Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TravisTX

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

TravisTX

[edit]

Final (46/1/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TravisTX (talk · contribs) - I give you my first nomination for adminship: TravisTX. Travis joined Wikipedia in September of 2005, and began seriously editing in January of 2007. Since then, he has amassed 4500+ well-spent edits, and has participated in almost all aspects of Wikipedia. TravisTX has made 37 edits to WP:UAA, 32 edits to WP:AIV, and has participated in many discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI. His experience in vandal fighting coupled with his work at WP:AFD demonstrates good knowledge of administrator policies, and his work at the Help desk (104 edits) show willingness to help other users and the knowledge to do so effectively. His nearly 1600 deleted edits show great experience in speedy deletion policy, and I’ve noticed that TravisTX is quick to discuss changes, instead of start edit wars. He is an active member of Wikiproject Firearms, and has written several articles in that subject area, along with doing a lot of valuable cleanup and copyediting. I have also guided TravixTX through a rigorous coaching program which can be seen here. Overall, I believe that TravisTX is fully ready for the tools and responsibilities that come with them. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept
Thank you, Malinaccier, for the kind words in this nomination; I hope to exceed your expectations. —Travistalk 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As a new admin, I will concentrate in areas in which I have a high level of understanding. Specifically, speedy deletion, page protection, and blocking of vandals. I have a strong grasp of the criteria for speedy deletion, as demonstrated by my record of having very few speedy deletion nominations declined. I have gained better understanding from those declines and will try to pass that knowledge on to others by declining nominations which don’t meet the criteria. Those that do meet the criteria, of course, will be deleted. My experience with blocking has been gained from submitting reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. As for page protection, I haven’t submitted any reports to WP:RFP, but I will watch the list and protect pages when necessary. As I gain experience, I will expand my work into other areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The vast majority of my mainspace editing has been reverting vandalism, cleanup, and tagging. To try to get more article editing experience, I’ve signed up for SuggestBot’s spamlist as a source of ideas, but it unfortunately hasn’t been all that helpful. As for my best contribution, I created an article about my son’s school, The Regis School of the Sacred Heart. My very best contributions, however, I think are the answers I have provided on WP:HD. While I’m not a strong article writer, I do rather enjoy helping other users when I can.
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: While the occasional conflict is inevitable, I have never been involved in an edit war and I can’t envision a situation in which I would engage in one. Of course, though, I have had some stressful encounters with other users including some lengthy AfD debates such as this one. I think that the article’s author became defensive when I mentioned NPOV concerns after which a lengthy exchange on my talk page ensued. In situations such as this, I have remained as calm as possible and have offered reasoned explanations and responses. If I feel that I might respond in a way that will cause future regret, I step away from the situation for a time to calmly collect my thoughts before continuing.

Optional Questions from User:Tiptoety

4. What is your thoughts on Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, will you add yourself to it?
A: I originally thought that WP:AOR was a good idea, and I still do. I would not be particularly worried about a recall request as I would expect my behavior and admin actions to withstand community scrutiny. However, in its current implementation, and after reading many good RfA arguments against it, I don’t think I will add my name to the category.
5. What is the most important policy when it comes to administrative functions?
A: I think that the most important policy for an admin to keep in mind is WP:AGF. While it is sometimes obvious that good faith is not being practiced, the majority of users should, at least initially, be given the benefit of doubt.

Questions from User:ArcAngel

6. How would you deal with a sockpuppet accusation?
A: Assuming that your question refers to an accusation against another user, I would thoroughly research the situation, especially the accused’s contributions, before taking any actions. Certainly, as a new admin, I would want to solicit the feedback of more experienced admins before acting. If there was a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry, I would indef block the puppets and block the puppeteer for probably a day or two. On the other hand, if you meant an accusation against me, I would present clear evidence to the contrary.
Sorry for the way that was worded. Your answer is satisfactory to me in either situation. ArcAngel (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. What do you feel are the most important admin tools and why?
A: I think that they all have an importance. Deletion is clearly the most used tool, but blocks and page protects are probably more important to the smooth functioning of and the protection of the project.

:8. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR?

A: Opinion stated above at #4.
Sorry, failed to see that - please ignore~  :) ArcAngel (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:hmwith

9. Although you admit that you haven't been incredibly active in article editing, of what mainspace contributions are you most proud? Basically, what's some of your best "work", in your opinion?
A: The best article I have created from the ground up is The Regis School of the Sacred Heart and I have worked quite a bit on Duchesne Academy (Houston, Texas). Outside of that, I have worked to clean up and add references to articles and to revert vandalism.

Optional question from Pedro

10. A satisfactory resolution of the process being pending, what would be your personal criteria for granting rollback at this time? Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would use a more lenient variation of my criteria for admin candidates:
  • At least 250 constructive edits, the majority of which are non-trivial
  • Active for at least two months
  • No unreversed blocks in the previous six months
  • Experience in policy-related areas of WP, i.e. XfD, AIV, cleaning up vandalism, etc.

Optional question from User:Tiptoety

11. A brand new registered user is continually blanking an article, and you revert their contributions and leave them warnings. They continue to blank after final warning but then contact you and apologized, explaining that their actions where simply a test to see how to edit on wikipedia. They inform you that they will no longer perform such edits. Do you still block the user? If so, for how long? Why or why not? If you do not block the user what actions do you take to insure they do not continue to disrupt the project? Tiptoety talk 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: If I felt that the apology was genuine, I would not block immediately. Rather, I would issue a final final warning to the user with the stipulation that if he or she continued to edit disruptively, a block would be placed. Depending on the user’s edits, I think a block of between 12 and 24 hours would be a good starting point. Usually when I encounter new users that don’t understand the policies and guidelines and are, for example, creating inappropriate articles, I drop one of the standard welcome messages on their talk page rather than running straight to AIV. That way, the user will hopefully stay and learn rather than leave or continue to cause trouble.
11A, from Daniel (talk): The page being blanked was a biography. Does anything change? Daniel (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: As far as blanking the article goes, I don’t think it would make much difference. Adding unsourced and/or potentially libelous content, however, would not be treated with such lenience. In effect, I would probably give a short block anyway and any further violations would be met with a longer block.
11B, from Daniel (talk): An IP is blanking part or all of a biography. Is anything different?
A: I imagine that I would be a bit more skeptical about an apology from an IP and may, if circumstances warrant, block it rather than issuing a final final warning. I would not, however, indef block an IP due to the potential collateral damage it could cause.

Question from Rudget

12. Do you believe that your work at the help desk, has improved your knowledge of en.wp? And if so, would you use as a tool in the future to help out others who may be just starting out? Rudget. 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: As I’ve said, I derive great satisfaction from helping other users, especially new users who aren’t so familiar with WP, so I intend to continue to offer assistance there when I can. As an additional benefit, I find that I frequently learn something new about WP myself when reading and editing there.

Optional question from User:Geo Swan

13. There are three questions I ask of every candidate for administrator, when I participate in an RFA. I admire those who can acknowledge fallibity, consider the possibility they made a mistake, own up and openly admit they made a mistake. I do my best to live up to this goal myself. And, IMO, we should expect every individual we entrust with administrator power to do their best to live up to these goals. While the ranks of administrators includes many individuals who are mature enough and intellectually honest enough, to consider they might have made a mistake, when asked questions about their decisions, I am afraid we can't count on this from every administrator. I am afraid the current rank of administrators react with hostility to even the most tactfully phrased questions. Will you make a commitment to recognizing your fallibity, and considering the possibility you made mistakes, if we entrust you with administrator power? Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Fortunately, I haven’t had that sort of negative interaction with an admin. Having been active at AN/I, however, I have had a glimpse of some of the undesirable behavior exhibited by some admins. One of my two main criteria for potential administrators is to be able to admit and accept accountability for his or her mistakes, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t intend to follow that criterion myself.
14. There is a category of adminstrators who have indicated they were open to having their performance of their duties reviewed. The last time I checked only 10% of the existing administrators had listed themselves in this category. If we entrust you with these powers will you list yourself in this category? If not, why not? Ah. You answered this above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. I think civility is important. I think it is particularly important for administrators. They often interact with newbies, or with difficult contributors. IMO it is absolutely essential that those who work to enforce the wikipedia's policies should strictly comply with all of them themselves. In particular, I think it is important to comply with WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Unfortunately, some administrators seem to think that once they had been granted adminstrator's powers they are no longer obliged to be civil. Whenever I participate in an RFA I ask the candidate to commit themselves to doing their best to always comply with the civility policies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I actually think that admins should hold themselves (and be held by the community) to a higher standard than non-admins, especially when it comes to the guidelines you mentioned. I intend, whether this RfA passes or not, to continue to behave in a civil manner in my interaction with other Wikipedians.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support. Per my nomination and these diffs where TravisTX helps out new users. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No warning flags. EJF (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to question 10 however, I don't think participation at WP:XfD is relevant to how someone would use rollback. EJF (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it I wouldn’t call it a requirement, but simply a way of demonstrating experience with WP policies. —Travistalk 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support While mainspace contribs are on the low side, there isn't any real reason to deny him the mop. Blueboy96 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - should get the +sysop bit.   jj137 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I was a tad concerned about the low mainspace count - well not exactly the total count, but the individual contributions. However, the user has taken a vested interested in learning policy and participating in active ongoing discussions at relevant namespaces such as WP:AN and WP:ANI. Also, kudos for over a 100 edits to the Help Desk. I like that. You have my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This user has all I need in an admin. I'm also glad that Wisdom brought up the Help Desk contributions. This user seems to know policy well enough, and good luck! EDIT: The answer to my question was certainly satisfactory, and the mainspace work, although without a high edit count, is of high quality. нмŵוτнτ 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I am satisfied with the answers to my questions, so thumbs up from me. ArcAngel (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SupportArcAngel. User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. Dlohcierekim 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems. Epbr123 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support - Issues raised below are not quite enough to make me oppose, but make me a bit worried. When it comes to admins; WP:BITE can be a big issue, but i think your answer to Q#11 deals with that rather well. I would also like to see your answers to the questions be expanded, theres just not a whole lot there to go off of. Overall there are more positives than negatives. Good luck, Tiptoety talk 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Are there any questions in particular which you feel the answers to are, in lack of a better term, a bit thin? —Travistalk 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Q#2, Q#6, Q#9 . . . hope that helps. Tiptoety talk 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done —Travistalk 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I don't see why not. He has been here since 2005 (although mainly started in Jan. 07). He also has 100% edit summary usage for both major and minor edits. Would make a great admin, for he has also helped several users. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Experienced and helpful.--TBC!?! 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No problems here. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support User has been here since 2005.No concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - meets my standards, neato-keen user pages (thanks for the userboxen), nom by Malinaccier, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    “Neato-keen,” eh? Haven’t seen that one in a while! :D —Travistalk 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. My observations of this user have been positive. Acalamari 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The number of edit conflicts on the help desk astounds me... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Avruch T 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, all seems fine here. Neıl ☎ 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - great editor with no history to show that the tools would be abused. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - sound answers to questions. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Great candidate, good luck! BanRay 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support would be good to see more evidence of 'pedia building but it's no deal-breaker this time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Cold Phoenix T/C\M 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sometimes these things take too long to happen. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A very well qualified candidate Alexfusco5 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good answers, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  32. Support. Heh, I was saying exactly the same thing as Lankiveil and got an edit conflict for my trouble :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. So freaking easy. Support, of course. :) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Will make an effective admin. Dreamspy (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Looks good! :) Midorihana~iidesune? 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Hey, why not!!--Habashia (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, Siva1979 says it all.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Mainly per the general consensus, demonstrated on this page, that Travis should get the administrative 'tools'. I'm generally *okay* with the promotion if it were to happen (which as of now, is certain) but I would suggest to Travis (as Jonny points out below) to familiarise yourself with policy first. I would also like to ask him to try and improve his mainspace count (excluding the usual vandal reverts) because writing articles and working with others are some of the most essentials qualities/experiences on this project. Rudget. 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, seems like a good editor who can be trusted with the tools and will use them well. I would like to see more article building though. --BelovedFreak 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --Kbdank71 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Travis is a hard working dedicated wikipedian who has a clear understanding of the project. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support My metasense ain't tingling. RC-0722 communicator/kills 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support. MrPrada (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Not that it makes much difference now. I have been more than impressed by this candidate's attitude and conduct through the course of this RfA, and the answers to the questions from other editors. Good luck with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Should get the sysop-buttons. —ossmanntalk 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Seems like a promising candidate for the future, but right now too little article writing experience for me I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank your for comments. I know that many users prefer to see quite bit more article creation experience than I have. However, the sort of dry, NPOV writing required to build an encyclopedic article typically is beyond my abilities. On the other hand, I recognize good encyclopedic content when I see it and the difference between POV and NPOV is clear to me. —Travistalk 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No sweat. I just like to see future administrators having been involved in the day-to-day frustrations of dealing with the wikimadness. If you've never been there then it may be difficult for you to understand the frustrations felt by the hoi poloi. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Sorry. I like your answers to the questions but this is not good. WP:BITE and all that. All editors are welcome here, in particular newbies and that comment leads me to distrust you with the delete button at this time. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is here for a reason. Newbies are more prone to making mistakes and not knowing policy—especially WP:N. TravisTX wasn't biting another editor here either, and has actually shown his willingness to helping newbies by volunteering his time at the Help Desk. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Admittedly, it was a dumb mistake that I think I’ve learned from, and I certainly didn’t intend to be bitey. I appreciate the comments, though. Thanks —Travistalk 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One small mistake does not mean you should not be granted sysop tools. I'll think on this. There's a lot of positives here, and I appreciate your honest response as well. I still feel it's a concern that you would merit established editors contributions over newbies, but I guess that reality says you're right, sadly.Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Per Malleus Fatuarum and the relatively short answers, although in a large volume they don't convey a comprehensive and coherent understanding of policy which is what I'd expect of RFA candidates. I've observed Travis a few times and have been left with (as Acalamari rightly says) positive observances - but at this moment in time, I believe that mishaps (intentional or not) may happen and unnecessary confusion may be created. I would be willing to support at a later date, however. Rudget. 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an adherent to the KISS principle, I tend to keep my writing as concise and to the point as possible. If there are particular questions for which you would prefer a more detailed answer, I would be glad to expand upon what I have already written. Thanks —Travistalk 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - While I don't think that your getting the tools would harm the project in any way, I can't fully support at this time, primarily based on your answers to questions 11A and B. What Daniel was trying to get at is that blanking of biographic information may be done to remove potentially libelous information--in the case of blanking by anonymous editors, you may actually be dealing with the subject of the article themselves (see WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article). Given that part of your duty as an administrator will be watching out for WP:BLP violations, I'd just like to ask that you make an effort to familiarize yourself with the policy before getting the tools. --jonny-mt 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially, I wasn’t going to comment on this. However, now that my understanding of WP:BLP has been called into question by two users, I must. When I first read Daniel’s questions, I didn’t interpret them in the context of the removal of BLP-violating material. After these comments, though, I see what he may have been getting at. I want to make it clear that I do understand the BLP policy and will be very careful to follow it, but in the beginning, at least, I will ask for help from a seasoned admin if I’m not completely certain about an action. —Travistalk 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood this is what you were hinting at, hence the support. :) Rudget. 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. neutral - not enough conflict resoluction on article talk pages to engender support. resolution of conflict is the most important job of admins and one that gets most into trouble. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - A rather unspectacular RfA, with little showing of interaction with others, especially in Wikipedia (talk) space. Although I wouldn't oppose this candidate, I'm wary of supporting what I can see is a relatively inexperienced user as of yet. But the work that has been done is of fine quality. In a few more months, this suer will be ready, and I will support. Lradrama 14:50, 4 March 2008 (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 either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.