Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eastlaw

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ecoleetage (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 5 December 2008 (→Oppose: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eastlaw

Voice your opinion (talk page) (16/5/0); Scheduled to end 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastlaw (talk · contribs) – I first noticed Eastlaw just a few months after he joined Wikipedia, and was immediately impressed. Even at that early stage, Eastlaw was willing to learn from others, help others by explaining what he knew, and on top of it all write some really top notch articles. Eastlaw has been a very prolific contributor on many WMF projects, often adding material learned through his own expertise. He is never one to turn down a request for help from a confused editor, and is always willing to accept the opinions of others. He is an exemplary collaborator, and frequents the talk pages of the articles he has edited, truly following consensus. Don't let Eastlaw's lack of a presence on the noticeboards confuse you, his large collaboration with other editors on content has made him knowledgeable on all the same policies and behaviors that the more dramatic namespaces show. In short, Eastlaw is the very image of a Wikipedia administrator, knowledgeable, helpful, polite, and most importantly of all, would never abuse the admin tools. A long overdue candidate, and exactly who we want as an admin. Prodego talk 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination: Eastlaw has been an active editor since March of 2006, and has over 28,000 contributions to this project. He has contributed to several other WM projects, as well, including wikisource, DE, and others. His focus tends to be on categorization and contribution to articles in somewhat narrow range of topics, including law. He has decent spread among the namespaces, and a review of his deleted contributions indicates mainly pages he has nominated for deletion. I have been particularly impressed to come across his name mainly only as a contributor to excellent articles and as a nominator on CSD's; somebody with 25K+ edits usually shows up in RFC/ ANI, etc... with drahmaz... not Eastlaw. He is always a patient, helpful, and civil wikipedian. Eastlaw can certainly be trusted with the sysop tools; I am very confident that Eastlaw will use the tools in a responsible and beneficial manner, and his assistance with administrative tasks will be greatly appreciated. So in a nutshell: he walks on water without making waves... so vote, already! Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination.

Let me just make a few remarks in advance. I know that there are at least a few individuals on here who don't care much for me. That's fine, I don't expect to be beloved by all. I have tried to remain civil as much as possible while here, but there are a few things that set off my temper. I have a clean block record (after about 2.5 years here), and in those (relatively few) times I have been involved in any conflict, I have been smart enough to recognize when to back off. Please try to remember this, if you want to dredge up any "questionable" edits from my edit history. I stand by everything I have said and done here. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: Probably WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RM, WP:RPP, and, when necessary, blocking obvious trolls, vandals, etc. (And yes, I have had to deal with trolls on a few occasions.)
I sometimes also do new page patrolling and copy-editing. I am a serious grammar-nazi. :)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If you look at my user page, you will notice that I have started a lot of articles, and improved a number of others. I don't know if I can really point to one particular contribution which outshines all others. I have probably created about twice as many categories as articles. I consider myself a Categorist, and I think that categories are one of the most fundamentally important aspects of the navigability of Wikipedia.
Part of the reason I have created so many articles is that writing and researching different things is a hobby of mine, and Wikipedia gives me a good outlet for that hobby. I consider myself more of a content creator than a content perfector, however. I don't think I have any WP:GA nominations yet. I'm happy just to have contributed a bunch of articles which are reasonably informative to the average layman. After all, this is an encyclopedia we're trying to build, not a contest to see who gets the most online awards.
One of the more organizational/administrative tasks I have taken on here is the organization of adding more cases to the Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. There were hundreds of cases which were suitable for listing here, which for whatever reason, were not properly listed. I fixed most of that.
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 can think of one recent example of a conflict for which I came up with a creative solution. It was not a particularly acrimonious conflict, but it did require some critical thinking both on my part and on the part of another prolific contributor, User:TonyTheTiger. What basically happened was, he created an article (rather hastily) on a subject which I was researching and writing about on a subpage, for future inclusion. Eventually, we worked out a solution that provided a means of including both articles, without deleting or massively gutting either, while simultaneously avoiding substantial overlap of subject matter.
I don't wish to rehash the whole thing here, but you can read about most of it on this link.
Optional questions from Aitias
Good questions, all, by the way.  ;). 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. There are two circumstances I can think of in which I would do this. First, if the page was such obvious spam or trolling (such as an attack page) that there was no way of justifying its existence; second, if the person places a Hangon tag and then gives absolutely no reason on the talk page as to why to keep the page. I'm all for giving people a reasonable amount of time to explain themselves, but some people just seem to think that the Hangon tag is some sort of magic shield. It isn't, and we should require people to give at least a brief explanation of why the page shouldn't be deleted.
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. I already have Rollback. So anyone who is at least as cool as me should have it:  ;)
But seriously folks, I think that anyone who has been a regular contributor for at least 6 months, has at least 1,000 or so edits, has no record of vandalism, and a clean block record has gained enough trust and goodwill in the WP community to at least apply for rollback. If there are any extenuating circumstances beyond what I have mentioned, they should be dealt with on a case-by case basis.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. Oooh, copyright law question...I actually know copyright law fairly well, though I am certainly not an expert. I'm not really sure if this is an open question under Wikipedia:Non-free content. I think fair use requirements would be satisfied if it were a particularly iconic photograph which was being provided for the purpose of commentary/educational purposes. Nonetheless, a free-use alternative should still be sought out.
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A. I don't think that such an action would be a conflict of interest. The IP vandal in question has already been given his final warning, so he already has adequate notice of what's coming if he continues his course of conduct. If the vandal decides to retaliate by vandalizing my user page, there is no reason I shouldn't block him.
Administrators are entrusted with blocking authority because the community believes they will not abuse this power. If I were to block someone for disagreeing with me, that would obviously be abuse. If I block a user for retaliating against me for warning him about something he wasn't supposed to be doing anyway, I don't think that any real conflict of interest could be said to exist. We need not give obvious repeat-offender vandals the benefit of the doubt, especially not when they behave in a grossly uncivil manner.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A. If his actions were particularly destructive. I'm thinking here of Willy on Wheels, Grawp/Hagger, and that guy who keeps harassing User:Zain Ebrahim111.
Additional questions from Foxy Loxy Pounce!
9. I noticed that your major edit edit summary is at around 97%, I find that to be an acceptable number, but do you think an edit summary is important in all situations? Particularly as an administrator?
A. I think edit summaries are more important in mainspace edits, particularly when one is making a change to the content of the article which other users may question. Likewise, major changes in formatting should have an edit summary, so that later editors will know what exactly you did. On the other hand, when I am pre-drafting an article in my own user space, I usually dispense with the edit summary--I mean, who really cares what I am doing in my user space unless it is a violation of WP policy (and I don't do stuff like that anyway). I hope that answers your question. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions from RockManQ

10.What do you think of WP:IAR, and have you ever had to invoke it? When do you think an admin should use IAR?
A. Hmm...this is a tough question. "Ignore all rules" isn't something I have had to give much thought to during my time here. I guess you could say that it is one rule which I have ignored (appropriate, no?)  :)
In all seriousness, I think WP:IAR is best expressed as the idea that the rules around here are more intended to be general guidelines rather than laws imposed from on high upon contributors. Obviously, you can't go around being a dick, causing problems for administrators and other users, but at the same time, we don't want to go scaring off potential contributors, now do we? The rules should be a general description of what to do here, not a legal code to be obeyed on pain of death. That's about as good an answer as I can give you. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion


Support
  1. As nom. Prodego talk 20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As co-nom. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Looks good to me. Best of luck Eastlaw! Malinaccier (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support Admits he has a bit of a temper, but assuming good faith here. Sam Blab 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Because his name reminds me of Clint Eastwood...--Patton123 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Looks to me as though he'll make a good admin. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — Nothing wrong here by the looks of things. Switched from neutral. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I always wondered why this great user was no admin yet! SoWhy 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - WP:WTHN and the utterly ludicrous first oppose below. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. His answers to the questions indicate that he is highly unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good answer to my question, also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I've never bought the "no admin-related experience" argument, I didn't have any more experience than this candidate did when I ran, and I've been an admin for 2.5 years now. Content-building=sane=good candidate. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Great dedication, and very, very helpful when I first joined a few projects. Law shoot! 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, nothing particularly alarming in this candidate's history, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  15. Support, per Standards - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I did my review a month ago. I was impressed and was waiting for this. Synergy 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strongest possible oppose based on "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox. Wikipedia doesn't need administrators who feel compelled to be so smug and divisive. Keepscases (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I created that userbox from code that was actually written by another user, long ago. I didn't intend for it to be offensive. I'm not opposed to religious people per se, I just think that blind belief in anything is not good for society. If that bothers, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For goodness sake, let this go. Do you not remember the absolute chaos that persued the last time this was brought up? Just let it go and review the candidate properly, please. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Cyclonenim. I appreciate your support. Let me also say that on my user page, I note that I am not particularly militant about my beliefs. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are interested EastLaw, read up on WP:Requests for adminship/SoWhy. It is related to that post. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn....that was harsh. Please don't do that here, people. OK? --Eastlaw (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, but Eastlaw's answer to question Q1 is actually really worrying. It seems to provide clear evidence of lacking experience in admin-related areas. In some of the areas, in which he wishes to work as an admin, he obviously has completely no experience — Just to mention two examples: He intends to work at WP:RFP and wants to block vandals. He has just 9 edits at WP:RFP and none at WP:AIV. Indeed, there is no need to have great experience everywhere for an admin (candidate). However there should still be some experience, especially in the areas one wishes to work in. Finally, not even 300 edits in the Wikipedia-namespace since 2006 (!) until now is not very much. Therefore I have to oppose, regretfully. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Eastlaw is in the purest sense a 'no big deal' candidate. Rather than going after other editors, he works hard to contribute a lot of content, understands how the project works, and I doubt anyone could ever find him likely to misuse the tools. And this is after all the whole point of RfA, can the user be trusted with the tools. Prodego talk 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I'm willing to learn the ins-and-outs of the process. I believe that I can pick up the rules of each task pretty easily. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. While you seem a reasonable editor with a long history of uncontentious editing, you don't have sufficient participation in administrative-related activities. You only participated in a handful of AfDs and CfDs. Pcap ping 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Lack of admin-related experience. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, let me just say this with regards to the "lack of experience" criticism: I freely admit that I have not done very much in project space. That doesn't mean that I am unwilling to do more there, and it also doesn't mean that I am unwilling to learn more about the "behind the scenes" processes at Wikipedia. I understand all your concerns, and I am willing to put in some time, when possible, to improve my aptitude in these areas. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose A lack of administrative-related experience and the acknowledgment (in the acceptance statement, no less!) of having a "temper" -- wrong combination, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I said "there are a few things which set off my temper" around here. I never made any indictment of myself beyond that. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should stop commenting after everyone who !votes against you? You are coming across as very defensive. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Question one and the temper mentioned by Ecoleetage. Sorry, ayematthew ✡ 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I'm always a bit wary when someone starts off their adminship campaign with a warning about their past. I need more time to review your edits. Good luck for now. Couldn't find anything alarming, switch to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Q1. RockManQReview me 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eastlaw&oldid=255957484"