Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceyockey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crzrussian (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 7 December 2006 (Reverted edits by Crzrussian (talk) to last version by Ceyockey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ceyockey

Voice your opinion (21/0/0); Scheduled to end 03:12 December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey (talk · contribs) – Ceyockey has contributed to an impressive amount of articles over the scope of two years, focusing on articles about organizations and assorted biographies. Aside from that, he's active helping people on the village pump, and knows his way around process despite not being a regular. He can certainly be trusted with the keys to our broom closet. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Nomination Accepted: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Statements

  • Time on XfD: I note some discussion in other RFA's involves the amount of time the candidate has spent in the various deletion forums. I have not spent time in those recently, but did spend substantial time in the TfD, CfD and RfD forums in 2005. I was involved in the discussions that led to the creation of RfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
I currently spend a fair amount of time patrolling a couple thousand pages for vandalism and would continue such surveillance, likely expanding it to cover some systematic territory around biology, business and biography. Administrative authority would allow judicious blockade following fair warning according to guidelines at Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want' rather than 'I despise this place and I'm going to blow up 100 articles in protest' or 'I really need to defame person X'.
An area which isn't specifically covered by the 'backlog' pages is in the complex page moves required to resolve some disambiguation page changes. For instance, if 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' points at 'XXXYYY' and 'XXXYYY' is currentl a dab page but should be an article in its own right, the best way to resolve this is to deleted 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)' and move 'XXXYYY' to 'XXXYYY (disambiguation)', freeing the 'XXXYYY', which now is a redirect, to act as an article title without doing the 'no no' of copy-and-pasting content. I've run into variations on this circumstance several times and have usually passed it by as the process of explaining what is needed and nominating things for the non-controversial moves is not justified from a cost-benefit standpoint. With administrative authority, I could act on untangling non-controversial knots of this kind without second party intervention.
Finally, I think that spending time evaluating and acting on proposed deletions (PROD) would be a fine activity. I'm an inclusionist by temperment and I'd be inclined to try to fold content into related articles rather than delete outright if there is worthy content to maintain (for instance, I see KLTS Tower labeled with PROD; there are many many masts described in Wikipedia and I'd be inclined to fold the content into a list-article and redirect rather than delete outright at the end of the PROD period) ... though there are many articles so tagged that do not merit such consideration (for instance, Lovebaba, which I wouldn't have tagged with 'content seems unrelated to title' but rather 'unverifiable content').
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I'm most pleased with a) Template:Infobox Journal (it gave academic journals an infobox of their own distinct from the generic Infobox Magazine template); b) the set Template:Top4, Template:Mid4 and Template:Bottom (though largely unused now, this was an attempt to port functionality from Wiktionary into Wikipedia as well as an attempt to write useful usage information for a template; the corresponding template set is used widely in Wiktionary ... at least at the time that I did the port to Wikipedia in August 2005); c) Attorney General of Delaware (unlike most of the other articles I've started, this filled in a basic hole in the explication of an elected office in a state of the United States where both the office and the state, Delaware, are underserved by editors; it also was created to serve persons who were going to vote in the 2006 mid-term elections in Delaware with some explanation of one of the offices into which they were going to be voting someone (by way of disclosure, I live in Delaware)).
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
The edit I'm most pleased about was a compromise wording in an article that in September 2005 ended a feud at Libertarian Party (United States) (see Talk:Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Negative_Press_section_definitely_Point_OF_View). In this case, there was a standing feud between folks who wanted to use a section title that contained some variation on "Negative Press" versus those who wanted a neutral title containing some variation on "In the News". Neither set of choices really got to the heart of the content and implied the section was only a catch-all for emerging press reports that highlighted the foibles and successes of Party members. In reality, the section dealt more with the distinction between political and philosophical libertarianism and highlighted the ups and downs of persons pursuing office under either of those umbrellas. Choosing the section title "Libertarian identity" in one short burst of keystrokes settled the matter and it has been calm on that part of the article ever since.
I've been in a number of stylistic feuds since coming on board in the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation and . However, I've never been deeply involved in a truly disruptive conflict that impacts on a high profile, controversial topic that could result in the popular press taking notice (such conflicts are for instance like the Kolkata/Calcutta naming conflict or the WebEx controversy or the sometimes recurring Userbox Wars) nor have I been the subject of arbitration. After having gone through the period of occassionally stomping away from my keyboard with elevated blood pressure, my current philosophy is 'this too shall pass'; most conflicts are stylistic rather than content centered (or centred - another style conflict, that) and I believe in the 'content is king' argument for not setting the forest on fire by escalating style conflicts to conflagrations. For truly disruptive content arbitration, there are heads far more experienced than mine to tap for facilitating equitable outcomes.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Optional question from James086: Should people pay more attention to admins' views in discussions, XfD's and content disputes?
A:
No. Admins as editors should be treated like everyone else. In fact, an admin should in most cases be unrecognizable as such while engaged in conversations over content issues or while engaged in deliberation on the XfD forums. Admin tools are not meant to provide more leverage for the opinions of admins in content conversations; they are meant in part to facilitate the emergence of balanced outcomes in the face of disruptive behavior on the part of other editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
WP:IAR is problematic in that it relies on a subjective criterion of 'improvement' and 'maintenance' of Wikipedia. If we Assume Good Faith, then many non-consensus notions of 'improvement' can be easily pursued with impunity under the WP:IAR clause. A key thing that is missing is the essential notion of 'consensus' in the WP:IAR policy. WP:IAR is an important part of the Wikipedia culture because it is a tacit admission that few if any rules that emerge from the culture are all encompassing or cover all future eventualities. Productive application of WP:IAR should lead to re-evaluation of the rule(s) that have been broken and, therefore, lead to evoution of the Wikipedia rule-set. Destructive application of WP:IAR should be dealt with through established dispute resolution processes.
WP:SNOW assumes that for a given decision, the consensus is known prior to sensing for it. I agree that WP:SNOW can be applied equitably; the problem is the ire that its application can provoke in those who disagree with its application. Therefore, the impact of its application is very much dependent upon the temperment of the potential un-consulted editors who would disagree with the decision. Such impact is also dependent, but to a lesser degree, on the willingness of Wikipedia to accept that the policy was applied incorrectly in a particular instance; such willingness is instantiated in, for instance, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A:
Blocks are put in place to prevent an editor from altering or amending content in a manner that is destructive or disruptive to Wikipedia, regardless of the scale of the content alteration. In one sense, all blocks are punitive as they 'punish' an editor by removing their editing privileges, though the point-of-view evinced by the Blocking Policy states the reciprocal, that blocking actions are 'protecting' Wikipedia from the results of disruptive behavior. Blocks in response to undesirable editing behavior are no different in principle from removing a child's television viewing privileges or putting a criminal behind bars - some degree of freedom to act is removed. The key to being equitable is to block on the basis of action, not stated intent (i.e. don't get baited into blocking) or anticipation of intent (i.e. don't predict the future). However, the future might hold a circumstance that necessitates invoking WP:IAR, even here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A:
If the article provides no historical or industry context and the content focuses on describing in detail the products or services provided by the company, along with links to at least the company site and perhaps to each of the products and services provided by the company individually, all of those being external links ... those taken together would provide sufficient justification to consider the article under this speedy deletion criterion. However, I've not been confronted with this decision before and each article is unique. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Indeed. (Radiant) 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Great user which definitely has the priorities of an admin. Acs4b 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Without a doubt. TSO1D 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Wikipedia needs more admins with regular Village Pump experience. Sharkface217 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely! Grutness...wha? 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Handles vandals well. Good editor, won't misuse tools. Delta Tango • Talk 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Quite a sufficient level of contribution at the projectspace & time on the project implies familiarity with process. WP:talk edits include 934 edits which include Stub sorting, Manual of Style with emphasis on disambiguation, Stub types, TfD, Templates, Redirect pages, Stub sorting/Guidelines, Citing sources, Stub types for deletion & Fact and Reference Check. This would appear to be sufficient wikiproject-related to satisfy the most stringent test. Editing is sound. Positive contributions to the Libertarian Party (United States); came through a rather famous dispute as generally resonable; meets the civility standard. No signs of incipient meglomania. Trustworthy enough to be an administrator with the ability to block/unblock/delete and reserrect. Do us proud - Williamborg (Bill) 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very good list of contributions, constructive attitude, substantial experience - there's nothing not to like. Sandstein 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--Jusjih 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. How could I not support this candidate? yandman 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The only reason I hadn't supported 'til now was because I was waiting (not long) for an answer to the question, which was highly satisfactory. Full support. James086Talk | Contribs 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Yes. =) Nishkid64 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Rettetast 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support looks like a good candidate.-- danntm T C 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Well presented nomination that satisfies any criteria. Agent 86 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceyockey&oldid=92774857"