Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reaper Eternal: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Revert to revision 440755003 dated 2011-07-22 01:22:51 by N5iln using popups
Line 114: Line 114:
=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====
#
#

<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. -->


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 02:03, 22 July 2011

Reaper Eternal

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (38/0/0); Scheduled to end 13:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to be able to present to you Reaper Eternal, for your consideration for adminship. Reaper Eternal is one of the most trustworthy, level-headed and sensible editors I have come across for a good while. He is one one of a a very small group of non-admins to be trusted with edit filter management rights, he is a prolific and dedicated vandal fighter and a bit of a wikignome. That's well and good, I hear you say, but we have bots that can do a reasonable job of most of those tasks. Ah yes, but Reaper Eternal has proven that he does such things because he enjoys them, not because he lacks the talent to do anything else. He's written a Featured Article, cirrus cloud (which is well worth a read), and two other Good Articles. He's also taken on several GA reviews. His talk page and archives, as well as numerous other discussions in which he's been involved show that he plays nicely with other editors—newbies and veterans alike—and is not too proud to admit it when he made a mistake.

All things considered, I think Reaper Eternal would make an excellent administrator. He would do what he could to make life easier for the good guys—the gnomes, the vandal fighters and, of course, the writers—and harder for the bad guys—the sockpupeteers, the long-term abusers, the vandals and the spammers. I sincerely hope that the community agrees. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, HJ. I accept this nomination. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I mainly intend on cleaning up vandalism and blocking long-term abusers (the main reason I'm an edit filter manager), I will mainly be working in AIV and RfPP. I also intend on deleting obviously inappropriate pages, particularly the G# series. You can see a log of my speedy deletion tags here and several archived logs here, here, here, and here. I also respond to {{helpme}} requests, and would like to be able to help with {{adminhelp}} requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best article contribution is definitely my work getting Cirrus cloud from a little, poorly-sourced start all the way up to featured article status (nom). I also do a lot of work cleaning up articles, which ranges from categorizing and tagging new pages to reverting vandalism to wikifying and copyediting articles. (I have copyedited almost 200,000 words in GoCE backlog elimination drives, not including the copyediting I do on request.) I have two good articles, Worlebury Camp and Hurricane Danielle (2010).
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: The worst conflicts I've ever run into have been with long-term vandals and banned trolls launching 4chan attacks on my user talk page, resulting in its temporary protection on several occasions. Ignoring vandals, I haven't had much in the way of conflict with editors. There is one case, however, where I was called a "rabid inclusionist". I responded calmly and added sources to the playlist article to demonstrate its notability, which resulted in the nominator withdrawing his nomination. I've never really had any content disputes because the articles I enjoy editing tend to not be in controversial areas. However, I believe my interactions in the Cirrus cloud FAC show that I can interact appropriately with other editors when my work is criticized. In everything I do on Wikipedia, I try to avoid getting stressed, and I think I have a rather thick skin.
Additional question from My76Strat
4. Suppose you come across this CSD: User A creates an article - user B PRODs the article for cause - Ten days later after no change had been made, admin C deletes the article - 2 minutes later user A recreates the exact same article without changing anything related to the initial PROD - user D applies {{db-repost}} claiming "Recreation of deleted material" As an admin what action would take? I do accept returning it to the queue for a more experienced admin as valid.
A: Obvious decline. The article would have to be deleted via a deletion discussion, and a PROD is not a discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an obvious decline, would you consider it part of your administrative duty to inform user D that he had misapplied the tag? My76Strat talk 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Actually, I would remove the tag and notify them even when I am not a sysop (like right now). Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from B
5. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Consider these three scenarios for use of non-free content under a claim of fair use. If asked to close FFD discussions, how would you resolve them?
A: Well, for starters I don't plan on closing FFDs. If for some reason I had to close FFDs, I would do so based on consensus, not unilaterally. However, my rationale for !voting delete or keep would be as follows:
  • A photo from the school's website of a college professor who openly detests Wikipedia and does not allow cell phones in his classroom because he doesn't want someone taking and releasing under the GFDL a photo of him.
A: Delete - Pretty clearly fails criteria #1 of WP:NFC. In any event, if that is the only time that people got near that professor, he would almost certainly fail WP:PROF too, and thus there would be no article to use a non-free image on.
  • The photo from this website of the Moscow Water Dog, a breed developed in the 50s, which became extinct in the 1980s. The IFD discussion has three !votes for keep saying some form of "it is historically important to know what the dog looks like", two !votes for delete saying some form of "the image is too ugly to be useful", and one !vote for delete arguing that under Russian law, works of the Russian government published before 1954 are public domain, so we have a reasonable explanation of finding a public domain image. (Assume for the purposes of this question that this statement of law is correct and that the dog was first developed in 1950.)
A: Delete - The keep !votes are correct, except that the image could probably be replaced by a free version (failing NFCC #1), as mentioned by the delete !voter. Anyway, I think I found a free image, which would cause the file to immediately fail WP:NFCC #1. [1] I just need to find their image license to determine.
A: Delete - This passes NFCC #1 in that no free alternative for this poster could possibly be made (the poster itself, like an album cover, is copyrighted). However, it fails NFCC #8 in that it is not necessary for an understanding of rapture. On the other hand, I would support keeping this image if it were being used in an article about that specific rapture belief, as it would then pass #8 by being the only way you could describe such a poster.
6. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: It depends on the severity of the dispute. If it was something as minor as opposite !votes in an AFD with no direct response to each other, I would take it to WP:ANI for discussion. On the other hand, if there was a lot of strong discussion and contention between us, I would unblock with a summary like this: "As I was involved, I am unblocking this as a bad block." Then I would take it to WP:ANI for further discussion as to whether he should be blocked for 3RR anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: If the consensus was for keep or delete, I would close that way. However, if it were a no consensus closure, I would delete per WP:BLP's note of "do no harm". Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from N5iln
8. I realize I've already !voted, but something came to mind just now. Your answer is entirely optional, and will in no way affect my !vote. How do you feel about WP:DTR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: My personal opinion is that WP:DTR has some valid points. For example, a {{uw-agf1}} or a {{uw-npa1}} is inappropriate, as the regular almost certainly knows about WP:NPA or WP:AGF. On the other hand, a {{uw-3rr}} would be appropriate to warn the other editor that he may be blocked if he reverts again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. I have observed and interacted with Reaper Eternal many times and am unequivocal in my support. I anticipate a rush of activity to this section. My76Strat talk 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks like a good 'un. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — Definitely. — Waterfox ~talk~ 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Haven't interacted much with xyr, however xe seems to be a good candidate, and I'm Supporting Diego Grez (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a he. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I used xyr/xe because I didn't know that ;)  Diego  talk  14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep. Cleaning up his own issues without prompting is another plus. StrPby (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I thought you were an admin already. Good nomination by HJ as well. Moonridden girl took a look, so there must not be any copyright issues hiding. Ryan Vesey contribs 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not like your answer to question 6 but I am keeping my support. Note that the policy says "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." WP:3RR is a bright line rule. It is extremely straightforward; therefore, an involved admin can take action unless they are involved with the specific dispute which includes the edit war. In reality, I support everything you stated accept for your decision to unblock the edit warrior. Ryan Vesey contribs 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. When I read that RE was running for adminship, I came here fully expecting to strongly support his candidacy based on what I saw of him in the past, where he was always helpful and clueful. But I wouldn't be myself if I didn't check his actual contributions to see whether my feeling was correct. And unfortunately, for a candidate who wants to work in speedy deletion, RE has made some mistakes in the past: This A7 just seconds after creation was truly bad. The rest of the taggings I found concerning were not bad as such, but look as if he had been impatient and overly hasty. This A7 6 minutes after creation for example or [2] and [3]. This G7 was hasty as well, given that new users regularly remove all content to replace it with new one, not knowing how Wikipedia works. I'm somewhat baffled by [4] and [5] but I'm sure RE now knows what {{wi}} is. Again though, those examples show a worrying tendency to act overly hasty. That said, in most of the cases I found, he realized his mistake moments afterwards and reverted himself and if there is a quality that every admin should possess, then it's the ability and willingness to perceive one's mistakes and the willingness to admit and rectify them. Because I think this is one of RE's main character traits, I am willing to assume that he is able to learn from those mistakes and will not be the "shoot first and check later" kind of admin if this request succeeds (we have already too many of those). My willingness is also fueled by the fact that the amount of such mistakes is somewhere near 1% of his taggings, so it's more likely that those were genuine mistakes and not normal behavior. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, [6] and [7] were self reverted. Ryan Vesey contribs 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. My comment already says "in most of the cases I found, he realized his mistake moments afterwards and reverted himself". ;-) Regards SoWhy 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing my contributions, SoWhy. I'm not going to delete any {{wi}} articles as an admin, and I will allow more time before tagging articles for speedy deletion. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Articles + vandalism reverting + etc = good admin (short verison, I could keep typing for ages! :P) Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Editor has plenty of experience in admin-related areas and good anti-vandal work. --EdwardZhao (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. James500 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Plenty of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Personally I have no issue with hasty CSDs, it's hardly any less bitey to stare at the page for half an hour before tagging it, there's no data supporting the assumption that tagging in 5 minutes turns new users away while waiting 30 minutes is more likely to them into valuable contributors Jebus989✰ 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I was doing some admin mentoring of RE (until real life prevented me having time to do so) (see User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring for what we did!), and I was impressed with what I saw. I see no reason not support RE, and I think that he will make a good admin PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --CutOffTies (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support One of the best users on Wikipedia. I truly think he'll make a fantastic admin. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A very well qualified candidate. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - me too. Richard Cavell (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Always thought he was one! I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - We have worked together on several articles and Reaper has always been helpful and collaborative.— Rod talk 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have been waiting for this all month long, and I'm excited to see what he's going to do when he receives the tools. Minima© (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef Jimbo Wales! :) What else? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I thought he was already an Admin. Great job, Reaper Eternal. Keep up the great work! Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Should be a great admin. Monty845 17:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I know him mostly from the AFC submissions he is reviewing. Really good job! mabdul 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good luck, I see nothing wrong! America69 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – has what it takes for the mop and bucket, and then some :). Airplaneman ✈ 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. So that he can indef Jimbo. T. Canens (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hell yes And that's all I'm gonna say about that.--v/r - TP 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Suppport - I really, really, really hate the old cliche, "I thought he was an admin already", but I'd have to say that in Reaper Eternal's case. I actually thought this was a reconfirmation when I saw it in the candidate list. He handles himself as one already, and I have no doubt he'll be great in the role. -- Atama頭 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong suppport - An excellent candidate. Well-rounded and highly experienced in many critical areas; always friendly, helpful and full of clue. It's about time. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support Sterling candidate, no qualifications. Clear, succinct answers to questions on top of RE's solid experience. Steven Walling 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A well-rounded candidate, with good experience in content, Wikispace and anti-vandal work. I take deletion more seriously than most, and undeniably CSD was a concern. But a combination of self reverts for some of the mistakes, a very low error rate overall, and a very clear explanation of his policy on CSD going forward on his talk page, I'm comfortable in supporting. I look forward to reviewing List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset at FLC one day. —WFC— 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. TWO THINGS. Don't turn mean. Keep working to add content. Without it, the site is nothing and contributors are not falling out of trees to write quality work. Plus the latter will help prevent the former. Good luck, FA cloud man.TCO (reviews needed) 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support —Soap— 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support You seem sane enough for the job. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about that. I have to question the sanity of ANYONE who voluntarily puts themselves through RfA, yours truly included. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - outstanding candidate, outstanding answers to some tough questions. --B (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral


Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reaper_Eternal&oldid=440759867"