Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Waldir

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

Waldir

Final: (76/1/2); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Waldir (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present Waldir who has been with us since early 2005 and has approximately 10k edits to his name. In this time he has achieved a huge amount and in a wide variety of topic areas. A lot of his contributions are of the gnomish type, although he has also added a substantial amount of content as well.

I came cross Waldir on various template talk pages where he makes constructive and sensible suggestions (examples: 1, 2) and is always ready to listen and compromise with others. A review of his contributions should reveal an editor who is organised, conscientious, who knows what the project is about and who has a lot of common sense.

Waldir works on other Wikimedia sites as well: he is an administrator on Commons and an active editor on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I believe he can be trusted with the extra tools, and they will help him become even more productive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, Martin, for the generous words! I gladly accept the nomination. --Waldir ^talk 07:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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: As Martin mentions above, templates are one of the areas I focus my work on. Quite often, though, I am unable to make changes because the page is protected, and have to resort to {{editprotected}}, which makes the number of iterations for a simple change at least triple. My being able to edit those pages would make the process more convenient for everyone. I try to be bold, but whenever I believe my edits may not be consensual or could be improved, I ask for other editors' opinions.

Another area I work on is moving images to Commons. My being able to delete images that were copied over, rather than using {{ncd}}, would again make the process easier and faster.

Finally, whenever I have time, I would like to help other editors who fill {{editprotected}} requests, as returning the favor :)

Note: I want to clarify that I do not intend to participate in some of the most common administrative tasks. For example, I do have the rollback flag and use it whenever I find vandalism, but I don't actively seek it or attempt to reduce backlog in that area or in others such as the deletion processes. I also don't see myself in the future skimming the AN(I), or blocking vandals (I've been an admin in ptwiki for over a year, and am currently one on Commons, and only blocked editors occasionally, on request). As such, I kindly ask you not to pose optional questions about hypothetical controversial situations regarding blocking, AfD closings, etc. I've been an editor for over five years now, so I don't foresee any significant change my editing habits if I get the admin flag. What I mean is: please don't make this feel like an examination :) I love Wikipedia and I'm happy to help, and if you agree that the tools might make me more useful to the project, I promise to honor your trust by doing so.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Despite the common claim that low hanging fruit have been mostly collected by now, I am constantly surprised by finding articles missing in topics that seem quite relevant. As such, some of the contributions I'm most proud of are articles I created or expanded for topics that are not exactly obscure, but for some reason seemed to be neglected. As examples, I can cite The Mad Stuntman, singer of the world hit I Like To Move It, and Pogonomyrmex maricopa, an ant that is the most venomous insect in the world. Actually, as I described here, that article led me on a quest that eventually ended up bringing over 30,000 high-resolution ant images to Commons. Here are a few other personal favorites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... well, I won't make an exaustive list, but you can find more here and here.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't think of any. Partly because I tend to enjoy contributing in less frequented areas of knowledge (not necessarily obscure, as I note above), and partly because I usually try to rationalize my arguments and avoid attacking the person. I firmly support the NPOV principle (even though I haven't yet found a good way to prevent articles from sounding a bit bland because of it), and when I make contributions to high-profile articles, these tend to be fairly non-controversial changes (and if challenged, I promptly engage in civil discussion, see here (talk), here and here for examples).

In the future, should I face any serious conflict, I plan to respond as calmly and rationally as I can, and simply agree to disagree if I see we're getting nowhere. If I'm faced with a troll, I would either ignore them or report them to the appropriate venues depending on the severity of the situation.

Additional question from  – Tommy2010

4. You say you do not plan on changing much of your editing habits and that much of your adminship would be based on editing fully protected templates. Do you see yourself contributing at WP:RPP or articles that are in the CSD category? Thanks

A: As you can see in my userpage, I have plenty of ongoing projects; however, every now and then I like to perform other tasks, and as such I'd be happy to help fight any backlog in page protection requests. I could also help in speedy deletions, though I'd probably restrict myself to the general criteria G1-3/G6-8, and file-related deletions. --Waldir ^talk 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Mike Cline

5. Waldir, if Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one):

a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs.

b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals.

c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion.

d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP.

A: Definitely, c) Article Improvement. It's the only area that inspires passion in me, rather than just the nice feeling of being useful to the project. {{editprotected}} requests, (un)protections, performing edits in complex templates, userfying articles for further improvement, etc. -- those are the tasks that I'd feel more compelled to do as an admin. --Waldir ^talk 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

6. Do you believe WP:Before is good practice in WP and should WP:Before be strengthened and/or adopted as a guideline in its own right?

A: Absolutely, I consider those to be good practices; no question about that. They resonate much with what I perceive as the best way to engage in the deletion process in a respectful and civil manner; therefore, I would naturally be inclined to support promoting it into a guideline, if such proposal is made. Of course, due to my lack of involvement in that area (as I stated above), I would make sure to read other editors' comments in such a discussion before taking a definitive position. --Waldir ^talk 15:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(disclaimer: answer updated for clarity, after concerns expressed by Shadowjams below)

Optional Question from Doc Quintana

7 What's your take on IAR?

A: I do generally agree with the principle, but since the concept of "improvement" can vary for different editors, is it obvious that it can be misused or abused. Anyone recurring to this should thus make sure they're acting on reasonable grounds, using their common sense to judge whether their actions could cause more harm than good to the project (even if merely in the amount of discussion they might generate -- potentially controversial changes should always be discussed first) --Waldir ^talk 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Waldir: Waldir (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Waldir can be found here.
• Waldir was an adminstrator on pt.wikipedia from March 2007 to October 2009, when he was desysoped due to inactivity, in accordance with pt.wikipedia policy.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  FYI: pt.wikipedia's inactivity policy sets the threshold at < 50 administrative actions in 180 days. --Waldir ^talk 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to the talk page.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom support. Looks fine. Tim Song (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Support looks to be a helpful person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Beat-the-nom support Broad range of contributions, consistent, steady--Hokeman (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   You can carry on "beating the nom" because I don't usually bother to vote for my nominees as it should be obvious what my views are :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

4. Support - No major concerns here. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Support I like it.  – Tommy2010 13:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Easy decision, nothing to indicate I should even consider opposing. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Excellent content work, with 148 articles written, only concern is the response that "I do not see my self blocking vandals" as I feel that this is a major part of administratorship. Immunize (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   I thank you for your support despite not sharing my view on the blocking topic. If you wish, I'd be pleased to further justify my thoughts on the matter. (And btw, thanks everyone for your kind words so far :)).

   On an unrelated note: can I ask how did you get my article creation stats? :) The tools I used to employ for this purpose have been discontinued in the toolserver... --Waldir ^talk 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   He may be using the link at the bottom of every Special:Contributions/username page. It doesn't always work, because if a user has too many edits in total, regardless of how many articles they've created, both their edit count and their "articles created" count tend to time out, but generally for anyone with less than about 50000 edits it should be fine. —Soap— 15:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   Ah, thanks! I'll bookmark the link. Too bad it doesn't provide the timestamps, though :) --Waldir ^talk 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   What is the concern? Candidate's adminship won't help vandals, will it? I don't see a problem. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   While it will not actually help vandals, we need more admins to deal with the backlog at WP:AIV. Immunize (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   But that has nothing to do with this RfA, right? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   All I am saying is gently urging the candidate to consider work at WP:AIV. I still support the candidate. Immunize (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   In the spirit of full disclosure, I must once again clarify that this is not something I plan to do on a regular basis in the foreseeable future, as I have mentioned in the answer to q1. However, and according to what I already expressed in #17 below, I am open to help in these areas occasionally, and will surely lend a hand should my help be requested, as long as I'm confident that my acts will be aligned with the project's philosophy and practices. --Waldir ^talk 07:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

8. Support The candidate's got good chances with the contributions. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Support candidate may not fit the mold for 'typical' administrators, but there's no evidence to suggest he'd abuse the tools, and he has a legitimate need for them. He already knows how to use them, being an administrator elsewhere, and hasn't abused them elsewhere either. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Don't have any problems; sysop on Commons; involved with the Portuguese Wikimedia chapter, good contributions here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Despite no interest in blocking vandals, there is no downside. I think once an editor has sufficiently demonstrated good judgement, then wikipedia's interest is best served by removing the obstacles to the editor's work. In this case, we can be confident that allowing Waldir to edit templates, etc, and help out with editprotected requests, will be beneficial. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I see no reason why this editor cannot be trusted with the tools. His content contributions and judgements are sound.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Awesome candidate on this wiki who already has the mop on 2 other wikis. Easy support on this one, user will not abuse the mop and will make a very good addition. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - I see no problems. Deb (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Support Everything seems to check out. Overall, no reason to believe he will abuse the tools, if he's already a Commons sysop as well. —fetch·comms 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Not your usual RfA request, but I can't see any problems with giving this editor the tools at all, given the nom statement and answers. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - Good answers, good record and I also support despite minor concerns about the comments above re: blocking vandals. I admit I come to the discussion as a vandal-fighter, so I'm not exactly neutral here. In brief, I ask the candidate to consider blocking vandals as circumstances dictate, as this is an important function of Wikipedia administrators. Jusdafax 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

    I just want to reiterate that what I said about fighting vandalism by reverting ("I do have the rollback flag and use it whenever I find vandalism, but I don't actively seek it or attempt to reduce backlog in that area") also would apply in blocking. I didn't vow not to block editors :) In that sense, I perfectly agree with your request of "blocking vandals as circumstances dictate". Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

18. Support I can trust this editor with the tools. I don't care if he never blocks a vandal in his admin career. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
19. Support I see Waldir's works in pt.wikipedia, and have the honor to work with him. Based on that, I believe that he will be a very good sysop. Not the most active one, but still a wise adm. Béria Lima ^Msg 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
20. Beat-the-nom support :) But seriously, no problems with this editor, I think that he'll make a great admin. Hi878 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
21. Slightly bemused [1] support (previous experience on a different wiki?), but unlikely to blow up the site with the tools so no concerns. Pedro :  Chat  19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
22. Sure, why not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - Having Waldir as an admin would definitely be a net positive in my book.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
24. support I think it's inevitable that someone with the buttons will sometimes come across situations where it is necessary to use them even for things they are not primarily involved with. Here, we need to judge whether we can trust they will be used intelligently and without trying to do things whose details and implications are not understood. The thing to go by needs to be the general work and background and apparent intelligence and judgment, and I think the record shows this. The magnificent ant images work is enough to indicate he'll know how to be an asset wherever he finds himself. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
25. Support From what I can see, I'm confident that Waldir can be trusted with the tools in the areas specified, and will only use them with caution in other areas. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
26. Support I probably wouldn't support, but he's already an admin on Commons and an admin and crat on Wikimedia Portugal. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

    Why do you say you "probably wouldn't support"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

27. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
28. Support no reason to think that he would abuse the tools, and we need more admins --rogerd (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
31. Support, has my complete trust and I'm sure he'll use the tools to improve Wikipedia. --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
32. Support likely to be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Airplaneman ✈ 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. Unlikely to hurt anything, and his record is good. Shimeru (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Meets all my admin criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
36. Support. Administrative activity on other wikis looks good, I have no concerns that Waldir will be an asset to the project in the areas in which he says he will work. I had some concerns regarding lack of experience dealing with vandals, but the three times he's blocked users on other wikis (two on pt.wikipedia, and one on pt.wikimedia for cross-wiki vandalism) he did so appropriately.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
37. The track record, here and on other wikis, is solid. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
38. Support - Looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
39. Sure. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
40. Support You look clean to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Yep ! Dwayne was here! ^♫ 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Without hesitation. Has the maturity and clue to be a net positive as admin. -- œ^™ 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
44. Support changed from oppose - I had concerns about q6, but after a very good explanation, I'm confident in Waldir. Shadowjams (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
45. Support q7 answer is acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
46.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Waldir. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
47. support- Seems willing to stop and ask directions when help is needed, so I have no objections. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
48. Yes I think so, no alarms here. GedUK  07:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Opposes are unconvincing. GlassCobra 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    Rather similar to the supports then. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    Cobra, Please speak to the candidate's credentials rather than those you disagree with. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

50. Support If intersted in templates, could also maybe help deleting templates for which consensus has been reached at WP:TFD?Acather96 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    If there's clear consensus, sure. I would be happy to help maintenance on the template area. Again, I can't promise any regular activity there, but if I'm granted the mop, I'll probably add a list of pages where I could help (including TFD), similar to what I have in my commons userpage. --Waldir ^talk 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

51. Support While not a typical candidate, this gentleman is clearly here to build an encyclopedia. Trusted with the mop elsewhere + clear pattern of contribution en.wiki = mop for you. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
52. Support – No problems with me. I trust him with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    Support, sounds good. -129.78.64.100 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    You have to be signed in to vote in an RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

53. Support - Sound candidate. Judicatus (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
54. Support, a good candidate. --Taelus (Talk) 15:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
55. Support No issues here, order a new Mop ! Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
56. Support, seems fine to me. Oppose rationales seem particularly hypothetical, no deal-breaking problems have popped up that I can see ... this user's done more than enough for me to feel they'll be a net positive with the admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
57. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree the opposes are unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    Rather similar to the supports then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

58. Support - Willing to take criticism well, and being upfront about what areas he is weak in gives me confidence in his cluefulness.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
59. Support - Satisfied by the nom and I like the answer to the first three questions. I am also seeing in the candidate a good demeanor and positive attitude which is helpful to foster amiable collaborations on the project. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - The usual stuff all checks out, plus, I'm very impressed by responses to queries raised in this RfA. Looks good.  Chzz  ►  10:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. I still remember supporting you on Commons. Waldir will be an asset as an admin. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
62. Support - No issues seen. --Alan (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
63. Support. From what I've seen, this person is responsible and willing to answer swiftly to questions and concerns, I hope he does the same as an admin. --FredZ (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - No reason to oppose. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
65. Support. Looks good.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
66. Support looks all good to me.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
67. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
68. Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
69. Strong Support The candidate definitely deserves a mop. Excellent work! Shannon ♫ (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
70. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
71. Support - I see nothing that leads me to think they would abuse the tools, net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
72. Support - I see no problems. Valley2city^‽ 00:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
73. Support - See no reason to do otherwise. GJGardner (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
74. Absolutely  7  00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
75. Support - I'm satisfied with the candidate's answers and see no problems. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
76. Support, I don't see any compelling reason why not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Oppose

Oppose I'm too concerned about his maturity here. Minimac (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to give any examples to back up this concern? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote. I realise that I was completely immature there. Minimac (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. If it were possible to hand out administrator privileges on an "as needs" basis, then I'd be quite happy for Waldir to be able to delete images from wikipedia once transferred to Commons, but it isn't. It's got to be the whole shooting match or nothing. With that in mind, I have some concerns about the article that Waldir pointed to as being one of those he was most proud of, Pogonomyrmex maricopa. Some of the wording appears to be disconcertingly similar to that found here, and some of the statements made do not appear to be backed up by the sources: the claim that this ant, as opposed to the Fire ant, has chemical signals in its venom, for instance. I also don't see how this personal web site can be considered a reliable source either. One of the pillars of wikipedia states that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy ... That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources". I know that many here think it's far more important to be "civil", but they're wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   Very interesting point there MF. I too looked at the article he is proud of, noted that the bit about toxicity seems to have something missing, so left a query on the talk page 10 or so minutes ago. Now it's clear. The extract from the personal web site needed to be rewritten otherwise it was a blatant steal, and when doing so, the person stuffed it up. Our article is very confising as a result. Moriori (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking the time to review the article in such detail :) I should point out, though, that the text that resembles the article on the page you linked was not added by me (and arguably it's sufficiently adapted to be considered original prose). Also, I want to clarify that when I mention contributions I'm proud of, I'm not talking about sheer content adding (as you can see for yourself), but often something like starting a stub in an important topic (as is the case) which later evolves with the help of other editors; or significant copyediting/rewriting, grammar fixing, code/layout tweaking, etc. My interpretation of pride is thus, appropriately, a personal and inherently subjective feeling of attachment and satisfaction, regarding articles I care much about, either because I started them or because I significantly expanded them (in this case, I'm especially proud of it since it launched me in the AntWeb endeavor). It's not a claim of quality or amount of content. Lack of sources, for example, is something that can be addressed over time as the article organically grows. My belief is that Wikipedia editors should work out of pleasure, not out of pressure to comply with the guidelines and policies (even though these should ultimately be followed). Waldir ^talk 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   My view is clearly a little different from yours. Sure, wikipedia ought to be a "pleasure", but too often it it's not, due in no small measure to administrators who choose to ignore the important pillars except when they see non-administrators violating them. The most important pillar here is that all information is accurate and verifiable, wouldn't you agree? Can you point me towards a contribution of yours that you're proud of in that respect? Your position appears to be that you can add whatever unsourced information you like to any article, and expect other editors to add reliable sources for you. Do you have any idea how irritatingly disruptive that is? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

   You can rest assured that that's not my position. As I said, I like contributing in areas that are seemingly relevant but neglected; as such, I more often than not come across topics that I know very little about (the ant article was an example). My process is generally searching for web pages and news sources, get a broad understanding of the topic, and write the stub (or expand/rewrite the article), with the best sources I could find, even though these might not be considered unquestionably reliable. I do try to apply my judgment and common sense regarding the quality of the sources I use, and in the specific case you mention, I would say that those sources are at least believable to be honest and well-meaning -- if not scientifically correct to a detail where sometimes only amateurs (literally, people who love the subject) can bother putting online. Of course, if I can find more standard sources I'll add them rather than leave the work for other editors; But in general terms, I believe a poorly sourced stub is much more useful to the reader than no article at all (unless there are reasons to believe the sources are suspicious) and besides, that's a temporary condition, as eventually it'll achieve maturity through the standard wiki process. --Waldir ^talk 07:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   "It's got to be the whole shooting match or nothing." - ok, but has this ever been a problem? Has someone ever become an admin under the guise of performing a narrow set of tasks, then later become a loose cannon in other areas where the admin had less expertise? What are you worried about? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   There have been a few - not many, but a few cases in which the candidate's RfA looked nothing like their later admin work. A few promised to be gnomes and then turned into Wikipedian versions of Judge Roy Bean, and a few looked like 'nice guys' and then turned into RfC and Arb-case spawning terrors. It hasn't happened much, but it has happened. Now personally, I, and probably most of the supporters, trust that the candidate's history will be a good reflection of how they will behave as admins. However, since adminship is currently a bit like a tenured position, I think it's fair if some have reservations as far as RfA 'campaign promises' go. AlexiusHoratius 18:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I am in fact still waiting for one administrator to make good on his campaign promise to be open to recall, made more than two years ago now. Not that I have any great opinion of that process, but a promise was made. My reservations stand, so long as adminship is effectively for life. Change that, and I may withdraw my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, I can understand the reluctance to !vote yes where there is any uncertainty. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   If it is rare, then is it any less rare than RfA "false positives" in general? Some admins, judged in RfA to be good generalist/whole-shooting-match admins, turn out to be bad apples, right? I'm trying to understand how big a problem "specialist admins" really are. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps the question ought to be "What's potentially more damaging, a false positive or a false negative"? A false negative only hurts one person's feelings, but a false positive effectively allows someone to go on an unchecked crusade against whatever or whoever they take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   Exactly - we should focus on false positives - either preventing them or mitigating the damage. We should focus on that instead of whether the admin is a specialist or a generalist, which afaik is a 100% orthogonal question. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose - I don't think I can trust this admin with deletion policy - I don't think there's enough experience here, but also because of the answer to q#6. WP:Before is a part of the general AfD criteria, with lots of nuance, and no reference, not a stand alone "essay", but rather a section of an AfD instruction page. The notion that this should be promoted to guideline status is significant, maybe remarkable. If the editor was an experienced new page patroller or CSD patroller or something similar, I might accept that viewpoint, but instead, I see someone who does great content edits, with an understandable viewpoint, that in my opinion, doesn't fully understand the landscape of the vandalism and new page patrol issue. Nor do I see the other admin issues that involve these areas as compelling. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I tried to make it clear from the beginning that I don't expect you to trust me with deletion/vandalism issues, as those are not my main areas of interest and thus I don't intend to perform a significant amount of admin work there. I may help out in backlogged tasks now and then, but I would always take care to first learn about what would be the correct course of action should I have any doubts. I hope this clears your concerns. On a side note, thanks for the "great content edits" comment :) --Waldir ^talk 09:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I appreciate your thoughtful response. I think you are a great content editor. So anyone reading, understand my comments in light of that point. My objection is partially a structural issue and partially a policy one. The problem is that adminship is an all or nothing issue; my objection is not to something I've seen you do that I worry about. But I believe that WP:Before is a redirect to a policy for a reason--it has a specific instructional purpose, and any suggestion it should be elevated to a guideline is out there, as far as policy goes. And I don't see the experience in those areas that recommend to me that you are familiar enough with that area to make that sort of conclusion. There are dozens of similar notability policies that can counter those assertions. In my experience, WP:BEFORE is a politicized argument, and on that subject I just don't see the experience I'd like, in those areas, to make that kind of argument.
   That's the root of my objection. I don't distrust you, but I think that this is an easy answer that might not fully understand the AfD or [god forbid] the CSD environment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the clarifications. I can see your point quite clearly now, and I agree with you that my answer was perhaps more assertive than it should. What I mean (and I'll update above to reflect that) is that I personally agree with those instructions, and would be strongly inclined to support a reinforcement of their application should that ever be proposed. However, in that case, I would certainly read other editors' arguments carefully before expressing my opinion, precisely because I recognize my lack of familiarity with the deletion processes. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I've changed my mind; see above.

Weak oppose. There is undoubtedly a need for more admins with the template skill to work with fully protected templates and respond to {{editprotected}} requests on them and "now commons" categories certainly would benefit from another admin who knew what they were doing. However, I worry slightly that your horizons aren't quite broad enough- many new editors turn to administrators for help and many see them as being in a position of authority, which makes them a target for abuse and I'm not quite convinced that you're prepared for that. For example, working with fully protected pages, you may well end up dealing with a bitter dispute on a talk page and it's likely that one party or the other will turn to you for advice as an administator. Your contributions, from what I've seen, appear to be very good, but I'm afraid I'm just not comfortable supporting right now. I will, out of fairness, re-evaluate my position before the close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. After all, I have some admin experience on other wikis, and especially on ptwiki I was often approached by other editors in the way you described, and though I didn't enjoy that kind of attention, I never refused to reply in a civil and neutral manner, frequently instructing them in matters of policy when it was appropriate. I could try and dig some diffs that perhaps would ease your concerns, but I'm not sure they'd help much as they'd be in Portuguese. Besides, I don't want to come off as begging for your support. I really appreciate your careful analysis and would be entirely satisfied to gain your trust anytime after this RfA. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - After going through the usual checks, and leaving the candidates's user pages till last, my optimism was marred on discovering that discussions on their talk page are in some other language.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry about that. You might notice that most of them are conversations with User:NothingButAGoodNothing, whose native language is Portuguese, like mine; I did, however, suggest him that we should communicate in English (translation of the relevant quote: "Before anything else, as G51 already mentioned above, it is better if we communicate in English, out of respect for other editors (when in Rome, do as the Romans do)"), but he insisted on Portuguese and I didn't want to be impolite to him especially since he was a new editor trying to fight a particularly insistent vandal. In any case, I never did reply to him in Portuguese anywhere outside his or my user talk pages. --Waldir ^talk 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I don't understand the concern here and don't think you need to apologise. You have demonstated that you are both communicative and highly skilled at English. What else is there to worry about? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   I would normally be concerned about the issue Kudpung raised, but Waldir's response is entirely reasonable. No concerns there. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   For the record, Waldir, contrary to your userbox, I personally think your English is at a professional or at the very least near-native level. Keepscases (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   Lol, thanks :) I guess it's time I updated the boxes. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   I am not surprised to see neutral comments taken as if they are Oppose votes, and meeting with heated response, it's a common enough reaction on RfA. However, I was neither asking for an apology, nor suggesting that the candidate is not capable of communicating in perfect English (that much should have been clear). I pointed something out and preferred not to vote either way. It did however precipitate some comment - which it was intended to do. For those of us who can't read Portuguese, or who did not look at the other user's talk page (I did not), it might not have been clear that Waldr had reminded him that communications should be in English. Also, I doubt that the majority of en,.Wiki editors can read Portuguese. I am satisfied with the candidate's reply.--Kudpung (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral (from oppose) per my original oppose rationale above, but the candidate's conduct during this RfA and the supports from many editors I respect bumped me into the neutral section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankspam

I deliberately don't want to add this comment to the talk page because I want to visibly thank all the voters, both the supporters for their kind words (flattering, even, at times) and those who opposed, voted neutral and/or posed additional questions. It was a great experience overall, and as I commented on Martin's talk page, I was pleasantly surprised to see so many thoughtful, respectful and encouraging comments, when most of what I heard about RfAs on enwiki made me think the experience could be quite stressful. I look forward to collaborate with you guys, should our paths cross in the future. Thank you all, and thanks Martin for the nomination. Waldir ^talk 18:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.