Nosebagbear

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/0/2); Scheduled to end 19:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Nosebagbear (talk · contribs) – Wikipedians, please may I present to you Nosebagbear for your consideration to become an administrator. When Nosebagbear first contacted me to discuss the possibility of becoming an administrator, I did a quick check of their history and could only ask one thing - "What's wrong with you?". In my eyes, Nosebagbear is a fairly ideal candidate, he meets my magic formula with ease. Although his account was created back in 2012, he started editing in earnest about 18 months ago, racking up 15,000 odd edits. He's managed to do a bit of content creation and even managed to get through a peer-review process (Fairness Project was marked as a Good Article by The Rambling Man).
But where Nosebagbear excels is being able to help others - his most edited page on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk by a long way. Having spent a bit of time on different helpdesks in the past, I can tell you they are places that we really need good people to help out. His CSD log deals with copyvios largely, which is unsurprising given where he spends his time, and seems to be accurate. I can only see giving him tools as a benefit to the project. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. I have never edited for pay. I don't have any alternate accounts, and I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: There's three main areas that I plan to use the tools to help out:

• AfD - AfDs were the first "backstage" area of Wikipedia I really participated in and I've been active in both !voting in them (c. 750) and closing them. I learnt a lot through this route: both the various policies but also settling conflicts without personalising them. There's significantly more active non-admin closers even in the year since I started doing them. However this does leave the more controversial closes and handling deletions.

• AIV/RFPP - I'm quite active in recent changes patrol work, and a good number of admins handle huge numbers of block and page protection requests. However even slightly speeding up the responses by adding another admin can save a major amount of work for other editors.

• OTRS - I became an OTRS agent about 10 months ago. However a large number of tickets include queries on deleted content. Being able to view deleted drafts/articles and, where appropriate, undelete them, would let me handle a larger number by myself.

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

A: I really enjoyed writing the Fairness Project article, and then taking it to GA. I had no idea it would become so detailed when I picked it in WP:RA, but I learnt a lot in the process in areas I'd never considered. As one example, those interested can hear my not quite dulcet tones as I recorded a spoken version. I also have spent a good amount of work providing several hundred references to demonstrate notability for albums in various genres, such as thrash metal.

Outside of the above I enjoy helping explain certain aspects of Wikipedia to those thrust into it without prior experience. This is both in the fairly specific nature of the AFC helpdesk and the broader style of OTRS email response tickets. Both on and off Wikipedia itself, that's included everything from helping with huge, legitimate, concerns of article subjects; encouraging some new editors to give it a go themselves to handling negative contributors. The very changeable style encourages more tailored answers which it's been fun being able to give.

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: Most of my content editing is in non-contentious areas, so it's rare for me to be involved in mainspace content conflicts. I have been in a reasonable number of heated and even argumentative AfDs, a couple of which have spread the conflict into their originating articles. It's rare for this to cause me significant stress: either the arguments aren't personal, so I don't take them as such, or they are personal - in which case I'm generally not inclined to take ad hominem statements to heart. I try to do two main things to reduce the conflict in a situation: understand not just the position of those disagreeing but why they hold that POV, and try to make use of any shared ground. It's usually fairly easy to know what someone is asking for, but the reasoning gives the context that actually allows my response to be helpful and not counterproductive or condescending. Identifying any shared ground not only is an immediate plus but helps provide a basis in the rest of a discussion - it helps shift the focus to the result, not the individuals.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

4.

Optional question from Reaper Eternal

5. So I took a look at your Fairness Project good article—it's quite nicely done! However, I do have one question: What makes "Ballotpedia" a reliable source? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A: When I was originally adding the Ballotpedia sources I read all the WP:RSN discussions on it, which roughly gave an original consensus of "definitely not for BLPs, marginally suitable as a tertiary source due to professional editorial staff", which roughly lined up with my own look at it. However, a more detailed consideration (which I absolutely should have done then) tells me that the professional editors couldn't adequately monitor the number of writers, making it a partially closed wiki, with the commensurate RS lack. Since the points I use it for are purely factual electoral statements, reliable primary sources (if I can't find the most preferable conventional secondary RS which includes it) would be better. Thank you for pointing them out - I'll get them fixed. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support Seen him around the place a lot, always helpful and seems to have clue. Surprised I'm first, guess everyone's at the screaming match next door.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. zOMG you’re not an admin already? - meets my criteria, would be a net positive to the encyclopedia with a mop. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Just about the model candidate for admin, IMHO. Huge benefit to the project to make them an admin. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I legitimately thought you were an administrator already. I'm happy to support and am looking forward to seeing you help the movement in an administrative capacity. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Has been on my list of editors to investigate as possible admin candidates; glad to see they're here already and I'm going to be spared the trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8. As nom Worm^TT(talk) 19:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support With the level of maturity and the breadth of experience Nosebagbear has, I thought they were already an admin! So I'm very glad and excited to support them. I know they have what it takes, they have a clear need for the tools, and they are clearly qualified. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Level headed contributor who understands the project and will be an effective sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - I see nothing wrong with this user that makes me think that they would not be a good admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support net-positive to the project. Will do well with the tools. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Could use the help at AIV and RFPP, and their OTRS work would would benefit from having the tools. ST47 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No concerns.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per Worm That Turned. Mkdw ^talk 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per nom. Levelheaded editor. – Ammarpad (talk)
19. Strong support: that the user needs the tools for OTRS, and is trusted enough to have been granted OTRS permission, is enough of a reason for me to support. The thorough experience of the user in admin areas and the comments of those above is already enough for my support to be strong. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, good impressions so far--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral pending answers to future questions from editors. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've seen quite a bit of good from this candidate, and I probably won't stay here, but I do want to bring up a concern early in the RfA in case other editors have seen similar things. Earlier this year, the candidate stepped into an ANI discussion I started (and which did not involve him), and said this: [1]. In that thread, I had reported an attack page about me. Multiple other admins determined at the time that it was an attack page, and it was speedy deleted (and the other editor was later placed under a 1-way IBAN with me). But the candidate, in contrast, brushed off the complaint, as "not reach[ing] the level of an attack page". That gives me pause, because the comment wasn't helpful and we want admins to recognize these things for what they are. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• @Gamaliel: I'm sure that Nosebagbear has also stopped beating their wife, but since you clearly believe that to be within the realms of legitimate enquiry, you should probably be aware that it demonstrates an egregious failure of good judgment for one possessing advanced permissions. ——SerialNumber54129 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Candidate needs to sign his acceptance after this line "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for this nomination, I accept. I have never edited for pay. I don't have any alternate accounts, and I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information."Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]