Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Realist2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Withdrawn by candidate. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realist2

[edit]

Final (17/5/0); Ended 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 (talk · contribs) – I first met Realist2 back when I was admin coaching Giggy, Realist2 was looking for admin coaching. While I was too busy to serve as his coach, I did give him a quick review. My main concerns were: 1) His edits are too silo'd around one topic---the Jacksons. 2) The use of partisan user boxes. 3) A dearth of edits in "adminly" areas. Since that time, he has broadened his editing habits. His goal was to get Michael Jackson to FA status, which he did. He removed the contentious user boxes (you know the type that often garners opposes at RfA's.) 3) He started making edits (ca 2000 since my review) to the Wikispace/Wikitalk areas. These edits cover a nice breadth of areas (AN/AIV/XfD/RPP/RS/and even a few UUA!)

Realist2 has grown into a well respected editor with over 31,000 edits. He has 22 non-Award center barnstars (although 9 are from one person.) He has contributed to two FA articles (Michael Jackson and Thriller) and 16 GA quality articles. His talk page is litered with people asking him when/if he is ever going to run for Admin---this is generally a good sign that you are dealing with a great candidate. But when his talk page shows distinct reasons for that question, it is even a better sign. His posts show a definite understanding of policy, but also show that he is not bound to the letter of the law, but rather the spirit.

Reviewing an editor with over 30K edits is nigh impossible, but from what I can tell, giving Realist2 the mop will be a net positive for the project.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Iridescent

I first came across Realist2 in rather strained circumstances. A group of particularly problematic users were repeatedly getting warned, stripped of rollback/Huggle and blocked for repeated disruption, and although R2 had never actually been one of those warned/blocked, he was friends with many of them so I (and the other admins involved) unfairly bundled him in with them.

While this must have been irritating for R2, it did have the unintended consequence of bringing him to the notice of a number of people (including me) who'd ordinarily not have noticed him as we work in totally different areas, and the more I saw of him the more impressed I was. On seeing an editor with (literally) thousands of edits to the BLP hell-holes that are Britney Spears, Madonna and Michael Jackson, I expected to see either starstruck fancruft or a POV-pushing libeller fanatically cut-and-pasting anything that appeared in the Saturday Sun. Instead, I saw someone making a determined attempt to clean up three poor-quality articles on topics of extremely high importance within their field, and keep them stable and neutral against an onslaught of POV-pushing and IP vandalism. (This was what Michael Jackson looked like immediately before R2 started his cleanup.)

Ever since he first came to my notice, I've been consistently impressed with R2's conduct. I've watched him patiently explain to new editors what the difference between tabloid gossip and reliable sources are, without losing his temper or resorting to WP:CAPITALIZEDGOBBLEDYGOOK; seen him come under a sustained campaign of abuse by a racist troll, without snapping; and most importantly IMO, seen someone who has no hesitation at all in asking other people for their input in any situation where he's not entirely sure what the right course of action is.

A few days ago in discussing this possible RFA, and the fact that candidates with any kind of controversy in their past tend to struggle at RFA in the current climate, I made the semi-serious comment that R2 was on the "Gwen Gale path", and I think it's a reasonable comparison. On Gwen's RFA I made the comment that "We need more people who actually think about what they're doing and less human-bot hybrids. I don't always agree with her but at least she understands what we're supposed to be doing here." and that pretty much sums up my attitude towards R2. There are often occasions where I disagree with him – only last week we had a spat about whether tabloid libels should be mentioned in articles even when they're untrue – but I've never seen him take a position he's not willing and able to defend, nor dogmatically defend a position when it's clear that consensus is against him or resort to "I have 30,000 edits, you have to listen to me" arguments. As far as I'm concerned, someone who consults, listens, doesn't hesitate to act when necessary and is always willing to explain any action is the essence of what a Wikipedia admin should be. The tools would undoubtedly be useful in the heavily-disrupted popular culture areas in which he works, and I see no realistic possibility of him abusing them. – iridescent 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Rodhullandemu

Endorse my predecessors as co-noms; Realist2 has developed greatly as an editor since I've known him; his article-writing speaks for itself. He's also participated in WP:ANI and has asked for advice on policy before committing himself to a course of action and is willing to follow that advice. He is competent on image policy and reliable sourcing, particularly in his area of interest, popular music, and I commend him to you as a trustworthy candidate for Adminship. It won't go to his head and he will use the tools wisely. --Rodhullandemu 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OK Withdraw — Realist2 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Well there are a number of areas I would dip into and others that I probably won't touch for a long time, if ever. Since I do watchlist high profile BLP's that regularly sustain vandalism, admin tool would come in useful there. I would be able to block editors who have vandalized an article persistently after multiple warnings. Obviously, because I edit some of these article frequently I would only be involved in blocking when there is zero chance of someone alleging conflict of interest. An example would be where an editor writes "Michael Jackson is a N...." five times, after multiple warnings from myself/others. When it comes to content issues on these article I would provide nothing more than my policy knowledge and leave admin duties to those less associated with the articles. It seems unlikely that I would be involved in any page protection of these articles, most of them are semi protected already.
I've had a lot of dealings with WP:AIV, WP:AN and WP:ANI so I could certainly assist the community in those areas. More recently I have taken an interest in image policy, tagging images for deletion, I'm rather competent when it comes to fair use and copyright violations. As my nominators mentioned, I always ask if I have doubts, I seek advise and input regularly, so I won't be using the tools unless I'm sure I'm going the correct thing. Working at WP:RFPP would be a future goal but not for some time yet.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to the encyclopedia would include Michael Jackson and Thriller (album), both are featured content. Getting the Jackson article featured was a real learning experience. Almost everything I now know about article policy came from writing that biography, a reason why I consider it an important aspect of my stay at Wikipedia. WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM are principles I have come to understand in letter and spirit as a consequence of working on the article. Of course some of these links are "more important" than others, some are official policy, others are not, but they all require the application of common sense. There are also my 16 GA's (viewable on my user page), some of which I will possibly take to FA in the future.
I also love to work with the wider community, I have helped out with peer reviews, reviewed approximately 8-10 articles at GAN and reviewed several articles at FAC. I have recently started adopting new editors which can be viewed centrally from here. I also created the Wikiproject for Janet Jackson and plan to start a project for Madonna is due course. This community based aspect of my contributions hopefully shows how much I care for our encyclopedia and what it is trying to achieve as a collective body.
I also do quite a lot of behind the scenes work. AIV, AN, ANI, image deletion (mostly tagging but also a little commenting), AfD's and page protection requests.
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: Yes, I have been in conflicts at Wikipedia, some worse than others. I think most of it comes with the territory in many respects. Editing articles that attract POV pushers or good faith editors who don't understand certain policies. My block log is not clean, some of those blocks were shortened or simply overturned but some I rightfully deserved. I haven't been blocked in nearly 8 months though. I have had disagreements with my nominators in the past, Rodhullandemu and Irid. However they were amicably resolved and I'm on good terms with both of them. I actively try to resolve problems and make peace. I'm not one for grudges in the slightest.
I and other editors had a dispute with User:CadenS more recently, there were ANI threads made against him, regarding his conduct on sexuality (particularly the issue of homosexuality) related articles as well as concerns about personal attacks. I made one thread, other editors made threads later on. Maybe I got too involved, but Caden was concerned I was stalking him. I really wasn't, but the allegation was concerning enough that I stopped editing articles relating to the topic of sexuality, to ensure he had space. An admin put forward to his adopter, that Caden should voluntarily stop editing articles relating to sexuality. At first I supported this, but later at ANI, I supported the alternative proposal of giving Caden an additional adopter. Despite everything I felt that CadenS was a useful editor, a net positive, something I told him.
There are certainly times when I have been under enormous pressure at Wikipedia. Not so long ago (as Irid mentioned in the opening statement), I was the victim of a racist troll. This troll went around to all the articles I watchlist and pages moved them. The new titles were full of racist language and referenced to my user name. All of a sudden there were accounts called (for example) Realist2hasaids vandalizing and page moving my user space or articles I edit. This went on for 2/3 days, affecting many articles. Apparently this was some 4chan thing, the issue was "notable" enough that it's mentioned on Encyclopedia Dramatica unfortunately. I dealt with the stalking rather well really, it's not nice having bigoted labels thrown at you. In earlier days I would have snapped and got upset, but now I have thicker skin, I can deal with those things in a restrained manner. I can deal with trolling/stalking some admins might be used to themselves.
Question from Pedro
4. What are your thoughts on this alleged "IRC Conspiracy" to sink your RFA? What are your opinions on the use of IRC as a tool, perhaps to help co-ordinate administrative work on Wikipedia?
A. Disappointed really, if I'm honest with you Pedro. I mean...why not discuss these issues on my talk page? If I'm doing something wrong, surely telling me about it would help me. If people want to oppose my RfA for legitimate reasons that is absolutely fine, I welcome open, honest, even frank discussion on my conduct. Although I have never used IRC I can see it's potential benefits. It would be good for seeking consensus and advice on issues. However important on wiki discussion must stay on wiki. Transparency is very important. IRC is a useful tool if used correctly.
Question from ϢereSpielChequers
5 Your block log has been clean since April, but what lessons did you learn from your blocks before then?
A. Sorry, would it be possible for you to clarify your question. Are you asking me about what I learned from my blocks? The addition of "before then" is a little ambiguous, I would like to ensure we are on the same wavelength so to speak. — Realist2 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Realist2 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Please be patient. Majorly talk 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support
[edit]
  1. Support I don't think I've ever been a nom and the first to support (and I waited until it was transcluded too)... I usually wait, but in this case I am making an exception. It's been leaked to me by two separate sources that there is an IRC conspiracy planning on torpedoing this RfA... please review the candidate for yourself... don't let those who live at IRC dictate your !vote!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nominator, obviously. --Rodhullandemu 15:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I didn't think this was going live until Saturday, in which case I would've been on vacation and probably missed it, but I'm glad to give my support. I've worked closely with Realist2 and I know that he has a very clear understanding of what he's doing. He'll make a fine admin. Useight (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Seems experienced enough. Great contributions too. --TheLeftorium 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Great article work; keep it up! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Experienced, willing to learn, not a threat. Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. As it was Balloonman and not Realist2 who alleged "an IRC conspiracy", Realist2 should not have to answer questions about it. If you have questions, ask at User talk:Balloonman.[reply]
    No, you are wrong. Read my question properly, and the fact it comes in two parts. Pedro :  Chat  15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support per the excellence as evidenced by the high quality nominations, and per However important on wiki discussion must stay on wiki. Transparency is very important. IRC is a useful tool if used correctly. Pedro :  Chat  15:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom and A4. --Kbdank71 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Excellent candidate and very trustworthy. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Overlooking the fact that I trust the judgement of Balloonman and Iridescent enough that I would probably never oppose a candidate nominated by both of them, Realist2 is a very trustworthy and intelligent editor who would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an editor. Best of luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per everything already mentioned.--intraining Jack In 16:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support abf /talk to me/ 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong hoped-to-beat-the-noms-but-failed-miserably support — Good God, yes! Fantastic editor, won't abuse tools, net positive in every way, shape and form. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. While I have major issues with his incredibly tight RFA standards, unlike some, at least he is out with them before the RFA, and not after. Too many times I've seen people support every person coming, then as soon as they're on the other side, they flip over and start opposing everyone for petty reasons. While I don't expect Realist to change his voting habits, I can't very well oppose someone who managed to get an article like Michael Jackson to FA. And that Andrew Kelly looks like a troll, so anything that can be done to keep religious bigots away from RFAs is in the end a good thing. Majorly talk 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The fact that ballonman summed him up in less than 1500 words says something about his abilities! :-) Anyway I have seen realist2 around a lot and for me, all his comments and edits have been sound as well as his judgement and so Support from me. Andy (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I've seen instances of being overly combatitive or needlessly prolonging drama. He seems very, very quick to losing his cool. I just don't think he has the right attitude for having the tools on this project. SashaNein (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose in agreement with SashaNein per this which I witnessed. Seems very quick to lose his cool and kept things going long after several people (me included) had attempted to shut it down. The other person also being uncivil is not a reason to flip your lid, and does not show the temperament I'd like to see in a candidate.Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched that discussion with Andrew Kelly as well. Andrew was making some broad over generalizations and was flaming the fires. Realist quoted Andrew's words twice---because Andrews words were angst filled conspiracy filled words alleging that almost all admins are Athiests against anyone who agrees with Christianity. Realist made an off the cuff remark, "I hope your blocked soon". When he was challenged, Realist agreed that his remark was uncalled for. Stepped back, and disengaged himself from the discussion. I find that to be the qualities that make a good candidate. Everybody will find themself in a discussion that gets out of hand, or where they make a comment they regret or is taken the wrong way. It is how you deal with it after making the faux pas. I think Realist stepping back was a sign of maturity, not immaturity! And yes, I reviewed this RfA while vetting him. (NOTE, the aliteration was aaccidental!)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assonance actually. — CharlotteWebb 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose no trust at all. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Troutslap the nominators oppose. You guys bring us this candidate, seriously? I just can't fathom it. Now I remember that I've seen this editor before. He's just an overly dramatic kid, with all the trimmings. We need less of those, not more. Sasha is right, but the example given above is not remotely the only cause for concern. Friday (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, who's being overly dramatic now? Realist2, for the most part, is a mature candidate with a good sense of judgement. He lost his cool in the Andrew Kelly incident, as did I and many others, but everyone loses their temper on occasion. Humans make mistakes, quit asking for perfection. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing a strong opinion isn't automatically dramatic, in my book. I'm not trying to make some emotional appeal, merely an appeal to reason. Yes, mistakes are allowed, and yes, people do lose their tempers. But what I see here is not simply a short period in which unwise comments were made. I see dramatic tendencies, occurring over a long time period. Friday (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's with the quick withdraw? [1] --Kbdank71 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I do not like it when people oppose based on lack of article building alone. In addition, in [2], he opposed for no DYK or GA or FA. While in [3] he opposed for only 1 GA, which is contradictory. He opposed at [4] for no DYK or GA or FA, even though they had an FL. He also can cause confusion by not linking to his standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/It_Is_Me_Here#Oppose and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielfolsom_2#Oppose). Gives questionable reasoning here. I can't support due to lack of communication, and doesn't unserstand that a lot of maintence work happens in WP. Xclamation point 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]

I'm concerned about his maturity. A quick glance at the user page does nothing to alleviate this concern. I also want to know more about these blocks for harassment- I see an extension of a block for continued poor behavior while blocked. A block is a stressful thing, but it's vital to know how a potential admin will perform under stress. If he flew off the handle and did stupid things in a stressful situation, then he's not a suitable candidate. However I don't know anything about these circumstances. A block was mentioned in the nomination, but I don't see enough info there to make an informed decision. Can we get more info here? Friday (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I poked around and found more info myself. Friday (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Realist2&oldid=1142573674"