Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Ling.Nut
User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Aug 06, 2006 20:15:52
Unique pages edited:	9,757
Average edits per page:	3.44
Live edits:	30,104
Deleted edits:	3,456
Total edits (including deleted):	33,560

Namespace Totals

Article		14270	47.40%
Talk		3601	11.96%
User		1229	4.08%
User talk	4967	16.50%
Wikipedia	3021	10.04%
Wikipedia talk	2157	7.17%
File		29	0.10%
File talk	1	0.00%
Template	404	1.34%
Template talk	246	0.82%
Help talk	5	0.02%
Category	129	0.43%
Category talk	11	0.04%
Portal		30	0.10%
Portal talk	3	0.01%
	
Month counts
2006/08	1733 	
2006/09	1951 	
2006/10	1159 	
2006/11	1352 	
2006/12	785 	
2007/01	406 	
2007/02	66 	
2007/03	681 	
2007/04	716 	
2007/05	1057 	
2007/06	467 	
2007/07	918 	
2007/08	266 	
2007/09	137 	
2007/10	115 	
2007/11	748 	
2007/12	558 	
2008/01	117 	
2008/02	1 	
2008/03	663 	
2008/04	1006 	
2008/05	261 	
2008/06	173 	
2008/07	516 	
2008/08	308 	
2008/09	2181 	
2008/10	676 	
2008/11	366 	
2008/12	232 	
2009/01	581 	
2009/02	762 	
2009/03	0 	
2009/04	75 	
2009/05	1341 	
2009/06	261 	
2009/07	96 	
2009/08	508 	
2009/09	39 	
2009/10	27 	
2009/11	416 	
2009/12	641 	
2010/01	624 	
2010/02	50 	
2010/03	1276 	
2010/04	604 	
2010/05	74 	
2010/06	119 	
2010/07	688 	
2010/08	973 	
2010/09	710 	
2010/10	623 	

Top edited pages
Article

    * 866 - Taiwanese_aborigines
    * 337 - William_E._Harmon_Foundation_award_for_distinguish...
    * 259 - Battle_of_Red_Cliffs
    * 239 - Funerary_art
    * 207 - Georg_Cantor
    * 164 - Six-Day_War
    * 116 - Children_of_the_Stars
    * 105 - Scattered_disc
    * 98 - List_of_endangered_languages_in_Asia
    * 95 - Pūnana_Leo


Talk

    * 247 - Six-Day_War
    * 152 - Taiwanese_aborigines
    * 74 - Climate_change_denial
    * 72 - William_E._Harmon_Foundation_award_for_distinguish...
    * 71 - Battle_of_Red_Cliffs
    * 70 - Taiwanese_people
    * 55 - Catholic_Church
    * 47 - Georg_Cantor
    * 32 - Norman_Finkelstein
    * 31 - Quid_pro_quo


User

    * 613 - Ling.Nut/Sandbox
    * 167 - Ling.Nut/Sandbox2
    * 113 - Ling.Nut/Siege
    * 91 - Ling.Nut
    * 40 - Ling.Nut/bio
    * 29 - Ling.Nut/top
    * 26 - Ling.Nut/ArticlesCreated
    * 22 - Ling.Nut/awards
    * 11 - Dank/Essays
    * 9 - Ling.Nut/cca


User talk

    * 598 - Ling.Nut
    * 200 - Geometry_guy
    * 171 - Deadkid_dk
    * 131 - SandyGeorgia
    * 92 - Nlu
    * 86 - Jmabel
    * 78 - Malleus_Fatuorum
    * 64 - JRHammond
    * 62 - Johnbod
    * 58 - CJLL_Wright


Wikipedia

    * 267 - Good_article_reassessment
    * 121 - Good_article_nominations
    * 96 - WikiProject_Endangered_languages
    * 64 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups
    * 63 - WikiProject_Disambiguation/Adopting_disambiguation...
    * 59 - Featured_article_review/Taiwanese_aborigines/archi...
    * 57 - Help_desk
    * 50 - WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms
    * 45 - Good_articles
    * 43 - Featured_article_candidates/1964_Gabon_coup_d'éta...


Wikipedia talk

    * 370 - Featured_article_candidates
    * 134 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups
    * 108 - WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms
    * 102 - Featured_article_criteria
    * 92 - Good_article_nominations
    * 89 - Schools/Old_proposal
    * 71 - Good_article_reassessment
    * 61 - Content_review/workshop
    * 56 - Good_article_reassessment/Ali's_Smile:_Naked_Scien...
    * 44 - Requests_for_adminship


File

    * 5 - Rukai_chief.jpg
    * 5 - SonOfCivilityBarnstar.png
    * 4 - SqueezedText.png
    * 3 - Taiwan_aborigine_en.jpg
    * 2 - Itmad-Ud-Daulah-Tomb.jpg
    * 2 - Bioling.png
    * 1 - Guandao2.png
    * 1 - Sgz2.png
    * 1 - Kypopulation.png
    * 1 - BanShrooms.jpg


File talk

    * 1 - Taiwan_aborigine_en.jpg


Template

    * 57 - Taiwan_aborigines_sidebar
    * 43 - Harvrefcol
    * 32 - User_WP3K
    * 28 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups
    * 20 - AmbassadorWelcome
    * 13 - Taiwananese_aborigines
    * 13 - User_CE2
    * 11 - Anonwelcomeg
    * 9 - GAMedal
    * 9 - Demographics_of_the_Philippines


Template talk

    * 38 - Infobox_single
    * 28 - Citation
    * 23 - Harvrefcol
    * 23 - Did_you_know
    * 15 - WikiProject_Ethnic_groups
    * 15 - User_CE2
    * 8 - Infobox_film
    * 7 - Ref
    * 7 - Citation/core
    * 6 - Infobox_language


Help talk

    * 3 - Pending_changes
    * 2 - Table


Category

    * 7 - B-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles
    * 6 - Taiwanese_aborigines
    * 5 - Ethnic_groups_articles_needing_reassessment
    * 5 - Ethnic_groups_articles_by_importance
    * 4 - Chinese_scholars
    * 4 - Three_Kingdoms_articles_needing_infoboxes
    * 4 - Top-importance_Ethnic_groups_articles
    * 4 - GA-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles
    * 3 - Three_Kingdoms_articles_needing_attention
    * 3 - Start-Class_Ethnic_groups_articles


Category talk

    * 5 - Ethnic_groups_officially_recognized_by_China
    * 2 - Language_articles_without_language_code
    * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_China
    * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_Ethiopia
    * 1 - Turkic_peoples
    * 1 - Ethnic_groups_in_Tanzania


Portal

    * 20 - Taiwan/Topics
    * 3 - Republic_of_China/Republic_of_China_news
    * 3 - Taiwan/Taiwan_topics
    * 1 - China/Selected_biography
    * 1 - Australia/Anniversaries/July/July_8
    * 1 - Republic_of_China/Republic_of_China_news/Archives
    * 1 - Linguistics/Intro


Portal talk

    * 3 - Taiwan

On closing

If there's a task a crat dreads/is bred by a ghastly WP:RFB process to do, it would be handling these RFAs. There were a number of well-supported points on both sides of the debate, and sifting through was not an easy task. I expect to catch some flak.

From a numerical perspective, the percentage was 64%, which by historical precedent is not successful. Promotions at this percentage or below have been rare and contentious. My initial reaction after a skim and a reading straight through was to request a cratchat, but as I looked about I believe it became clear that there was not a consensus to promote. Although the support was able to give examples of Ling.nut's contributions to the encyclopedia in content, the opposition had examples of their own as well.

The main difficulty was adjusting for certain effects and trends that occur, which I like to call the "maverick effect" and the "tenure effect." The maverick effect is quite simple: A user with viewpoints considered to be nonstandard or less supported, or a different methodology in approaching things tends to attract a good amount of support and opposition. The tenure effect is even simpler: The longer a user edits, the more likely they are to make "questionable" edits or to start a beef with someone, intentional or unintentional.

Now the latter manifests itself in appeals to relatively distant edits and generalized characterizations of personality. I did see aspects of the second, but not as much of the first. In fact, the points most repeated in the opposition were related to a very recent incident, not to other longer-term behaviors (e.g. "the multiple retirements, and the near-complete lack of adminly experience"). As a result, I was not convinced that there were serious long-term grudges in the opposition.

The maverick effect is more difficult to sort out. Generally a candidate will moderate their stance a bit for RFA, but certain behaviors, I think, made this effect quite visible. The self-posed optional questions most clearly demonstrated this point, creating a polarized response, with some supporting for it and others opposing for it. It was universally acknowledged that the candidate approached contributing here in a different way than most editors, but whether this was constructive or destructive was similarly split. Reading through the opposition, I was not convinced that most people were opposing just for the sake of the user being different.

The degree of support/oppose polarization is always something to look at as well. There was a rather small neutral section in comparison with previous so-called "controversial" RFAs, and though there were changing views the opposition was uniformly firm in opposing. The support was similarly firm in supporting. Opposition badgering was not prominent either, which indicates that there might not have been that much to argue about.

TL;DR: This RFA pretty clearly demonstrated a no consensus result. Arguments were supported with actual events, and both sides had a rather large mass with relatively few people in the middle. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only one quibble - it wasn't tl;dr. Anyone with over four years and 30K edits, plus over 100 expressions of support deserves no less than a thoughtful analysis. I didn't find the time I needed to add a !vote, but I did read much of the commentary, and it was clear this wouldn't be a simple task. --SPhilbrickT 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was a reasonable explanation. — Deckiller 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac, thank you for your well-considered reasoning. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the rationale and the result. Thank you for performing this laborious task, and then having the stamina to document the process.  7  12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also applaud your post Bibliomaniac. It shows great integrity and good practice to discuss your reasoning so carefully in a contested RfA such as this. Geometry guy 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Commend for sensitive handling of a difficult case. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

See above. Well done Bibliomaniac! Barts1a (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)