ErikHaugen

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/5/2); Scheduled to end 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

ErikHaugen (talk · contribs) – Greetings; I have been an editor since 2005, although up until a year ago I only edited very occasionally. I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges. I would be grateful for the opportunity to help out in that particular area, and hopefully my history of contributions demonstrates that I can be trusted with additional buttons. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2011 (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: I mostly intend to work on history merges, but I would also spend some time on various article deletion processes as well as some of the perennial backlogs at CAT:AB such as requested moves.

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

A: Most of my contributions have been wikignomic, ranging from {{db-hoax}} tagging to working on taxoboxes. I consider that body of work to be my "best", I suppose; I find helping others and curating to be very rewarding. I've created a few articles, and it has been a lot of fun to watch people improve them. I think pictures really add to certain articles, so I have asked a couple copyright owners to re-license their photos and I've added them.

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: Sure, it's always frustrating when someone is wrong on the Internet, but even more so on Wikipedia because I care a lot about the legitimacy and credibility of this project. But fortunately, on Wikipedia it seems significant disputes generally get the attention they need and result in outcomes that, all things considered, are pretty reasonable. I think the best way to deal with conflict-related tension is to dispassionately argue the facts, remember to keep perspective, and above all keep the heat down by assuming good faith - how much better the world would be if everyone assumed good faith!

As an IP editor, I have been in content disputes wth admins who have semiprotected the page in question in order to block me from improving the page, and I have seen countless good faith editors accused of vandalism and accordingly mistreated. If this request succeeds, you can be sure that I will be very careful to approach misguided, good faith editors without abusing them.

An example of a dispute that I found frustrating is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Largest_prehistoric_organisms. It was awhile ago, but I think it serves to give a pretty accurate flavor of how I get when I'm all riled up.

Additional optional questions from Nakon

4. What kind of situation(s), if any, do you feel would be an appropriate use of WP:IAR?

A: Very rarely, common sense will dictate that one ought to, while upholding the spirit of the core policies and pillars, do something that may violate the letter of some guideline or policy. I am pretty blown away by how complete and well though-out our guidelines, etc are, so these cases, I think, end up being quite rare. One application of IAR is simply that one does not need to know all the rules before editing: most good faith edits can be repaired pretty easily, so editors should err on the side of being bold and making a contribution rather than being overly hesitant for fear of breaking some obscure guideline.

5. In which circumstances would you block an editor without any previous warnings on their talk page?

A: There are a number of different kinds of cases where an editor might be blocked without warning, such as sockpuppetry or vandalism-only accounts, violations of 3rr – although for 3rr ideally the user should be warned/reminded before even breaking 3rr – legal threats, etc. I suppose most of the no-warning blocks that I might be involved with would be for inappropriate usernames, since I do a bit of new-page patrolling.

Additional optional questions from Sven Manguard

6. Have you read every page at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list? (Hint: There's only one correct answer, and that's "Yes." If you can't say that honestly, go read those pages, then say "Yes.")

A: Yes. I had read through them back in the day, but I took your hint and now I'm all fresh and up to date.

7. If your nomination is successful, would you be open to recall? If so, what parameters would you set on a recall of yourself?

A: Yes, and I would support an official process for recalling admins; that would be ideal. In the meantime, I would like to see something along the lines of User:AGK/Essays/Recall: an RFC with a clear consensus to initiate a reconfirmation RFA.

Additional optional question from 28bytes

8. You mention an interest in working with the deletion processes. What would you do if a recent changes patroller tagged The Underland Chronicles with {{db-g12|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zuu0XIvDbvUC}}?

A: The g12 would have to be denied because there is obviously plenty of content in that article that is not copied from that book, and g12 only applies in cases where "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." However, some of the quoted text on that page is quite long, containing entire poems from the book. I don't think its full inclusion is really necessary for users to understand the article. I would remove or rework those sections.

Additional optional question from Snottywong

9. Can you comment on why you'd like to specialize in history merges, why you believe you would excel at performing history merges, and why you believe that Wikipedia would need admins who perform relatively few admin actions apart from history merges?

A: I would like to work on history merges because it is such a huge backlog and because I enjoy spending time on meticulous or tedious things, kind of as a way to take a break from other kinds of thinking. I think I can do a pretty good job at this sort of thing because I am detail-oriented; but I don't have any experience doing history merges so I can't directly demonstrate it here.

Need is a strong word, but history merges are pretty important in order to provide attribution to be in compliance with our licenses, and this backlog is pretty big. However, like I said, if this request succeeds I plan to work on other backlogs also.

Additional optional question from Lear's Fool

10. You mention that you have been involved in content disputes as an IP editor. Given that you are requesting adminship, would you consider disclosing edits made with previous accounts or IP addresses to a functionary, as suggested in the clean start policy?

A: The anonymous edits were just a handful on another language Wikipedia to address some problematic content. I wasn't really trying to be anonymous, I just didn't bother setting up an account; I should have. I don't think wp:clean start applies directly, but now that you mention it full disclosure is probably best to avoid any suggestion of deception, so I have done that on the relevant project so now it should be nearly as easy to find out what I wrote as it would have been if I had been using my account all along.

Objection - You are requesting that the candidate reveal his IP address, something that is not even permitted for Checkusers to do in the case of a sockpuppeting user! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) See talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

11. Sorry for the extra question, I'd like to know whether 1 you will agree to put yourself up for recall (if not, why?) and 2 what current experience you have with histmerges, XfD, RM, etc.

A: I'm happy to answer questions!

1. Yes, I would put myself up for recall. I alluded to User:AGK/Essays/Recall earlier; although I think an official process would be far preferable, if there is consensus at an RFC for me to do so, I would agree to go through a "reconfirmation" RfA and respect its results. However, if consensus at the RFC demonstrated legitimate concerns about incompetence, carelessness, bullying, etc; I would likely just resign rather than bother with an RfA. My claim in this RfA is that I can be trusted not to be careless or bully, so if significant doubt about that arises then I would not want to be a sysop anymore.

2. I don't really have any experience with history merges. I have participated in and initiated a number of AfD, RM, and RfA discussions. I've closed a handful of RMs; I always try to address all of the double-redirects and PLA issues after moving an article or requesting a move. I've also closed a couple of AfDs, including one of my own that was obviously a mistake. Other behind-the-scenes stuff that I've done includes a lot of speedy deletion and requests and denials and deletion proposals, the occasional AIV report or comment, and a fair amount of pending change reviews.

Question from — Fly by Night

12. Could you explain which administrator tools you would need for history merges, why you need them and how you would use them?

A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Edit Stats posted on talk. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support Allow me to be the first to add my support. I took a look over you last few hundred contributions, and I like what I see. You seem to have a decent amount of work on Speedy Deletions, by the looks of it the admins have agreed with you (860+ deleted contribs). You've only created eleven pages, eight or so being stubs, but your work in creating templates etc is good, and that's a plus. I've also seen appropriate warnings to vandals, not just reverts, which is key. Basically, I like what I see here and don't see that you would misuse the tools at all. Good Luck. Ohh, and you don't have to worry about me asking any optional questions, your contribs show enough :)Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support—having often seen you around the project doing good work, I can easily support. Airplaneman ✈ 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Anyone who actually wants to do histmerges gets an easy support from me. -- œ^™ 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bonus points for self-nom, no obvious red flags. Townlake (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. I think you'll be a great sysop. You clearly have goals in mind, which is perfect. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Nakon 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. I completely disagree with Hokeman's neutral– as someone who has been a member here since 2006, but really only became active a couple years later, I don't feel it's any bearing on what kind of administrator Erik would become. He's done great contributions in the past year, and he seems to be a great editor; that's more than enough for me. A quick glance through his contribs brought up nothing bad, but if someone digs up something less than savory, I'll reassess. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak support - You seem weak on the sourcing aspect of creating articles. However, you appear decent in most ways. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. I didn't see any red flags in the contribution history, and I'm happy with the answers to the questions. More folks helping out with backlogs is always welcome. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. No red flags. Your low edit count doesn't bother me, as your contribs show me that you can be trusted with the mop. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I've looked through contributions rather than arbitrary indicators of activity, and I'm happy to support. I'm impressed by involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FastCode -- taking a policy compliant position, engaging constructively with other editors, and remaining alive to developments that affected his position. This was a good A7 decline (although while not a G11 either, it could do with "advertisement" and refimprove templates). The candidate also knows what he's doing at WP:RM where he plans to work: making uncontroversial capitalisation moves himself and proposing more controversial moves with clear and compelling policy rationales (Talk:Fight Club (film)#Requested move). He is also demonstrably diligent in fixing redirects after a page move. So unless I see examples to the contrary that I've missed in my scan of contributions, I'm supporting. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support no reason not to. Candidate has been around long enough to understand policies even though his edit count is low prior to last summer. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The candidate claims to be a Wikipedian since 2005, but let's be honest here. Most of the first 5 years were one or two edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). The candidate has created no new articles or redirects. There are also some gaping holes in the collaborative part of the candidate's portfolio. Your heart is in the right place. I would encourage mentoring and trying again in 6 months.(moved to neutral)--Hokeman (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count 11 new articles. Since the toolserver is very slow today, I'll copy the list to the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Slow or malfunctioning toolserver. My bad.--Hokeman (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had extreme problems with X-tools recently; I was beginning to think (Oh! what bad faith) they had been disabled again.--Kudpung (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regretfully Oppose I admire the candidate's desire to better the project in an area that certainly do need attention, but I am not a fan of "specialty" administrators, which is what I would consider this request to be. Only 1780 edits to articles in a span of "five years" is entirely too low for me to consider as enough experience to be given the mop. I would encourage the candidate to broaden their skills a bit and try again in six months or so. With all due respect and still in appreciation of the candidate's desire to contribute, --Strikerforce (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose This person dosen't seem to be a dangerous individual, however there simply isn't a large enough track record for me to go off of. This RfA was perhaps 3 months too early, at least in my opinion. While I appreciate the willingness this user shows towards cleaning out the history merge backlog, there is a whole slew of other backlogs that do not require the mop. I'm all for specialty admins, but as I said below in the neutral section, my standards are higher for anyone anything less than a year of active editing. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Sven Manguard and WP:NOTNOW. Kudos for being a long-term member and contributor to the project, but there's just not enough overall activity to adequately evaluate the candidate's experience level and judgment, recent activity notwithstanding. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Too little experience so too little information to make an informed judgement. I'm quite happy that someone is willing to do a tedious and fiddly task (I hate doing history merges), so I'd like Erik to become an admin, but I can't give support to someone with so little genuine experience of Wikipedia. I'm quite comfortable with someone becoming an admin in order to deal with just a handful of tasks; it's a just a case of having complete confidence in that person's judgement. History merges are awkward when they go wrong, and I note from Erik's edit history that he is a hit and miss editor who works casually by trial and error - [1] - which is fine for doing articles, but is not the sort of approach to take to doing history merges. I'd like to see an extended period of careful editing in order to feel confident. SilkTork *^YES! 16:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. On WP:NOTNOW grounds. You're a good editor, but while I like most of what I see at the basic processes, with fewer than 400 edits I'm afraid that there isn't enough of a record to go on. While some would at a glance label me as a deletionist (which I only accept to be the case for marginally-notable BLPs), hitting the delete button will often be a big deal to an article's creator, and I think this is an important factor to bear in mind when judging a tight AfD (particularly when it isn't a low-profile BLP). For that reason, I think a reasonable article creation record is a must. In short, keep going, and in around 6 months (conceivably less if you are fairly active) I would be happy to support. —WFC— 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fewer than 400 edits? 28bytes (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fewer than 400 edits at processes such as AfD etc. Sorry for the ambiguity. —WFC— 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Further discussion on this matter can be found on my talk page. I've probably done a better job of explaining myself there. —WFC— 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Moved to Oppose Leaning weak oppose on policy literacy concerns, but that can easily swing around to support based off of question 6 <EDIT>and a strong portfolio of work.</EDIT> Also, six months of activity seems on the light side to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 10-11 months of activity, but I'm not sure what you consider "active" Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, I'm counting 2010/08 through 2011/01 as active. I'd even be willing to count 2010/06 (but not 2010/07) that's six to seven months. I'd like to see 12, will settle for 9 on an otherwise strong candidate, but if it's 6, it had better, IMO, be a very special case, like a longtime admin on Commons who wants the mop on Wikipedia to clear out the copy to commons backlog. I've changed my initial neutral to reflect that.

2010/1 and 2010/2? 95 edits in 2010/2 shows at least three edits a day, maybe they had real life commitments. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending answers to questions. Nakon 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral The candidate has technically been a Wikipedian since 2005; however, during most of the first five years there were an average of 1 or 2 edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). Really only highly active since the summer of 2010. There are also weaknesses in important administrative areas (e.g. vandal fighting). I see your heart in the right place, and would suggest mentoring, solidifying your credentials and trying again in 3-6 months.--Hokeman (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Im not convinced on this one, my neutral can be summed up nicely with Hokeman's comments above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Long-term editor but very inactive until recently. Further evaluation required. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Move to Oppose, with regrets. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]