Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graeme Bartlett

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


Graeme Bartlett

[edit]

Final (93/3/0); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) – I'm proud to nominate Graeme for adminship. This editor joined Wikipedia in 2004 and has been regularly editing since the beginning of 2006. I first encountered Graeme while he was tirelessly working through the huge backlogs that had accumulated in Wikipedia:Articles for creation a couple of years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-08-27 for a typical example of a day's submissions; there was no glory in reviewing these requests, only the small satisfaction in adding a few potential articles to the encyclopedia. Graeme is a worker bee, editing behind the scenes at the less-than-popular tasks. For this reason you may not even have noticed him.

Apart from WP:WPAFC, this editor's interests are spread far and wide. He helped to found WikiProject Friesland in 2007 and has translated a large number of articles from the Dutch Wikipedia. He often responds to questions at the Science reference desk and regularly participates in discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. He also has a number of other Wiki-interests - more information can be found on his user page.

To conclude, Graeme Bartlett is a long-standing, experienced, reliable and hard-working editor who would make an excellent addition to the janitors here. He avoids all forms of drama and is only here to improve the encyclopedia. I commend him to the community. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you for nominating me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 25 April 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: I intend to explore many or all of the different kinds of tasks that require the admin mop. I have checked out the different kinds of backlogs, and I would pay attention to the ones that could provide the most benefit. One area is WP:AIAV that is disappointing to see entries sitting around for a while. Another area could be closing XfD discussions. Recently I have been participating in WP:MFD discussions, occasionally doing a keep close. However I do intend looking at all the other places where admin work is needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Overall would be my work on WP:Articles for Creation. In the project space my work has been on setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Friesland and tagging, editing and creating its articles, but my biggest article contributions have been Geology of the Iberian Peninsula, Geology of Tasmania, Geology of the Australian Capital Territory. The reason is that the articles are covering areas that were largely missing from Wikipedia, and go into a fair amount of detail.
My user page summarizes my work more, with subpages for User:Graeme Bartlett/Geology pages and User:Graeme Bartlett/Frisian pages.
My work has not been on the good article or featured article aspect of the project, but at the lower quality scale end, transition pages from nothing to existence. My writing is not upto the quality standard of a featured article. So instead I work to get many articles to start class, and work to get them towards B class standard.


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 have had only minor content disputes. One example is with User:rebecca who on several occasions removed my content from Canberra suburb pages. We largely debated this in edit summaries, and in the end my content is still there, but improved. I have also had some minor disruption from vandals. The first time a vandal put profanity on my talk page, I was a bit upset, but I got over it quickly. I do not keep any anger for long and never respond in a rude way. In all these cases I keep calm. If a response is warranted from me it will be in a non emotional form, in some cases using assume good faith. With new people at WP:AFC I try to be patient and encourage them to contribute in a constructive way.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) 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.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A- Warn first. A second step would be to block the sock puppets. If the user responded well to the warning, admitting the problem and promising to not repeat the error, then that may be the limit of what has to happen. I would ask the user to admit to all the sockpuppets they operated, and to restore damage that they caused. If the user was non cooperative then a checkuser would certainly have to happen, followed up by a block of the main user, and an investigation and restoration of the damage caused. But in the case of this question it sounds as if a checkuser has already confirmed the sockpuppet situation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations could be used to announce a problem.


4.1 Could you explain why you would prefer to warn the user as opposed to going to WP:RFCU/ e-mailing arbcom or a checkuser? Icestorm815 • Talk
A-The reason that I would warn as the first step is that we are trying to retain a useful editor. If their behavior can be restored to good, then we have the best outcome. A referral to arbcom would only be in order if other avenues for sorting out the problem failed.
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-In this case I would respect the other admin's action, however I may request that the blocked editors can edit their own talk pages so that the problem can be discussed. It is likely that the block would have been for a limited period, and that the users would come back with problematic behaviour, so it could be worth attempting mediating a compromise. Any normal user can mediate, it does not have to be an administrator. I would not use IRC, and only use email in special circumstances. It is better for what I do to be visible to other Wikipedians.
The user that is prepared to talk would be the lead to establishing a working compromise. If they could be convinced to provide a new wording that takes into account the other party's point of view, then we may have a way forward and out of the edit war. WP:RfAR could be used if the blocks did not solve the problem.
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-This one needs more thought from me. There are some lists of things in the special section that are really out of date. Either keep it up to date, or not list. Other areas would be relate to the projects I am working on particularly the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles needs more lists of missing articles.
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- Firstly I would read the blocking policy carefully, but prior to reading, registered users that are only used for vandalism, disruption, copyright violation or libel that have been warned adequately, and then continue their disruption are times when users should be blocked.
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- The case will depend more on the quality of arguments. In the case of sockpuppets it is very unlikely that they will be presenting different persuasive arguments, and a mere keep vote with no explanation will not count for much. If the puppet presents a convincing case to keep an article then it is fair enough to close as keep, however I would confirm that the argument was in fact valid. The debate is about the article rather than the puppet, even though the puppet is attempting to abuse the process. If in doubt I would keep an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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- For RfDs and CfDs one unopposed vote to delete will count. For AfDs I would like to see at least 2 votes to delete before a delete decision. What counts is that there is a consensus, so one or two votes could hardly be counted as a consensus.
9.1 Could you please clarify your statement? At first you say you'd like to see at least two votes to delete, but then you say you consider two votes not being consensus. Icestorm815 • Talk
A-This indicates an area that I need to study more before closing cases that I am not sure about. I am not going to jump in and do things that I don't know whether it is the right or wrong action to take. My actions first would be to read the policy carefully and study examples of other administrators closing debates with limited votes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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- In this case I would step away from the stressful situations. I may take a couple of days' break from Wikipedia if my life was affected. The way I respond is intended to not inflame a situation. In real life I can work with many difficult people that others cannot cope with, and I should be able to that here too.
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A Over the years I did not have a great desire to be an administrator. However there have been times when helping out people at WP:AFC that there has to be a complex page move, or deal with an edit protected article, or where it would be best to speedy delete on sight. The basic reason is to help people build a better encyclopedia.
12.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A- Articles that are vandalism, libel, copyright violations can be deleted immediately. But just because there are no sources is not a reason to speedy delete. My opinion on verifiability means that it can be verified, not the same as that is is actually verified from a published source. It is better to do the search before a speedy delete, as the article may still be under construction.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

13a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I would not honour a speedy deletion request immediately, but wait for up to a day, even if Wikipedia:Deletion of pages under construction recommends a week. I would check if it was a new user, and not frighten them off so early. Really this tag should not be used for an article that is less than a stub. If the topic impressed me at all (with notability) I may insert one sentence to make it into a stub.
13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: If the context was unclear this may be deleted as a blank article, but I would talk to the editor who planned to created the content about why. They would not have lost anything by deleting a blank entry, except the name, which would then appear on their talk page.
13c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".
A: Any of these statements could be removed if contentious. Some of these statements will very likely be vandalism, and I would remove myself when I saw them unsourced. Others may be unsurprising and non-controversial, others may be a libel. You must have looked at my edit history in the last day, because I did remove "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate" which had no reference. see [1] and [2]
13d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD#A7, would it be proper to speedy delete it?
A: If all the statement were negative, then yes the article should be deleted using G10 as the speedy reason.. However as an editor I may choose to find a suitable reference for a statement of notability, and add that in. If there were notability claims made in an earlier version, but they were unsourced, then a prod would be a better option to get an improvement.
13e. Given a choice, should Wikipedia(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?
A: I think most newbies will only contribute a small amount, and that a proven long term contributor has a much bigger likely future output. But I don't think that every wikipedian should be doing the same thing, some should be welcoming new users and showing them what to do, others should be motivating and assisting the productive long term users. Certainly in the past much of my effort has gone into helping new editors, but that is because the old editors need less help.
Optional questions from Cunard
14a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Would you speedy delete Industrial and Financial Systems (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?
A: No I would not speedy delete that one. The only possible one I could see was copyright infringement, but I cannot find that this is so. A7 does not apply as it is a big company, so it claims notability. There is a problem with the article that there is a lack of references to prove notability or confirm the facts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard: what happened to Question 14? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I titled it wrong. I've fixed the numbering now. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14b. Long Island Ping Pong League is a hoax and the article is at AfD (in this revision). A user tags the article as blatant vandalism. Should you speedy delete the article under {{db-vandalism}}?
A: No, because the article is not vandalism, it looks like an article. I would remove the speedy delete tag. The AfD debate should confirm if it is a hoax or not before being speedy deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11.)
A: No, I cannot find one that applies. Speedy would be rejected by me. It is not nonsense - G1, A7 does not apply as it is not a person, organisation or web site. G11 does not apply as it is not an advertisement - there is no promotional language. However, it makes no claim to notability, and has no independent references, so it is a candidate for improvement. It would not be accepted at WP:AFC by the way! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14d. Does Journal of Germanic Mythology and Folklore meet any of the CSD criteria?
A: No, it is close to A7 but is not really in the class of web content as it claims to be a Journal. It would need to be a prod or AfD if someone wanted to propose to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
— neuro(talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I too would appreciate some expansion on your answer to question four. I think the situation may be more complex than just a two word answer and explanation would help. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 03:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support - Seen the editor around, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Policy knowledge seems sound. — neuro(talk) 22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Looks like exactly the right kind of guy for the job. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Sure. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No reason not to. Will make a good admin. That RFA candidate void didn't last long. :) Timmeh! 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Of course. -download | sign! 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a strong, longstanding editor.— Oli OR Pyfan! 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support After a quick check of your past contributions, you seem to be a civil user who is knowledgeable on policy and could get good use out of the bit. I see plenty of reasons to support you here. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Master&Expert hereby endorses Graeme for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--Giants27 T/C 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I know this guy from AfC and he does some brilliant work. Is very suited for the mop. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Overall experience is more than satisfactory. The MfD discussions I sampled showed nuanced thought amd understanding of relevamt policies. Answers to Benon questions range from "OK" to what I wanted/needed to support. Talk page sampling showed a thoughtful, polite, helpful user. Dlohcierekim 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Will make a good addition to the admin team. No objections. tempodivalse [☎] 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Surprised this nominee is not already an admin. — Athaenara ✉ 01:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - looks like a good contributor and would be an asset to the admin group. Camw (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – Never met him/her before, but seems like a good and trustable user. TheAE talk/sign 01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — Jake Wartenberg 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - serious contributor to WP, handles him/herself with dignity, level-headed Hazir (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support An impressive nom and candidate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No reason not to. America69 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Nice job doing that grueling work. User's been here for about three years(editing wise)and have done a lot of hard work with requested articles. But some of your answers to your questions make me question your knowledge of a bunch of policies. But really other than that no reason to oppose. Good luck and cheers(excellent nom) :)-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Neurolysis. GT5162 (我的对话页) 09:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I looked, and I can't find a single reason not to support. I think he'll make fine use of the tools. — Ched :  ?  10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I don't see where he'd need the tools (since Graeme is mainly a content contributor), but for that reason alone I will support. AvN 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Graeme is a great editor who'll use the admin tools responsibly. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Exceeds all standards that I use to form an opinion. His main space plans and accomplishments : simply outstanding (Incidentally, I found my edit research interrupted as I became absorbed in the subject of his writing; Never thought of rocks being so interesting!). Graeme has a demonstrated need (based on his history and Q1) for the 3 basic functions of the Sysop tools. A close look at the diffs finds that his answers to Q1,2,3 are sincere, reflecting his undramatic, helpful, and constructive editing. As an administrator, there is no doubt that he will benefit the encyclopedia to an even higher degree. --Preceding unsigned comment 12:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yep! - Your edits to Australia-related articles are praiseworthy. Good luck, mate! AdjustShift (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hellsyes. Excellent editor. Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Graeme does excellent work at AfC as well as at the drawing board. We can always use another admin who is willing to help new editors. TNXMan 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Little who are more suited to the role.  GARDEN  14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Candidate is an extremely valuable contributor per good article work (including tons of redirect creation), and works well with others while insisting core policies be upheld. Poor judgment (in my opinion) is shown here, but after looking through candidates further deletion review participation (mostly in MfD, I see), I don't see any real systemic issues. There is absolutely nothing I saw that shows any sort of predilection for theatrics or evidence he/she will abuse the tools. Tan | 39 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Another old-timer whose mop is long overdue. -- Vary Talk 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support the fact that Graeme is intending to work on the backlogs is reason enough to support. Also history looks great. Valley2city‽ 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Impressive work at AfC. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak Support weak because on q4 he should block the socks indefinite and then block or warn the main account. — JoJo • Talk • 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I can't ever recall seeing this user before, which means at least the user isn't wrapped up in drama that is ANI/Arbcom/Rfc. I've went over the user's edit history. I've read the user's answers above. There are a couple of answers that are contradictory, as has been pointed out by others but nothing a little tutoring from a current admin won't fix. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards due to no blocks and per good arguments as seen at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SingStar_(PlayStation_2). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Great answers above, I see lots of experience, common sense, and somebody who has their head on straight. Use the mop wisely! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Looks good. Cleared up my concerns with your answer. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Answers, talkpage and contribs check out and your blocklog is clean. Re Q12 I would point out that copyvios don't have to be speedied. An admin or anyone else can rewrite and salvage - or even just stubbify the offending article (hint to potential RFA candidates reading this, stubbifying and detagging copyright violations is one way to show you'd not just be a deletionist at CSD). ϢereSpielChequers 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support All of our interactions have been positive. Graeme has been a great asset at Articles for Creation! Royalbroil 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - the answer to question 4 is a bit weak, but apart from that, there's no obvious problems with this candidate. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I have reviewed the opposers' comments and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yep, most definitely. Great user, does tireless work at WP:AFC. Has my support. Steve Crossin Talk/24 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support Wizardman 04:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Answer to question 4 gave me pause, but then, in retrospect, life is a game in which you constantly learn. While warning them may be the first step, there are others. First of all, the question was vague. If this was a confirmed sockpuppeteer, then they already should have been blocked. If it was a suspicion, I'd send it to a checkuser to confirm and list at WP:SSP. In either case an appropriate warning on the page would certainly be a first step with notification/action based upon results. In short, I don't think it was a realistic question and the answer was incomplete. But so what? Even if a rookie admin doesn't stop abuse on site, it doesn't mean abuse won't be stopped in another admin venue. It certainly doesn't preclude other admins from stopping him. I trust enough that the lesson this question was intended to teach has been clearly shown and the candidate here won't make that mistake in the future. Best of luck! You have my support. — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per experience, hard work, right kind of user for the job, no problems, fully qualified, well answered questions, looking good, extremely qualified, and old-timer long overdue, tireless work, being a good contributor, long overdue, extremely valuable contributions, no reason why not, and having an impressive nomination[citation needed]. Best wishes, welcome to the dark side. Keegantalk 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Most definitely a good candidate. Steven Walling (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I see no problem here. Deb (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support The kind of administrator we need more of; experienced, mature, knowledgeable and respectful. That one of the opposing editors had to go back to 2006 to find an issue worth opposing for is a very good reason for supporting IMHO. The other oppose (to date) is extremely unconvincing to say the least. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) [3]
  53. Support Not sure I've seen you in the field, but the contributions and experience all look fantastic. FlyingToaster 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. In addition, I wouldn't let objections to the Q4 answer bother me too much. It shows the intention to act with an abundance of caution, which is rarely a bad thing. Dekimasuよ! 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Q4 answer bit short but not too bothersome. Excellent RfA candidate. Pmlinediter  Talk 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I agree with Ottava on Q4 - an editor using abusive socks is more likely to have an intractable character problem if he's generally well like. When used by someone who feels rejected its a more understandable reaction which might have easy solutions. Still its generally good to be lenient IMO and other answers plus editing history looks fine . FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, wants to improve the encyclopedia and will use the tools to do so. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Overqualified if anything. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support  Capable and productive editor, will not misuse the tools. --StaniStani  21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. WP:AGF--Caspian blue 22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support The answer to question 4 was a little too weak for my taste but it's nothing worth opposing over as you have a great editing record. ThemFromSpace 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you find it a tad odd how soft he would be on people who appear to have "great editing record" but only because they kept all of their vandalism on a sock puppet account? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Graeme, Your edit history appears responsible over a considerable period of time. I think you'd be trustworthy with the tools. Rosiestep (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Someone willing to put that much time into AfC obviously cares deeply about the project. Should make a good addition to the admin team. CanadianNine 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Looks like a great canidate, no big reason to oppose. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Perfect match Renaissancee (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. support Interesting points made by the opposes but nothing overwhelming. Overall, the candidate looks good. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Absolutely. All is well here. Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Exactly what we need.  Marlith (Talk)  04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support My initial reaction to #4 was that the candidate would open a dialogue first. Although I find the opposes to be valid concerns, I think that opening a dialogue seems a reasonable gut reaction to a problem. Law type! snype? 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support You will definitely become admin because so many people support you PirateSmackK (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Secret account 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Generally good answers to questions, none I found objectionable anyway, and looks like a good edit history. ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Looks trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good contributions. A good knowledge of policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support — Aitias // discussion 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support — I see no reason to believe that Graeme Bartlett isn't ready, User is trusted--Michael (Talk) 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Makes useful contributions and does good work. I cannot see any problems--Kateshortforbob 23:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support unlikely to misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Plus one Keeper | 76 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Detailed, well-written answers for all of my questions (questions 14a-14d). I can find nothing wrong with your answers. I hope to see you at CAT:CSD, since you are an excellent CSD'er. Many admins would have wrongly speedied the articles listed in my questions. Good luck with the tools! Cunard (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. Marek.69 talk 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Answers to questions show that you're cautious and willing to use common sense and learn from experience. I think that that, and a perusal of your contributions, show you can be trusted. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Meets my standards. Good answers. Alio The Fool 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Suppport - meets all of my usual standards - longtime user with rollback rights, useful user page, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Nothing to worry about. — Σxplicit 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, we need more users like Graeme Bartlett. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  88. Support Certainly. No alarms here. --GedUK  14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I see no problems, no reason to think you can't be trusted with the mop. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Good luck Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Seems sound to me, no problems. Seems to know what he's doing and would make appropriate use of the tools. HJMitchell You rang? 18:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indented this vote as you're also Support #50. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  92. Support Seems worthy. The answer to q4 was wanting and the elaboration is a tad confusing but the editor seems to have a feel for nuances so no worries from me. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Looks good. The points brought up in the oppose section aren't really major issues, in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Having looked through his contributions history from 2008, Graeme strikes me as a very consistent editor. Even when he was going slow (July through mid-August) I can tell he put a fair amount of effort into article maintenance, checking AFC, etc. Ottre 22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Answer to number four, "warn them", is unacceptable. If a "liked" member of the community was doing that, then the situation is even worse because the lies and deceit have completely destroyed the community's trust. Simply warning them and not following the proper process only compounds the problem and shows that you can't be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava, I understand your point and I think it's pertinent. But when you say "shows that you can't be trusted," it seems too strong and accusatory. I'd encourage you to rephrase a bit and I would be interested in what you think would be an appropriate way to handle that situation. Is it possible a warning would be enough? It seems to me that we've had scenarios like that and the editors involved have been asked to stop. Maybe a clarification of the one word answer, or the reasoning behind it, is needed from the nom also? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He admits that he wouldn't take the appropriate steps to dealing with a blatantly problematic user. This is 100% unacceptable and such an attitude is held by many problematic admin now. Anyone supporting a candidate who states something as corrupt as that honestly bothers me. This person, in no way, can be trusted. If this individual is passed, then there are no ethical standards at Wikipedia anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not done this question justice as I had to leave for a few hours, perhaps I should have left the answer blank until I answered it more fully! But my first step would be to warn. That would not have been the end of what I would do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a clear and obvious answer, and you stated the exact opposite of it. Your first response is telling of your character as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about assuming some good faith here? The candidate has stated that they didn't do the question justice in the first instance and has now returned and added some clarification in Q4.1. Admittedly a two-word answer didn't help much, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence of twenty-thousand edits over three years which indicates this is a reliable editor over one confused answer above. That doesn't seem reasonable or fair to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm agreeing wholly with Martin here. Ottava, your answer contained a lot of venom and makes a subjective statement ("...is held by many... [an] admin now...") that simply isn't true. I suggest you eat some breakfast in the morning, return with a clear head and return without the bitterness. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, Scarian? I guess you conveniently forgot all of Poetlister's friends and supporters that knew he was socking and said nothing. I don't even have to go into all of the other major sock masters, because that one example is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith? Sure, he wants to destroy the encyclopedia for the right reasons. The answer is 100% unacceptable. Supporting any editor that uses sock puppets to destroy the encyclopedia is a problem and should be blockable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is a powder keg and based on some past events that I'm not fully aware of-- before my time. (Note the abbreviated string of previous users.) It should be regarded as assessing the candidate's political acumen, beyond the basics of blocking/deleting/protecting. There are many approaches, many levels of consideration, and many ways of answering. I may stop using it after this as it is likely to generate an answer for which someone might find a reason to block. It may have outlived its usefulness given the current tenor of RFA. Almost forgot-- it is based on a situation in which following the officially appropriate process would have had grave political consequences for the editor. That would have be the wrong answer in some instances. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dealt with similar situations and don't like those who aid sockmasters in such a way. I don't mean that answering the question is blockable, but that if he was an admin and were to act in that way, I would probably be one of the first to call for his removal along with the sockmaster. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When we look at a user's answer to a question, we also have to consider that we gave them a generic question with very little background information. When there's a real situation, we can look at much more variables to get a better grasp of the situation. It's too hard to give a cut and dry, "Yes, I'll do (insert action here)." for questions like these because it takes a due amount of consideration of the situation to arrive at a decision. All I ask of you, Ottava Rima, is to try and give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. If you're not satisfied with the answer, feel free to ask them for elaboration. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is 100% NO situation that anything but blocking the user immediately and having a CU run to find out every other account and blocking them also is appropriate. No user who pretends to be decent while vandalizing under another account belongs at Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFCU states, "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail ". It's not a good idea to immediately block because unless you're a checkuser, you won't know for sure if it's a valid concern or not. If you were to block and then it turns out you were incorrect, there's a good chance that some unnecessary drama might ensue. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the question specifies an editor, not an admin, making the RFCU point moot. And, the question also assumes you "found out" that they were indeed socking. Now, I don't agree with Ottava here (go figure), but if you're going to argue him... Tan | 39 06:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    e.g. (For the sake of examples in Latin) - These are only examples, not an exclusive list. I think a well-respected editor would meet the criteria for sending an e-mail. As for "finding out the user has socks", I refer back to my first point about hypothetical questions. What constitutes "finding out"? To some degree it could be subjective. Some users have different opinions as to what they think is clear cut evidence. Icestorm815 • Talk 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <-- outdent. Actually, the very intensity of this discussion shows how disruptive any approach could become. There really is not a right answer. No matter what one did in this scenario, someone would be angry about it. The key to answering the question is in recognizing the matter's sensitivity and then working out how to minimize the drama and disruption. Even if the suspected puppeteer were not an admin, the turmoil and upset could be considerable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Well respected editor"? No "well respected editor" would sock. Therefore, any one who socks does not belong here regardless of what their "nice" alter ego does. The most dangerous people are the ones who pretend to be decent while they are destroying the place. Wikianarchists need to go. No ands, ifs, or buts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria for "well respected" actually applies to the Wikipedia community, it may be a false delusion about to rapidly change. The user him/herself is corrupt. I do not support such disruptive behaviour as you suggest. Can you give some examples of (formerly) well respected users operating evil puppets? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Respect is a condition. If a condition is based on a lie, then it was never true to begin with. Sure, you can argue that there is retrospection, but the future revelation removes all previous aspects. I can give you plenty of examples of sock masters pretending to be "well respected" individuals. I can even link you to Wikipedia Review in which a banned user made it blatantly clear that he is operating a "clean" account. I've dealt with Poetlister, Moulton, and quite a few others in my time here. They sicken me in every regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebar to Graeme. There was an RFA, I think in 2006, in which the candidate turned out to be a sock of a popular and respected admin. It came out mid-RFA. The guy had the two socks disagreeing with each other in discussions. Amazing to watch unfold. Dlohcierekim 03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based in part on my criteria for more audited mainspace contribs, and answer to question 3, where apparently he and another user warred it out in edit summaries rather than taking it to talk. That's not a productive method. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Example diffs: [4] [5] [6] [7]. The edit wars were fairly minor with only three or four edits. When I met the user in real life we got on OK, with no outstanding acrimony. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the point is that you never bothered going to the talk page to resolve the issue. Parthian shots via edit summaries often create more heat than light. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    David Fuchs: what is your criteria for more main space edits? The larticles tool reports "Edits in the encyclopedic namespace: 7725". With edits to 3577 different articles. Or are you more interested in contributions to GA and FA articles? The FA and GA articles that I started were brought to that standard by others. The only one that I passed for GA was Vanadinite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go away. Tan | 39 02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm purposely not responding to so absurd a statement. Trust me, if we ignore this behavior, it will self extinguish.03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is this trying to achieve? Posting the same thing on every RfA doesn't make it so. HJMitchell You rang? 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral  Good contribs, even-tempered, editor is here to build encyclopedia. Waiting on more complete answers. Leaning support. --StaniStani  09:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)<--Moving to support --StaniStani  21:48, 27 April 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/Graeme_Bartlett&oldid=1091463260"