Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeadEyeArrow (talk | contribs) at 22:20, 8 September 2008 (→Support: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cirt

Voice your opinion (talk page) (20/0/1); Scheduled to end 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt (talk · contribs) - It’s an honor to be the nominator of one of en:wiki’s most qualified candidates for RFA. Cirt is already an arbitrator at Wikinews, an administrator at Commons, and an OTRS volunteer. At Wikipedia he has contributed 11 featured articles, 26 good articles, 33 “Did you know” articles, 1 featured topic, and 11 featured portals (he’s the most prolific contributor of featured portals on this website). He has made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia. In connection with his OTRS work, cross-project deletion work, and his AFD work it makes sense for him to have the tools at this project too.

Now you might be wondering, why didn’t an editor with qualifications this good get sysopped long ago? Two reasons. First, some of Cirt’s contributions are to controversial topics. It is darn near guaranteed that an editor who writes about Scientology and related subjects will step on some toes, no matter how polite he is or how many of those contributions result in featured articles. I don’t know much about those subjects but I do know he’s evenhanded: not only do the articles he works on consistently pass GAC and FAC, but he’ll intervene to revert vandalism, seek page protection, etc. regardless of what POV the disruption expresses. The second reason he’s hesitated to ask for the tools here is because this isn’t his first account and he collected some blocks before he started this account. I can guarantee you he did not change accounts to hide that block log. Please respect his privacy in that regard. It had to do with personal security and I was the administrator he turned to for help when the problem first occurred. His blocks had to do with edit warring—not incivility or any more significant concern—and he’s long since learned to open dispute resolution instead of violating 3RR. The most recent block occurred more than a year ago.

So in terms of an editor who got a rocky start and made healthy turnaround, I don’t know of a better example than Cirt. Two other WMF projects already trust him with the mop. Let’s do the same. DurovaCharge! 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

I think the only word in the English language to describe Cirt consists of only three letters: “Wow”. Perhaps that’s because I’m terrible at English. Or perhaps, as Durova has said extensively above, Cirt is actually too good an editor to describe in mere words.

It’s not often one gets the chance to nominate a good user for adminship – let alone a brilliant one. So, when a user like Cirt comes along, all activity is halted to write a nomination for them. I myself do not even feel qualified to nominate this calibre of editor for the mop, regardless of how big a deal it is. Many admins – perhaps even bureaucrats – do not have the credentials Cirt possesses – which is why he should obtain the almost iconic mop.

I first encountered Cirt earlier this year, on – believe it or not – featured portal candidates. I believe he had a nomination or three on the go then. At once, I saw the amount of work he put into those portals – not just a fly-over job, a work of art. Upon visiting his userpage, I saw just how many portals he had managed to get featured – some of which single-handedly – and gasped in shock. (That rarely happens to me, after seeing something on the internet.) I must say, this drove me to create and develop a portal of my own. That I did, and I owe it to Cirt’s example.

I don’t see much else I could say to top Durova’s nomination above. I do hope that you, the community, will not look upon Cirt’s early history and write him off for the tools that will only help him to help the project. We need more admins like this guy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you very much Durova and weburiedoursecretsinthegarden for your kind words. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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’d like to do some work in the administrative backlogs related to images, specifically CAT:NCT, CAT:NC, and CAT:NT. I have recently been doing some work on OTRS, and having the tools would certainly help with this. I would also love to help out with updating Did you know, I know it has been a recurring issue to find admins for that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my featured work on Wikipedia stands as my best quality contributions to the project. I’d like to especially point out how fulfilling it has been for me to work on collaborative efforts with members of WikiProjects, including a featured portal with members of WP:TEXTILE, a featured article and featured portal with members of WP:OREGON, a featured topic and featured portal with members of WP:DOH.
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: As Durova notes, I have been in conflicts in the past with regard to Scientology and related topics. Those were mostly edit wars from my early days, and I delayed this nomination considerably in hopes of building up a track record that demonstrates I've put those mistakes behind me. Those pages where I once disputed are mostly GAs and FAs now.
What made the difference is that blocks had their intended effect on me: I, stepped back, and returned with a healthier outlook. Since the early days I've also discovered that dispute resolution is a better way of resolving differences between editors. I also trust in the community – and I have seen the dispute resolution process work very well and I especially find article content RFCs to be helpful. With any issue that crops up I always seek out an experienced administrator for advice, and I will continue to do so.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: The IP vandalized article mainspace a total of 13 times, and his previous 2 unblock requests were extremely uncivil. His statement is also incorrect in his most recent unblock request - after his "constructive" edit, he went on to make another vulgar vandalism edit, and his most recent unblock request was also highly inappropriate. I would not however be the administrator to review the unblock request because I was the blocking admin in the first place. I would leave the unblock review to an independent administrator.

Additional question from Haukur

5. Should this image be transferred to the Commons?
A: Interesting question. I'm looking into it. This work is definitely public domain in the United States. The question is whether it's also public domain globally. It falls under the pre-1923 window under U.S. law, but the illustrator lived until 1955. I'm currently looking into whether the New York publication given was the first publication (or whether it was first published elsewhere) and whether the artist resided in the United States at the relevant time. The short answer is I would take no action until I were certain.
Those are just the right questions to ask. Thank you. Haukur (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Sumoeagle179

6. Many people feel admin behavior standards have gotten rather lax these days. Some users seem to feel it's okay to be rude and condescending to others, especially if you disagree with them. What do you think of WP:CIVIL? Should standards of behavior for admins, including civility, be higher than for user who are not admins? How should issues of admin incivility be handled?
A: If I want to ask for civility I had better demonstrate it. Of course that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people, or explaining why. But incivility distracts from that type of message when it needs to be given. We are a community of contributors and we should all be held to a high standard of civility together. Of course I highly support WP:CIVIL, it is official policy and a very good one to encourage constructive, rather than destructive dialogue.

Additional question from Townlake

7. Would you mind providing a brief example of a situation where you would apply IAR in the course of your administrative activities? It can be the most obvious IAR case you can imagine, I'm just curious if and when you might invoke it. Thanks and good luck! Townlake (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Technically one is not supposed to edit an article after protecting it, but if I noticed an obvious WP:BLP violation, for example "Joe Schmoe is an alcoholic", I would invoke WP:IAR to remove that information. I would note that I had done so in the edit summary and give a comment on the talk page.

Optional question from MBisanz

8. Will you be open to recall? Who will be the "decider" of if a recall has passed? If you will be open to ti, what are your criteria?
A: I think that the recall process is certainly controversial and not clearly defined. I trust in the current system which works the best - if a user has an issue with my use of the tools they may start a User RFC. This could then proceed to an arbitration case, at which point my use of the tools could be dealt with formally by the Arbitration Committee.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator. DurovaCharge! 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat a co-nom support: You're not already an admin? Cirt should have been given the mops years ago! Dendodge|TalkContribs 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - fantastic editor and knows the project well. Will do well with some more tools. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Sure. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support before anyone else gets in before me :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I am shocked that you aren't already an admin, I had assumed you were. Excellent candidate, I have no concerns. ~ mazca t | c 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Clearly one of Wikipedia's most qualified for the mop. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I actually did think you were an admin already. Model Wikipedian. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Most definitely. This is one user who will benefit the project greatly by being given the mop! Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support — Fully trust both nominators, great article work, is human and can communicate well with others, wants to work in areas commonly burdened with backlogs. Marvellous! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - trustworthy editor who understands the image policy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Overdue. how do you turn this on 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Obvious choice I'd say. John Reaves 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes; definitely. I supported him on Commons recently too and would trust him pretty much anywhere. Solid trustworthy contributor with the best interests of the enyclopedia in mind. naerii 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Seems like a great guy. Certainly answered my question very well :) Haukur (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support, per both noms. Extremely trustworthy. --Maxim (☎) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I see him all the time and I think him to be an admin each time, only to be proven wrong. I have not a single idea why, with all those great contribution, he isn't an admin yet. SoWhy 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Why not? seicer | talk | contribs 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Highly trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support; I have no fear the candidate would stick the mop in bad places. — Coren (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Simply looking at his astonishing content contributions pushes me to support - above and beyond the accepted RfA standards. Valtoras (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support complete no-brainer. Absolutely. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Great edit history, many fine contributions. Support 100% --Banime (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Trustworthy candidate, I respect the nominators, and I like the IAR answer. Townlake (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - This RfA isn't an April fools joke? I thought you already were an admin. *Realist double checks his calendar* . — Realist2 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good answers, gonna make a great mop-holder. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral thinking this one over too.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt&oldid=237155704"