Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Captmondo: Difference between revisions

Captmondo

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/12/7); Scheduled to end 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Captmondo (talk · contribs) - I have been active on Wikipedia since March 2005, and have concentrated primarily on articles relating to the history and culture of Ancient Egypt, and am an active member of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt. In terms of the number of edits, I am just under the 2,000 mark, though I take more pride in making substantial additions to articles rather than a pure edit count. In that capacity I have collaborated with other members of the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject on various articles, and am pained when I see repeated vandalism of substantive articles requiring constant vigilance. I cannot claim to be an academic on the subject, just someone who has had a lifelong interest in the subject and who has gained a good sense as to what views are academically respected, and have acquired a substantive personal library on the subject the better to provide citations where needed.

If I am made an Administrator I intend to use the new tools to better monitor pages within the purview of the Ancient Egyptian Wikiproject, with the hope of bringing up the quality level overtime. I have a longstanding commitment to the topic, and will continue to do so whether I become an administrator or not. Captmondo 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My plan is to more closely monitor pages within the scope of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt, particularly those that are often targets for vandalism (such as Hatshepsut, Rameses II, Cleopatra VII, Tutankhamun and so on), in order to more quickly revert vandalism before subsequent edits in good faith can be added. In the past I have sometimes looked through the extensive history of an article in order to sort out the bad faith edits from the good (good recent examples of these can be found in the history of the Rameses II and Narmer articles). I also plan to continue to assist new users who contribute to this area of Wikipedia, and to gently remind editors that assertions made in any given article ought to be properly cited from respected sources.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am most proud of having been a significant contributor to the article on Ahmose I, which became a Feature Article on January 6, 2007. Though the acknowledged founder of the New Kingdom, he tends to be an overlooked figure in a history that is dominated by the likes of his eventual successors Thutmose III and Hatshepsut. With information culled from many sources, I believe this article provides a very well-rounded history of this pharaoh, one which would be hard to find in other sources intended for a lay audience. On a completely different subject, I was a significant contributor to the Delrina article, which was a Featured Article on January 4, 2006, ditto the article on the McLaughlin Planetarium, which achieved Good Article last month. I was pleased when my new articles on Reserve heads and Ankhhaf (sculpture) (and their associated lead pictures, which I contributed to Wikimedia Commons) were chosen as entries for "Did you know?" back in April of this year.

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: The only conflict of note was with a new user (User:Leo_III) who started posted copyrighted text and images to various articles relating to Ancient Egypt. The history of his Discussion page details my polite efforts to get him to change his ways, finally ending with most of his "additions" being reverted or otherwise removed from Wikipedia. I am a very diplomatic person by nature, and am always willing to see both sides of a given argument. In future instances I would continue to be diplomatic, and firm in applying the principles upon which Wikipedia is founded. In the end an Administratorship would provide me with a better set of tools to do what I already do.

Cheers, and thank you for considering my (self-)nomination! Captmondo 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Dlohcierekim Hello, Captmondo. I woukd like to offer you some optional questions to better understand your readiness for adminship.

4. Please assume of course the following is an article rather than on a user page. You are checking new user contributions. You see this article--Jim Fraser. What do you do?

A: My first reaction would be "Is this a truly notable person?" I would then do a quick check against Google on the name and on some of the content (your test page does appears there btw, and that's the only significant entry). Ascertaining that, I would then place a notability statement on the page in-line with Wikipedia:Notability (people). I would then attempt to contact the person(s) responsible for placing the page on the site and ask them why this person is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. I would also ask them to provide sources, as there are no citations as per Wikipedia:Citing sources (I'd also add a notice about that as well). Depending on the outcome, I would either a) help support the person in bring the page up to Wikipedia quality standards, or b) talk to an administrator about deleting the page as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

For the record my experience with sort of thing has happened more with deleting suspect images I have found on some Ancient Egyptian articles that I know/suspect have been scanned from books or museum catalogs, or from Web sites and placed on Wikimedia Commons for use on articles on the English or other-language Wikipages on a topic. Automated bots are doing a better job of that these days, though I am currently investigating whether or not this image is truly as "original" as the poster asserts, and plan to look on Google for prior usage before asking after the poster of the image about it, and then follow the procedure outlined on Commons:Deletion requests if it does turn out to be a copyrighted image.

I also commonly find articles where people have been adding copyrighted text from other sources, and I provide the target URL that the info is derived from in my revert comments. Here is one example, and here is an example of my digging into a claim that the contributor owned the copyrighted material that was wholly spurious.

5. Would there ever be a time you would remove a vandal warning and caution the user that gave it?

A: Yes, particularly if there was a question regarding the validity of the information. My own instinct would be to do a quick fact check to ascertain whether or not new and valid info was being added in good faith by the contributor. A good encyclopedia ought to admit new ideas that have been validated within the academic community (or within the rules of its own relevant community at the very least). It should also get rid of cruft, like I did with this edit, which I also removed from the "source" article as well.

I want to add though that I feel there are bounds to which I feel comfortable critiquing information this is located outside of my own domain of knowledge and experience.

6. Is there ever a time you would block a user who had not received a full set of warning templates?

A: My inclination would be to say yes, if it was a vandal that had a history of attacks and was clearly on a vandal spree that needed to be stopped short (after at least one warning). Another case would be an obvious sock puppet whose history and style I was already familiar with (in this case, the case of Ararat arev comes to mind, who has attacked articles I had worked on peripherally before he was banned indefinitely).

In closing, while I may not have been much of a contributor to the wikispace, I certainly try to read the latest info as it pertains to an issue I am trying to tackle (be it vandalism, copyrighted text or images, etc). There's contributing to policy and then there's acting upon it, and I guess I tend to fall more into the latter camp.

And either way, whether or not I get the extra tools and responsibility that come with being an Admin, I will continue to add and edit articles within my domain of knowledge, and help those who would do the same. (Climbs down from soapbox. ;-) Cheers! Captmondo 03:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Captmondo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Captmondo: Captmondo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Captmondo before commenting.

Discussion

• To the opposers re. "no need for tools". In answer 1, he says he wants to revert vandalism. Admin rollback is a far more efficient method of reverting vandalism, than some javascript tool. And, to quote Gurch: "Are vandals supposed to block themselves?" * Aillema 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You can still rollback with JS. CO₂ 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Believe me, mediawiki rollback is much better - and you'd agree with me if you tried to beat DerHexer to reverts on a regular basis ;) * Aillema 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe you, but there is still a non admin rollback. As far as DerHexer goes, he's a bot :). CO₂ 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
        • How is DerHexer so so prolific? He's amazing and fast. I want what he's using! Phgao 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If you want to practice your vandal-reverting & nonsense-prodding skills at your leisure without the "race" of RC patrol, this is always a good place to start — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support For a lot of reasons. 1) Just shy of 2k edits over a long, long time. Let's kill this edit counting thing. 2) Substantial contributions - quality not quantity. 3) Sure, you haven't done a lot of the traditional admin work e.g. WP:AIV, WP:XFD etc. but just a look at your edit summaries and content additions shows you have a strong knowledge of policy, particularly sourcing and citing. Let's kill this "no need for the tools" thing while we're here. 4) No issues of civility or bad faith. 5) Honest approach by self nominating and describing your contributions here so far make me feel you can be trusted. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Happy to give my support. A great editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. per Pedro, who brings up excellent things we should put into practice more often. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. Perfect example of an editor who has enough experience, even though their edit count isn't through the roof. Being around for over two years is definitely enough to know how wikipedia works. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Pedro is quite right; "no need for the tools" isn't an adequate reason to deny adminship. Anyone who is trustworthy, and has demonstrated a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and process, should be given the admin tools if they want them. There's no upper limit on the number of admins we can promote, so less active admins don't harm the project. Walton^One 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per Pedro. Marlith ^T/C 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
7. SUPPORT Has FA. Sometimes, one must look past mere numbers to quality and ability. I believe the nom has the sense(?) to use the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
8. I support too! Clearly a 'good faith' editor. Backsigns 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Very weak support with exactly the same rationale as Tanner Christopher yesterday. I don't agree with "doesn't need the tools" as an argument as long as you might find them useful. I'm not worried you'll deliberately abuse tools, and while Faithless raises a valid concern below that you won't understand policy well enough to enforce it, the very fact that you only seem to work in a small area makes me willing to give you benefit of the doubt that you won't try to get involved in things until you understand them — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support doesn't need tools... no one needs tools, but he might find them useful. I don't care if he makes 3 deletes or 3333 deletes, so long as it's something. * Aillema 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Weak support Low wikipedia space edits, but your edits are quality edits. CO₂ 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Weak Support per CO. A little more project space edit would help. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 05:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Per your Q1 answer. The admin revert function is great - I wish I had it. You know, it's one of the 4 major admin tools (alongside block, protect, delete) - we should dish it out more often. Also, new users look up to and respect admins - and this guy will really help them out. Support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support He is a meticulous, attentive and thoughtful writer and editor, and an excellent collaborator (I was a contributor to his feature article on Delrina.) What he needs to learn to become increasingly effective in this role, I know he will learn quickly and apply fervently. VickiZ 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I think admin tools here will be used pretty infrequently, but that's okay. If the Capt. uses admin rollback, and blocks an occasional vandal, that can't hurt. And I don't see the potential for serious misuse. CitiCat ^♫ 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - good signs of 'pedia building. Admin tools are always useful there (don't forget protecting, moving etc.). Hate to see split between builders and admins.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Appears to be a quality editor rather than a quantity editor. "Doesn't need the tools" and editcountitis are unconvincing reasons to oppose. Acalamari 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Having worked with Captmondo on numerous occasions, I know him to be a calm, reasonable, and remarkably levelheaded editor who has been invaluable. More senior editors on the whole who have proven responsability such as he has need to be given certain administrative tools, particularly revert and protect, and he would be an excellent person to give them to. Thanatosimii 04:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support with only 116 wikispace edits. I wouldn't be opposed to you becoming an admin, but I think that more experience with wikipedia policy would help you greatly. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose — I agree with Pedro: quality > quantity. But, honestly, the quality of your edits is not so impressive. Your recent participation in the mainspace is just OK. Your participation in the Wikipedia namespace is truly disappointing. The last (only?) time you participated in an AfD was in June. Also, after reviewing your participation in the talk namespaces (talk, user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc.), you don't seem to be very involved in discussions with other users. I really can't trust you with admin rights right now. Sorry. Also, I disagree with Walton. "No need for the tools" is a perfectly good reason to oppose; why request access to certain rights if you're not going to use them; that's called power hunger, not that I'm accusing the candidate of this; your edits are appreciated. They're just not enough to convince me that you'll use the admin rights wisely. I totally agree with a policy used at the Wikimedia Commons, as well as several other Wikis, that inactive admins should have their rights removed. We give users admin rights so that they can use them to help the project, not have them hanging around and displaying it to all of your friends like a trophy. Again, sorry. Finally, I would like to state that I have not checked this candidate's edit stats; I rarely do. Edit count alone should not be used to evaluate the quality or importance of an editor to this project. --Agüeybaná 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I think that having admins that do not generally used the tools can be good because as long as they are available to others. As a newbie I go to the admin page and look for active editors to leave them questions. Thus, not needing the tools in my eyes, is not a strong reason to oppose provided that you make your self available. I agree with you, thought, that the user lacks experience that may prove useful when guiding newbies with questions regarding wikispace issues.Brusegadi 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per lack over overall experience. Jmlk17 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Per your answer to question one. Reverting vandalism and helping new users, doesn't require the tools. Sorry but no. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Nothing in the answer to #1 indicates a need for the tools. Vandalism monitoring/reversion to a select category of articles can be accomplished with a watchlist and tools like Twinkle or Popups. No contributions to XfD, AIV, RPP or any of the places where we need sysops the most. Caknuck 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Great editor but needs more experience in spaces other than the mainspace. Brusegadi 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - due to low mainspace edits. And, per Random. M.^(er) 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Doesn't seem to understand what adminship is. He thinks it's about reverting vandalism and helping new users. Od Mishehu 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Very very weak oppose - should have more edits Bigglove^talk 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Sorry, not enough edits. -jj137 (t • c) 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose Not enough projectspace edits. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose as not quite having enough edits (total under 2,000) and especially WP edits. I'd support in a little while. Please use the edit summaries. Bearian 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I don't mean or want to be harsh, but considering the large amount of time you've been active on Wikipedia, not so much has been achieved in that time. Lradrama 08:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Long term editor, but the answer to question one doesn't require the tools. Experience is limited. I can't oppose at this time because I don't think there would be an abuse of the tools here, but I can't support for the lack of experience. Broaden your focus a bit. You say you want your main focus to be fighting vandalism, but you have less than 2 edits to AIV. Project space edits are also low. LaraLove 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   To comment in response to Pedro. I'm not throwing out the "you don't need the tools" argument. I don't think one should necessary need the tools. However, when answering question one, I think it's important that one intends to do some admin work. Otherwise, what's the point? And, also, I wasn't edit counting as there were no edits in that particular area to count. ;) LaraLove 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Lara, sorry that wasn't aimed at you at all - I was still reviewing the candidates contribs. when you commented, and didn't look at your comment before posting mine - looking at them together now I know it could be seen as trying to counter your comments, but trust me - it's not! Being totally honest, when I see sub 2k edits I start getting a sinking feeling of a doomed RfA (no debates on that please everyone!) and I do agree edits show experience, and without experience I'm nervy on supporting. But here I honestly think it is quantity not quality. Any how, please be reassured I was not in any way poking at yourself, but more at some wide spread practices coming into RfA these days. Pedro |  Chat  15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

2. I understand (and respect, and for the most part agree with) your attitude towards edit count not being a direct indicator of the quality of your edits. However, you really don't seem to be particularly active, with just 81 edits last month alone. Ideally, an administrator would be around a bit more, and I'd like to see more activity from you, especially since you're saying that you'll use your admin privileges to better police high-traffic Egypt articles (despite the fact that, for the most part, you can do that now without the tools). I don't think you'll make a bad admin, which is why I'm not going to oppose, but I do want to give you some food for thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Assuming that I am allowed to comment (well, I am anyways), I know where LaraLove and EVula are coming from, and I realize that becoming an Admin necessarily means devoting more time to the matter (a factor which has stopped me from asking for an Admin role earlier) and actively broadening the scope for the articles under my direct purview. Captmondo 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral I was torn between Support and Neutral, until I saw Captmondo's comments just above here. While not a bad editor by any stretch of the imagination, the fact that he's so unfamiliar with the RfA process that he doesn't know that he's allowed to comment on the comments of others shows me that he doesn't have the overall experience required of administrators. Also, as others have pointed out, while he is a solid, consistent contributor, he's been here for more than two years but hasn't yet amassed 2000 edits. Not meaning to get edit-county, but those numbers suggest an editor who doesn't put in the time an admin (ideally) should. Since I do think he's a fine editor, I can't oppose, but nor can I support until he becomes a more active contributor. faithless (^speak) 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Just a note Faithless, but I'm personally not convinced that to be unfamiliar with the RfA process is the same as being unfamiliar with the requirements of administrators. However I do agree that more activity would be nice. I just don't feel it's essential. Blimey - I'm coming across like I nominated the candidate now! Thanks for your comment, and very best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, to be fair I didn't see much by way of precedent for commenting on neutral votes as opposed to those opposed. Also, the requirements for becoming an admin have changed substantially since the last time I seriously investigated the topic, which was back in late 2005. (No matter how you look at it, a good thing). My default action is to first tread lightly based on what information is at hand, and then go from there. Captmondo 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well Pedro, I'm afraid that's just where we differ (and I absolutely respect your right to disagree with me). While Captmondo is a perfectly fine editor, it is just my belief that an admin should be much more active in the project. Perhaps this isn't fair, perhaps this disqualifies many very capable potential admins. And Captmondo just reinforced why I can't support him at this time, by basically admitting his unfamiliarity with RfAs. While 2000 edits certainly wouldn't disqualify him in my eyes, when you break it down he only averages about sixty or so edits a month. Personally, I think that an admin needs to be much more active than that. If he steps up his editing, becomes more of a presence around the project and participates in a wider range of areas, I believe I would support. Again, I'm not opposing, and I do think he's a valuable contributor. I just want to see mor ecommitment from potential admins to the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral, leaning toward support. I think the work he's done so far is very good, he's not active enough for my taste. Wouldn't be as available as I think an admin should be. It's just a personal opinion that admins should be logging a couple hundred edits per month. If that's editcountitis, then so be it, but I'm not opposing, as the work he's done has been excellent. Useight 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral I too was tossing up between a support and a oppose, but there are too many conflicting arugments for both so I choose neutral. Another minor point I see is that the editor does have solid contributions, but edits in the various talk namespaces is a tad low, yes I realise there are a lot on some Egypt articles, but I personally would like to see more discussion with other editors, not just in article talk but in user talk as well. Further participation in vandal fighting would be good too, if the editor wishes to use tools for blocking et al. Is that a fair point I have raised? Phgao 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't know a lot of the candidates that come through RfA either, but that's not a reason to oppose or be neutral. Acalamari 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

   May I respectfully suggest that if you do not know an editor, and feel that you need to do so in order to make a value judgement, then if you are not prepared to study his edits and hence to get to know him then making no comment at all in RfA is preferable?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral a good editor, but with the low level of project space edits I can not support him at this time. -Icewedge 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)