Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TreasuryTag

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

TreasuryTag

[edit]

Final (3/24/4); closed per WP:SNOW by Naerii 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC). (talk page)[reply]


TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) - I am delighted to be able to nominate TreasuryTag for administratorship! TreasuryTag has been a user since December 2006 and has since then amassed circa 11600 edits. These edits are spread thoughout the different spaces: Treasury has almost 5000 mainspace edits, 250 edits on AIV, 165 on AN, 159 on ANI, 119 on RPP and 55 on UAA. To top all that off Treasury is a kind and helpful user who spends vast amounts of time removing unsourced and orginal research. Treasury is also an active member of WikiProject Doctor Who and is an excellent article builder. There are no reasons to mistrust Treasury and giving him the administrative tools can only benefit the project! Cameron (T|C) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
A lot of people may well be surprised to see an RfA from me (ex-Rambutan, ex-Porcupine, ex-Circuit Judge – transparency rocks!)… not as surprised as I am! I thought that when I ran for the mop, I’d be a lone self-nom: I am definitely flattered. I’ve had my share of problems in the past, but can honestly thank and praise Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for his diligent and dedicated (and shockingly successful!) work in mentoring me out of my “pre-November” self.
While you’ll be thinking what interesting reading my answer to Q3 will make, I would hope that my statements here will turn a few heads: my image isn’t necessarily overwhelmingly positive, but I’m dedicated and, as Dweller proved, malleable. I’ve thought long and hard about my answers here today.
I would ask (perhaps a little bureaucratic and unreasonable, I know…) that before typing the dread-word “oppose”, you ask an optional question (I’ll aim to reply to all questions, though real life – I have one too! – could interfere) of the form “Why should I not oppose you on the grounds of X?” This would not only test my skills in dodging questions – hopefully not – but may make my position a little clearer. Thanks for reading, and go on: you know you want to! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS:- I’ve shortened my sig-length especially so as not to clutter up this page :-) And it’ll stay short in future too.
PPS:- Don’t expect any pretty cats (or even any ugly ones) thanking you on your talkpages, I don’t go in for that sort of thing. Accept my thanks now!

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: I’d aim to “attack” backlogs: in my capacity as a vandal-watcher, I often come across disturbingly large backlogs that are a consequence of such a large project. In particular, WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:RFR, CAT:CSD and CAT:RFU. In recent weeks, I’ve kept WP:AN/WP:ANI on my watchlist, and would aim to step up my input there.
I would hang around in IRC to stalk the !admin call-out; I would not seek membership of the admins’ channel until I had a specific need of it, and I would post on my userpage if/when I join, since this is an issue that seems to be increasingly divisive.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m fairly proud of the two Doctor Who soundtrack articles (here and here), as well as generally my work in the Who WikiProject, which has collectively (co-ordinated by good ol’ Will) brought lots of its more recent article up to GA/FA status.
The Who work has also generated a surprising amount of nastiness, backbiting and controversy, particulary over the non-free content rules and issues about NOR in relation to the 3RR etc… see below for more on that.
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: Now to see if my “dirty tricks” campaign has paid off – no, seriously, I have been in conflicts. Sometimes in the right, frequently in the wrong. At the beginning, I dealt with them badly, and got blocked. Lately, I dealt with them better and a talkpage discussion settled the issue fairly amicably. I’m not going to go deep into such issues; rather, I’m going to make a rather unusual pre-adminship (fingers crossed in hope!) pledge, which I will publish on my userpage.
I will carry out no administrative actions in connection to “Doctor Who” at all, except in cases of the most flagrant necessity. I have been shown to have had bad judgement in this area, and it is only fair to the community not to risk hassle by exercising my iffy judgement with a hefty mop. It is a subject about which I am strangely passionate and I could reasonably be said to have a conflict of interest. There are also other areas I have had differences of opinion in, and I will also stay out of these for the most part: images and copyright rules, disruptive but established users (I wouldn’t want to name names but, in particular, I mean a recent, very high-profile sockpuppetry/civility case…), page-protection in content disputes and whether or not there is enough activity.
For the first while, at any rate, I shall dedicate my activities to blatant vandalism and slowly venture into areas more likely to cause disputes, such as deletion discussions and the like. I am also happy to discuss other areas people feel I transgressed in.
That’s how I’ll avoid conflict. How will I deal with the inevitable cases I will encounter? Basically, in a manner similar to how I’ve done lately, particularly since the end of February, when my mentoring finished. I think it is adequate, and if I keep admin actions separate from personal disputes, then we should all get along swimmingly.
Optional question from Phil Sandifer
[edit]
4. Why have you gone through four usernames in a year? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Fair question. My Rambutan>Porcupine change was simply for variety; I had a change of heart within a year of registering the account, as many users do! "Circuit Judge" was not in fact a username change, but an alternate account I created to vote in the ArbCom elections while my main account was WikiBreakBlocked (which caused some friction). That account is currently blocked. My Porcupine>TreasuryTag rename celebrated a new start at the end of my mentoring; Dweller endorsed the change as a good idea. As you'll see, I listed all my past personae here and on my userpage. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Matthew
[edit]
5. Please explain (in your own words) what a consensus is. Also, how would you determine a consensus at AfD?
A: Consensus is the situation where the "general view" is contentedness with a proposal or the status quo. While by no means a numerical vote, percentages of support can be used as rules of thumb (impact of the proposal's implementation would vary the percentage - I seem to remember reading somewhere that around 80% is often desired in RfBs, whereas only around 60% is required in MfDs - but these are only guesstimates and a good evaluater will disregard personal feelings and - well, evaluate), but comments with detailed points are often given more weight. An important aspect is that consensus can, and does frequently, change. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Metros
[edit]
6. Let's say you do run into problems at a Doctor Who article while you have sysop rights, what do you plan to do?
A: What I do now, basically: revert with edit-summary, request protection, report to AIV, warn user etc... just not perform any admin-only actions. Admins should never use their buttons in content disputes where they are an involved party, and pretending not to be an admin, so to speak, seems the most sensible approach. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6.2 Following up on that, could you explain what you believe to be "cases of the most flagrant necessity"?
A: Certainly. I had a specific case in mind, actually... an edit war took place here on May 4th, in which a user persisted (9 times) in adding unsourced information, despite numerous talkpage warnings. There were three or four users stumbling to keep up reverting him, and then he came up with this gem. He then began blanking large portions of the page. That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of... taking a content dispute to the level of outright vandalism. As a matter of interest, we still have no official knowledge of the correct title! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Filll
[edit]
7. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.
A: On a multiple-choice basis... "Taking a Leak" - I would choose other. It's always going to be a bad idea including unbalanced reviews of controversial works; perhaps a link to a news *article* or similar neutral source could be located. While negative reviews in themselves are never going to violate BLP or NPOV, their presence in an article versus the presence and prominence of positive reviews will cause friction.
"The Naked Truth" - again other. While the views of the Nakedites should obviously be discussed, assuming they have adequate notability as an offshoot of the Starkerites, *discussion* as a word implies balance. If the Nakedites are opposed to balancing their views, then no matter if they are acting in good faith to God or not, they should be treated like any other group of users pushing their POV and/or edit-warring and/or being disruptive, warned and blocked if persistent. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Well, yes, really - I think it would be nice to let this run for more than a few hours (say at least 24, so that people from each time-zone at least get the chance to comment). Then we'll leave it 6 months until the next one, how's that? :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support -- As nominator. = ). --Cameron (T|C) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I understand the concerns that others have because of the block logs on the other accounts, but it has been six months since those were blocked. Any user can change their ways, and I believe that you have. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, good interactions with this user. 6 months is long enough to change one's ways. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral[reply]
  3. Support I’ve had a single incident with this editor – he came unannounced to my Talk Page with the mission of clarifying an issue where I had a disagreement of policy interpretation with a third party. I’ve found Treasury Tag’s communication to be polite, friendly and professional. I did not agree with the points he made, but he respected what I was saying and was never rude because I did not absorb his opinion. While I can understand the concerns that some people have expressed about his previous hiccups of perceived incivility, I am also aware of the policy of WP:AGF and I would like to believe that this editor is serious about making an intelligent contribution here. Perfection is an elusive commodity, and I am not in the habit of holding past mistakes against people who wish to conduct a serious effort to make amends. I have no qualms supporting this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Far too many blocks in the last year across his multiple accounts, and extensive warnings for disruptive behavior on the current account. Too much recent incivility as per [1]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not believe TreasuryTag has the necessary demeanour for an administrator. There are also some serious NFC problems. Matthew (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to your latter point, may I direct you to my answer to Q3? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read question three, and it didn't alleviate my concerns – sorry! Honestly, I don't believe you'd make a good administrator. Simply distancing yourself from the Doctor Who articles is not enough; your ideals are not going to change. Matthew (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He's a good guy, but I have to kinda agree with Matthew and Phil. Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The large amount of blocks makes me wary. I'm not sure whether your behaviour over the last few months is enough to enable me to look beyond past incidents. The diff presented by Phil is troubling. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs within the diff (in partic. the edit-summaries used) may help to make my (admittedly abrasive!) point a little clearer. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of who you're dealing with, keeping a cool head and remaining civil should be a priority in a response. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Switching account names does not magically make past disruptive behavior disappear. Friday (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Such behavior occurred 6 months ago. Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.. so? Time elapsed does not magically fix temperament issues. Friday (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I appreciate the sincerity of TreasuryTag's commitment in Q3, but really, we don't need to be promoting candidates who already need to put in caveats about where they will allow themself to work as an admin. I see a fairly consistent amount of edits that are borderline uncivil and in my opinion inflame situations. I was going to link diffs in this regard, but really, it's the general tone of your editing in difficult situations. One last thing, and this is not assuming bad faith, but I honestly don't know what TT would do with the tools in certain situations regarding BetaCommand. A side note - the signature is way too long, makes it quite difficult to look at diffs of TTs editing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's shortened since then! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually talking about this current version. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? It's well within the 255-character limit (unlike my last one if I'm honest...) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I do notice that the characters have improved. However, the large sideways Ts on the side are unneeded. Also, I'm happy that you are engaging me here regarding this, but just to point out, it has very very little to do with my oppose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could make it 80 bytes shorter by putting everything inside one <font> tag, but personally I think the appearance is more annoying than the byte count. — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ukrainian political crisis (never say "never"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline (use of "cruft"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction (argued to delete article that was ultimately kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) (non-argument), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales (typical claim of "non-notable" only to have others find sources). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first three examples are a little unreasonable: I suggested that articles subject to nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring will always be so; that is a fair comment IMO. I could also have phrased it as I did just now, with the word "always" rather than "never", and nobody ever says "never say 'always'" :-) Secondly: "cruft" adequately described the essence of the article. Thirdly: how can I possibly be criticised for being one of numerous users voting "delete" in a discussion where the result was ultimately "keep"? It's not really my fault. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. Anyway, I can never take any argument that uses "cruft" as a serious effort of participation per Wikipedia:Cruftcruft as all "cruft" is is essentially "I don't like it." Many articles can be subject to POV pushing, but that does not mean we should not cover them. Even articles on small towns have had intense edit wars as have articles on video games, etc. If we deleted articles based on potential edit warring or POV pushing, we would have to delete articles that are also covered in Britannica. The thing is, you argued to delete ALL of the articles indicated. As seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, while I argue overwhelmingly to keep, I have also nominated several articles for deletion and argued to delete some articles (all articles I nominated or argued to delete have in fact been deleted). It is important that admins are neutral and do not focus only on deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Al Tally talk 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nope. While I agree that time can fix some wounds with solid behavior, the diffs provided by Sandifer from a month ago where T-Tag called someone Pathetic among other things, does not instill confidence in my mind for how he will react when someone comes to his talk page with similar complaints as he's brought to others. I'm not saying the other editor was necessarily an angel, but two wrongs... Wikipedia is not a battleground. Yes, you haven't been blocked in 6 months, no you haven't reformed enough since your last block to warrant adminship. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Phil above. Serious incivility issues. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. From my experience TT is disruptive and prolongs drama. He has demanded I do things in the past and the comment log above concerns me. Some other serious other incivility issues, especially at RFP. Rudget (Help?) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any RFP incivility (diffs would be helpful so I could refer to specific instances) is likely to fall under Doctor Who issues (Q3)! Most cases where protection was denied on the grounds of not enough activity, the following day protection had to be given since there had been incredible levels of disruption. With the link you provided, I demanded nothing. I suggested that removal of a backlog-tag from a page with a 10-hour backlog was less productive than helping to cut down the backlog itself. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a prime example. And are you seriously suggesting that comment on my talk is in any way civil? Rudget (Help?) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - A good editor, but too many recent issues in my memory on noticeboards like AN/ANI where the user's comments ranged from "unhelpful" to "lynch-mob-ish." We don't need admins with a proclivity to increase drama. Also, the bit about the admins' IRC channel in Q1 seems to suggest that the user puts too much stock in what other people think of him. Mr.Z-man 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Phil Sandifer, Matthew and per your previous abuse of the AutoWikibrowser abuse. Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I know I promised not to repond to every oppose point, but I have never abused AWB. I was briefly removed from it due to unrelated blocks, but at no time abused or misused it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, sorry for my error. Antonio Lopez (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose - Simply does not have the demeanor and disposition that I look for in a potential administrator. I see some good things here, but some vastly alarming and eye opening drama. I absolutely cannot, in good confidence, support you. I believe you would hamper more than help. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - I view adminship as similar to being a judge. If a candidate feels he must, as a condition of elevation, preemptively recuse himself for lack of ability to be objective about a particular subject, I think the appropriate temperament is not being displayed. In addition, not to "pile on," but I do find the candidate's high level of activity on this page to be a little disconcerting. Yes, this is a discussion, but I'm concerned that the level of discussion here is not resulting in any consensus-building. Sorry to sound harsh; I'm a little new to this RfA process myself, but I'm starting to feel that certain candidates just jump off the screen at you as obvious choices, and some don't.  Frank  |  talk  19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Sorry; while I've had no problems at all with your current incarnation, I took too much from Porcupine to support this soon down the road. — iridescent 19:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I don't feel comfortable with the idea of an uncivil admin. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I love Doctor Who too much to let loose an un-civil admin onto it.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Sorry, but I've declined quite a few of your protection requests, which would indicate that you'll be too ready to press the protect button. These generally occur a few hours before Doctor Who starts in the UK, and last week (or the week before) it was The Unicorn and the Wasp. You were asking for pre-emptive protection, which is absolutely against the protection policy. Admins should generally be familiar with all policies, and only a month ago you requested an oversight on an article. I gave you a link to WP:RFO, but you didn't seem to know what it was, which is concerning for a potential administrator. Also, when an editor was logged out and you reverted his edit, he notified you that he was an administrator. This was probably to let you know that he's familiar with policy, but the reply you gave was unhelpful, and gave the impression that he was power-flaunting. Granted his addition of "administrator" before his signature was ill-advised, the reply was too over-dramatic and uncivil. Various issues above are also concerning; I don't think you're ready at this time. Nevertheless, your content is good and I hope you keep up the good work. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I do not believe that Treasury Tag is ready for the tools. The extensive block logs of previous accounts, coupled with some more recent examples of contributions that tended to ratchet up drama (I am specifically referring to the block of Betacommand and the reams of discussion which followed; Treasury Tag's contributions to the threads on that issue were not particularly helpful, and definitely inflamed the debate) make me believe that he does not currently possess the temperament desired of an administrator. Horologium (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I am not convinced that Treasury is trustworthy enough to be able to use the tools carefully and competently. My own experience with him has left me with a less than desirable impression of him, and it seems the vast majority of his encounters with others fail to correct that impression. My current concerns could not allow me to support this candidate. Anthøny 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per most of the above, particularly Phil Sandifer. GlassCobra 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per above. Wizardman 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sorry, but you don't seem ready enough for the duties of adminship. Unfortunately some of the 'mistakes' you have made in the past are things not quickly forgotten, and it takes a large span of time to show that this behavior has, indeed, changed. I do like what I see in terms of improvement recently, and so long as that trend continues, a future nomination may prove to be more successful. Arkyan 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Candidate lacks a firm grip on the difference between edits that violate our biography of living persons policy and edits that he just doesn't like (to wit: [2], [3], and so on). I fear he may back that nonsense up with blocks, protections, and deletions. However, his sensibility in aggreeing not to use admin tools in Doctor Who articles leaves me ambivalent. ➪HiDrNick! 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale with respect to those edits was that Doctor Who casting has been shown to be a "hot issue" in the past. Christopher Eccleston is said to have stormed out of an interview or charity event (I forget which) over being questioned about his decision to leave the show; on that basis, I considered adding cast details without a reliable source (in the case of the first edit) and a source at all! (in the case of the second) as moderately contentious. But as I say, I'd segregate my "home" and "work" areas, so to speak. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've had passing interaction with TreasuryTag and seeing discussion like this makes me hesitate about his/her ability to handle difficult situations. It's not enough to oppose, but it made me hesitate. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (moved from support) I'm really sorry, but your recent incivility balances out any good interaction I've had with you. Apologies, but I'm on the fence here. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I do feel somewhat tempted to support, as there's ample evidence for me that you've outgrown most of your previous immaturity, as shown by the lack of any blocks in the last six months. But some of that real blatant incivility within the last month... I'm just not that sure you'd reliably keep your head in a stressful situation. I wish you luck, with an improvement in civility I do think you'd make a good admin. ~ mazca talk 19:33, 27 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TreasuryTag&oldid=1085554044"