Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SuperMarioMan

Nomination

SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present to you all for your !voting pleasure, SuperMarioMan. SMM has been an editor for over 8 years, racked up a respectable 40k edits, over 45% to article space, including over a dozen good articles and a featured article. He also has over 70 reports to the Administrator's noticeboard for vandalism.

Snottywong's editor interaction analyzer isn't working at the moment so I'm unable to look back to see where I first ran into SMM. But SuperMarioMan, in my experience, is one of our most levelheaded editors and any participation he has had at administrative noticeboards has been helpful, productive, and led toward resolution. I note particularly his contributions to the Murder of Meredith Kercher controversies where editors often considered him fairly neutral and well behaved in the face of some serious POV pushers. SuperMarioMan possesses the levelheadedness and wisdom needed for the administrator tools and I think he'd be of invaluable service to the project. v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from JohnCD: I first came across SuperMarioMan when I found myself deleting strings of highly undesirable attack pages which had been lurking for months or years after being wrongly declined as non-notable or test pages at AfC. SMM had been conducting organised sweeps, searching for particular strings, to winkle them out. The initiative to see that something is necessary and get on with it is a good sign, and the willingness to undertake this sort of prolonged behind-the-scenes tidying up is also good; a lot of mop-work is like that. Examination of his contributions and his talk pages shows a level-headed user, helpful to others, willing to take advice and learn, and to explain his reasons courteously if his actions are questioned. I believe that SuperMarioMan can be trusted with the tools and would make good use of them. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's a question that's been put to me several times in the past, but until now I didn't have the confidence to answer it with a candidacy. I accept the joint nomination of TParis and JohnCD. SuperMarioMan 19:44, 23 February 2014 (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: I would be productive on the speedy deletion front. I discovered recently that I have marginally more deleted edits than live ones; this is in part due to filtering out – and marking under the appropriate CSD – attack, hoax and copyright-infringement pages at WP:AfC. Additionally, I would continue my association with WP:AIV and WP:RPP in an administrative capacity. My experience at the latter, though not quite as extensive, shows mostly fully-actioned requests.

I also feel very familiar with the file namespace and the associated copyright and licensing requirements. For some time, I've been running through new user uploads periodically and tagging, where suitable, for common problems (e.g., replaceability for non-free files, lack of permission for free ones and copyright violations). Unfortunately, due to a database error affecting recent changes search, I haven't been able to perform this kind of work as regularly as I would have liked in the last couple of months; I believe, however, that I could process dated speedy deletion nominations of files with the necessary competence.

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

A: In terms of content creation, my single best contribution would have to be the article Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, which I saw promoted to Good Article and Featured Article status in 2010; a Main Page appearance followed in 2011. I have also secured GA status for pages on other works produced by Gerry Anderson; among these, I am especially pleased with Doppelgänger, which I may try to push to FA at some point in the future. As a member of WikiProject ITC, I found this work particularly satisfying because previously (to my knowledge) there had been no GA- and FA-class articles within the project's remit. My current long-term ambition is to see the more widely-read Thunderbirds article achieve GA and FA status within the next couple of years.

Aside from article-building proper, I have more than 7,500 pages on my watchlist, which constantly gives me things to do – be it simple vandalism reversion or more complex tasks, such as the light expansion, copy-editing and clean-up of shorter articles (e.g., Leslie Grade).

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: One major area of conflict: the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. Between 2010 and 2011, the article and associated talk page were fraught with POV-pushing, coupled with meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. It was the tendentious behaviour of one user in particular – whose account could fairly be described as single-purpose – which first drew my attention in 2010. The editing environment deteriorated markedly the following year, when a group advocating the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito petitioned, by way of open letter, the intervention of Jimmy Wales to counter what it perceived as the article's "pro-guilt" bias.

During the weeks and months that followed, I found myself somewhat frustrated by the manner in which reverts of content clearly intended to skew the article to a particular POV, questionable with regard to the biographies of living persons policy, and/or corroborated by unreliable sources (e.g., advocacy websites and blogs), were denounced by some new users as censorship or evidence of an "anti-Knox" mentality. It should be emphasised that the conduct of a few users who were actively promoting a view of guilt was sometimes equally disruptive. Bad-faith discussion on the talk page spiralled out into other venues, including WP:ANI and WP:AN, with blocks issued for personal attacks, legal threats and other disruptive editing.

I think that it would be arrogance on my part to claim that I did not, on occasion, contribute in some way to the atmosphere of hostility; my objective, however, was never simply to fan the flames for its own sake. I won't deny that I resented some comments directed towards me, including a claim that I was a commentator on an Amanda Knox hate site (untrue), which may have caused me to assume a tone "bite-ier" than I would have preferred.

My primary coping mechanism for the bad blood at MoMK was to go back to topics with which I was more familiar, and then return feeling refreshed. I believe that when editing divisive articles, one should remember that Wikipedia is, ultimately, a website; it is not worth becoming so emotionally invested over that it spoils enjoyment of other areas of life. At the same time, readiness to admonish others for their unconstructive attitudes demands readiness to re-examine one's own approach, and the ways in which it could be improved. I'd like to think of myself as a person willing to listen to others' views – if a user comes to my talk page with good-faith concerns, I will always try to take them onboard and see matters from that person's perspective. Openness to differing opinions and constructive criticism is, for me, among the top hallmarks that a Wikipedian can possess. Stressful as my experiences at MoMK sometimes were, I came away from the page with invaluable lessons in positive user interaction.

In brief, were I to find myself in a similarly heated editing environment in the future: for others' benefit, politeness, a welcoming attitude and careful consideration of viewpoints; for my own benefit, dissociation and detachment (up to and including walking away for a few days if conditions are very rough).

The second, unresolved conflict that I cite is not so much "stressful" as slightly wearisome. For a number of years, an anonymous user (or small group of anonymous users) has been using numerous IP addresses to add unsourced "descent" information and categories to various BLPs in contravention of the WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATEGRS guidelines – the problem is encapsulated in this revert (and others) on the Zack Ward article. In response to the recurrent disruption, I've added many of the BLPs affected to my watchlist. Others, including a few administrators, are also aware of the issue, with the latter applying rangeblocks to counteract serial problematic editing and block evasion. As an administrator, and being familiar with the style of anonymous editing deployed, I would block (where appropriate) with the same confidence and precision. I had previously considered starting a WP:LTA entry in the style of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal, but the appearances of the anonymous user have become less frequent over the last few months.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

4. What is your view of Process is important?

A: There is very little that I can say I disagree with. If processes are frequently not followed, in time the organisation of Wikipedia will collapse. Although the project is not a democracy, users subconsciously turn to processes as they would actual laws, seeking some assurance that the environment in which they are working can be described as basically, if not perfectly, "fair" and "under control".

This non-administrator AfD closure of mine was not in response to a true "emergency situation". The discussion could just as easily have been left to run – after all, the chances of a vital article being deleted were virtually nil. I suppose that the question of "ignoring all rules" entails the question of where the "greater interest" lies. In this situation, I believed that using the "snowball" argument to save other users the time arguing against a deletion that was never likely to occur would be of greater benefit to the project overall. Then again, it was never essential that I adopt this course of action. There was very little that was controversial about my decision there, but if the same attitude were applied in slightly different circumstances, it could establish a bad precedent and the start of a slippery slope. SuperMarioMan 07:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: I'll answer with specific reference to some of the CSD that I most commonly use.

A7 – Strict application is warranted to ensure that "credible claims of significance" is not confused with "evidence of notability". It is vital that both taggers and deleting administrators understand that for A7, the bar is lower.

G3 – Assess the tone of the writing and apparent intention of the author. In the case of hoaxes, the key word is "misinformation". Unless obviously intended to deceive, good faith should be assumed and the page either tagged for G2 (if the creator's objective seems to have been the testing of editing functions) or sent higher up the ladder of deletion processes.

G10 – In the case of named individuals and organisations, tolerance must be low. Diatribes without a specific target, although perhaps fitting the description of "some other entity", may be better suited to speedy deletion under G3. Either way, the result is the same – the harmful content is removed from public view, which is to the benefit of Wikipedia's image if nothing else.

G11 – While the current wording is indiscriminate with regard to the location of the advertising or promotion, I believe that under certain conditions, some leeway can be afforded to pages in userspace. I would be hesitant to tag for G11 a self-written, FAKEARTICLE-style biography user page, even if the content, length and detail seem incompatible with WP:USERBIO/WP:UP#PROMO or WP:WEBHOST (with its "limited biographical information" condition). In my experience, (self-)promotion and copyright violation frequently go hand in hand, in which case dual-tagging under G11 and G12 is the necessary route. Otherwise, MfD is generally preferable to speedy deletion as both a "softer" process and one that is arguably "kinder" to outgoing, new users who are simply making their first contributions and are as yet unacquainted with the policies and guidelines.

I apply the above to the grey area of individual self-promotion in userspace only. User pages that exclusively advertise or promote organisations or products or services should not be considered less speedy-deletable simply on account of namespace, especially if compounded with a promotional username.

G12 – Since WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy with legal considerations, there is little room for flexibility. Regardless of the namespace, pages comprised exclusively, or near-exclusively, of infringing content must be removed. SuperMarioMan 04:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

6. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: Misuse of administrator tools can have far-reaching consequences. For this reason, I would always be very wary of invoking IAR in the course of administrative duties, not least when it relates to decisions concerning deletion, protection and blocking. A search for "IAR deletion" turns up many past XfD pages – I believe that speedy deletion on an IAR basis while a discussion is ongoing is difficult to justify unless it has been established that there is a substantial risk of harm (such as a major privacy concern) to one or more living persons, or investigations determine that significant copyright violation has occurred. On the subject of blocking, I note the third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED: " ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" (arguably, a common-sense case of ignoring a rule). Yet even if a user with whom I've previously had a dispute were to start engaging in clear vandalistic behaviour that merits a block to prevent disruption, I think that I would still prefer that of the many hundreds of other administrators issue it. It is as important to be seen to be fair, as simply be fair; any additional disruption caused during the delay in blocking can be reverted swiftly. SuperMarioMan 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

7. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: Although I may not have used every community noticeboard personally, I feel that I know very well where help is to be found if required; in the past, I have recommended the Media copyright questions noticeboard and the Teahouse to new users seeking guidance. My file-related work has previously brought me into contact with newcomers requesting clarification on non-free image use and licensing, which I have always attempted to give, in my own words, as accurately and clearly as I can. Having spent several months at a heavily conflict-ridden topic (detailed in my answer to question #3), I believe that I have experience of Wikipedia at its toughest, and would feel confident in putting what I learnt there into practice should I become involved in situations requiring dispute resolution in the future. Whether the climate on a talk page is cordial or hostile, I believe that an approachable manner is one of the most useful tools for collaboration, and it is something that I strive to maintain when dealing with others. SuperMarioMan 04:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Minorview

8. What's the point of banning people when they can just create new accounts?

A: Blocks are a technical mechanism that can be applied only to individual user accounts; bans apply to the operators behind them. I think that the wording of Template:BannedMeansBanned goes some way to explaining this. A ban is a social concept, by which the community declares that the operator of one or more accounts is no longer welcome to edit by any technical means. It is enforced both technically, via blocking, and socially, by imposing blocks on additional accounts created by the operator as and when they become known. Of course, banning is effective only to the extent that those who apply it remain vigilant, and are able to recognise the banned account operator's editing pattern and style. SuperMarioMan 21:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right. Blocks and bans both apply to the operators(AKA "person")-- you can't create a new account to avoid a block. The question is about banning, and asks what's the point, when it isn't actually possible to enforce a ban. In other words, sockpuppetting is trivial, so why bother banning people? Minorview (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes the original question a bit clearer. I disagree with the notion that bans are unenforceable. A banned user will usually create only a limited number of sockpuppet accounts; cases involving never-ending sockfarms are quite rare. While it is true that sockpuppets can stay under the radar, sometimes for considerable periods of time, sooner or later they will betray themselves by the topics that they edit (usually the ones that got the sockpuppeteer into trouble in the first place) and the manner in which they edit them. The point of banning is to combat disruption from blocked users who have repeatedly shown determination to circumvent the technical measures taken against their original account(s). Having witnessed sockpuppetry in action and submitted reports at WP:SPI, I am puzzled by your second sentence – blocks don't affect the person (otherwise they wouldn't be able to make sockpuppets) and it isn't difficult to create a new account to evade a block, especially if you have a dynamic IP address. SuperMarioMan 04:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

9. Describe some situations in which consensus is likely to conflict with Wikipedia's principles, and your solution to that problem.

A: A hypothetical XfD situation springs to mind. Say that a recently-created article on a little-known businessperson, of doubtful notability, contains claims of significance that are barely sufficient to pass the A7 test, and is consequently referred to AfD in lieu of speedy deletion. It would be apparent to virtually any user with a basic understanding of the notability and neutrality policies that the article is essentially a vanity page or glorified CV, and in many ways little better than spam (but a G11 tag may backfire, as the page is not unambiguously promotional). By a quirk of fate, the discussion receives no input from experienced users inclined to argue for deletion with reference to policy; instead, all the comments are from anonymous, newly-registered or inexperienced users, whose "keep" arguments boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE or something similar. After one week, the only visible consensus is one of retention, but it is clear to the reviewing administrator that it is not supported by any policy or guideline and that the discussion has been playing host to meatpuppetry – the page creator may well have an undisclosed conflict of interest, or has contacted various people off-Wiki with a view to influencing the discussion. At the same time, no speedy deletion criteria apply, and unilateral deletion would be a questionable application of WP:IAR. I think that instead, the solution would be to re-list the discussion for another week or more so as to attract some welcome policy-based arguments. Template:Not a ballot should be posted at the top of the discussion page, and Template:Spa or Template:Canvassed applied judiciously, where merited. For the remainder of the discussion, the page should be closely monitored.

A content dispute between two users, one with considerably less experience than the other, descends into bitter personal attacks and results in a mêlée at WP:ANI. Various calls for blocks are made. At one point, there is an emerging consensus to block the less experienced user, but a neutral third party can see that many of those in favour are the same editors who supported the established user at the talk page, and that the conduct of both users, generally, has been equally poor. The proposed block seems very one-sided, and not in keeping with WP:CIVIL's directive that the policy should apply "to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia". In a situation such as this, it would be worth remembering that disputes can die down as quickly as they flare up, and questioning whether it is really necessary that either party be blocked at all – WP:NPA states that blocks for personal attacks "should only be done for prevention, not punishment". One may contend that, by the time an ANI discussion has started and both users are under the spotlight, the time for prevention has already passed. Mediatory discussion would be a faster way to progress and result in less ill will. SuperMarioMan 19:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've voted to support. The topic interests me, and is relevant, so I invite you to continue it here (totally optional). Your answer suggests that a site-ban is mainly effective as a topic-ban. Ban-evading socks will only be caught by returning to the same topics and disputes. So, as a practical matter (I know the reasons in theory), why have site-bans? Why not just topic-bans, since that's all that can realistically be enforced? Minorview (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You make a valid point. If a site-banned editor returns with a new account and avoids their old problem areas completely, they will remain undetected. There is also nothing to prevent them from editing anonymously. In reality, however, I don't think that many banned editors go un-noticed for long. Editors who have been sanctioned as far as a site ban are typically very driven about a particular topic or part of Wikipedia – so much so that other users deemed their contributions to be persistently disruptive, and moved for them to be site-banned. Often, the temptation to resurrect grudges overrules the desire for a fresh start, and a single user with a long memory is all that is needed for a sockpuppet investigation to be filed and the banned editor to end up re-blocked. Additionally, the banned editor need not always re-engage with problem areas at all – prolific users may recognise them purely by their writing style or behavioural idiosyncrasies.

The vital difference between a topic ban and a site ban is the perceived "net value" of the editor's contributions. The former is proposed only if the editor is generally constructive but needs to stay away from one particular area; as soon as "the broader problems ... outweigh the benefits of their editing", they will be seen as (what is popularly termed at WP:AN and WP:ANI) a "net negative" to Wikipedia. I would argue that site-banning is a well-founded institution, in practice as well as in theory, because it serves as an instrument of the Wikipedia community's will. It sends out a message that the community's patience, with regard to disruption, is not limitless. I feel that if the institution were repealed in favour of issuing only topic bans, it would be tantamount to encouraging disruption, since theoretically there could be no limit to the number of lesser bans that individual users could accumulate – once removed from one topic, they could simply start to disrupt another. Regardless of the question of efficacy (and I tend to think that they are effective in most cases), the practical value of site bans rests in their empowerment of the community to re-inforce its message to editors whose participation has been found to bring with it more disadvantages than advantages.
Some deep philosophising here ... Very grateful to you for your RfA support! SuperMarioMan 23:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll be a an excellent--thoughtful--admin. Some points about site-bans: 1) As you said, they only make sense if disruption has spread beyond any clear pattern. For instance, an editor clearly obsessed with Israel/Palestine shouldn't be site-banned. This is true even if they're a disruptive SPA, since a clear pattern is visible. Every human being has other interests, and allowing a chance to prove constructiveness in those areas is important to community-building and editor-retention. 2) Site-banning destroys information--there is really no way to tell how effective it is, how much sock-puppetting it creates, etc. Editing becomes a "black-op" at that point. Whereas, with topic-banning, a record of a person's editing is more likely to be clear. Minorview (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Optional question from Adjwilley

10. Consider the following scenario: You are an administrator. Shortly after you take a certain administrative action that you believe is appropriate, you are approached by several users, including some administrators, who question your judgement and suggest that you reverse your action. Other users, though not as many, argue that your action was correct. You still believe that your action was correct. What do you do?

A: I would seek review of my controversial action at WP:AN. If, after discussion, consensus is judged to be against me and my action ends up being reversed, I would consider whether an apology is appropriate, take the advice and comments of editors and fellow administrators to heart, and try to use the episode as a learning experience. I would not wheel-war under any circumstances. SuperMarioMan 04:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)t a

Optional question from Epeefleche

11. If you had the power to make one change in the rules or guidelines of the Project, unilaterally, what would it be? (Other than giving yourself absolute power ...).

A: I was thinking of offering some kind of community de-adminship process as my answer, but then a different policy area presented itself.

The proposed deletion policy already covers Wikipedia books. I've wondered a few times whether it could be expanded to include orphaned free files. WP:FfD appears to be somewhat prone to backlogs. These seem to be caused, in part if not primarily, by batch nominations of old, orphaned and unmaintained images. Discussions are frequently open for weeks without attracting comment and typically result in WP:NOQUORUM deletions. I think that sometimes, the abundance of uncontroversial nominations overwhelms the smaller number of controversial listings that produce actual consensus-building, and that bringing orphaned files to the centralised discussion venue often serves little practical purpose – if an image is not used on any pages, it is likely that the only user who would have an interest in keeping it is the uploader. The implementation of tracking categories and removable PROD-notices for perceived uncontroversial cases could make FfD a more streamlined and efficient process. SuperMarioMan 00:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

12. How would you deal with someone claiming that they are being cyber-bullied/harassed on Wikipedia?

A: I'd first examine the edits of the user alleged to be bullying or harassing. The complainant may already have diffs that they'd like me to look into. If the bullying or harassment comprises serious and recent personal attacks, an immediate block would be warranted (if the offending account was created solely for attacks, this would most likely be an indefinite block). Any attempted outing would have to be oversighted as quickly as possible. I'd make it clear to the complainant that I'd be available both at my talk page and by email to discuss any further concerns that they may have, be it now or in the future.

Of course, some claims of bullying or harassment are exaggerated, perhaps to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Some well-meaning new users who discover that their problematic first edits have been reverted may interpret the actions of others as a type of "ganging-up", and make accusations that, while not exactly malicious, remain fundamentally baseless. In a case such as this, education and a welcoming approach would be the remedy, and I would refer the complainant to point 5 of WP:NPA#WHATIS. It may also be prudent to remind the more experienced reverters of WP:BITE, if they were more gruff in their edit summaries than was really necessary. SuperMarioMan 00:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from John Cline

12. Will you consider adding a (talk) link at the end of your custom signature? New users are less likely to know about piped links in a signature, and they will want to reach you – with questions – about an admin action of yours.

A: That's a very good suggestion, and I've modified my signature accordingly – SuperMarioMan ( talk ). SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Optional question from Anupmehra

13. I notice you have created 100 articles and around 88 out of them are redirects . A suggested standard for autopatrolled (formerly autoreviewer) user right is the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages (WP:AUTOPAT). Assume yourself being an admin for moment: Would you consider granting some user Autopatrolled user rights following his request with same no. of articles creation as yours? If possible, then please explain why in both case, yes or no. What's your view on trusting an user?

A: I ought to point out that that results page lists only the 100 most recent creations – the actual total is 169, of which I count 52 non-disambiguation page and -redirect articles. How many I'd created by the time that I was given the autopatrolled user right, I don't know (but it was certainly higher than 12!); I didn't request the right directly, however – I think that it was an automated bot nomination. In theoretical answer to your question, I very much doubt that I'd be inclined to grant someone the right on the basis of only a dozen article creations. On the other hand, if a user with slightly fewer than the recommended 50 were to ask for it, I'd probably prefer to check the content of some of their creations and reach an informed decision regarding their knowledgeability and trustworthiness rather than summarily reject the request. Limited discretion, I feel, should not be discouraged. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 04:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for SuperMarioMan: SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for SuperMarioMan can be found here.
• Stats on talk page. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion