Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rigadoun

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

Rigadoun

(12/5/4); Closed 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept. Rigadoun (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw my candidacy, as suggested by Xiner below. I realize that my answer to Q3 revealed a misunderstanding of blocking policy, and while I have studied that in particular more carefully since putting my foot in my mouth, I realized I need to read through the whole admin reading list more carefully, especially areas, like blocking and disputes, that I don't have a lot of personal experience in. I understand that some who probably don't doubt my abilities or attitude to the project, but can't in good conscience support a nomination for a candidate who suggested something that violates clear policies. I may also try to become more involved in policy debates and so forth as per Leebo's suggestion, as that will certainly strengthen my understanding of the policies. Thanks for your support and constructive criticism, and I anticipate showing up here again in a few months after mastering admin policies and responsibilities better. Rigadoun (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: Lately I've been active on DYK nominations, so I expect to at least start with that. I also think it would save time or other people's effort if I could deal with things like uncontroversial moves or speedy deletions of gibberish myself. Frankly, I hope that I won't have to spend all of my time doing administrative chores, because I think my best role is creating new articles, adding to older ones, or finding interwiki links, and I hope to continue to do that most of the time. However, I also expect that as I learn from being an administrator, I may also get interested in other tasks, like backlog that nobody seems to want to deal with.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: One of the more ambitious things I've done was sorting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr. In August of last year a new list of 40,000 "missing articles" that have French counterparts (with several interwiki links) was compiled, and I realized they were mainly articles on Italian and French communes (of which there are many, and which have many bot-generated articles in several wikipedias). Knowing that copying bot-written articles is a low priority (and can be done by a bot, as User:Eubot did for the Italian ones), I sorted through them and put the list of ones that need human attention on the project main page. It's still a rather long list, but getting dealt with gradually (mostly not by me, but I frequently go through and verify the article and links of any new articles that appear).

I am pleased with various articles I've written, especially the more recent ones as I understand wikipedia policy and sourcing better. I haven't (yet) driven an article to good or featured status, but I'm proud of many of the new articles I've started, such as those that have been picked for DYK. I'm pleased whenever I can find interwiki links for articles, since I think that has the potential to benefit all of the wikipedias, to have a version they can compare sources, translate from, or share wikicommons stuff. A recent DYK of mine, Streak (mineralogy), was particularly satisfying, because it was clearly needed, since I was able to find 12 interwiki links and a large number of local oncoming links once I adjusted a poor link in a template. And I'm happy that mine seems (to me, anyway) the best of the 13 in referencing and thoroughness.

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 most stressful situation I've been in was regarding a table I added to Pre-Tridentine Mass (go figure - people get into arguments about religion). Despite giving the source (which seemed pretty reliable and NPOV to me, and was backed by other statements in the Catholic Encyclopedia), a user kept asserting it was incorrect and removing it. I explained myself and my source as best I could on the talk page, but another watching the page (who sided with my insertion) got in an edit war with the other user. I actually haven't edited it since then, but the table is still there. Had I had administrative powers, I don't think I would have acted differently on the page, although I think both of them did violate 3RR at one point, so I may have blocked them temporarily for that reason. Perhaps mediation would have been a good solution, but since I wasn't actually involved in the editing at that point I didn't seek it. Both are still active editors, so I don't know if the final solution was a compromise or a stalemate, but the page hasn't been significantly changed for a while.

The only other dispute I can think of, and in which I was more actively involved, was

Cadence (music). I had added the translations of some of the cadence types, because they were included on Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics

, which generally means that they may be mentioned somewhere and need to have blue links, so I redirected them to the article and added the foreign names, so people would know why their search redirected there. (Musical terms are frequently used in their original or variant language, so it's not surprising to see such terms on the list.) A user watching the page objected that they were unnecessary, this being the English wikipedia, and we had an extended discussion on the talk page about whether they should be included. In the end I believe he made the stronger argument, since he couldn't find on the web instances of the word used in English sources. I still don't know why it was on the list (perhaps a category like the SFNI on the hot pages should be used there), but I think th eother user was right if I can't find instances of it that has priority over a mysteriously generated list. Anyway, it was a much more civilized discussion, which I think was handled reasonably by both of us.

• See Rigadoun's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Weak support, I doubt he'd abuse the tools, per his experiance. It's too early to predict the result, but the oppositions look strong. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Certainly will not do any harm with the tools, and is likely to do some good. YechielMan 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support this editor totally rocks. Let's give him the power to stick it to the man. 4kinnel 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh?Could you elaborate a little on this position? NeoFreak 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Technically he/she doesn't have to elaborate on the position. Oppose votes require a rationale, but Support votes don't.

   ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   The procedure was changed so this isn't a vote, merely a discussion. Also, for what's it worth, 4kinnel has less than 250 contributions.

   Addhoc 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Support I think the oppose concerns are not great enough to warrant an oppose vote. Also, this candidate can definately help Wikipedia with the admin tools. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Despite the concerns raised below, I believe Rigadoun shows sincerity and a trustworthiness by owning up to his mistakes. I do suggest being careful at first and always asking if unsure, should you receive the mop. There are plenty of us willing to answer questions, should you have them. ···
   joe 03:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Support - Adminship is no big deal.
   ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support - The Indonesian Project has had a considerable amount of hard work from this editor that has gone relatively unappreciated - consistency, accuracy, and very regular contributions show that this editor has been an asset to the project- and any recognition of that hard work has been long overdue - and to have administration status of an editor within that project is also long overdue as well.
   Suro 12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Adminship is not a trophy or reward. NeoFreak 13:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed this is very true, however I am very impressed by his editing and chose to write my comment that way

   Suro 14:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Good answer :) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support. Seems to be a good editor with enough experience for the position. The concerns brought forward are not very bothersome to me... seems to be more of an unfortunate comment than something that would really cause harm in the future. --
   Sn0wflake 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support, not because I'm from the same project, but his willingness to help other editors in copyediting and fixing problems in the article's namespace. So I don't think he will abuse the "admin powers" as being concerned below. — Indon (reply) — 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, haven't had any issues working with this editor. (Caniago 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
11. Support. I couldn't find any problematic issues. In my opinion there's a subtle difference between the axiom and its execution. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support A small blemish made by the editor's 3RR comment was quickly solved, so I no longer have any qualms. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose The fact that the editor contended that had he had "admin powers" during a previous conflict he would have banned the other party shows that he has neither the knowledge of basic administator ethics nor a understanding of policy I look for in a candidate. His lack of work in the process (with a single exception) and policy areas is also a red flag for me. Another great editor that I just don't feel comfortable giving the tools yet. NeoFreak 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose As NeoFreak said, Rigadoun mentioned that he would have blocked the 2 edit warring users for 3RR, though this goes against good admininstrator practice of not using admin tools in conflicts in which you are involved. More experience and understanding of administrative conduct is needed. Leebo ^T/C 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to Neutral Leebo ^T/C 18:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, despite a lot of good work in the Wikipedia namespace, I'd like to see more in actual policy areas and discussions. But, as indicated by NeoFreak, Rigadoun is valuable to the project. Leebo ^T/C 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to clarify that I didn't say I would have blocked them, rather that I may have, per the 3RR violation, not for the actual dispute at hand, and (if applicable) both parties, not just the other party. As far as dispute experience, it is true I have little, but it isn't really an area I'm interested in getting involved in (at this point, anyway). For that reason, I doubt I would have blocked the users, just to avoid getting involved more closely in the dispute (which I was watching, not participating in, although it related to a contribution of mine). Rigadoun (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I know the point you're trying to get across, but you had an interest in the content of the article. You could probably report both of them if they violated 3RR, but not block them. I realize you are saying it would be unlikely to happen. Leebo ^T/C 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per NeoFreak. Candidate's answer to Q3 shows a misunderstanding of blocking policy. One does not block users while in a dispute with them, whether it is for 3RR or otherwise. Clearly, the editor has more learning to do, and waiting a while for the mop will only result in a better admin. Xoloz 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per answer to Q3. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per suggesting he would block opponents in an editing dispute.
   Addhoc 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Oppose The candidate did not read all of
   WP:BLOCK. I have no doubt the editor will have done all the required readings in the next three months, but for now, I must oppose. Btw, page protection would've been another option. Xiner (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. The 3RR blocking situation seems a little problematic to me, but it seems the user has learned.
   eg92contribs 12:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. I can not support him because of the 3RR blocking situation. I will not oppose him though because I do not think he would make a bad admin. --
   James, La gloria è a dio 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Rigadoun, you may want to acknowledge the unfortunate answer in the RfA, withdraw the candidacy, and come back in three months. Xiner (talk, a promise) 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) moved to Oppose[reply]

3. Neutral per Sir james paul. Michael 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I have changed my oppose comment above to neutral, because I don't feel that Rigadoun would abuse the tools or act without thinking it through, but I would more readily change to support in the future. Leebo ^T/C 18:45, 2 April 2007 (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.