Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre

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

Withdrawn, thank you very much for your contributions; I at least wanted to let it go a few days, even after it became clear it would not succeed, in order to get input on my performance. Your comments have been very helpful, and I ohpe to better my experience. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre

[edit]

Final: (8/18/9) at 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate.

Nomination

[edit]

Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) – This is admittedly a self-nomination, and I very much prefer the idea of nomination by a known and respected community member, but I believe I am ready for the task at hand. I have over 5,300 edits and over a year's worth of experience, and my name has been languishing at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching for over six months. I have significant experience in vandalism patrol, deletion discussions, move discussions, administrator noticeboard discussion, and WP:BACKLOG tasks (the kind no one wants to do like like clearing out misapplied files on Category:Author died more than 50 years ago public domain images or WP:SCV). Just as importantly, I have made a significant effort to contribute to the encyclopedia (elaborated below).

I place my own nomination here for no reason other than that I wish to make Wikipedia the best it can possibly be. I have no point of view to push, no chip on my shoulder. I understand that administratorship is not an elevated status, nor should it be. I wish only to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (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: Vandalism patrol and blockage, WP:BACKLOG work such as image deletions, copyright violations, speedy deletions, and hopefully in the future work on much neglected pages like WP:SSP.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have already listed my work on not-noticed things like incorrectly labeled and potentially non-free images. I also have a nice list of pages I've created which I have listed on my userpage. But even more important, I find the anti-vandalism work I do to be gravely important. Those of us who edit here frequently in the Wiki bubble often go by the mantra, "better one editor gained than a thousand vandals stopped" - but we fail to realize how gravely Wikipedia's reputation has been harmed by vandalism, poor writing and original research (e.g., List of episodes of X program mostly watched by 10-year-olds), and false information put out by Point-of-View-pushers. Much of academia (unwisely, IMO) prohibits the use of this encyclopedia for exactly this reason.
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: Of course I've been in disagreements. The most recent one is documented at User_talk:Prodego; another is the Hayley Williams discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15. The most important thing is to remember to keep a cool head, abide by process and consensus, and that, well, Wikipedia isn't the UN security council - it's not the end of the world if the page on the latest Palestinian/Israeli conflict is slightly biased in the wrong direction. In general, I try to handle the conflicts the same way as if the person were right in front of me - politely, with a view toward the outcome, but also the negative consequences of fighting.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. Since you want to work in image deletion, can you please find 3 images that are tagged for deletion that should not be deleted, or could have something done to avoid deletion and explain what has to be done instead?
A:
  1. File:Ascea-Stemma.gif is a valid fair-use image, should a rationale be provided and it be placed on Ascea.
  2. File:The CW.svg is a valid image. Even if it is decided it is non-free - which it should be, IMO - then fair use is applicable.
  3. File:AccuWeather Channel Logo.jpg - this is cheating a little, as someone already put the FUR back on the image, but it is a valid concept.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
5. On the candidates for speedy deletion an admin comes across a page on a company that is tagged with CSD G12, what should they co?
A: A notation to the creator of the page is very important. However, unambiguously copyrighted material is g12 for a good reason - it is copyrighted, and we can't reproduce it. A notation to the creator of the page explaining the process for releasing copyrighted materials (e.g., email to OTRS) may be in order; however, most g12 material for a company is g11 quality as well. Fortunately, a good deal of this is included in the g12 template placed on the user's talk page.
5a. What sort of checks should be performed, and what kind of administrator only actions could be done?
A: I would always check the source page listed under the "g12" - and make sure that said page isn't licensed as public domain or CC. And a google hunt is always helpful, as is making sure that the creator is warned.

Additional policy related questions from ArcAngel

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: In short, blocking is the means, and a ban is the formal process. Blocks are often placed without an official ban (e.g., a one-time vandal is blocked for 24 hours, but there is no permanent ban on said individual if they come back under another name and edit ok later). Site bans are really never placed for anything other than a very long time (e.g., one year on an arbcom case).
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Trick question. Never, because they only inflame the situation.
8. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: POV-pushing, personal attacks, 3RR, etc. Anything that is not obvious vandalism. And I would leave a note and have it up for a while before removing.
9. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: WP:IAR - i.e., an admin should be able to do whatever s/he wants (just kidding!). Wikipedia:Administrators says it all, everything from no big deal (the idea that admins are the same as everyone else) and yet be careful (the fact that there comes an extra set of tools which do in fact carry weight with them) and the avoidance of wheel warring.
Additional optional questions from FASTILY
10. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist?
A: Perhaps only in the rarest of circumstances: i.e., someone is in jail in a dark Siberian prison, or a band that is broken up never to reunite. But I believe our benevolent founder has properly said that not using fair use images encourages the creation of free ones and helps Wikipedia be more free.
11. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{pd-self}} (public domain). What is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
A: It is a derivative work.
12. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.
A: No, US fair use policy dictates that someone may own the full copyright of a work which makes reference to something, and illustrate that something via fair use. Thus the New York Post owns the full work of a magazine; if the magazine is pilfered, the creator of the fair use image does not normally have rights to sue for the pilfering, only the Post would. Wikipedia's work is fully free, even if it uses non-free images to reference those things. Point #2 in the above essay spells out Fair Use policy.


General comments

[edit]

Deleted contribs back till April show a history of correct tagging with CSD for G12 A7 G4 A7 F5, history merge needed, image tagging with no source, or moved to commons. There are a couple of correct prods and AfD noms too. I can see no problem in this time. For example there seems to be nothing that this user did that needed cleaning up by someone else. The worst ocase I saw was a talk page created in error, blanked and delete requested, and that was no bad. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. My second beat the nom support of recent memory per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate was trusted enough to have rollback, is educated enough to have received a higher education degree that is in computer science which is always beneficial when moderating a website, is an article creator, and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are aware that this is a self-nom, and you didn't beat the nom? America69 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deleted contributions look OK to me. Also I'm glad to see your clean block record, and civil talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Admins do not need to be content creators. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Appears to know what they are doing with regards to CSD tagging and so on. No reason to suspect they would misuse the tools. Shereth 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Magog clearly understands what he is doing, as evidenced by his thoughtful answers, and solid contribution history. He hasn't been around for a while, but tenure is no substitute for competence. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support competent. Icewedge (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I see no issues. Audited content creation does not indicate suitability for adminship, and neither does the lack thereof imply lack of suitability. — neuro(talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Civilized and a good vandal fighter. This is defiantly not a not-now case since you've been editing for a while now. Good luck. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Only three mainspace to which you've made more than nine edits, and all but two of the articles on the "created pages" list on your userpage appear to be unsourced biographies of living people. Quite aside from the issues I have with a potential admin who doesn't see the problem with unsourced BLPs, I'm reluctant to give someone with virtually no apparent content experience deletion powers. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. The pages do have some sourcing, but imdb and an official site are not sufficient. I'll work on that more as we come, though I trust you'll (fairly) find this too little too late. Also, I do know the frustration of being reverted - you just might not see it, because I've turn around and learn my lesson. I've avoided edit conflicts like the plague. But it's happened to me, and yes it's driven me nuts. I might understand the flash of cold adrenaline and frustration better than you think is all I'm saying. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't feel you are ready yet. @harej 01:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per comments left on talk page of user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mild oppose. The only reason I'm opposing is because I don't feel like you've experienced Wikipedia yet enough to understand all the complex issues that arise. I congratulate you on your vandal-swatting, image licensing awareness, and help desk activity, all of which speak loudly, but as Iridescent stated, you haven't contributed very much to the article namespace. I do hope that you become more involved with direct editing to the articles and come back in a year or so. I would not be surprised if your new-ness is what's keeping you from administrator training adoption as well. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I don't think you have the experience working in mainspace (as others have stated here). I suggest continuing to work as you have been for several more months, then come back and try again. If there are no issues then, I would likely support at that time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per the BLP problems. I don't think that you have sufficient article writing experience. PmlineditorTalk 07:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mild oppose. Work on images, vandalism; etc, certainly add value to your RfA: well done. However, too little experience of mainspace editing. BLP articles created are mostly stubs without Notes or References sections (except for maybe an imdb entry in external links) and though only three had been templated for single source, notability or additional citations, these templates remain after several months. Don't be disheartened: work on it and try again later or have a look at Commons admin, maybe? Esowteric+Talk 09:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Not enough constructive edits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, would like to see a bit of additional experience in more varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per the lack of experience noted above. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Regretful Oppose As stated above, you need a little more content contribution. Sorry.--LAAFansign review 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per LAAFan.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Very weak oppose based on dearth of content contributions. Sometimes we have admins who work only in the janitorial areas, but your experience with policy is not enough for me to support without article writing. Sorry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I have to agree with everyone above-I don't think you have enough experience to become an administrator yet. Please don't be disheartened; I'm sure you'll do better in a couple months! Airplaneman talk 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and should work. Prodego talk 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Needs more experience before having administrator tools. Drawn Some (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This candidacy seems to me to be premature: Magog doesn't yet have the experience needed to be an administrator. More as a remark than as a criticism or as a rationale for this oppose !vote: the answer the question 6 is a tad wide of the mark; banning isn't "the" process for blocking somebody (although it does admittedly, in most cases, lead to a block), primarily because not all blocks are applied as the result of a banning discussion. If you get substantially more experience, especially in interacting with other editors and in working in the mainspace, then I'm sure you'll have a good chance of passing a future RfA. AGK 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose User has the tenure; however, needs more experience, as noted by Iridescent and others. Q6 is also a bit off, I'd suggest another reading of WP:BAN. GlassCobra 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Pending answers to questions and admin report on CSD work since that was an area candidate stated they would work. ArcAngel (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Though CSD work is fine, Q7 was not a trick question. I see enough that I cannot oppose, but I cannot support at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not disagreeing with your decision, but it kind of is a trick question. After all, the unstated premise of "cooldown blocks are valid" is, itself, invalid. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I'm not entirely sure you are ready yet, but I'm going to think up a couple questions for you and come back.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I'm going to go with ArcAngel on this; I'm seeing a good candidate, but I want to take some more time to look into it. I see no overt evidence of shenanigans, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - More article work is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreeing with Iridescent, but also agreeing with Shereth. More content work and overall experience is needed, but I have no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I don't know if I can judge from the candidate's content whether or not I can trust him with the tools. I could be swayed to support, however. hmwith☮ 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - question 2 Much of academia (unwisely, IMO) prohibits the use of this encyclopedia for exactly this reason. Come off it, even Wikipedia tells people not to use wikipedia as a source. You read the articles, you follow back to the reliable verifiable sources and use those instead. I'll probably move to support in a few days. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I'm inclined to support but the issues about policy experience seem to be reasonable. I'll wait until he's done answering the questions to make a decision. Likeminas (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: Per the concerns above.. South Bay (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2009 (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/Magog_the_Ogre&oldid=1142574662"