Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paulmcdonald: Difference between revisions

Paulmcdonald

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/2/0); Scheduled to end 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my pleasure to bring forth User:Paulmcdonald for your consideration as an admin candidate. I first interacted with Paul when I was a clueless newbie in my first 10 days or so of editing when I was ticked off that he supported deletion of an article that I was reading. I vented at him a little bit, and he stayed calm and tried to explain relevant policy, though it undoubtedly fell on deaf ears. In any case, Paul was the victim of my constant questioning throughout my first few months of editing, and he was always patient, kind, and helpful. In addition to his helpfulness to me, he has all of the characteristics we as a community could possibly want:

• He has a ton of experience at articles for deletion.

• In the last 250 AFDs in which he has participated, his !votes have been in consensus or there has been no consensus nearly 85% of the time.
• His comments always indicate that he has thoughtfully weighed relevant policy and rarely are "per so and so" !votes, which brings me to my next point.

• He is extremely well-versed in our policies.

• Look at these three AFDs just from the last few days, and you will see that in each he not only linked a policy, but explained how it applied to the given situation. Being articulate is an important trait in an admin, and one that Paul undoubtedly embodies.
• In addition to his knowledge of our policies, he has written numerous essays which are displayed on his user page.

• He maintains a calm demeanor.

• Even in this dispute, Paul remained calm throughout despite comments being made about his off-wiki activities. It shows he has a thick skin and can handle whatever may be thrown at him when he has the admin tools.

• He is a content creator.

• Paul has created more than 1,700 in his time at Wikipedia and has made over 16,000 edits, more than 55% of his total edits, to article space.
• He keeps an archive of deleted articles so he can work to improve them and reintroduce them to article space.

• He has a clean block log, is well-respected within the projects he works, and is steadily active and has made at least 100 edits in 34 of the last 39 months. Though he doesn't rack up thousands of edits per month, he is more than able to be a significant positive during what time he does volunteer with us. -- Go Phightins! 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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: Mostly I plan to run through AFDs and help newbies adjust to the process of going through AFD discussions.

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

A: I would say that my contributions to the College Football Project and Kansas historical articles. I've also written a few essays that some seem to have found helpful in their work on Wikipedia. I hold these examples as some of my best work because they have stood the test of time and have been referenced by other editors. Check my user page for links to a lot of my projects and involvement.

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: When I was new, I got in a lot of conflicts. That gives me the perspective of being able to help new editors going through the same thing--I understand the emotions involved. As I've matured on Wikipedia, I've learned to lean on the policies and guidelines. Now I encourage people who disagree with me to go ahead and say so. It's not about them or me, but about making Wikipedia better.

Questions from Secret,

4.Do you still support your view of this essay you created Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information? Why or why not?

A: Yes, absolutely. I have found that editors who use the argument "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" are usually arguing about a very specific and indeed discriminate collection of information. Of course, all other policies and guidelines do still apply.

5 What is your current opinion on WP:BLP1E?

A: I think that it leaves a lot to interpretation on the fly. Basically, it states that low-profile currently living people are not notable if they are only known for one event... unless, of course, they actually are notable for one event. It's not very clear. That's okay, that's why we have discussions.

6 What is your view of consensus?

A: I'm assuming you are asking about the concept of consensus while linking to the article/policy and not necessarily my view of the article/policy itself. Consensus can change. Consensus is not always clear. Consensus is not a scoreboard or popularity contest. Consensus is not determined by volume. Consensus can change minds of individuals or it can strengthen their resolve. And most importantly, consensus is not always the way I think it ought to be.

Question from DrumstickJuggler,

7 We have many admins on Wikipedia, so what do you think will set you apart from the others?

A: I don't really know other admins on Wikipedia so I really cannot fairly answer that one.

Additional question from WorldTraveller101

8. Do you plan to be very active in user-discipline areas as well, such as blocks, AIV, ANI, and other discussions?

A: User-discipline areas would be a new area for me. I don't know how to block someone if I wanted to. I have no objection to learning how, but before that I would want to spend time in discussions about user discipline. I have some experience in discussions but more would we welcomed.

Additional question from Scottywong

9. If you were forced to classify yourself as either an inclusionist or a deletionist, which one would you choose and why?

A: I oppose the theory that there are only two categories: inclusionist and deletionist. It's too simple of a theory and I have been accused of both. To me, I prefer to keep articles that don't violate any policy or guideline. Yet I have also found articles that don't violate any policies or guidelines that I would hope that consensus would choose to delete just the same.

In my reported AFD statistics of my last 250 AFDs (out of 1,038), I have taken a position of keep or speedy keep 50% of the time and delete or speedy delete 45% of the time. I doubt that if you went back to my first 250 AFDs you'd get the same results.

When choosing to close an AFD, I think that it should come down to first Wikipedia Policy and then the merits of the arguments and the consensus of the discussion.

General comments

• Links for Paulmcdonald: Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Paulmcdonald can be found here.
• Stats on talk. Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - enthusiastically, as nom. Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Paul has been a strong editor, regular talk page participant, and prolific content contributor, especially in his favorite subject areas of American college football and Kansas history, with over 1,700 new articles created. He has also been a long-term and regular AfD participant, with over 1,000 AfD discussions to his credit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

   That's true. As of the moment of writing, the candidate has 1714 articles under his belt. The nomination mentions just 100 articles but that's because the results were "Trunctuated to 100 pages" according the link given. Many of them are not very long but the number is still amazing.--Razionale (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   OK. I was thinking he had to have written more than 100, but I couldn't figure out why that page counter was only mentioning 100, especially since after I wrote up the nom statement, he wrote 3 more articles and the counter still said 100...thanks for clearing that up. Go Phightins! 10:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   Phightins, I have taken the liberty of correcting the link to the full list of new articles created by Paul in your nomination statement on the assumption that you would not object. It's a truly remarkable record that interested editors should have the opportunity to review if they want to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Support I've run into this editor before at AfD, and I a positive impression of his contributions there, one that's confirmed by my review of AfD, article creation, and talk page histories. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Terrific nom by Go Phightins! Paul strikes me as a very mature person. One stretch that must have been very trying was a mass AfD nomination of articles created by him, and I think he handled it well - see this talk page discussion and this wikiproject discussion. And that was back in 2008. Also, in all of the nominations that I found from this incident, the articles are still there. One minor thing: If he becomes an admin, he should start archiving his talk page discussions instead of deleting them. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Weak Support The potential for narcissistic behavior and the disapproval of anonymous editing are a little concerning. Keepscases (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   Keepscases, why do you think there is a potential for narcissistic behavior? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   I also have no idea what this means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   This is all perfectly normal. Move along. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   Er, how do we "move along"? We have already asked the question. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

7. Support - per nom. Paul also has met consensus 83% of the time on AfDs when !voting (not counting AfDs that were closed as no consensus), which is much higher than some other admin candidates. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. Another fine editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support. Great AfD work. We still need a few more admins to help us clear the AfD queue occasionally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Everything looks great to me. Seems like he'll keep his cool, and he's done good work with AFDs. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Absolutely. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support Mediran (t • c) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Strongly Support: Paul seems like a very active, strong editor. Also, it's nice to see a clean block log Cheers and good luck. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 01:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Support - Very mature editor. I agree with RM, though, that he should probably archive his talk threads. TCN7JM 01:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support, an overall net positive for the project. — -dainomite   03:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Rschen7754 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support. What I see is an editor familiar with AfD who would like to get the tools to help him in this area, and open to learning how to use them elsewhere, with no indication he would misuse them. As for me mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, I don't see why this editor should not get to try them out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Support per dirtylawyer, this editor is obviously focused on building the project, 1700+ articles, bravo! Darkstar1st (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support. Lots of content contribution + great work at AfD + lengthy service while remaining drama-free + nice answers to the standard questions + legit reasons for wanting the mop + a balanced approach = a great candidate for adminship. It's no big deal, after all. — sparklism ^hey! 07:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Support Arctic Kangaroo 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Support. It doesn't trouble me that he doesn't know me, as I don't know him either! Deb (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support. I have seen Paul around at AfD, and his comments always seemed helpful and incisive. I trust that he will go slowly in areas that he is not familiar with, so I'm not worried about the relative lack of experience in user conduct venues he mentioned in question eight. He has plenty of experience at AfD, which is the venue he wants to work in, and that's more than good enough for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support No major concerns Jebus989^✰ 08:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
26. Support competent, experienced, fair minded, cheerful. Likes the wrong kind of football, but nobody's perfect. (Could I echo the suggestion to archive the talk page? Trying to find something you know is there but not when it was put there is much easier in an archive than in a page history.) --Stfg (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. I am a little uneasy about the answer to question 5. However Paulmcdonald's AfD work is strong. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    To be fair, it's kind of hard to give theoretical answers to subjective policy questions. I wouldn't be surprised if one could find several AfD discussions in which he demonstrated a clear understanding of BLP1E; being able to explain that policy without context isn't so important. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

28. Support - Good editor, has a great demeanor and is perfectly suited for adminship. Good AfD work, but I don't even care about that, because I'm confident this editor could learn any necessary field quickly and fairly. One of the best RfA candidates I've seen in a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support - A good contributor with some AFD experience. I'm also supporting per the opposes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - Tons of content, understands AFD well, hasn't been sucked into the drama of the admin pit, great answers to the questions, what is not to love? Seems like a calm and highly independent candidate who understands our own flaws and the difficulties that new editors face, which is exactly the kind of person I like to see at RfA. It doesn't hurt that I trust the nominator as well. I actually like his answer to #5, btw, and think it shows he actually understands how the policy works, or sometimes doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support - no concerns and I think he'll do good things at AFD. Has a solid understanding of sports notability criteria which can be harder to judge (both in terms of policy and consensus) so will be a valuable asset in that sense. Stalwart111 11:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - I've seen him at AfD before, and he provided some great arguments. I'm not at all concerned about him, and I think he'll do well with the sysop tools. ZappaOMati 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - don't see any problems. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - He's managed to edit in areas (sports) that can produce huge amounts of drama and has done so without producing drama. I trust him to work slowly in areas he's unfamiliar with, and he's mature enough to ask for advice and then respect that advice (something that seems all too rare in some quarters). Intothatdarkness 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - Excellent work with WP:CFB. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - Apparently there is a big backlog at AfD, and some "prolific" and celebrated "content creators" are providing new entries at AfD every day. So, every hand in this area is more than welcome. Kraxler (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
37. Support marvelous candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support - No concerns here. Seems like a good candidate. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Support, and a pretty easy one at that. Lots of great contributions, calm and friendly interaction, plenty of clue, strong nomination, answers to questions just fine - sounds like someone who will work well in areas he knows and will be cautious in areas he doesn't. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Good responses to the questions and the strong nom well supported by evidence (nice work on the nom Go Phightins!) all point to a level headed and clueful editor. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Primarily, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also a community, especially when it comes to administration. I initially was neutral per the concerns raised by Keepscases and when you add that to a lack of knowledge of other adminisitrators, I just can't support this process. While I acknowledge it would be impossible to get to know everybody, it helps to know at least a decent selection of admins in the community that you are working in.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   DrumstickJuggler, I was puzzled by your question. What were you hoping to hear? It seemed like an invitation for him to declare himself superior to the current admins, which would be a bad mistake. How well do you expect him to know a "decent selection" of admins, and why would that help? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   With plenty of admins focusing on the many areas of Wikipedia as it is (in particular, we already have many deletion discussions admins) having an excessive amount of administrators is like over-staffing a company. So I'd want to know if he brings anything new to the table to compensate this.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   I dunno...there are some people who think we need more admins. I'm not really sure of that answer, though. You don't just want him to have the same qualities as the other sysops, but also something more? That doesn't really seem fair. TCN7JM 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   As time passes, Wikipedia improves. What was acceptable in 2009, isn't necessarily acceptable in 2013. To put it into perspective: In 1998 Windows 98 would've an been up-to-date operating system, but by today's standards it's far behind. Standards have changed. I think Wikipedia adminship should have a higher qualifying standard as Wikipedia improves.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm just not sure how your oppose can be partially based on the concerns raised by Keepscases, when it seems from this commentary that you want him to act arrogant. TCN7JM 11:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   It's not what you do, but who you know? That explains a few things around here, perhaps... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   DrumstickJuggler: your two analogies are completely off the mark. Adding more administrators is not like overstaffing a company, it's like sharing specific tasks among a larger group of employees. This makes perfect sense because a) you don't want your employees to get frustrated because they're stuck with doing the same thing 24/7 and b) if the number of people who can do a certain task gets too small, then there's a risk that these people will abuse that power. As for you second metaphor, the job description for admins hasn't changed and the qualities required for a good admin haven't changed. Only the RfA standards have changed. In other words, you don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a 16-core supercomputer running Windows 8 if all you want to do is play PacMan. Pichpich (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   Reluctant oppose - The candidate has lots of experience, and I almost wanted to support him. But based on his answers to Q7 and Q8, I think it will be best for him to stalk admins first, learn more about the job, see how things are done and discussed, before coming back for a 2nd RfA.
   Arctic Kangaroo 06:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't really understand the reasoning here. He said he didn't know much about user discipline areas, but that he would be willing to learn and would spend time in discussions about the issues before engaging in admin tasks in those areas. Isn't that the same thing you're advocating, but just after he's already made an admin? Why should he have to be familiar with all admin tasks if he doesn't have an interest in doing user discipline stuff at the moment? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose per nominator, but weak. There seems to be little development of quality articles or extended interaction with other editors. The candidate showed admirable soft-spoken leadership at Talk:Murder_of_Emily_Sander/Archive_1. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

# At this point I'm neutral per the concerns raised by Keepscases above and pending an answer to my question.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, nearing Support Will wait for candidate to answer the few questions first. Arctic Kangaroo 03:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)