Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LinguistAtLarge

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

LinguistAtLarge

Nomination

Final: (71/1/1); closed by bibliomaniac15 at 23:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LinguistAtLarge (talk · contribs) – LinguistAtLarge would, I think, make an excellent sysop. He has been with us since 28 October 2005 and has 4,912 live edits at the time of typing. An active article creator and translator with an extensive list of articles to his credit, LinguistAtLarge also participates extensively at AfD, where I think you'll agree his contributions are always sane and sensible. He handles potential conflict well.

LinguistAtLarge already has rollback privileges, and I am not the first person to ask him if he felt ready for adminship. I was just the first person who got a "yes" from him when I suggested it. :-)

Here is a link to Soxred's tool: [1]

I commend LinguistAtLarge to the community.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept the nomination to serve Wikipedia with a few extra tools. Thank you S Marshall for the nomination. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:18, 20 March 2009 (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: I plan on taking part in whatever crosses my path that needs to be done and I can do. For example, once or twice I have needed to move an article on top of a redirect, but was unable to do so because it had more than one edit. Now I won't have to bug the admins at WP:RM. I will slowly start using the anti-spam/vandalism tools, like I did with rollback status I was granted a short time ago. I occasionally patrol the new pages queue and instead of tagging completely obvious speedy delete candidates, I can just whip out the mop and bucket and start cleaning up. To be honest, I don't know what all the tools are that sysops have available to them at this point. But that's how I have done many things in life. I'm thrown into a situation (or I get myself into it) and once there, I snap into gear, figure out what's going on, and get to work. Here at Wikipedia, if I'm flagged as a sysop, the first thing I do won't be start clicking on new links and buttons I have available. It will be to go to the new admin school, read every thing extensively, and when I have a good understanding of things, start using the tools wisely. Of course, if I have any questions, I'll be sure to ask another admin before blindly barging forward. One other topic is blocks. I won't go out of my way to look for users to block, but if I run across someone who is doing Wikipedia harm, I will follow the steps to warn and block them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

A: That's hard for me to quantify. I can't really point to one article and say "this is my masterpiece, look how I brought it to FA status." I think my best contributions are some of the stubs I've created-- particularly some of the Spanish and Mexican painter/architect stubs that aren't very high profile, because otherwise they may have gone a long time without being created. I'm also proud of some of the articles that were on AfD that I was able to source and improve to a level of quality worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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 have been in some minor editing conflicts in the past, but I'm not easily stressed. If another editor doesn't agree with me, a natural human tendency is to defend oneself, but I try not to take it personally. In a situation like this I honestly try to understand the other editor's point of view-- understand their reasoning. After I make a good faith attempt to do this, I usually find that I was not 100% correct in the first place. After realizing that, I am in a good position to try to find a middle ground and ultimately try to find what is best for the project on a whole. Looking toward the future, I will continue with how I have done things in the past, trying to maintain good communication between myself and other editors, first to avoid conflict and second, when I disagree with someone else, to determine what is best for Wikipedia. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Letsdrinktea

4 What are your views on inclusion versus deletions?

A: Some articles need to go and some articles need to stay. The essence of my views on this subject is that I make every effort to keep an article if it is worthy of inclusion. When I see an article, I ask myself: Is the topic encyclopedic? Is it notable? Are there sufficient sources available to reference it? If the answer is "yes" to all three of those questions, and it's not in violation of policy, then I roll up my sleeves and start improving the article. If an article has POV problems or, for example, is a BLP with inappropriate material, then those problems can usually be fixed by editing. Of course there are some problems that can't be fixed by editing. For example, some articles, by their very title, don't follow a neutral point of view and must go. Then we have a whole slough of articles that should be deleted-- non-encyclopedic topics, non-notable topics, original research, POV articles, etc. Also, of course, spam, vandalism, etc are obvious deletes as well. In conclusion, I do enjoy "saving" articles on AfD, but I am very selective of which articles I attempt to save, because for each one I attempt to save there are hundreds of others that need to go. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Fastily

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: From the relevant policy pages, a block is technical-- it's a way for admins to prevent users from editing Wikipedia. A ban is a social decision-- it's a formal revocation of editing privileges on Wikipedia. A ban can apply to one or more pages, such as an article ban, a topic ban or potentially a ban from editing the entire project. Both can be temporary or indefinite, but bans tend to be longer. A block is usually done by one admin to prevent damage or disruption to the project. A ban is given by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, or the community as a whole. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Could you elaborate on your views regarding blocks? (e.g. When they should be used or when users should be unblocked...)

A: I touched on this above. Blocks should be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. For example, (not exhaustive) persistent personal attacks, legal threats, copyright violations, BLP violations, vandalism, spamming, edit warring, sockpuppetry-- if these are persistent, then a block is in order. Blocks might also be used as an emergency measure to deal with things like compromised accounts or malfunctioning/unapproved bots. Blocks are intended to prevent damaging behavior, so duration would depend on the severity of the behavior and whether or not it's a first-time offense. A 24-hour block is typical for disruptive behavior. Indefinite blocks may be used for users whose primary purpose is to disrupt, or in cases of protection, for as long as the protection is needed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from Arknascar44 (talk · contribs)

7. What is your biggest weakness as an editor, and how do you combat it?

A: I think my biggest weakness is a lack of diversity. There are many areas of Wikipedia which I am rather unfamiliar with. For example, I have occasionally reverted vandalism, but I need to make sure that is accompanied with a warning and a WP:AIV report when necessary. I should also branch out and notice, document, and report disruptive/damaging behavior to incidents notice board. Another thing I would like to do to diversify some more is work on some articles and bring them to GA and hopefully even FA status. How will I combat my lack of diversity? By starting to do the things I have mentioned. And that is what I plan to do. A secondary weakness I see in myself is in terms of policy. I need to keep reading and digesting Wikipedia policy so that I have a very good grasp of what it means and how to apply it. This is even more important if my account is admin-flagged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Lankiveil

8. This is a case study question. You are contacted via email by a recently indef blocked user with whom you are not familiar and have had no prior dealings with. This user has advocated hard on a number of talk pages for the inclusion of pro-al Qaeda viewpoints on a number of articles. These arguments have been soundly rejected by a consensus or near-consensus of editors on all of these talk pages. However, despite this, they have not gone ahead and made edits in the mainspace that they do not have a consensus for, they have been generally polite and well behaved, and there is no indication that they have broken any guidelines or acted in bad faith. They have been blocked indef with the summary "terrorist sympathiser/advocate, not wanted here", and had their talk page locked. The user is asking for an unblock, citing that they have not broken any rules, but the admin is adamant that they should not be unblocked as allowing such editors free rain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute. My questions are: a) Was the admin justified in blocking the account, and why/why not, and b) What would you do in this situation?

A: a) Was the admin justified? I can't make a rash decision on that. There might be other things the blocking admin knows that I don't know, and is indeed justified. On the other hand if the other admin doesn't have more information than I do, then I would most likely consider the block undeserved, since the user hadn't broken any rules.

b) What would I do? Well, what I would not do is summarily unblock them and start a wheel war. First, I would try to evaluate the situation by looking at the user's contributions and interaction with others. If it appears that the user really hasn't broken any rules, then I would contact the blocking admin. There are potentially many things the blocking admin knows about the situation that I don't know. After interacting with the blocking admin, I would re-evaluate the situation. If it is apparent the blocking admin acted alone and didn't in fact have other information that I didn't know, then I would consider pursuing the issue to get input from other non-involved admins and users as to the actions of the blocking admin. As for unblocking the user, I would leave that to another uninvolved admin who would be acting based on consensus. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Pascal.Tesson

9. Although your first edit dates back to 2005, your account has only been really active for the last five months. Can you comment on that? ("no" would be a perfectly acceptable answer) More to the point: during these three years, did you edit from time to time under a different account or without logging in?

A: I signed up when I first heard about Wikipedia. It sounded neat and I started contributing very sporadically. During that time I didn't know anything about the internal workings of the project. I just added things to articles and even started an article or two. In October/November 2008, I had a renewed interest in Wikipedia and I started editing more. I started learning more, doing more, and here I am. I have never edited under another account or anonymously, except for a few anonymous edits, if I recall correctly, right before I signed up. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for LinguistAtLarge: LinguistAtLarge (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for LinguistAtLarge can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/LinguistAtLarge before commenting.

Discussion

• I think you should have given the candidate time to answer the questions and accept the nomination before transcluding on his behalf (or better yet, let him choose when to transclude it). SoWhy 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry. This is the first time I've nominated anyone for adminship, and I seem to have jumped the gun with the transclusion. Totally my fault and no reflection on Linguist!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's no problem for me. I'm answering the questions now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator, I support this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
2. The candidate appears to be willing to accept this at this time despite not signing the acceptance indicator yet. So I figure, why the hell not support right now? The point is, LinguistAtLarge is evidently civil and helpful, and would probably make for an excellent administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support because the candidate is one of impressive article savors from AFDs, whom I've ever seen. The candidate has the ability to expand endangered articles as adding reliable sources timely, and to persuade others with plausible logic. Moreover, the user is civil, clueful and understands various policies pretty well. LinguistAtLarge is not a vandal fighter, but contributes his asset to one of the hottest zones in Wiki with his cool head. He will be a great admin with the tool.--Caspian blue 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per Caspian blue. Awesome AfD work, awesome editor in general. LittleMountain5 ^review! 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Per Caspian blue.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per Caspian blue. Deletion is unfortunately a necessary evil. However, we should be looking for reasons to keep articles and Linguist does that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
7. I was reading some of LinguistAtLarge's talk page earlier, and saw that he does work with article-saving, so I too, agree with Caspian blue. Acalamari 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support As Caspian well sets out, LAL possesses a variety of skills the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, and I think it clear that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - a great editor who is more than ready for the extra tools. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - no reason to believe he/she would not be a good admin. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support per Caspian Blue. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Caspian Blue said it best. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak Support Has done good work, but needs more experience in other areas. -download | sign! 00:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I think Caspian Blue's nailed it, I have nothing to add. FlyingToaster 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support A great editor who has earned respect and trust. Always collegial and helpful. Has done a lot of good work on the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - I truly hate per arguments, so I'll use a different word. By means of Caspian Blue. Xclamation point 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
17. I really like your style. You aren't anti deletion, but you aren't so obviously biased as to go to an AfD and unfairly interpret consensus as "keep" based on your personal agenda. This shows you will apply yourself neutrally to your work while trying to improve new articles rather than trim them. Also, there are no real red flags here that could offset your chances in my boooks. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Good answers to questions - Fastily (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Great editor always willing to improve an article. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support — Jake Wartenberg 04:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak support - Experience seems concentrated in one area, but concentrated is better than dilute. I trust the user will achieve the right molarity once they become an admin, won't break the conical flask. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. The candidate made some really solid arguments in [2] (thoughtful, detailed argument rather than a mere vote) and [3] (again, thought out and non-copy and paste argument); however, this nomination does give me some cause for concern as it is essentially a WP:JNN and worst yet as the consensus in the discussion and improvements to the article demonstrated, the character actually does have some notability. Yet, it is the only memorable negative AfD experience I recall with the candidate and as the candidate has never been blocked, I see at least three positives I can cite to only one negative and as such, well cast my stance in the support column. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Certainly. Good nom; good contributor. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Risker (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Someone who steps up to the plate to save articles like Tourism in Bolivia during an AFD shows they know how to write an encyclopedia. No problems. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support apart from some speedy mistakes (G11 on dictionary entry, A1 with context, G2 on school project) which I think the candidate will learn from judging by his contributions, I didn't find any reason to think that this candidate would be anything but good for the project if given the mop. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Linguist is among the best candidates we've had in months; I fully agree with the nomination. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support We've both agreed and disagreed in the past of AfD I think, but LaL always explains their rationale, and that has to be a good sign for an admin. Everything else indicates good mop wielding ability. --GedUK  14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Nothing wrong here LetsdrinkTea 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Seen him around WP:AFD, always civil and argues with reason. Definitely a user I would trust with the tools. FingersOnRoids♫ 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Looking at the contribs, user definitely has a clue and is able to have patient, courteous interactions with other editors, has been around long enough to understand the culture of the en wiki. My only reservation has to do with the fact that activity is concentrated in the last five months (see my question above) but even then, sysoping will be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support There's every sign the candidate will make an excellent admin. Caspian Blue sums it up. Dean B (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Erik9 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good answers to the questions. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support User generally converses with other users, an unusual trait on Wikipedia that should be increased in the admin group. --KP Botany (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong support Wizardman 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Strong support I don't even remember what my past interactions with this user were about, but they have left me with a good impression. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support More than merely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support per all above. GlassCobra 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support, slightly wishy-washy answer to Q8, but still good enough. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC).
42. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support, I've seen Linguist at AfD a lot, and I saw nothing wrong from what I've seen. I trust Linguist with the mop. Tavix (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. I see no issues. Keep up the good work! — TKD::{talk} 23:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Looks good for adminship. Timmeh! 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support -- Great editor.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Seen them around AFD a bunch. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support seen around afd - a bit more inclusionist than the average, but knows the policies and guidelines and can be trusted with the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support: Este usuário é bem qualificado para usar os instrumentos adminstered. South Bay (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
51. With pleasure. Plenty of WP:CLUE, AFD work indicates sound policy knowledge. Pedro :  Chat  12:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support - exceeds my standards, seems like an interesting person. Will surely make a fine admin. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support, seen L A L around, no worry of unwise mop wielding.John Z (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support – Of course. — RyanCross (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support per Caspian blue. This user will make a great admin and the answers to the questions by this user shows that he will use the tools appropriately. Razorflame 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support despite the fact that this user just completely dissected my last AfD nomination (WP:AfD/List of fictional turtles) and blew it out of the water. User's answers to questions 1 and 2 make him sound a lot like the type of admin I think we need more of - someone who, if given the tools, would use them to supplement his ordinary editing, not become his ordinary editing. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. Good user, I've had good interactions the few times I've seen him around. Won't delete the main page. Cool3 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Creates articles, works on translations, helps at Afd. All in all, seems trustworthy. Rosiestep (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Good contribs. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support: Trustworthy, obviously intelligent, reserved, civil, and I think he will exhibit sound judgement as an admin. Maedin\^talk 12:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Lectonar (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support disinclined to fly off the handle, and smart as two whips. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support fr33kman -s- 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
66. SupportBrilliant editor, Would do brilliantly as a admin - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support nothing wrong, won't abuse the tools. Good luck, Jd027 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Merge with admin. :-D Consistently fair and reasonable at AFD, and has a proven record of working for WP's betterment. I never !vote in these, so you should feel special. onebravemonkey 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Capricorn42^Talk 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support as positive contributor to the encyclopedia with reasonable plans for the tools. - Dravecky (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Relevant discussion on the user's vote can be found at WT:RFA#User:DougsTech.--Caspian blue 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks, Caspian. I just dismissed DougsTech's comment, having seen similar before, until I read your link, which clearly shows DougsTech is right and has standing for his vote. Sorry, DougsTech for not assuming good faith. --KP Botany (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, slightly leaning to Support Meh...I spent quite a while considering this RfA. While the editor in question seems to be a good negotiator at WP:AFD and such, he has very little work at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:ANI. In addition, although not terrible, 68 deleted edits is not that much. However, he does have some good article contributions so yeah... <lyrics of I Can't Decide> :P Cheers. I'^mperator 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   In addition, while he joined on 2005, he hasn't really been editing much since 2008/11. :/ More experience needed in certain Wikipedia areas for a support. Cheers. I'^mperator 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Point taken. I need to diversify a bit. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   He has about 300 deleted edits, actually. Methinks you need a better counter. ;) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Seconded ;) - Imperator opposed (later retracted it) on Al Ameer son's RfA also based on an incorrect deleted-edits count. I suggest he finds a better counter or asks an admin (or indeed requests adminship himself!) to get an accurate reading before basing too much of an opinion on it. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Gah...That's the last time I'll use Soxred for an editcounter ;) However, my point about ANI, UAA, and AIV still stand :P Cheers. I'^mperator 12:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

   I feel strongly enough to cite my opinion that I don't believe deleted edits is particularly noteworthy, but I respect Imperator's belief that it is an important thing to note for his opinion. Spinach Monster (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (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.