Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RegentsPark

Nomination

Final: (70/7/3); ended as successful by User:Kingturtle at 20:15, 2 February 2009

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) – I bumped into RegentsPark in May last year during an acrimonious debate on the Burma/Myanmar naming debate. What struck me about RP, was that he maintained his calm and composure during the entire incident when temperatures headed northward all around. He is familiar with article writing standards, something critical to this project, although I have been prodding him to get at least one article featured as he writes pretty well. RegentsPark is well versed in policy and editing standards, takes part regularly in policy debates, understands the notability criteria exceedingly well (as evidenced from his participation in several contentiousness AFDs). He also participates in the RFA process, knowing fully well what is expected of adminship. While he does express concerns about what specific admin tasks he would like to take part in, I personally think that question is immaterial. The project stands to gain more from his experience and mature all-round thinking as compared to working on a specific admin-task. Regents Park has my full trust to make well thought of decisions as an admin. I wish him all the very best. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:27, 26 January 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: Initially, I’ll probably focus on WP:AFD and the parts of WP:RM where admin help is required since I have a bit of experience in these areas and have some sense of how to evaluate deletion and move requests. I’ll also start looking into helping out at 3 RR violations. By nature, I like to know what I’m getting into before jumping in but, once I’m comfortable, I swim like a fish. So, if I’m confirmed as an admin, I’ll slowly, but surely, start showing up everywhere.

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

A: Amongst the many things I do on wikipedia, I enjoy giving third opinions because they are a way to dispassionately look at an editing dispute and to give an opinion where I don’t have a personal (mental) stake. It amazes me that, in most cases, editors politely accept the opinion and move on and has lead me to believe that most regular wikipedians are open to discussion and to be reasonable for the good of the encyclopedia. Amongst article contributions, I was impressed with the stellar job that we collectively did on the 2008 Mumbai attacks where several editors, including myself, updated the article based on the news we were monitoring (I had a personal stake, my sister lives in Bombay not far from where the attacks took place) while others checked references and facts as they were added. I’ve worked on many other articles but the one I like the best is probably the most trivial, Charles J. Knapp. Trolling for stuff to do, I stumbled on this brief account of a 19th century US representative from New York and decided to update his biography. In the process of searching the archives of the New York Times, I discovered a lost town (Pepacton NY), a century old bank failure (the failure of the Binghampton Trust Company), and a criminal indictment of Mr. Knapp (some things never change in New York!) and left the article looking like this. For me, this ability to provide good information at the margins of knowledge is one of the strengths of wikipedia. The history of the United States or the campaign of Barack Obama are well covered elsewhere (if much harder to retrieve) but this succinct snapshot of Mr. Knapp and the failure of The Binghampton Trust Company exists only on wikipedia.

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 think that the Burma/Myanmar naming debate that Nichalp mentions above is a good example of how I handle conflict situations. Nichalp conducted a straw poll on whether the article on Burma should be titled Burma or Myanmar. The straw poll was inconclusive in number but Nichalp decided that the case for Myanmar was stronger and moved the article. Naturally, all hell broke loose! As a strong proponent of the Burma title, my first reaction was ‘who the heck does he think he is?’ But, instead of immediately joining the angry protests, I researched his contributions, saw his prodigious record on wikipedia, and concluded that his actions were in good faith and that he had a point (we were swimming in the same shade of gray, but on opposite sides of the dividing line). So, I acknowledged that and questioned the process rather than the person or the rationale, not giving up until the action was reversed. I was still fairly new on wikipedia and, even in retrospect, I think I handled the situation well by not letting my judgement get carried away by my emotions. I believe that the vast majority of regular wikipedians are here to improve the encyclopedia and are willing to engage in reasonable dialogue as long as no one dumps on them, and that by acknowledging that their motivation is the same as mine (better articles), most conflicts can be resolved amicably. (The initial straw poll, Nichalp’s move, and the ensuing brouhaha - yes, Nazis entered the picture! - is here. The discussion on ANI is here.)

Additional question from Keepscases:

4. Please explain the "Department of WTF" section of your user page.

A: (WTF stands for 'Who that fellow', I think. Or was it World Transport Federation?) I don't remember how I got to that link but I kept it as a salutary example of how the best intentions can unravel on wikipedia. Wikipedia thrives on openness and cooperative editing, and secrecy and ownership is not likely to contribute to a happy ending.

(NOTE: I have elaborated on this in 15.1)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- My understanding of the way this question has been set up is that the two involved editors are at odds with each other, not with the encyclopedia. GIven that, if the possibility of resolving the situation existed and I felt that it was worthwhile to continue to approach the user who was ignoring me, I would attempt to contact that user after first explaining my reasons to the blocking admin (as well as to the user who wasn't ignoring me). Assuming that I was able to engage the user and I felt there was meaningful new information to present at RFAR, I would not hesitate to submit a comment or statement of some sort. Finally, if arbcom rejected the case, and the users continued to be blocked but were both in communication with me, I would try to get them unblocked, first through the blocking admin, and then, if that didn't work, by involving other admins. I would do my best not to unblock them myself.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- A magic wand that would wish away vandals! Seriously though, more money for the foundation so that they can get better servers and a hassle free way of making some long term and reliable contributors into admins.

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- I wouldn't without taking the matter to AN or ANI first. I'm not sure what would warrant an indef block (except, perhaps, harassment or stalking or that sort of thing).

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- I think (I hope!) I would look at the quality of of the opinions rather than at the number of votes. Two 'delete' votes with strong reasons and more than two 'keep' (or no consensus) with very weak reasons should count as a delete (cēterīs paribus). If the differences were grayer, but there were good reasons to suspect socks, I might relist the AfD or close as no consensus. It depends.

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A- This is a difficult question to answer (without an ‘it depends’). The main consideration in closing an AfD should be the strength of the arguments presented and so, in the trivial case, one good argument should be enough to close an AfD. However, in practice, I’d like to see more to make sure that some important consideration hasn’t been overlooked - especially if that opinion is ‘delete’. I’m not sure I can give a minimum number (‘it depends’ on the arguments, the type of article, BLP considerations, etc.) and can’t really comment on RfDs or CfDs because I have no experience in those areas.

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A- As someone who is probably considerably older than the average editor on this site, I’ve gone through my fair shares of ups and downs in life and in work so I’m not worried about being stressed out. I won’t say I have a thick skin, I don’t, but I’ve learned how to deal with others in a way that doesn’t kill me. Somehow, I don’t see myself in the role of ‘dazed and confused’ but if I do find myself headed in that direction, it’s either a wikibreak or time to move on!

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A ‘Want’ is too strong a word! I think I can do more to help the project and so am requesting access to the tools available to an admin. With or without these tools, I’m sure I’ll continue to enjoy my experience here.

Q's from flaminglawyer

12. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A block is a physical (well virtually physical) restriction on the editing ability of a user while a ban is a prohibition against editing (either a total prohibition or a restricted one) directed against a user. A block says "you CAN not edit" while a ban says "you MAY not edit this article/subject/entire wikipedia". Of course, a ban may be enforced by a block. Sort of, if I may use an imperfect example, being banned versus being thrown into jail under the apartheid SA regime. (This would have been a lot easier if I hadn't been banned from copy pasting!)

13. Upon what circumstances would you close an AFD as "no consensus?"

A. I'm not sure of this, or even if this is clear, but, if the notability of the subject of an article was unclear but it was not clearly non-notable, I would consider closing it as 'no consensus', especially if the article was non-trivial in length.

(NOTE: I have elaborated on this in 15.2 and 15.3)

Optional question from Gazimoff

14. What are your thoughts on the proposal to implement Flagged Revisions? Are you for or against such a proposal?

A. The billion dollar question! I wish I could cut through the pros and cons of Flagged Revisions and and give a definitive answer, but I can't. On the one hand, credibility is the achilles heel of wikipedia and it is certainly not helped when a Kennedy is declared prematurely dead (or a Gandhi renamed Tom Goetz ). Flagged Revisions may help control this problem. But, I worry that, with Flagged Revisions, we’ll throw the baby out with the bath water. Wikipedia lives by its pool of editors and I worry that this pool would decrease when new editors fail to see their edit instantly made available to the world. Is it at all possible to keep the encyclopedia ‘current’ if every edit made by a ‘non-trusted’ user has to be reviewed by a trusted one? What about articles that rarely get edited? I think that on the whole wikipedia gets it right and, where it doesn’t, too often the problem is with established editors where the credibility issues are not obvious and flagged revisions won't make them go away (and might even exacerbate these problems). But, along with the negative publicity angle, I do see that every consumer who searches for Buckingham Palace and reads 'POOPOO IS COOL' or 'A special girl livess theree :) called mee !!' is potentially a lost consumer of wikipedia. So, let's say I'm ambivalent leaning uneasy about flagged revisions.

Question from seresin

15.I'm sure it's just me, but I'm having a hard time understanding some of your responses. So: Would you please re-answer the question about the WTF section on your userpage? Do you truly not find anything other than harassment/stalking to be grounds for an indefinite block? In your response to #13 above, and the subsequent clarification below, you only address notability as possible grounds for deletion. Articles are often sent to AfD for reasons other than notability. In a wider sense, when is a 'no consensus' closure of an XfD the correct one? Finally, you mention below that opinions should be "properly cited and referenced", and you also link to "WP:RS". Do you believe reliable sources, in the Wikipedia-context, are required for arguments in meta-debates? If you were merely addressing that the arguments need to be based in policy, what are your views on consensus (not numbers) necessarily being based on existing policy? Thanks for your time.

A. Most likely, it's not you but rather the quality of my answers. I'll try to explain things differently with the caveat that, since I am not an administrator and have obviously not used the tools, my answers are by necessity theoretical. (Also, you'll have to bear with me because this may take a while.)

1. Department of WTF. The explanation is fairly straightforward. Somewhere, probably while kibitzing on some WP page (since I can't find any candidate edits around the time I added this to my user page), I came across this link to a user talk page. If I remember correctly, it was presented as an example of how things can go wrong even with the best of intentions. So, I started to read it and was fascinated by the time I got to the end. Here, starting with the welcome message and ending with an block, on one user talk page, was a classical tragedy and morality play rolled into one. Complete with well-meaning editors (including several administrators) who go well beyond the extra mile to help this user. In the end, everything unravels as it must in good theater. You can't make this up. So I kept the link as a way of reminding myself that secrecy and ownership are bad things for wikipedia and that not every editor, however well meaning, can be brought into the fold. (Of course, since I barely visit my own user page, I forgot it was there until keepscases brought it up but, on rereading it, and perhaps I am the only one who does so, I still find it fascinating.)

2. Obviously, clear keep and delete XfD decisions are relatively easy to spot and the more interesting question is what I would do at the margins (this is re q. 13). I chose to focus on notability because I think that 'no consensus' decisions are the most likely where notability is unclear and also because that is the area that (I think!) I understand the best. General notability is almost exclusively defined by the quality of sourcing (see WP:GNG) and so a keep/delete debate wrt notability will likely need to make some reference to sources (hence the link to WP:RS). This may be as unsatisfying as my answer in q. 13 above but, philosophically, if, during the AfD debate, no clear grounds to keep the article emerged and weak grounds to delete the article emerged I would (other things being equal) probably close the discussion as 'no consensus' in the hope that someone would come along and build the article to the point where notability is clearer. There are obviously hundreds of exceptions (the other things being equal part) ranging from the amount of usable material in the article to BLP issues to developing news stories and I'm not sure I can be more precise than this, but, hopefully, my answer gives you some sense of where I lie on the include/delete spectrum.

3. In my view, consensus should be based on existing policy to the extent possible. If, in an AfD for example, consensus develops around the view that "person X's fan following is growing and will soon satisfy the notability guideline," then, ceteris paribus, I would discount that consensus if no third party sources are available that can verify the person's notability. There are, of course, exceptions to everything and policies do not cover every situation. For example, I would give more leeway in the case of a breaking news story such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks or, perhaps, US Airways Flight 1549, which, while in technical violation of WP:NOT#NEWS may fall, IMO, in the 'not normal' exceptions to policy. It is not as if the opportunity to delete an article goes away in the future (which is why I think I would tend to err on the side of 'no consensus' when there was no clear consensus either way - 'act not in haste' is a generally useful guiding principle).

4. There are grounds other than harassment or stalking for blocking a user indefinitely. For example, sockpuppeteering and extreme cases of tendentious editing while POV pushing are possible grounds for an indef block. However, it is probably better to get consensus first on AN or ANI for these sorts of cases before indef blocking the user (unless the editor was behaving in an immediately disruptive manner). At present, the only indef blocks that I see myself making without prior consensus would be where there is obvious harassment or stalking and an immediate block is needed to prevent harm to a user or to wikipedia. The matter could then be resolved (a timed block, an editing restriction, the block removed as unwarranted, or the indef block retained) in the appropriate forum.

Optional questions from Aitias

16. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes. In obvious cases of vandalism, nonsense, attacks, etc., there would be no question. In other cases, I would read the explanation provided along with the hangon, perhaps consider other factors (which I might do anyway, hangon or no hangon), and make a decision.

17. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. Vandalism should be addressed as quickly as possible and I would grant rollback to any user in good standing (a constructive editor who does not usually engage in edit wars) who requests it for fighting vandalism. I would consider taking away rollback privileges if the editor misuses the tool (i.e., knowingly uses it on non-vandal edits) or is consistently unable to distinguish between misguided edits done in good faith and edits that are purely vandalism.

18. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. In general, a non-free photograph of a living person may be used on wikipedia only if no free image of the person exists and it is technically impossible to take a free image of that person that makes sense in the context of the article. For example, an the article on the film The Subprime mortgages of Mr. Micawber may use a non-free picture of John Q. Actor if John Q. lost forty pounds for the role and assuming no free image of the slimmer John Q. can be found. Of course, the picture must also satisfy the general criteria for fair-use, including prior publication, the fact that it is important to see a photograph of the thinner John Q. to appreciate his dedication to the film, and that it will not be used elsewhere on wikipedia (out of context).

19. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. While I will probably not block the IP for a single act of vandalism on my user page even after a final warning, vandalism is not the same as a content dispute and I don't see a conflict of interest. If necessary, I would block the IP myself. (I assume, of course, that the IP has vandalized several pages. I'm a fairly tolerant guy and would, other things being equal, not warn the IP for a single act of vandalism let alone issue a final warning.)

20. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. I would block a user, without first issuing a warning, if the user posted personal information about another editor. Depending on the content of the post and the discernible intent of the post, I might also block a user without warning if that user posted threats or inappropriate messages (for example, messages with racial or sexual content) on a user page. In general, if I was reasonably convinced that there was the possibility of immediate harm to the encyclopedia by warning, watching, and waiting, I would block without warning.

Another Q from flaminglawyer

21. How would you close the AFD for Mariana Bridi da Costa (located here)? Relisting is (for the purposes of this question) not an option.

A. (NOTE: This AfD has been closed as "Keep") The !votes on the AfD show a strong possibility of canvassing if not the presence of socks so I'll focus solely on the arguments. The substantive argument for 'keep' makes reference to notability and attempts to make the case that she was notable before her death (for which, AFAICS, no pre-illness references are provided) as well as for her death (for which references are provided and are plentiful). The 'delete' case is based on WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS on the basis that her death was news and that she was not notable prior to her death. I don't wish to second guess the closing admin except to say that though, in my opinion, the delete case was a tad stronger (because the notability of the events she participated in, as well as the sourcing of her participation are weak), the material result of the way I would have closed it would likely have been the same. My personal !vote on the AfD would probably be to merge the article with sepsis. As it is, unless there is some material change in the future (an award, a foundation,...), I would not be surprised to see this article renominated for deletion at a future date.

Optional question from Hipocrite

22. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you adress it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help adress it?

General comments

• Links for RegentsPark: RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• The answer to number 13 is particularly disturbing. Shouldn't closing an AFD as "no consensus" involve looking at the arguments presented in the AFD?—Kww(talk) 15:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  My apologies. I should have been clearer. The notability or non-notability would naturally depend on the nature of the arguments presented. I believe that the opinions of others, properly cited and referenced, carry as much weight, if not more, than mine (also properly grounded in WP:RS) do. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)