Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Citicat - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (20/5/4); Ended 12:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citicat (talk · contribs) - I have been an active editor since December of '06. In that period of time, somewhat more than half of my editing activity has been on maintenance tasks, including (though certainly not solely) removing vandalism and discouraging vandals. I feel that Wikipedia has become the best overall source for general knowledge, and I'm proud to contribute towards it's continued growth. I feel administrative tools would allow me to be more useful by focusing on backlogged areas. CitiCat 04:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have nominated several serial vandals to AIV, and would be taking part in the maintenance of that page. I also have nominated a number of articles for Speedy Deletion, and would be analyzing Speeding Deletion requests. I take part in many deletion debates, and would be involved on the closing end. Also, I would in general follow administrator backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, from the perspective of what I'm the happiest I've done, it's probably starting articles of interesting people that have either been forgotten or overlooked by history, like Louis Klotz, Choo Choo Coleman and Robert Rozier, people who are really interesting and might be found from other articles (yes, I do a lot of editing involving sports, which I feel might be a trifle under-represented). As far as the most helpful towards the project, I work a lot on Dead End Pages, which besides building the web also allows be to find a lot of pages that need help (as well as many that should be deleted).
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 been fortunate to be involved in very few conflicts to this point. The only one of any breadth would be with an editor I felt was using article pages to push his own political agenda. After having several of my edits reverted, I attempted to point him towards WP:SOAP and asking him to consider working on other areas, but in the end decided to merely leave the issues as there appeared to be other editors more involved in balancing out his views. I will admit to occasionally having had a peek at his contributions, and did once add a clarification to a page he edited. (But only because I thought it was clearly necessary). I'm generally a non-confrontational person, and can refrain from replying in a non-helpful way to someone who disagrees with me.
Optional question from Daniel
4. From your comments below, it seems you are under the impression that BLP applies only to living people, and that controversial facts about them are the only ones which need to be urgently sourced. Is this your analysis of BLP? Daniel 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Does BLP apply the same to the deceased as the living? No. The reason why BLP are treated differently from any article information is for the potential to do harm to the reputation of the subject which (metaphysics aside) you don't do to a dead person. Another reason is the potential for litigation from the subject, which also does not apply to the deceased (as pointed out in this page. Does this mean that biographies of dead people don't need to be sourced? Of course not. But the immediacy of sourcing that applies to living people does not apply to the dead. (Especially since primary sources in regard to the long deceased may be hard to come by - ever try to dig up a first hand account of Shakespeare?) In other words where a questionable statement about a living person would need to be reverted (see the Chris Benoit controversy), if the subject is not living merely tagging {{fact}} would be appropriate. Anyway, as I noted it was just an ironic aside, that he picked a non-living person as an example in a BLP discussion.
You may wish to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision#BLP applies only to living people. Daniel 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I feel you are asking a loaded question by asking my opinion on a controversial issue. The discussion on that page went 3/4/1. Whatever answer I give is likely to turn some people off. So I could only answer how I truthfully feel.CitiCat 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a fair answer, and not in disagreement with the current policyDGG 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jreferee
5. As an administrator, you are likely to thrust yourself into the middle of a controversial matter where no matter what you do will turn some people off. Under such circumstances and when implementing a diplomatic solution to the matter, do you feel it more important to rely on your personal views/how you truthfully feel about the matter or rely on existing policy/guidelines? -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Let me put it this way, if you invite me into your house, and tell me to take my shoes off, I don't argue with your about the cleanliness of my shoes, I remove them. I would never assume my opinions on a matter can override the consensus. As to the BLP "deceased" issue, my statements in the previous question were in reference to my interpretation of a controversial issue, and when I stated "how I truthfully feel" I was referring to not answering the question in a manner to appease the questioner, only honestly. Now what was the question again? Oh yes. I would not go against guidelines based on personal opinion. CitiCat 03:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Citicat before commenting.

Support

  1. Support users who fight vandalism are always welcome to be sysopped. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good honest answers, good contribs, seems to know what needs to be done...bust out a mop. Ganfon 15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I have no concerns. ~ Wikihermit 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. No big concerns, this user is trustworthy. Adminship isnt about what you're doing, it's about whether you can be trusted. You have definately shown that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I'm just curious: after I vote the "score" will be (5/0/5). Numbers notwithstanding, what happens if we get more "neutrals" than "supports"? Okay, seriously, I have plenty of "name recognition" for CitiCat from WP:AFD, and I admire his work at WP:DEAD also. I see no reason to doubt his integrity. Shalom Hello 05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrals are disregarded except in close calls (usually 75-80%). This is also an unusual case where neutrals will probably turn into supports over the next few days.--Chaser - T 06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Citicat handled the BLP issue I mentioned well, has intelligent contributions to AFD that indicate he will close discussions well, and a solid recent history of AIV reports followed by blocks. My only other comment is that we can't merge content from articles and then delete them.[1] We have to keep the old articles, even as redirects, to preserve attribution history under the GFDL, our site license. See Dweller's RFA for more dialog about this. Frankly, after your handling of the list I brought up below, I'm confident you will respond to criticism of things like this by simply correcting any errors, so it doesn't worry me.--Chaser - T 06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I like the way he handled the BLP issue, the answers are great, and Citicat seems like a trustworthy and reliable person. Citicat has the qualities of a good admin. —Anas talk? 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - seems to have handled the issue well, showing he can react well under pressure and was civil about it. Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I like his tactful response to q4, which (with respect) was an unreasonable and loaded question to ask of an admin candidate, especially as policy on BLP is in a state of flux. Also, clearly an experienced editor. Waltontalk 15:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --Fredrick day 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be an impingement on you Frederick, but that is a rather low criteria, and your !vote might not be given too much weight when you have such low standards. Many very new users are not vandals, but by your criteria, you would support them for the tools. See my point? Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support for a honest answer to a difficult question. deals well with stress.DGG 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support for good answer to Q4. AW 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support See no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Peacent 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support I do not think he will abuse the tools!Politics rule 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support the above. Acalamari 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Plenty of activity befitting an admin-to-be, obvious need for the tools, responds calmly when occasional irate editors question tagging of their articles. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per my original observations - good vandal fighter and sensible XfD contribs. My concerns about BLP are largely satisfied by edits made to the article in question and his follow up below suggests he is sensitive to the need for rigorous BLP-like sourcing to articles of the recently deceased. Adminship is no big deal and on long reflection I think Citicat will make a decent one. WjBscribe 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, no evidence candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. Is someone seriously opposing because the candidate didn't put one of those annoying templates that nobody looks at on a talk page? Ridiculous... --Rory096 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose You seem to be well on your way, but are lacking in just the all-around experience. You have quite some heart it seems, but I am not sure of your readiness for the tools. Jmlk17 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Lack of mainspace contributions and lack of interactions with others. While Citicat has a number of mainspace edits, these related to deleting content rather him contributing content. A review of Citicat's edit summaries between when he essentially started contributing to Wikipedia in January 2007 and today shows that most of Citicat's edits to Wikipedia are removal of content through reverting the work of other editors. When not reverting, Citicat helps delete content at AfD. While such edits are important, they do not provide enough broad experience to deal with the admin tools. Citicat has had many user talk page posts. However, these mostly are follow up messages to let the contributor know that he reverted their work.[2] Citicat has had few true conversations with others on Wikipedia. Because of the lack of actual participation in the encyclopaedia and concerns over the ability to communicate with his fellow Wikipeidans on matters urelated to deleting their content, I think oppose is appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Jreferee above. Simply general experience issues. Daniel 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, I don't think you have enough experience to make informed use of the tools. As recently as two days ago, you made a keep argument at AfD that doesn't reflect knowledge of WP:BIO guidelines. I'm not comfortable with your making deletion decisions just yet. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote was based on the guideline under Notability (people):"Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: * With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". I don't want to get into an AFD here, so I'll leave it at that. CitiCat 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Re Robert Rozier -- I'm disheartened to see someone applying for adminship citing as among their best contributions the biography of a living person untagged as such (I've just tagged). Espresso Addict 01:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy says this tag is optional "{{Blp}} may be added", and anyway, he resolved the real BLP issue well enough that forgetting to place a tag shouldn't be a serious concern on an article that has had BLP material sourced since day one.--Chaser - T 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of the tag system is to make sure there's an easy way to check that all biographies of living people are -- and remain -- non-defamatory and properly sourced. If the article isn't properly tagged some vandal could come along and make it defamatory, and we're relying on one/a few editors to scrutinise their watchlists regularly. Espresso Addict 04:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

switched to support Tentative neutral You need to clean up List of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes, which is a WP:BLP mess (true, some negative things are sourced in articles, but in the case of Trevor Berbick, for example, the source is out of date. I'll warn you that you're going to get a mountain of opposes if you don't fix this.--Chaser - T 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see why it's completely up to him to fix the article; sure he created it, but it's not like he owns it. It's up to all of us to fix any problems with WP:BLP. Useight 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I phrased my comment as such partially to see his reaction to the stress during the RFA. In fact, he took the concern seriously, was completely civil, and worked almost alone to source and format the article in the last 24 hours. So his handling of the situation was excellent and befitting of a sysop.--Chaser - T 06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral -- little other experience but in the mainspace. I feel perhaps a little more experience is needed in all the spaces, but I wont oppose. Chasers comments are also valid. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support. Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Changed from support). Good vandal fighter - correct warning and AIV reports. XfD contributions look intelligent and constructive. However, per Chaser, I'm concerned about the WP:BLP problems with your most edited article. I'll be interested to see what you do with it over the course of this nomination and will reassess my position. WjBscribe 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining neutral. I'm a little uncomfortable with the answer to Q.4. I don't think the application of BLP to a recently deceased person can be ruled out so straight forwardly and the comment "the immediacy of sourcing that applies to living people does not apply to the dead" seems to me to slightly miss the point. BLP isn't just a legal safeguard, it reflects a sense of ethics and responsibility - one made particularly necessary by the high google profile our articles receive. Weakly sourced negative information is all the more likely to be around where someone is recently deceased (given the lower legal controls of such info) and in some cases we need to be vigilant as a result - the distress to friends and relatives if we slip up can be just as great as where the subject is living. As pointed out, the principle was far from unamimously supported by ArbCom (though neither was it rejected outright), but I think its a matter on which we should apply judgment in individual cases. I intend to think on this further. WjBaway 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with your point concerning the recently deceased. However, the question in question was "Is this your analysis of BLP?" An in my opinion this isn't covered by BLP. There is certainly continued controversy over a policy that includes the recently deceased (see here for this week's bout) and I think there's good reason for additional policy to be created regarding this matter. But that's a story for another page. CitiCat 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also be re-assessing. It's only fair.--Chaser - T 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded (? lol). If he can prove that he can bring this article up to standard, I might reconsider. Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun adding inline sources, and should be finished by tomorrow. <ironic aside>actually, Trevor Berbick isn't a LP</ironic aside> but I get the point. CitiCat 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Despite the recent controversy over BLP, Berbick still can't sue us for libel.--Chaser - T 06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per WJBscribe. One 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - all statements regarding living people in the article have now been sourced. I am continuing to improve the formatting. CitiCat 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - as per WJBscribe..for now.. --Cometstyles 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral A tad early as the opposers correctly point out and if the candidate is given the sysop bit, I urge him to take things slow. Still, from my review of the contributions, looks like a solid editor with good judgement and I can't see him abusing the tools. But the lack of experience in interacting with other users is somewhat problematic, enough so that I'm not comfortable supporting right now. Pascal.Tesson 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral per Jreferee's oppose. I agree with his general argument, but it doesn't add up to an oppose for me. User:Argyriou (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2007 (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.