Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nosleep 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

(13/18/5); Originally scheduled to end 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC); withdrawn by candidate at 00:51, 21 January 2010 and closed by Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nosleep (talk · contribs) – Greetings. I'm back to try for adminship once again, feeling that I've learned much in the time spent since I last entered this process. I wanted to have 10,000 edits and another FA under my belt before I came back, but I also wanted to make this request today. Seven days from today is my 24th birthday, and either way I'll be getting a gift – hopefully the mop, but if not, a new learning experience. I will be unavailable on Saturday the 23rd, but I should be around to answer questions at any other time between now and when this action closes. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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'm going to give the answer I should have given last time – speedy deletion. It's what I know, and it's what I do. It used to be that each article listed on my userpage represented one hour spent new page patrolling. I've tried to keep up with that personal rule as best I can; though I've fallen off a bit recently, I still feel myself very experienced in wading through Special:Newpages and sifting out that which needs to be sifted out. I can probably count on my fingers and toes the number of times I've placed a speedy deletion tag on an article and not had it be speedied, and on one hand the number of times it hasn't been deleted anyway (maybe even one finger). I would like to be able to delete the obviously deletion-worthy without needing to leave a tag for someone else. As my last RFA would indicate, my definition of "deletion-worthy" is probably a bit broader than that of most editors, but I submit that my definition of "obviously deletion-worthy" is in line with consensus. I want to be able on my own authority to delete articles whose only text is "My cat's breath smells like cat food" not stubs for potentially notable persons or events. I believe in process, and I'd like to be able to play my part. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I don't really have anything on which to hang my hat that wasn't mentioned in my last RFA. I was involved with one FA, Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race, but in truth I didn't do a whole lot to promote it from GA to FA. I have seven GA's that passed as a result of my nominations, five of which I essentially wrote from scratch. I am trying very hard to get articles on the Giro d'Italia cycling race up to the best quality possible. A long-term carrot in front of my nose is to get Giro d'Italia to be a Featured Topic - it would easily be the largest ever, and currently only two out of the approximately 100 necessary articles are even at Good status. But it's something to shoot for, and I'll never stop trying. Another thing I do, aside from composition, is try to form consensus through my most active WikiProject, WP:CYCLING, whenever there is any sort of disagreement or dispute over how we should do things. You'll see a lot of my signature on the Project's talk page and on talk pages of our articles. The first step should always be to consult the MOS, and there have been instances where it has overruled our apparent consensus, but such a thing is easier said than done. It's important to know where everyone stands, and if most of us agree that things should go one way, hopefully those who think they should go another way can be big enough to abide by the majority decision. I have been put in that position many times. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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've been in a few spats, of course I have. We all have. I touched on a few in the last RFA. One, in the time from my last RFA, was particularly vitriolic and catty, but it never got beyond a couple of talk pages. I started doing a GA review of a very short article, and made an off-the-cuff remark that I wasn't sure the article would pass, but that I would give it a good-faith review. The author consulted a fellow editor, a bit upset by comment (understandable), and I happened to find the talk page on which they were conversing. The second editor commented that I was not going to give the article a good-faith review, and I decided to remove myself from the process, asking for another reviewer at WT:GAN. If only that had been the end of it.... I made the mistake of returning to the talk page where the two of them had been conversing, and found that this second editor was saying some pretty petty and mean-spirited things about me, something about how only scoundrels assume good faith (?), which I had chided them to do, and that I was a spoiled little idiot because I'm American and he's British (if it doesn't make sense now, trust me, it didn't then either). It got quite out of hand, and I went a bit too far and wound up apologizing. His response was to tell me to fuck off one of harsh acrimony showing that he had no intention of ever trying to work with me or meet in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, this person no longer exists. I've talked to others about this person in the meantime; he has some friends in high places. The general opinion is that he's an asset to the project because of how many GA reviews he does (admittedly, a great number of them). I call baloney on that. If you're being mean and chasing people away, you're doing exactly what you shouldn't. We're already losing users at an unprecedented rate just from enforcing our own rules, no need for mean-spiritedness and hatred to speed things up. I don't wish to name the user in question, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't figured it out from my description, and he may even come here (he'll get no response from me if he does). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem this needs further response. Yes, I'm referring to User:Malleus Fatuorum. No, I do not care for him. Nor does he for me. Aside from his coming here to oppose, which I fully expected, we've done quite well at staying out of one another's way in the last five months. I'm not seeing how this is a problem. Certain people just don't like each other, even if they've never actually met. I'm sorry if my initial unwillingness to relive my past moments of incivility has come across as dishonesty; it was really just me not wanting to look at myself being a jerk. My lowest moments are things I'd like to forget, and given that this was the only incident since the last RFA, I'd say my conduct is actually improving. If you're going to let one incident five months ago, which was over and done with in a day, determine my future, then so be it. Have none of you had problems with another user which then made you not wish to work with that user again? Is this really so significant? I am not targeting Malleus. I will not block him if granted the tools. If any part of you still believes in assuming good faith, please take that at face value. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In rereading my initial answer to this question, it's a bit more acrimonious than I intended. I'd apologize to Malleus, but I don't think he cares. The only point I meant to make, ironically enough, was that civility still has a place here. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Coffee

4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. This particular AFD seems to have established significant coverage in one reliable source independent of the subject. The GNG requires multiple, so delete (the outcome, as the link at the top of the page is red) is correct. BLP's in particular must be written conservatively, which starts with the very act of writing them at all. It's why I've never, but once for an article I later listed at AFD, started a BLP article. Anyone I think is notable has already had an article for some time. While in general the onus for AFD's is on those who wish to delete, it must be on those who wish to keep when the subject is a BLP. We need to be sure. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. Our ideals for BLP's are good, but they are sometimes not put into practice. I've never started a BLP from the ground up and don't necessarily plan to (I did improve Alberto Contador to GA status, but it was already a pretty good article when I found it). I occasionally see contentious claims in articles that are unsourced; these have got to go immediately upon being found (some are obvious to the point of vandalism, some are likely well-intentioned but still obvious violations, some are POV pushing, some are me being really careful, which I believe is what needs to be the rule with BLP's – some are even me being really careful with my own writing and some are verifiable and sourced, but still obvious removals – not my edit but I would have made it had I found the article at that time). I think some editors have a tendency to put things are popularly said or believed into articles without necessarily citing them and without thinking about the potential harm. When I made the Kyle Lohse edit, it occurred to me that whoever put that in the article had likely heard it perpetuated on a sports talk show or something and thought it a fair conclusion to draw of Lohse, but as it's something that can't really be cited, and as Lohse is a human being who could very easily read that page and see such a thing said about him, with no attribution, the claim had to go. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is your interpretation of IAR, and do you think that common sense should automatically overweigh policies in any area on Wikipedia?

A. Wikipedia policies are almost always in line with common sense (is it really so common?). IAR is a last resort. I don't know that I've ever actually seen it sensibly invoked. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few from Smithers...

7. Describe CSD criterion G1 in your own words.

A. Ah, patent nonsense. Where would the new page patroller be without it? This is where "my cat's breath smells like cat food" comes into play. Content that doesn't make sense and hopelessly never will is patent nonsense. This would also obviously include text that looks like (and probably is) the result of someone wiping off their keyboard or mashing it with their fist. It's not a catch-all, though, and it fails to cover some things which are speediable (vandalism, hoaxes, articles lacking context) and some things which are not speediable (poor writing, fringe theories, material not written in English). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Describe the difference between CSD criterion A1 and A3 in your own words.

A. A1 is only for very short articles. If an article can't sufficiently identify its subject, like even the stubbiest of (kept) stubs do in a sentence or two, then that's A1 – no context. It may be possible that context is coming – the author could have inadvertently mainspaced the article before he was ready, or imprudently saved a draft intentionally that had only a sentence or two that could not identify its subject. So it's best to wait a few minutes for using A1. A3 candidates usually don't even have these one or two sentences that fail to identify their subject. It sounds a little crazy that such an "article" could even exist, but I've seen it – broken infoboxes, the text that results from hitting some of the buttons above the edit window, someone just saying hi to their friend (it's...amazing sometimes what you'll come across when NPP'ing). An A1 article can possibly be saved – I would have a harder time believing this to be true of an A3. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Would you block someone when they have less then the usual four warnings?

A. I'm not keen to block anyone, though I understand it will be necessary if and when I'm granted the tools. As I've said above, I believe in process, so I wouldn't do this lightly, if at all. It would have to be something like threats of bodily harm made against another user, and not just content disputes or even blatant vandalism.

Might add more to this answer later, a bit sleepy (ironically enough) now. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. smithers - talk 15:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Gigs

10. How would you go about determining if an article includes copyright violations?

A: I've on occasion run into articles with prose that seems out of place or unlikely to be in that article. Prose that just seems like it might have been lifted from somewhere. One thing to do is to put a chunk of it into a search engine and see if anything other than Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors pop up. I've found this on occasion with articles on TV show episodes (synopsis lifted from official websites). If the amount of lifted material is small, such as I repeatedly removed from Wilson (House episode), it's probably just easiest to remove it than go through the WP:CV procedure. If text is found to have been lifted, it's important also to check if the site from which it came freely licenses its content – I'd consider that unlikely, but it's not at all impossible. It's obviously much tougher when the source is a print reference – I'm honestly not sure what I'd do if confronted with a CV case involving a print source, but I'd like to think that's one of the learn-on-the-job sort of things (I don't think anyone can become an admin, or ascend to any position anywhere, immediately knowing everything they should). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. You notice an article includes a lot of text that is very similar to text on another web site, but not exactly the same. How might you respond to this?

A. The first thing to check is if that other web site is a Wikipedia mirror, and our article has simply changed in the meantime since they posted the article. If that's the case, nothing needs to be done. Nothing can be done, as far as I know. If an article is reasonably believed to have copyright violations, the CV procedure is in place – the article is provisionally blanked while the CV investigation is carried out, with a temporary subpage available to build the article as it should be. If actual copyvios are found to have been carried out, then the article, or at least the versions with copyvio, are deleted. Easy peasy. If an article is not a clear copyvio nor a Wikipedia mirror but is still substantially similar to source material, I would definitely chide the author to revise and if he didn't, I'd do it myself. Plagiarism isn't necessarily something being copied and pasted, it's when writing isn't composed wholly in one's own words. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Have your views on IP editors changed since the last RfA?

A. I still would rather work with named accounts, and I'm sure I always will, but I don't think my stance on IP's was ever quite as extreme as everyone at the last RFA thought it was. Do I think registration should be required to edit, yes, but I know that'll never be the case, and I have no strong problem with that. If I did, I'd leave the project. I do tend to double-check edits made by IP's where I wouldn't if they were done by people I know...but tangibly, that's about the only difference. Everything else is how I feel, and to the best of my knowledge it's never affected my behavior. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Politoman

13. Let's say that a real-world close friend of yours told you that he planned on registering an account on wikipedia with the intention of doing vandalism, writing joke articles, and trolling. This friend also told you the username he planned to use for his hijinks. What action, if any, would you take? I am reserving the right to ask follow-up questions on this topic depending on your answer here.

A. First thing would be to try to take care of it offline. Ask this friend why they had such intentions, and try to talk them out of them. If that didn't work, I'd inform other admins and keep an eye out for his edits. If they did prove to be unquestionably vandalism, then there are procedures in place to deal with that. I've encountered a few career vandals in my time, and it's easy enough to get their usernames blocked once it's proven what their intentions are. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

14. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:

A controversial question from Phantomsteve

15. There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days (see here) over whether an admin can delete BLP articles which are unwatched, unsourced and that have not been edited for several months - without the use of PRODs or AfDs. Admins and 'regular' editors alike have argued both in favour and against this. What is your take on this situation?

A:

• Links for Nosleep: Nosleep (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nosleep can be found here.

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

• Edit stats posted to talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I'd advise against setting this up so it ends on your birthday. If it fails, I imagine it's the last thing you'll want. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. If it fails, I'll work toward the next one. The first RFA occurred at a random time, this one is roughly six months hence, which happens to be around my birthday. Just an idea that I had. I never expected the first RFA to pass; I don't expect that this one will, though I'm more hopeful. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, that's fair then. Best of luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd recommend against quizzing RFA candidates about the hot issue du jour, as in question 15 above, since in my experience reviewers judgment is often biased by what they think about the issue itself rather than what they think about the candidate or his/her thought process. In my opinion, we have had enough experience with such questions over the past years to know better than to use them at RFAs. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. Supported last time, some things only get better with time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support Without reservation. I'm familiar with this user. They've done outstanding work, they have a wonderful temperament, and they're incredibly suited for the task. ceranthor 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - this user says that she wants to be involved in deletion, but her edits to the Wikipedia namespace are generally not in deletion. Still, she appears to be a constructive and civil editor who will not cause trouble if given admin status. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • Well, I do try to be active in AFD's as much as possible...but it's a pretty monumental task to be involved all the time, and if I find I'd be saying nothing but Delete per User:.... , I think it's better to say nothing at all. Community processes, including this one, are or at least should be more about strength of arguments than sheer number of them, and if the proper argument has already been made, no need to be an echo chamber. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • I have amended my comment to use feminine language. I trust you with the tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Happy Birthday I almost supported her last time. Some things only get better with age. The tone of this second self-nomination shows a greater maturity. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Supported last time; no reason not to now. ···Lauryn 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support there is no rule that wikipedia editors have to like everyone who has been rude to them. And not liking Malleus is not really a reason to oppose. Still there is reason for caution but I don't see any evidence that this editor would abusively use the mop to block others. In fact I see quite the opposite. This idea of potential mop abuse seems to be entirely in the imagination of some of the opposers. Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak Support To be honest a lot looks better here... but the Malleus thing seems to indicate that you have a pretty thin skin. I read the original flames/disagreement/whatever and it really wasn't so extreme. I wonder how well you will hold up if someone really tears into you over the use of tools, but I'm willing to give support with some hesitation. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Being upset is one thing. I fully admit that I get upset a little easier than I probably should sometimes. I'm on hormones, for crying out loud. But I haven't let my feelings influence my actions, unless you count heated talk-page edits as actions. I won't, and can't, hide the fact that I've shown emotions sometimes. But demonstrative is all it is; not disruptive. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That's understandable, but do you not therefore feel it would have been wiser to delay this RfA until your sex change was complete? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Weak Support - RfA is about trusting people. I can trust the user, so I will support. smithers - talk 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. If that is the only negative, then I have no hesitation.  GARDEN  16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No concerns, I also thought you already were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Support in the past continues today for me. Editor has good experince and the honesty is what i like about the editor most. Good Luck!Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC

    I feel the opposers are making a big deal out of very little. I have no further concerns. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you don't rate honesty in an administrator as highly as I do then. That's understandable, but not forgiveable. NoSleep told several lies in the account he gave in answer to Q3, only one of which he has chosen to strike. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am probably more liberal about adminship than you Malleus, but I don't see that as a particularly bad thing. I personally don't care too much that she has a poor memory with respect to how you responded to her, I do care that she would appear to be a net positive. I am highly critical of the notion of her deciding to block you or take any adverse action as soon as she has the tools, no one in their right mind would try that, and if anyone did, they'd be desysopped immediately. Maybe I have a little too much faith in the ArbCom system, but no one could get away with any action like that. I only glanced at the diff you provided in your oppose, but in all fairness to the candidate you weren't exactly helping matters. That whole affair could have been handled with perfect civility (and I don't see any incivility on her behalf), but instead I see it as you being somewhat hostile and being rude when she tried to apologise about the whole issue. Care to point out the other lies you've hinted at, and back them up with diffs? All I can see are several accusations. I'm open to a change in vote, if you can prove to me why I should rather than implying I have bad judgement. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt Nosleep would block Malleus as it's obvious there'd be too much fall out, but from Nosleep's interaction with Malleus I do not trust this person with the ability to block others next time they get in an argument. The tools are all about trust. From the answer to question 3, I think it's fairly clear that a grude has been held against Malleus, and that is not what we need in admins. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions such as this one rarely (if ever) change anyone's mind, but I'll give one more example, just in case. Can you find anywhere in the incident I linked to where "this second editor [me] ... said I [Nosleep] was a spoiled little idiot because I'm American and he's British"? And I note that you can find no incivility in an "apology" that begins: "I don't know you well enough to reasonably assert that you're a net minus to the project. I can suspect as much ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nev1, I imagine there are quite a few admins who would hold a grudge against Malleus for some sort of past experience, but I don't see anyone doing much more than trying to take him to RfC every so often, only to get (right so) closed promptly. We all hold grudges, whether we admit it or not. I see honesty in the candidate (albeit with a bit of confusion and bad memory thrown right in there)

    @Malleus, I'd imagine the whole American/British thing evolved out of confusion from Casliber's comment, but you're correct in it being a very false assertion. It appears I glanced a little too scarcely upon the actual apology, and that does seem like she was trying to get 'one-up' on you. I think I'm going to switch to neutral. Whilst I trust the candidate not to abuse the tools knowingly, I need to be more certain that a certain temper won't flare up when under pressure. Thanks for your reply. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not everything I said about Malleus (and I'd really like to stop talking about him, if that's possible) was based on our one interaction. Though I've never again interacted with him personally, I've certainly seen his interactions with others on talk pages and drawn some conclusions from them. This talk of "holding a grudge" has me interested. For one, unless you think I'd permablock Malleus immediately upon getting the tools (which is absurd), what does it matter if I am holding a grudge (I'm not – honestly, I feel nothing toward him on a personal level. The scorn he shows me does work me up a little, but I've been trying to ignore it). Unless that's the interpretation you're drawing from these events, I don't see why my not having love and kisses for the man is a matter. If you think it means I'd block someone for looking at me cross-eyed if granted the tools and the only reason I wouldn't block Malleus is because of this action, that's still absurd, and I'd chide you to assume good faith, but I suppose it's a separate point. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You said: "(I'm not – honestly, I feel nothing toward him on a personal level." but in Q3, you also said "As far as I'm concerned, this person no longer exists"? Aren't you contradicting yourself? I don't think you entirely understand this. You seem to think that people are worried about your Q3 answer because you might hold a grudge. That's the least of it. The important thing is that you either didn't tell the truth, or you couldn't be bothered getting your facts straight. When pulled up about it, you just started backpedalling. Even now, you haven't retracted your comment "and found that this second editor was saying some pretty petty and mean-spirited things about me, something about how only scoundrels assume good faith (?), which I had chided them to do, and that I was a spoiled little idiot because I'm American and he's British", which is patently false. Parrot of Doom 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support Although the incident cited by most of the below opposers was not handled well by the candidate, I don't think that's indicative of how she would conduct herself in an administrative capacity, especially given her history outside of that incident. The candidate has done a lot of good content work for WikiProject Cycling, and she seems to understand the criteria for speedy deletion just fine. Her views on stubs and the WP:MYSPACE policy, detailed on her userpage, are not necessarily in line with my views; however, I don't believe that's material to this RfA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per review of user's contributions. -Atmoz (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nosleep in his answer to Q3 is referring to the incident described here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be interested in any elaboration on why this is considered a reason to oppose. Personally, I commend Nosleep for trying to back out of a conflicted situation, especially when the discussion was already quite heated and aggressive. That being said, I have not yet done sufficient review to land a final decision myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   He has lied about the event and clearly holds grudges. You may consider those admirable assets for an administrator, but I do not. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Based off this comment and the comment in the neutral section I understand what you mean, and thank you for the clarification. For now, though, I still withhold my !vote to thoroughly analyze everything. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   In case you haven't seen it, here is a video of the discussion that Nosleep walked in on...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, as per Malleus's reply above, and my comments on that matter in the Neutral section. A simple matter like this should be faced head-on, and not simply ignored. Parrot of Doom 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Oppose. Per Malleus and Q3. Your answer to Q3 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although you don't name anyone, you're clearly targeting someone. The last thing we need on this project is more admins who use the tools on users they dislike. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • I won't block anyone I don't think exists, if that's what you mean. I don't plan to block anyone for some time after getting the tools (whenever that may be), and only those who are clearly meant to be blocked. It is a bit disappointingly pessimistic that you think I'd use the tools against people I don't like. Malleus is hardly the only such person, and I'm sure plenty of current admins have people they don't get along with, and therefore don't deal with. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   So you don't like Malleus. By your own logic you have just made me very concerned... -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   How so? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   per Q3 and the addendum. Serious concerns with maturity and lack of common sense. I just don't think you're ready. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess I just don't see how avoiding someone who causes me pain is immature. But you're free to your opinion, and I'll leave you to it at this point. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. Answer to Q3 is disappointing. Not only does Nosleep admit to losing his cool in a dispute, he seems to be holding a grudge as a result of this dispute. I would normally over look one episode of uncivil behavior if it were way in the past, and had not been repeated, and the perpetrator did not hold a grudge. But Nosleep's answer to Q3, particularly his remarks about how Malleus Fatuorum "doesn't exist" raise red flags. First, it indicates to me that he is holding a grudge. Secondly, I would not consider the tone of the comments to be appropriate for an RFA. Also, Nosleep replied to the last Oppose !vote by implying that he would avoid Malleus, and that there are other editors he has had problems with. The tone of his answer to Q3, and his admission to having acted in the heat of the moment lead me to question whether he would actually avoid Malleus. The comment about having had problems with other editors, coupled with Maleus's contention that Nosleep lied about their conflict, also raises red flags (though in all fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if anything else is trivial). RadManCF (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   • I'm curious as to why my plan to avoid someone who only makes me angry is a "red flag." Would you rather I submitted myself to his abuse again, became angry, and went off the deep end again? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Its not that you plan to avoid the user, but the way you said it that bothered me. RadManCF (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. Cue the broken record, but the Q3 response is an enormous concern. I actually more or less understand the "doesn't exist" bit, and to a certain extent applaud the idea of simply avoiding someone you can't quite come to terms with in a reasonable way. That said, the rest of the response is the type of vindictive conduct I would generally be shocked to see coming from an admin. Your honesty is admirable but unfortunately it's also exposing a problem. With regret... ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose for two main reasons; not because you fell out with Malleus (you're not the first!), but because (1) you still seem to be letting it bother you, and (2) because reading through the diffs, I'm just not seeing support for your interpretation of events. Communication on Wikipedia, as a text-only medium, can be problematic at the best of times, and admins need to be more careful than most when reading something that has the potential to upset them. You could have ignored any offence, taken Ealdgyth's and Malleus's comments as constructive advice, and used them to improve your review. However, at the time you chose to focus on the negatives and become offended, and more worryingly, you still seem to be nursing a grudge now. Admins are inevitably subject to genuine abuse and bad-faith - merely by taking up the mop you become a target to some editors - and I have no confidence that you will be able to cope with far harsher and more personally-directed criticism than the mild comments Malleus made. EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Slight Oppose As per RadManCF, I can tell that it's going to be difficult for you to keep your cool but I like your detailed answers to the questions, showing how intelligent you are on Wikipedia. Still, keeping your cool is more important in my opinion. Minimac94 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per the thread in the neutral section. I don't think I could trust you with the tools right now. Aditya Ex Machina 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose The Q3 experience (per RadManCF). The replies: "I won't block anyone I don't think exists" et al illustrate a persistent lack of maturity and perspective over an incident characterised by a startling abdication of both. Further maturity concerns: the user page begins with 'must fill space' and does so by linking to Sporcle quizzes followed by reams of personal interest blather. The non-MySpacey stuff does eventually appear: NoSleep has lots of opinions and little apparent restraint in stating them: I'm bothered by NoSleep's beliefs and deductions re edit summaries and article length, and the dramatic assertions re notmyspace v. dickery. NoSleep has worked hard and made good contributions but does not show the necessary temperament for admin. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. RFA is to some extents like a job interview. One of the first rules in interviews is that if you are asked about something negative, you should try and spin it into a positive. Unfortunately the Q3 answer really doesn't manage this. The incident itself doesn't necessarily worry me - malleus winds lots of people up - but the answer gives the impression that the incident has festered, if only in nosleep's mind. I also find the answer to Q6 slightly odd, when his answer to Q3 in the last RFA said that they had invoked IAR correctly. Quantpole (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wrong. That simple. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - Per Q3 (and comments in the neutral section) and Q6. Using an RfA answer to slam another editor is really bad taste, and I'm not comfortable with an administrator who doesn't even understand, let alone embrace WP:IAR. -- Atama頭 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't mean to. I know you don't believe me, but it was never my intention to drag Malleus this far into this. As I said before, I'd offer an apology, but I know Malleus doesn't want one. I just meant to mention that the incident had taken place and that I feel Malleus' conduct doesn't help Wikipedia, which was mostly the basis for my involvement in the incident. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And you feel that yours does? Clearly this RfA has taught you nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per several of the above comments. I was involved in the incident with Malleus and Nosleep was unable to let the issue go. We don't need admins who hold grudges. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per the incident with MF. The response to q3 does not gel with my reading of the contents of this. Sorry. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose The answer to question 3 is jaw-droppingly bad. Keepscases (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per temperament regarding interaction with Malleus. Admins need to take the high ground when it comes to communicating with other editors, no matter how contentious the experience is. I am sure that we have all had tensions with other editors, but I think as an admin, you will have similar experiences to the one covered in Q3. Some growth is necessary in this regard. Strive to be amicable. Ask polite questions of the other party. Focus on the content, not the contributor(s). If necessary, find uninvolved editors to maintain that focus on content. Preview your comments and consider their impact. Try to adapt a collaborative tone, because I think people forget that we're all trying to build an encyclopedia, and we just have different ways to do it. Sometimes there are ways to compromise, sometimes you don't agree with consensus, and sometimes your exchanges will get your blood boiling. Being stoic is an important characteristic of any editor, but especially of admins. Erik (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Concerns about temperament. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per the comments made by Nev1. Look, I have had my own fair share of troubles between Malleus and myself in the past but you just need to move on and ignore it. WP:DGAF is a perfect essay for this case. Untill you can drop you case against him, im not comfortable with you haveing the ability to block those whome you get into arguemnts with.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again with the blocking. Do you really think I'm just going to block anyone who disagrees with me? Is anyone that dumb and maladjusted to try to do that? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per answer to Q3 which floored me when I read it, my apologies for the pile on. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. • I'd like a SNOW closure, please. This obviously isn't going to pass, and there's no need for more and more people to tell me I'm unfit to be an admin because there's someone, out of Wikipedia's millions of named accounts, with whom I'd prefer not to work. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "His response was to tell me to fuck off" - where? I can only see "couldn't give a flying fuck". Parrot of Doom 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have remembered wrong. You'll excuse me for not wanting to open those diffs and upset myself all over again. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not if you want to be an admin. I'd expect you to take greater care in such circumstances, especially in answers to your own RFA. Parrot of Doom 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to open them, so I'll refrain from making any further specific comments about the incident. I'd prefer to refrain from making any comments at all. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've ever commented on an RFA before now. I came across this page from Malleus's talk page, but after reading this I'll be opposing. You're clearly not trustworthy, or mature. Parrot of Doom 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I have, on occasion, thankfully the occasions are getting fewer and further between all the time, conducted myself in a manner of which I'm not proud. To go back and relive such times is not something I want to do. Was my characterization of what was said really so inaccurate that it casts doubts upon my trustworthiness? If I had said he told me to fuck off when what he really said was "Apology accepted," then yes, I'd be untrustworthy. But that's light years from what happened. What I originally said in my statement is maybe a few millimeters away. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, saying "I don't give a flying fuck [about your apology]" is very, very, far from "[told] me to fuck off". That you don't see this is evidence enough that you should not be given any special tools. Parrot of Doom 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I'm obviously not going to change your mind. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nosleep, your unwillingness to share the above mentioned diffs strikes me as disturbing behavior for an admin. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be transparent. RadManCF (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have posted them had someone asked me for them. I disclosed a similar incident on my first RFA, one with someone more mature than Malleus (in that I was able to bury the hatchet with her) so I mentioned her name. That's really the only difference. No one ever asked me for the diff of that argument, so I'm a little surprised this one is proving to be a big deal. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that using your RfA as a vehicle to attack me is such a great idea? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but I do... zing. But in all seriousness can we simmer down a bit? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this whole thread is pointless. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it couldn't be further removed from "pointless". It demonstrates quite aptly why this editor should not be given administrator status. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. When you edit for some time here, it's not an unusual thing to get into an argument with someone else. What bothers me is that you still seem to hold a grudge about it, judging by your comments here. Considering the amount of abuse you'll inevitably receive as an admin, I'm not sure how you'd cope with that. There are no other problems that I can see so I won't oppose. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nosleep, after reading your user page, I'm impressed with your Wikipedia contributions and how well you've handled real life; I'm sure you'll continue to do a great job with both. RFA is in part an interview, and you kind of flunked this interview in Q3. If this RfA fails and you're interested in running again in 6 months, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per struck support. I now have concerns about whether this candidate would, perhaps unknowingly, go a little too far when put under pressure. I'm going to evaluate further. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although I recognise the contributions that the candidate has made to Wikipedia, but I am concerned that if they were to be put under pressure as an admin, they might not cope with this well. Having no other concerns, I cannot oppose, but this concern is enough to prevent me from supporting. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not really sure after reading your response to question three. Maybe not the right temperament for an administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (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.