Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Robert McClenon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is preserved as a closed administrator election discussion. No further discussion on these pages is permitted. Please visit the voting page for next steps.

Nomination

[edit]

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · he/him) – I am Robert McClenon, and have been editing Wikipedia from 2005 to 2006, and again since 2013. I have from time to time been asked whether I am planning to run for administrator or why I am not already an administrator. I have had two unsuccessful Requests for Adminship, in March 2006 and in September 2017. The request in 2006 was a case of too soon, although it was easier to become an admin in the first decade of this century. The request in 2017 seemed to start well, but then became more critical as I was questioned about some of the speedy deletion nominations that I had made at New Page Patrol, and became negative. I think that there have been at least three changes in the past seven years. The first is that I learned from that failure. The second is that new article creation is now restricted to autoconfirmed editors, which reduces the number of misguided new article creations, and so changes the priorities for New Page Patrol. The third is that I think that the views of the community have changed, so that the community now mostly agrees with me that quality control is even more important than continued expansion of the encyclopedia. We need more Class C articles more than we need more new stubs.

My focus as an editor has been on the maintenance and improvement of the quality of the encyclopedia. As an administrator, my focus will continue to be on the maintenance and improvement of the quality of the encyclopedia, and I hope that I can further improve the encyclopedia by wise use of the administrative tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. I will work with other administrators to enforce the rules that editing for pay must be disclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to offer some comments about incivility. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I have written an essay about different types of incivility, at User:Robert McClenon/Incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes. I am not arguing with myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. See above statement.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Much of my work in Wikipedia has been in the three areas of dispute resolution, the draft review process. and the deletion discussion process. Being given access to the administrative tools would enable me to do those jobs better, and to do work in those areas that is beyond what I am now doing. In particular, first, as an administrator, I will be able to view deleted articles, and so be better able to decide whether a draft being reviewed is an improvement over a deleted article. I would also like to close discussions at Miscellany for Deletion and at Deletion Review. I have not been closing deletion discussions because I have seen that there is a bias for non-admin closers because they do not have the ability to delete pages.
As an admin, I will also review speedy deletion nominations, especially G6 technical requests and G11 spam.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Some of my best work in Wikipedia has been mediating content disputes at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have learned usually to begin a content dispute resolution by reminding the editors that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, and then asking them what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to change (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change).
Another area in which I have made contributions to Wikipedia is in Articles for Creation review. I have focused on drafts whose titles already exist in article space. Sometimes their titles require disambiguation, and I have become very familiar with disambiguation. I also have a great deal of experience in dealing with drafts whose titles are redirects. Admin status would give me the ability to delete blocking redirects rather than tagging them or moving them.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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: Much of my work in Wikipedia has been in trying to reduce conflict. One of the most stressful episodes in my history in Wikipedia was my second RFA in September 2017. It was difficult because some editors began taking issue with my whole record of contribution to the encyclopedia. I dealt with that stress in what I thought was the only reasonable way, which was to withdraw my RFA but continue editing, and to learn to be more patient in nominating new pages for deletion. Shortly after that, the flow of bad new articles was reduced by limiting new article creation to confirmed editors. Other than that, most of my involvement in conflicts has been trying to resolve conflicts, either at DRN or at WP:ANI.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Thryduulf

4. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: One of the reasons is that I had not been in discussion with anyone recently about nominating me for RFA, and I did not want to self-nominate for RFA, because I have seen that does not usually go well. Also, I have come to think of the RFA process as a broken process. A few years ago, it was broken because it was toxic. Now it is broken because it is being abandoned, which shows that a new process should at least be tried. When the plans for administrator election began to develop, I thought it might be less stressful and more helpful to take part in the first test of the new process. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: - Two areas that I am aware of that I do not plan to participate in are categories and history merges. I am aware that categories are complex, and I know that other editors and administrators are more familiar with them. If I decided to work in that area, I would participate in CFD discussions before trying to close any CFD discussions. I am aware that some administrators are very good with history merges. I see no need for every administrator to be able to handle every complex administrative duty. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Aaron Liu

6. Thanks for signing up for the trial. A major concern last time was your use of PRODs and CSDs. If elected administrator, would you continue using the PROD process, or would you delete articles you would've PRODded outright?
A: - I have used PROD 8 times in 2023 and once in 2024. I used PROD more extensively when I was doing New Page Patrol before autoconfirmation was required to create new articles, and there was an excessive amount of crud coming in. I have not done New Page Patrol recently, and the quality of the input has improved. Since PROD is meant to identify non-contentious deletions, as administrator, if I think that a PROD is appropriate, I will still use PROD so as to allow seven days for other editors to object. As an administrator, I do not plan to delete any pages with content outright, because a second set of eyes and a second brain are helpful. What I am ready to delete outright as an admin is blocking redirects, in order to make room to move drafts to article space, but then only if the redirect does not have significant history. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

7. What are your views on non-admin arbitrators?
A: - The English Wikipedia has not had any arbitrators who were not already administrators when they were elected, but the requirements for arbitrators do not require previous service as administrators. I think that it would be good for the community to elect one or two non-administrators to the ArbCom, to have a somewhat different perspective, in particular in cases of administrator abuse. I recognize that a non-admin elected as an arbitrator would then have all of the rights and privileges of an admin who had been conventionally selected. However, I think that having one or two arbitrators who had not previously been administrators would provide a somewhat different view on administrator abuse, and some editors might have more trust that the arbitrators were not protecting rogue admins. (I am not saying that there are rogue admins, but I am saying that a few users think that there are rogue admins.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Just Step Sideways

8. Kind of dovetailing with the above,observers of arbitration committee proceedings will have noticed that nearly every single case request features a statement from you, regardless of whether you have any involvement or any prior knowledge of the subject of the request, unfailingly formatted as Statement by Robert McClenon (<subject of request>) in apparent anticipation of addding a statement to whatever other matter may come before the committee while the current request is pending. This, to my mind anyway, suggests that you see yourself as a sort of "shadow arb" even adding statements to requests that are clearly without merit or those where a decision among arbs to accept or decline is already manifest and just waiting out the clock. I guess what I'm asking is: Do you think your commentary at case request is so vital that you must make it every time regardless of the factors I have mentioned? Also, presuming you are elected as an admin, do you anticipate running for the committee again in this year's election, or will you be focusing on adjusting to your new role as an admin?
A:8a. I will answer this question within 24 hours. ::I think that this question is about why I almost always provide a statement on every Request for Arbitration. The answer is that I don't really have a specific answer. I think that ArbCom should take more cases than it does, because I think that editors with User:Robert McClenon/Long Block Logs often divide the community, and ArbCom should consider whether they are net negatives. However, I don't have a specific reason.
The reason why I put a descriptor after the case name is a habit both from times that there have been have been two open RFARs, and from DRN. If two level 3 or level 4 headings have the same heading, trying to click on one of them from a table of contents sometimes gets the other one, and other minor odd things happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8b. If elected as an admin, I do not plan to run for the Arbitration Committee at the end of 2024. I will be busy learning how to be an effective administrator, in particular as an AFC reviewer, and as a closer of MFDs and DRVs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Carrite

9. This is a bit of ancient history and I am asking this to see if your thinking has evolved over the past decade. On July 17, 2013 you opined on Wiki: "Mine may be a minority opinion, and I haven't visited Wikipediocracy and don't think that I want to do so. However, I think that, unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy is not meant well and is not meant to be humorous, but is either malicious, or, at best, has only the excuse of middle-school humor. My own opinion is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy that refers to a specific Wikipedian should be blocked, and should then explain that he wasn't outing anyone. I told you it was a minority opinion." -- Have you over the subsequent decade ever visited Wikipediocracy? If so, has you view of that site changed in any way? Do you still feel that an instablock is merited for any Wikipedian posting a link to a thread with a named Wikipedian on that site? Thanks! --Tim //// Carrite (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC) //// Randy from Boise on WPO.[reply]
A: - I have not visited WPO and do not plan to visit it. However, I have come to the conclusion that posting a link to WPO should be dealt with by an admin on a case-by-case basis, and as an admin I will leave that decision to other admins. One conclusion from the current RFAR about WPO is that some WPO discussions are innocuous or may even be constructive to Wikipedia, and that some WPO discussions are toxic, and that incivility on Wikipedia about WPO is an immediate concern. So I am revising my position. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from North8000

10. What are your views on inclusionist and exclusionist type priorities/leanings? North8000 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

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

As someone whose ideology aligns with inclusionism a bit more, I find the remarks that appear to imply stubs should not be allowed into Wikipedia concerning and don't really see what the candidate means by the quality control attitude changing. (There is AfC now, yes, but I don't think the part about stubs is a prevailing viewpoint, especially when a lot more new articles are starts and not stubs.) However, I'm sure many can attest to Robert's calm demeanor—in moderating (DRN) or commenting elsewhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I said that we need more new Class C articles more than we need more new stubs. I didn't mean that stubs should be discouraged, and I can see how you might have reasonably interpreted my statement in a way other than what I meant. I have accepted stubs at AFC, in particular when there was a good case for notability and a possibility of expansion of the stub, such as biological species or medieval bishops. I meant that the acceptance of Class C articles or expansion of stubs and starts to Class C should be a priority. I hope that this clarifies the matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that the quality control attitude of the community had changed, I meant that I see more emphasis on quality of articles and less on quantity. I perceive less "radical inclusionism" than a decade ago. An example of the change has to do with sports notability, where professional athletes are now required to meet general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Interviews also makes me concerned about AfdBefore and engagement in discussion (the latter only mildly, since I've seen Robert conduct well within discussions). Hopefully such examples of deletion will not be a focus. afdstats shows ~69% match, though nearly all of those have Robert as nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that I thought that the article was too incomplete to be in article space, and I requested that it be draftified, not deleted. The article was kept, which was a good Heymann result. I think that my nomination was useful because it caused the improvement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly appreciate your clarification on C-class articles above, but this comment concerns me a bit. AfD is for assessing the notability of articles, and 1. using it purely to attract Heymanns is a somewhat radical idea I'm not sure how to feel about 2. the same person expanded the article before and after the nomination. I think what should've been done instead here is a bold move of the article to draftspace. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Aaron Liu - Cyclone Yoris had already boldly moved the article to draft space on 21 July 2024. GimmeChoco44 had contested the draftification by moving the page back to article space. Another bold move would have been move warring. The way to resolve a contested draftification is by sending it to AFD. In this case, when I nominated it for AFD, I did not request its deletion, because I stated Draftify as nominator. A bold move to draft space had already been attempted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. That is an interesting scenario... Aaron Liu (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The advice of WP:Drafts seems to be to leave it in place as constructive edits are underway. (Also note that the new user interpreted the rationale of no sources as a request to add a bunch of primary sources. I think a clarification could've been raised to the user first.) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interesting scenario is a contested draftification, which is not a rare scenario for New Page Patrol. If a page has been boldly draftified once, and moved back to article space, that is a contested draftification. Moving it to draft space a second time is not permitted, and would be move warring. A consensus process is needed in this situation,and the consensus process is AFD. In the case in point, I !voted for draftification (again) rather than for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD record: 74.30% match rate, n of 420. 26 keep !votes to 374 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: many of the mismatches are because he frequently votes for draftification and the article is kept; some pretty strange ones like this one [1] that don't show any evidence for deletion, just gives a condition for WP:HEY, which isn't really how AfD is supposed to work; here [2] is another example of that, which leaves all the other voters somewhat confused. Here [3] is another strange one, where Robert McClenon votes delete explicitly without checking for sources, because In my opinion, the burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators. Article authors should wait until the sources exist before moving the article into article space in the expectation that there will be reviews. A film article with no reviews is a film article that should have stayed in draft space or user space until the reviews were published. -- asilvering (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment: At that point I had to stop, since I wasn't going to be able to maintain a tone worthy of a section I intended to keep only "mildly subjective". I am really concerned about these results. A common refrain at AfD is that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, but that's more or less explicitly what Robert McClenon's intent is in these examples. In the third, his was the sole !delete vote remaining, preventing the nomination from being withdrawn. (This is not a case of someone not noticing the later comments.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon keeps a XfD log: User:Robert McClenon/XfD log, which I found useful. Ca talk to me! 10:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That quote has tempted me to support. I for one am glad that someone is taking crappy content to task instead of the hand-wringing we often see at AfD about maybe there could be sources some day. If you haven't already found the sources, the article shouldn't have existed in the first place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found that Robert converses in a very methodical, steady manner. This works well within the rules-based format of DRN, but in the fluctuating scenarios outside where an admin is likely to find themselves, perhaps it could come across as indifferent and detached? Robert, do you see your communication style as different to others, and if yes, what can be the consequences? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that I try to keep my communication even and objective, because I remember that Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and that the objective is the maintenance and improvement of the encyclopedia. Studies of electronic communication as long ago as 1985 have stressed both the immediacy and the permanence of electronic communication, which mean that one should avoid being harsh or insulting. I think that staying even and objective is especially important in the "fluctuating scenarios" at WP:ANI, where someone needs to be a voice of reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An appropriately logical and precise response. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with AJ29. I am often impressed by his uninvolved and down-to-ground comments on WP:arbcom cases and dramathreads. I do find the issue of hasty and poor use of speedy deletions raised in the 2017 RfA concerning, but I trust his promise he will be "patient in nominating new pages for deletion". The AfD Asilvering linked however, is concerning. "Burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators" is out of community norms, and wp:before is a de-facto guideline. As an AfC reviewer, I also find his pagemove/disambiguation-related comments on AfC very helpful. Ca talk to me! 10:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I agree about the pagemove/disambiguation-related comments on AfC, though I don't disagree so strongly that I've bothered to bring it up before. As a reviewer, I don't feel much about them either way, but I have come across some newbies who found them confusing and/or off-putting, and if you were to ask me what I thought newbies would probably think of them, it would also be "confusing and/or off-putting". No examples come to me off-hand, and again, I've never considered this important enough to say anything about before (it just would feel strange not to mention it now that someone has brought it up). -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, Before is not a guideline‽ Aaron Liu (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that I have not had activity in the Good Article and Featured Article processes. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon is I will be busy learning how to be an effective administrator, in particular as an AFC reviewer a typo? I'm sure you know that you can be an Articles for Creation reviewer without being an admin. Toadspike [Talk] 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Toadspike, fyi, I applied for New Page Patrol training after my run for admin. It helped. It validated and filled in gaps. When I see a human pursuing continuing education, I see a GOOD thing. There are so many kinds of admin tasks (some technological, some behavioral), even for a well-seasoned contributor like this candidate. It's not just that the candidate is experienced; in my eyes the candidate has over his wikicareer demonstrated consistent and reliable behavior. I am comfortable trusting such volunteers with more responsibility. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understood my comment – Robert McClenon has already participated in over 10,000 AfC reviews [4]. I am hoping that Robert can clarify how becoming an administrator would affect his AfC reviewing (or vice versa), since these two roles should be unrelated. Toadspike [Talk] 16:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few people have complimented Robert's hyperlogical tone. That is strange. Something about the tone has always felt artificial and difficult to understand (Personal attack removed). Had he not had this communication style for many years, I'd perhaps have suspected him of writing his comments with gen-AI. An underlying problem is that he's often commenting pointlessly on things, such as every arbitration case request (see above from Just Step Sideways). While it might not be true in every case, many of his noticeboard and arbitration contributions, while not being necessarily incorrect, also aren't… correct. They don't advance the discussion or help anybody. The problem probably lies in the tone, which entails talking about the things which Robert wants to talk about, including things that do not matter. I am left with the overall impression that at best, he would be a 'filler' administrator, able to deal competently with basic tasks. At worst, he will bite off more than he can chew. His preferred administrative area is intervening in interpersonal disputes. That requires tact and emotional intelligence beyond what comes through in Robert's writing. Without meaning to be unkind to him, and I hope that this does not discourage him from participating in other ways to Wikipedia, I do not think that Robert would make a good administrator. Electing him would be a mistake. (A separate, extremely serious concern is that Robert has studiously and flagrantly ignored the more difficult of a pair of questions. I have seen him doing this before in elections.) Arcticocean 17:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People on the autism spectrum are often described as having "artificial" writing or speech style. I don't know whether that applies to Robert, and frankly, I don't see it as relevant. Being "hyperlogical" might be a hindrance to working as a marriage counsellor, but I see it as a boon for most admin work. Emotional intelligence can be useful when moderating disputes, but Robert's success comes from his rare ability to cut through the emotional noise, and adjudicate based on facts and policy. That is not a handicap. And if he said he'll answer Q8 within 24 hours, rest assured he will answer it within 24 hours. Owen× ☎ 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the best of my knowledge, I am neurotypical. I write in the way that I write because of several historical factors:
    • 1. 45 years employed in information technology (largely before it was called information technology), dealing with equipment that is entirely logical, although it is sometimes personified, and in recent years simulates humans.
    • 2. 39 years using electronic communication media, and following the advice that was given in the 1985 Rand Shapiro report, to be aware of both the immediacy and the permanence of electronic mail and electronic media. This means being aware that there are unseen humans on the other end of what one is writing.
    • 3. More than a decade experience in Wikipedia, seeing that some of the names and pseudonyms belong to humans who have feelings that may be easily hurt.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • From his use of indentation, it appears that 8A was the unsigned holding answer and 8B was the substantive answer. If there was to be an 8C which answers the unanswered question, that's fine and it addresses my parenthetical comment. I see from the history that he did post both answers at once, but I shouldn't really have to look so far to divine his meaning. As someone said above, another fault of Robert's is being prone to "basic errors of fact". I'd term that broader: he's a little prone to "basic errors", the unclear holding answer to question 8 being another such error… Arcticocean 20:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a DRV regular, I have had a fair bit of exposure to Robert's contributions there. Are they slightly unusually-worded? Yes. Are they normally somewhere about the mark in terms of policy and/or 'finding the best outcome'? Also yes. No one is perfect and he as well as everyone else has sometimes ended up sharing an opinion that isn't reflected by the end consensus, but this is hardly unique to Robert. I hear what Arcticocean is saying above, but don't see it as quite as serious an issue as they do. I'm sure that if Robert takes wading into interpersonal disputes slowly, he will be an excellent administrator. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that my focus as an administrator would be on interpersonal disputes, and I would not plan to focus on them. I said that I would close MFD and DRV discussions, and that I would delete blocking redirects for the acceptance of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that my experience in dispute resolution, which has to do with content disputes at DRN, is to avoid any interpersonal matters, and focusing on content. "Discuss content, not contributors." Wikipedia has always separated content disputes from conduct disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedies

Extended content

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of those he removed himself. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Robert_McClenon&oldid=1253247498"