Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Calmer Waters

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

Final: (81/2/4); closed by The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Calmer Waters (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I have been editing on Wikipedia as a registered editor since May 2009. Since then, I have found myself more involved in areas such as Did you know, Articles for creation, new article and recent changes, and general overall wiki-groming, gaining an understanding of the importance of knowing the various policies and procedures of the site and where to look when needed. Occasionally lately, I have found that the ability of additional tools would help assist with the maintenance of certain areas of the encyclopedia I currently work in such as the moving of uncontroversial files to less ambiguous names or helping with requests at DYK with the queues or errors when the few admins working in the area are offline or otherwise busy. As these tools require great trust from the community, I wanted to ensure I had gained a good understanding of the various policies and procedures to utilize them. If administrative responsibilities are given, I would continue assisting in the same maintenance related areas, creating and collaborating on articles, working the backlog, helping at DYK, and assisting editors within the project. With that said, feel free to ask any questions and I will answer them to the best of my abilities. Kindly Calmer Waters 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

Instead of just adding my support, I would rather send this belated co-nomination message. I've been working with Calmer Waters at DYK through their entire WP editing history and have crossed with them quite frequently. The candidate showed several important qualities which I believe are a great asset to the project:

  • Strong dedication to wikipedia, working hard in support of the project.
  • Careful and constructive approach to delicate situations, gentle and polite communication, raising questionable points and following the thus developed consensus, and yet the ability to take initiative and act when required.
  • Skeptical and thorough mind, going in great length to question the facts provided by other editors (DYK nominations as example) and especially, their own actions.

It is my strong belief that the candidate would serve wikipedia even better with the administrative tools. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:I would continue to be active at Did you know... assisting the hard working admins over there with the preparing of updates and addressing error reports and concerns. I also plan to continue working on the backlog of Incomplete file renaming requests and assisting in non-controversial page move requests at Articles for creation.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I have created a few articles; although I feel my greatest contributions have been more behind the scenes. I enjoy helping out at Articles for Creation and still find it fascinating how these contributors diligently work to address the issues we raise in helping the encyclopedia gain quality new content, and on occasion, even B class content. I also assist at Did You Know... assisting editors with their submissions, including the copy editing of hooks and articles, raising and addressing potential issues, providing input with discussions, and verifying, rejecting, and promoting nominations to the preparation queues. I also try to help the new DYK nominator with their questions and help guide them through the process. We want them to find it enjoyable and come back with more interesting suggestions. This has lead to the following essay. I am also willing to help with different Wiki projects and task forces where I can, such as the Bolognia push, which has even further shown how collaboration can have outstanding results. I also help with the general wiki-groming and maintenance backlogs such as the renaming of ambiguous file names and finding sources for unreferenced BLPs. Pretty much help where 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: Working in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia, there are bound to be editors that will disagree with things from time to time. I have never actually had any instances where conflict has caused me stress. I truly feel that staying calm, listening to (or reading) their point-of-view, and staying rational with an open minded can resolve many potential and actual conflicts. Sometimes the conflict of views actually leads to a better ending article or project. With the mind set, that one should continually ask themselves if what they are contributing helps the encyclopedia. If yes hit the save page, if not, then don't. I feel this is important whether it is editing an article or addressing an editor.
Additional optional questions from Decltype
4. Would you mind briefly summarizing your language skills in "Babel"-format (E.g "en-N, es-2, de-1")?
A:en-5
5. Could you explain why the images you added to Vigilant Eagle were not appropriate for Wikipedia (assuming they were correctly deleted)?
A:The files were not free images released under either public domain, an appropriate Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, or under the GFDL. To have been utilized, they would need to have had a valid fair use rational meeting all 10 of the different criteria listed within policy. These did not.
Optional additional question from Phantomsteve

Please note: as I was typing this question, the Editor Review page was deleted under CSD G7. As no reviews were added to it, the contents are not relevant to these questions, just the fact that a request was made. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. On the 26th of January, you put in a request for an Editor Review here, which you then removed 18 hours later (here with the summary removed for now r/t backlog - even though there were only 6 requests at that time which had not yet received any reviews). Another editor re-added it as the backlog is slight, and then you removed it again an hour ago (here). My questions are:
a. Why did you not wait for a review to be done before going forward with this RfA?
A:That is a valid question and one I was debating addressing with both yourself and Thejadefalcon as you two were kind enough to address the removal when I had first removed it. When I read over the editor review I had placed located here I had decided to go ahead and move it over here. I had addressed at the top that I was pondering running for the same reasons I state at the top of this. It looks to have been deleted in good faith and I will ask for it to be restored for anyone wishing to view it.
Note: I restored the ER for review by voters. Ucucha 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b. Like all of Wikipedia, the ER requests are responded to by volunteers. You appeared to have been impatient, and unwilling to wait for a review to be done. How can you assure us that actions that you would perform as an admin would not be rushed?
A:I apologize if pulling the request has left you with an impression such as that. Impatience did not have a factor in the decision. I only wished to move the request here after a lot of further thought. You are doing an excellent job over there, as are many other editors. It was just a personal decision upon reflection, not taken lightly. Nothing more. Next to address any concerns about rushing as an administrator. I have always eased myself into new areas. At DYK, I stated with my own nomination. Then by watching, learning, and working with others, progressed to verifying nominations, helping other editors, participating in discussions to determine consensus on issues. I then slowed into preparing queues, always open to referring to policy or asking an experienced user if a question came up and supplying rational for those decisions and actions. I don't believe rushing ever accomplishes a better result.
c. On that ER request, you made no mention that you were thinking of going for an RfA. Was that deliberate (in which case, could you explain why you decided not to mention it, as it would help reviewers focus their comments), or had you not decided to do so at that time (in which case, what made you decide to suddenly go for this RfA?)
A:I have never had an agenda in which I would want to do something deliberate as a means to getting something. On the contrary, I have been more than happy to help others by working in the background (as is done at editor review). That is why I mentioned the backlog and not wanting to create extra work as I had become more decided on submitting this. As stated above it was a good faith decision upon reflection. I hope that helps a little.
Optional additional question from Ottawa4ever
7.This question is meant to be a hypothetical question that may be encountered as an admin. Assume a new user (<3months experience) asks for your advice about nominating a certain article for deletion. The user is asking how they should nominate the article and what they should say in their opening statement about why they are nominating the article. The user identifies the article to you, Lets say its a small city in an South American country and appears well sourced, The user feels that the articles sources are not reliable. Assume that the article in question is also appearing on DYK when the user asks you this question about deleting this article. How and what would you respond to the user? Please feel free to make any other assumptions, and this is strictly an optional question. If it appears like the question does not make sense I will be happy to re-word thanks.
A:First, instances like these are a great learning opportunity to help the editor become better accustomed to the steps taken before nominating an article for deletion. I will assume in this case that it is a newly created page being patrolled by the editor. In this case, I would ask the editor the reasons why they feel the sources are not reliable and whether they have addressed these concerns with the article's author first. I would also inquire whether they have attempting to help validate the facts presented with an online search. I would also ask if they have read about the steps taken before nominating an article and help with any questions they may have regarding it. I would also assume that it has not been verified at Dyk yet, as articles should be reviewed twice and any major issues regarding sources should have been caught before promotion to the main queues would have taken place. I would keep an eye on the article and editor, assisting further as warranted, while attempting to allow the user to gain as much as possible. The level of assistance will vary from editor to editor, as each would ascertain a different level of experience during that three months. One may need nothing more than being directed to a link, whereas, another may need more assistance on what steps should be taken and why these steps are done. I hope that addresses the question in the way you had in mind.
Optional question from Wisdom89
8. Please provide a specific example (aside from WP:SNOW cases in AfDs and RfAs) when you would decidedly employ WP:IAR.
A.There is no reason to close any Afds or RfAs utilizing WP:IAR. Afds are areas where consensus from the community, based on current policies and the rational provided by the editors involved should be the deciding factor in closing the discussion or re-listing it. There is no super-vote. IMO, ignoring all rules is the spirit of remembering to think about what is in the best interest for the project, not to overrule policy. It is occasionally brought up at DYK for nominations that may fail one of the rules; yet, there is a special circumstance involved. An example would be a 11k article that has been expanded by 40k prose; yet, falls slightly under the 5x expansion rules. In instances such as this, IAR is sometimes brought up. From what I have seen, it is always brought up for discussion with consensus deciding what action to take. I agree with that stand point.
Optional question from Polargeo
9. Have you ever edited from other accounts? Why did you change your signature from BSNRN? And what does that signature mean?
A.I have never had any other accounts and will not have any further accounts in the future. I originally registered my account at work and created the Username B.s.n.R.N.. It is an acronym for bachelors of science in nursing-registered nurse. After being advised by SoWhy and Amalthea that my username was not easily understood, and seeing that it might be ambiguous to those not familiar with the term, I had it changed to Calmer Waters.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: I believe that all editors start with the privilege to be able to edit and contribute constructively in a non-hostile environment. The site should strive to maintain an atmosphere supportive of collaboration and free of trolling and harassment. Should an editor abuse these privileges by disrupting either the community and Wikipedia, these privileges can and may be removed through the use of blocks and / or bans after the appropriate warnings have become unsuccessful in deterring the negative behavior. I would help ensure that editors abide by the current policies including avoiding edit wars, personal attacks, and working towards consensus through the use of appropriate warnings, dialog, and policy guidelines.
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
11. What's your opinion of "cooldown blocks"?
A:I do not believe that cooldown blocks should ever be used. Blocking an already frustrated editor while they cool down would only work to further inflame the situation, and would therefore would be counter-productive.
12. Please interpret IAR in your own words.
A: Ignore all rules is a way to address the issue of having both various rules and policies, while still being able to carry out the goal of developing a dynamic encyclopedia. It is there to offer and stimulate opinions, innovations, and the ability to Be BOLD. It may be cited on occasion as a reason for addressing a situation where the rules that would pertain to it are not clearly defined. However; it is not a justification in itself for just ignoring a rule without reason or for having a lack of accountability for one's actions. IMO it should be only be used sparingly and sound rational or consensus should be provide when doing so.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
13. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?
A.First, I would leave such a closure, as the one mentioned above to an experienced administrator experienced in closing these types of Afds. The discussion during the debate raised valid points for both the deletion and keeping of the article; however, it appears that no clear rough consensus was obtained and the article's subject did not request deletion. I would therefore close this as No consensus - default to keep. As mentioned above, the policy has not yet changed, and the recent Arb Com decision was directed towards the deletion of unsourced BLPs, and as such, would not currently have effected the decision in this particular case. I hope my response addresses this question adequately.
14. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I believe the current BLP policies are very well intentioned and do a good job of allowing the building of the encyclopedia; while ensuring that editors are expected and required to take great care while contributing material related to living persons. This area of the Wikipedia may not only directly impact their life, but also, their families, friends, and careers. I have had the opportunity to routinely work with BLP related articles both at DYK and AfC. At Did you know... addressing concerns that articles and hooks are written in a neutral manner, while not focusing unduly on negative aspects. At article for creation, we are giving the unique opportunity to ensure that articles pertaining to BLPs are well sourced, inline cited, and that poor or uncited material is removed before moving into the main space. I find it important to think about what impact this edit or article may have on this real person and whether it contains the strong independent reliable sources to ensure the article meets the neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research standards. I believe the current policy address those well.
Additional optional questions from Booksworm
15. What is Wikipedia's greatest strength?
A.I believe one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is the ease of access in which the site allows people from many different places across the world to collaborate with one another. The simple design of allowing almost any person (excluding those blocked or banned) access to site to contribute and make an edit with the potential to improve further on any article is great. Wikipedia's community (both registered and unregistered users) are one of the widest diversities of life experiences, educations, and philosophies placed into one place with a the general goal of building an encyclopedia. Yes; and as will be mentioned in the next question, having an open door does come with some down sides, as not all editors that stop by to contribute do so with the best of intentions.

16. What is Wikipedia's greatest flaw?

A.Ironically, I find it is the same ease of access mentioned above that gives Wikipedia its strength, also gives it its greatest flaw. This ease of access also allows the inclusion of false, unverified, unsourced, and potentially harmful material to make its way onto articles, often without a sense of accountability from the person placing it. This is especially concerning in regards to BLPs where it can have direct detrimental effects on a person's life. It is also worth noting that through the use of various system software tools, such as feeds to new articles that are created and recent changes to existing articles, along with both editors that patrol these and administers addressing the needs presented by these editors, we are making progress. Yes, we have a ways to go in finding the correct balance between minimizing the potential of harm to an article, while keeping the encyclopedia dynamic; however, I believe the various proposals and discussions that are now in progress will lead to improvements on both fronts.

17. To what extent do you feel that age (and/or experience) plays a role in the success (or failure) of an RfA?

A.I believe that when an editor states that their age is one that is below the age of majority, some will look at this as an automatic quantifier that the editor is too young and may oppose with this rational. Many editors may know of a few administrators, in which it would be incredibly difficult to know that they may be younger than what they come across as. Rational, intelligent, mature editors with a very clear understanding of the areas in which they plan to start mopping and who have shown the characteristics and history of being trustworthy are far more important of criteria to myself than that of their declared age.

18. According to a previous answer, you only speak English (to a level EN-5). How will you deal with editors whose First Language isn't necessarily English and with whom communication may be problematic?

A.Nice question. It is first important that I take the time and courtesy to attempt as best I could to understand what is trying to be said by this user. This editor had taken the time to reach out for help either to place a question, request, or comment, and I would make attempt how best to gain a understanding of what is being asked. They may have reached out because there edits keep "disappearing" or one of a number of different potential reasons that may affect someone with a difficulty grasping English. I might also make them aware of both the Simple English encyclopedia and possibly the Wiki of their native language. As this is very open to interpretation, I would simply help the best I could. I hope this helps.
Additional optional question from Throwaway85
20. Thank you for your application. In reviewing your contribution history, I noticed that a large (44%) proportion of your contributions were to article space, and yet a relatively small (~3%) proportion were to article talk space. This concerns me, and makes me question how much experience you have collaborating with other editors and building consensus with those who disagree with you. How would you assuage my concerns?
A.Yes, I also believe collaboration is an integral part of editing, whether it involves editing an article, list, template, project page, or numerous other areas of the site. This can be done in a number of ways starting with a detailed edit summary. This allows editors to easily see what additions where made while viewing their watch-lists and page histories. I have always attempting to be clear and precise with all edits I make to this end. Many of the non-controversial edits I have made on articles such as introducing a reference, copy editing, formatting, and grammatical corrections can be adequately described without utilization of the talk page of an article. Other edits, such as removing information that is not cited or sourced, controversial areas where different opinions in the past have been raised, questions of whether or not to include something, opinions on what might help an aspect of the article, or edits that can not be fully explained within an edit summary are better served on the talk page as can be seen at Talk:Mythology of Lost. I would also like to help reassure you by pointing to my interactions collaborating with editors at Template talk:Did you know (1450+ edits ~11.7%) where collaboration starts with the submission and continues with the expressing of potential issues, solutions to address them, and eventual promotion or (on occasion) ineligibility. I hope I have addressed this satisfactory.
Additional optional questions from DESiegel
21. What is your view of the essay Wikipedia:Process is important?
A:The essay does a very good job of summarizing the reasons and rationals behind why the various existing policies and procedures are in place and the importance of adhering to them. As we are a community of editors, working toward the established goal of building an encyclopedia, it is essential to have some structure to maintain focus in this endeavor. With a project involving thousands of editors working together (directly and indirectly) across numerous articles, tasks forces, projects, and committees; the need for guidelines and procedures that were formed from previous and ongoing community consensus on how to maintain the dynamics of the site, as well as the steps to address and resolve actual and potential conflicts is essential. It is wise to point out that "Process need not be inflexible", and that there is room for the BOLD, revert, and discuss cycle, showing initiative, and acting decisively when it is absolutely essential. As discussed in question 12, this includes IAR at times with a clear explanation of the rational used and through consensus when possible.
22.
a Since BLPs have been mentioned, what is your view of an admin unilaterally deleting a long-unsourced BLP which contains no negative and no obviously contentious statements?
A: As stated above, this would only include articles that do not contain any instances of negative or deflationary statements. It is my opinion that an administrator should first do a thorough search for any references that may be used to validate the facts already represented within the article. If a lacking source is found, as has been the case in many instances with those currently attempting to clear the vast backlog of Category:Unreferenced BLPs, it should be added along with any possible requested citation tags and possibly a reference improvement banner placed. For those in which sources could not be found; and while community proposals as to what steps should be taken in regards to this subject are currently ongoing at RfC, I feel it would be best to PROD these allowing the opportunity for others to possibly find relevant sources before deletion would take place. I also find utilizing the Article incubator and bringing this area of the site to the attention of more editors, would be very useful for articles that show potential, but would require additional time before being in a presentable form for inclusion onto the main space.
b. Should "long-unsourced BLP" become a speedy deletion criterion?
A:I don't agree with a delete them all solution to this problem. There are times where a few minutes can help source an otherwise well written article. It is possible that on occasion, when an article was first written, the new editor was not fully aware of the expectation to include or how to correctly reference the article. Of course; if an article for example is composed entirely of derogatory or threatening information on their subject and removal of this information would not leave enough material indicating importance or significance of the article's subject, then it may fall under one of the existing categories for speedy deletion. As these are long standing articles, I feel this would be the exception rather than the norm.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Let me be the first to support. Active and trustworthy editor who works in areas where the tools could help. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support - 3 articles created strikes me as quite strange in an RfA when someone is asking about DYK, however other then that I don't see a problem. smithers - talk 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell,[1] Calmer Waters has created no less than 46 articles, and according to their user page they has created 50 pages. decltype (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my weak support because he wanted to work in DYK. He has only created three articles (the rests are redirects). Redirects don't meet the rules of DYK. smithers - talk 01:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he has created 46 articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Toolserver must have been down earlier since I couldn't get the link or expand it to show all. Looking at the expanded, there are many more creations besides redirects there. Thanks for clearing that up JC and Decltype. My apologies for all of that. smithers - talk 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Anyone who spends time around DYK can put the tools to good use, and I can't find anything that persuades me Calmer should not have them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Lots of edits, around 8 months of experience and a good number of Did you know's make it decent enough to let us supporters know what you're waiting for. Minimac94 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Always calm and polite from what I've seen, does good work at DYK. Deleted contribs show a good understanding of CSD and PROD policy, created articles are neat and well-sourced. Very unlikely to misuse the tools. decltype (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support - Take things easy in controversial areas and I think you'll be just fine. You seem like a calm individual with a willingness to help. Net positive. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Competent, calm (as indicated by the username!) and wants to work in admin-short areas. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support because contributions do not look suspicious at all, WYSIWYG. Chutznik (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Contributions are a tad on the light side (I do like to see a GA...), but editor clearly appears here to build an encyclopedia. I have no concerns at this point--specifically, I found Editor Review to be a waste of time myself when I went through it as a non-admin, so you have my sympathy there. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I find the "Manuel of Style" link in his/her userpage strangely endearing. Keepscases (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Srtong Support I have seen you around DYK since I first started to participate there. Your work there is enough to make me support. I only wish that more people would be like you. Good job on your current work and good luck in the future!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Per Q7. I like your approach of walking the user through the events nessecary and of course getting them to think about what they are actually doing. The query is a tad open ended, and the answer to this is solid . DYK work is admirable. And strong dedication these past months reassures me further to support. I think you will make a strong admin. Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - This is the best admin candidate I have yet to support. I think User:Calmer Waters has absolutely the right temperament for the job. I have worked with this user on several very complicated content areas, and Calmer Waters has shown to be a careful and responsible editor. I believe the user's current work on the palmoplantar keratodermas (still a work in progress) is just one example. I agree with some of you that this user does not have an extreme amount of experience in all the areas involved with adminship, but his consistent careful and cautious approach to contributions leave me reassured that he will do well. ---kilbad (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support From what I see, a qualified candidate who does good work around here. Having been active for at least 6 months is fine for me, and while the lack of more AfD involement may sometimes cause me to oppose, this candidate has no plans to do much work there, so i don't see too much of an issue (although more participation is always a good thing).  fetchcomms☛ 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Six Eight months experience is not too short for my vote. DYK experience demonstrates a strong understanding of fundamental project principles (verifiability, NPOV, etc). Nothing in the answers to the questions or user's history sways me away from a support. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per co-nomination. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Calmer Waters is highly qualified to take on the role of admin at WP:DYK. I first encountered Calmer Waters when he approved one of my DYK hooks; I've subsequently noticed what excellent work he's done at DYK. Careful, constructive, helpful, questioning – like Materialscientist, I've seen this candidate display these traits. The answers to the questions look fine, so I'm confident that Calmer Waters will handle adminship both at DYK and elsewhere splendidly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No concerns with you right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Looks highly knowledgeable. Six highly active months are most definitely sufficient. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support despite my strong disdain for DYK Tan | 39 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. As long as he starts just at DYK, sure. Take it slowly from there and you'll be fine. I think you're plenty trustworthy. ceranthor 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per question answers. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support — looks good! Airplaneman talk 05:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Competent and almost psychotically prolific for his relatively short time here. This editor does a lot of very high quality work and seems to stay away from the politics. Zero drama-mongering and other assorted asshattery at WP:PITCHFORKS is a huge plus, in my opinion. I'm supporting for the same reason that (I have little doubt) others are going to oppose; because he has gone almost completely unnoticed. He has built himself a nice foundation based on good, solid work. That makes him the best type of admin candidate there is. Trusilver 06:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support — Excellent DYK work. —Aaroncrick (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Clueful, productive, amiable. Fine candidate, No problems here. -- Ϫ 10:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: Possesses a calm, even temperament and carefulness of thought, and is considerate, helpful, polite. Nothing concerning in history or contributions. Will do just fine, :-) Maedin\talk 13:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Despite noting the opposers' concerns, I feel that the candidate has done good work, and I do not see any cause for concern. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Adminship is about the careful exercise of judgement; if an editor can demonstrate that they know when to act, when not to act, and when to seek advice, everything else can be learned on the job. Looking through Calmer Waters's editing history I believe they possess this quality and will make a competent and trustworthy janitor. Support with pleasure. EyeSerenetalk 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Candidate looks fine. (By the way, for what it's worth, I have over 35k edits, I have been on WP for 3.5 years, and been an admin for about 10 months. During this time, to the best of my knowledge, I have participated in a grand total of 2 AfDs.) AlexiusHoratius 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems fine. Good luck! GlassCobra 15:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I have seen much of CW's work at DYK and, like Materialscientist, I think he's doing a good job explaining issues to article authors and helping run DYK. I have seen a few problems—User talk:Calmer Waters#Marinelli is an example—but think he will do great as an admin at DYK. Wisdom89 thinks CW is too new, but I believe I have seen enough of him to know what to expect. Polargeo has issues with CW's lack of AFD votes, which I don't think should be detrimental: he is working in other areas of the encyclopedia, and is doing a fine job there. I just checked and in fact I did not have any votes in AFDs before I became an admin. Ucucha 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth mentioning that the link you've given is one of the reasons I supported :) EyeSerenetalk 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in question was submitted to DYK with sources which were not linked. CW approved it and moved it into the preparation area. Before moving it further into the DYK queue, I checked the article a little deeper and found that the sources were in fact available online. I then found that the citations did not support some of the facts and other parts of the article were plagiarized from the sources. I could perhaps blame CW for nearly allowing this crappy article on the Main Page, but that would not really be fair—we simply don't have time at DYK to check so thoroughly all the time. As you presumably did, I like it that CW immediately set out to solve the problems. Ucucha 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that's what I was getting at. We all make mistakes, but I see CW's willingness to acknowledge them, learn from them and act quickly to correct them as a big positive in a potential admin. EyeSerenetalk 10:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support CW has asked me for advice several times and from what I have experienced in my interactions with them, they are a civil, thoughtful and helpful user with the best interests of the project in mind. Will be a great help at DYK. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Yep. Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Decent contributions, great answers to questions, shows quite a bit of clue. -- Atama頭 22:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — youth (or should it be WikiYouth?) should never be a means to quantify experience. I am not afraid to see a mop in your hands! Booksworm Talk? 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Everything that I've seen at DYK shows that Calmer is ready for the mop, and we can always use more help. Royalbroil 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate has multiple DYK credits, has received at least a half dozen awards from other editors, has approached me in a mature and civilly fashion as seen here, and as the candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Good Track and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: No problems I can see. DYK could do with more help, especially since others who promised to do so are neglecting it ;) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good, responsible contributor. Camw (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A very helpful user at DYK. The Arbiter★★★ 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as all looks good to me -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support m:Katerenka (d) 21:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems like a very calm person, just the right temperment for an admin. RadManCF (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support tenure is relatively short, but the candidate has been active and has clearly picked up a good understanding of this place. I also like the civility and cluefullness they've shown in this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 22:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support evidence suggests reasonable chance of net positive with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. The candidate seems thoughtful and cautious, and assuming good faith that their conduct here is indicative of future behaviour it would seem highly unlikely that their being an administrator would be anything but good for the project. Thank you for volunteering,  Skomorokh  23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I do not see any problems with this user. Good answers to questions. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Solid support – I was considering nominating Calmer Waters myself for RFA. This user has lots of clue, and I not worried about only being onboard for less than a year. –MuZemike 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all the way--TrustMeTHROW! 03:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (sock of banned user. Pcap ping 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  54. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Helping at dyk is commendable. Good to go. Ceoil sláinte 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Yep, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - I've known this editor for a while. Would make a very good administrator. Samwb123Please read 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Calmer Waters is always over at DYK, assembling queues in the preparation areas, so he certainly has enough experience there. JulieSpaulding 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Clueful, appreciated thoughtful answer to #20. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Meets my standards: in particular -lots of edits, great User page, Autoreviewer/Rollback rights, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Candidate is thoughtful, willing to learn, and level-headed. --otherlleft 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. The candidate is trustworthy, helpful and mature. I see no compelling reason to oppose. Majoreditor (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Looks good. RayTalk 07:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: No concerns here. Would be a welcome addition. NJA (t/c) 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support answers to questions (not just mine) show a good knowledge of policy and a helpful attitude. A few random dips into the contribution logs show no problems. DES (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Nice answers and I'm fairly certain you won't break anything around here. AniMate 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support: More help at DYK would benefit all. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, good user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support The username is particularly apt. Risker (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Hard worker, good people skills, easy call. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, a good candidate for the role. --Taelus (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, per DYK work. —mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I see no problems from this prolific editor. Valley2city‽ 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Sure thing. Recognize this candidate from DYK. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Good points, non-confrontational at edit conflicts.--TitanOne (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, I've looked closely at Calmer Waters' edits, and been very impressed by what I've seen. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  80. Support. I'd assumed Calmer Waters was already an admin.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Certainly. I thought I'd already !voted, but apparently not. No alarms, no surprises. GedUK  11:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Weak oppose - Qualifier - This oppose is subject to change. Your tenure here is rather short and your tasks are relatively perfunctory. My standards tend to be rather high for supporting candidates who are relatively "new". Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8 months isn't enough for you? smithers - talk 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8 months isn't a long time. —Aaroncrick (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps in your opinion. Time is very relative. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose candidate has taken part in less than 30 AfD debates. A critical area for a prospective admin to understand. A quick look through these debates does not confirm sufficient experience to have support for the tools. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wanted to state that while I do not have an interest in closing Afds, I understand the importance of providing well thought out rationals based on policy pertaining to Afd !votes during a debate, along with taking the points raised by others into consideration. I will provide you with some diffs on my Afds shortly. Calmer Waters 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not some measuring stick by which potential admins have to be measured; it's just one of loads of areas that give a hint. I had no AfD experience when my RfA was successful and far fewer edits (still do!). I'd say loads of successful admin candidates were involved with fewer than 30 AfDs at time of running. Instead of choosing a single area where you think there ought to be experience, find the ones where there is experience and judge against that. Otherwise, we could all find something to oppose over, "hasn't edit-warred over policy" or "has no history merge experience". <---- that was a joke, btw!> Maedin\talk 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have been likely to have opposed your RfA then. The time spent on wikipedia or the total edit count is not so important to me however candidates have to in my opinion have demonstrated a certain level of participation in admin areas. In particular I am interested in seeing at least a moderate level of experience in fighting vandalism and in deletion. The fact that Calmer Waters has nearly 13000 edits but has taken part in only around 26 deletion discussions (my count, correct my if I'm vastly wrong) does not give me enough to support and I think just falls into my criteria for a weak oppose. I see some evidence of good arguments at AfDs so I am borderline on this but I would have wished to have seen a bit more. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad you didn't, you'd have spoiled the unanimity, ;-) But fair enough, I just wanted to make sure you were clear on other options and understood your reasoning. Regards, Maedin\talk 16:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell. :) Seems to be close enough and the actual AfD contributions are generally reasonable. I will move back to neutral. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per answers to questions 13 and 14 regarding the BLP issue. Closing "no consensus" BLP's to "keep" is poor form, whatever the current policy may or may not say GTD 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice of you to make another controversial contribution here. Don't take personal disagreements with policy and use them to try and sabotage an RfA, take your concerns to the revelent policy pages. If a user is answering questions in line with policy, point out to me what you expect of them? To disobey all rules? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Actually don't know why I said that, it's none of my business. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that there are editors that are frustrated with how certain policies are currently written and enacted upon. Let me take a moment to explain further my rational on making the above decision. First, my belief is that administrators are editors, just as everyone here is, with the same goal to build an encyclopedia. The only difference is that they have been given the privilege of a few extra tools to allow them the opportunity to perform tasks on behalf of the community. It is therefore that administrator's duty to follow, keep abridged of any changes made, and rationally enact the policies that have been developed and approved by the community. As future community opinions change regarding different areas across the project, so too will the policies. However; it is with consensus that the the administrator will act upon these changes. I encourage the expression of ones' views and any suggestions on how the project may better be served. As long as it is a good faith effort, constructive in nature, and non-disruptive; we all benefit in the end. Calmer Waters 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators also need to know when the policy should be ignored. BLP issues can - at times - overrule every other policy in existence. Admins have the ability to undelete libellous, or otherwise damaging, articles, protect libellous versions of articles, etc. Unless the community realises how easily Wikipedia can become the greatest defamation machine going, we need administrators who are prepared to ignore the community in favour of doing what is right GTD 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant delete rather than "undelete libellous"... We already have policies that allow admins to speedy delete unsourced attacks and under certain circumstances to protect articles. However an admin knowingly protecting an article in a libellous state would be lucky to get off with a trouting. ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean undelete, which can potentially be more dangerous. Articles such as the deleted version of Brian Peppers appeared elsewhere on the web because people didn't appreciate the BLP problem. GTD 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I haven't seen anything to oppose on but I am not seeing any real strong significant expeience at AfD or CSD. You may not wish to work in these areas but without more evidence of contribution in these areas I cannot support. I am willing to change my oppinion if evidence is provided. Polargeo (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you judging the CSD experience? Having looked through Calmer Waters' deleted contributions I was very impressed. Most of the entries were rename-related CSDs, but a number fell under the general and article criteria, and were very well handled. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I cannot see deleted contributions so I will take your word for it. Thank you. I didn't see much AfD experience either and I will not change to support without evidence of this. I will look into this more myself but would be happy for any comments. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate has been involved in at least 20[2] AFD's.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. not enough experience in AfD. A critical area of admin. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Back at neutral, after more examination of contributions. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. per short tenure. Other than that, good user. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Per a lack of understanding in the BLP arena, I cannot say that I fully trust Calmer Waters to make the right decision. I see that you are already likely to pass this RFA, so I say good luck with the tools! — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NeutralSeems kind of new for an admin (I started last August and they started in May). What's the edit count; not to violate WP:EDITCOUNTITIS? I don't know; seems kind of like a WikiGnome.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 20:38, 31 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Calmer_Waters&oldid=1199132310"