above. I think I'm inherently leery of those who only revert vandalism, and I fear that this has contributed to a clouded view of your oeuvre as a volunteer. Apologies, and you have my support for new buttons. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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 either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.