The Interior

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/0/1); Scheduled to end 04:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

The Interior (talk · contribs) – I am honored to nominate The Interior for adminship; indeed I am humbled. I first interacted with The Interior in March 2011; believing he was not only an administrator then, but one of the corps very best as well. I had observed his collaborations with others, becoming impressed by his competence, and respectful manner of conduct. We are both active in the DYK wikiproject and our first writing collaboration was on Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin when it was a DYK nomination. The Interior is an excellent colleague and, I learned, a masterful writer as well. He well knows about the effort an editor expends to create encyclopedic content; demonstrated by his creation of Illecillewaet Glacier and persistence improving it to GA class. His AfD participation reflects the composite of his good qualities. His !votes are thoughtful, policy based, and without condescension and he has on occasion provided the sourced verification necessary to establish a subject's notability. He has 220 UAA reports and 79 AIV reports with exceptional accuracy on both noticeboards. And there are more attributes that reflect The Interior's qualifications, but listing them affects readability with excess verbiage. They are apparent in his contributions however, and seven days of scrutiny can only show how fortunate our community is to have The Interior volunteer more of his faithful service, for our benefit.—John Cline (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I am very delighted to co-nominate The Interior for adminship. I could write paragraphs of material expounding upon the editing skills, DYK work and AIV/AFD/UAA batting average of the candidate but I fear it may miss the point as to why I believe that The Interior is so well-suited to the administrative role. Although his editing statistics are indeed impressive, it’s the more intangible qualities that make The Interior such a fantastic candidate. He’s patient and kind. Understanding and honest. Intuitive and clueful. And he truly seems to “get” what this crazy project is all about and is able to nurture this same excitement for learning and knowledge in the editors he works with, both newbies and experienced editors alike. This combination of qualities, along with a sound understanding of policy and his willingness to roll up his sleeves and help out where needed, make The Interior a stellar candidate for the mop and bucket. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

It is a great pleasure to recommend The Interior for adminship. I would be hard-pressed to think of any other editor who is more balanced, trustworthy, and ideal for this position. I first came into contact with him in discussions around the Education Working Group (since, the Wiki Education Foundation). One of the few long-term Wikipedian editors in the group, The Interior's contributions to any debate were always well-informed, eminently sane, and well-reasoned. He repeatedly showed his capacity to respond and listen to the points of view expressed by others. I have also seen The Interior intervene in the midst of heated debates and controversial topics, such as a flare-up a couple of months ago at Adrian Dix. Again, he showed excellent common sense, presence of mind, and unflappability in what was otherwise (however briefly) a rather tense situation in which accusations were flying both here and in the local press. Finally, I have had the pleasure of meeting The Interior a number of times in real life and can report that off-wiki as much as on he demonstrates not only his passion for the project, but also an enviable level of dedication, thoughtfulness, openness, and even wisdom. He will be an excellent addition to the admin ranks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I first met The Interior in person at the GLAM Bootcamp in April. For the first few hours, I had no idea of his name, only that when he spoke, he made some seriously good points. I eventually spent something like fifteen minutes poring over the list of participants, trying to figure out who this guy was. Two and two eventually got together, and I realized that we had actually met before (online) when he was the driving force behind an excellent Q&A in the 18 March Signpost. The positive interactions I had with him then were bolstered after my obligatory Facebook-like stalking of his contributions—I discovered that The Interior is a fantastically helpful and productive editor. Some of the specific stats can be read above, but I've found that interactions like this or this are common. In short, his attitude and temperament demonstrated in his interactions around the encyclopedia are ideally suited for the admin role. I ask that you give The Interior your support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words, folks. I accept the nomination. The Interior (Talk) 04:16, 3 September 2013 (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: In short, I intend to help out in areas I'm familiar with. I believe I've seen enough vandalism, and how we deal with it as a community, to help respond to reports at AIV. I have a good grasp of promotional usernames and the grey areas around them to action those type of reports at UAA. I understand the philosophy and mechanics behind page protection. With almost three years of experience at DYK, I can help with requests at WP:ERRORS, hopefully decreasing the amount of problematic DYKs hitting the main page. Although not a prolific "prep-maker" on the DYK queue, I know enough to competently swap out hooks or construct decent hook sets. I'm not a heavy participant in AfD discussions, so I don't see this being a major focus of my admin work. I would, however, feel confident deleting speedy requests in the areas where I have done tagging in the past, namely {{db-spam}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-catempty}}, {{db-album}}, {{db-song}}, {{db-vandalism}}, as well as blatant copyright violations. I would also be available to do revdel requests on our worst cases of vandalism. While I may move into other areas in the future (requested moves, categories for deletion, and histmerging all interest me), I would not do so until making significant amounts of non-admin edits in related discussions.

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

A: "Best" is very subjective when talking about one's own work, but I'll talk about the work that has made me feel good about being a Wikipedian. I really enjoy exploring the province where I live, and working on articles like Adams River (British Columbia), Glacier National Park (Canada) and the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy enriches the experience of visiting those places. Researching these topics provides a connection with history and physical place that is impossible to describe, but very fulfilling.

I've very much enjoyed my work with various "outreach" initiatives, such as the Education Program, Wikipedia Loves Libraries, and the GLAM project. There are many energetic, optimistic and wildly smart folks working in these areas, and I'm lucky to be working with them. I believe these projects can help save Wikipedia from its own insularity, and connect it with the knowledge communities, high quality resources, and the new editors we need to keep the project going into this decade and the next. I'm proud of my contributions in these areas, both behind the scenes and through active roles like online ambassadorship.

Most of all, it is the collaboration and knowledge sharing with fellow editors that keeps me coming back. I'm very pleased when I can help bring people together to work on content. I have met some of the most interesting, intelligent, hardworking and altruistic people I know on the pages of WP. They are the reason this project has gotten to where it is, and they are its greatest resource.

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: A frank and vigorous exchange of ideas is important in any intellectual endeavour. These exchanges can cause stress, and I'm not immune. It's important to remember that stress isn't all bad; there is the concept of eustress, the "good" stress that drives you to dig deeper into the sources, compose better sentences, and explore your opponent's viewpoints. I've been in the middle of quite a few heated debates, and have learned some lessons the hard way. I've set some guidelines for myself regarding disputes, such as:

• never post angry - if a comment has really gotten your goat, step back for a few hours (or days) until you can approach it at least semi-rationally.
• don't personalize - avoid personal criticisms except when truly unavoidable.
• forgive and forget - don't carry old disputes with colleagues into new discussions and forums.

And most importantly, always try to search for solutions to the underlying problems, rather than the total annihilation of your perceived antagonists. These are ideals - I don't always live up to them. But I like to think I try, and I will continue to try in the future. ;)

Additional question from Monty845

4. How would you respond if, after becoming an admin you, came across an article tagged G11, with "Company X is a sprocket manufacturer headquartered in Small Town, USA. In the last year it has received multiple industry awards for innovation in sprocket design" as its contents.

A:The wording for g11 is "exclusively promotional", and here we have a description with a location, which is a start, a proto-stub. The awards claim would have to be sourced, but it may well be true. It should be rewritten to refer to the specific awards, preferably. It's a matter of sources from there. I wouldn't delete this as a g11. If the sources are very thin, or are all related to the organization, it would be a prod/AfD candidate.

Additional question from Minimac

5. As one of your intentions is to work in the UFAA department, I'd like to ask you a question based on the following usernames. What administrative actions would you take on the following three cases?

• User:Satellitedirect who removes the redirect from Satellite Direct and creates a promotional page.
• User:BigBlackCockerel who made a single vandalism edit on Rooster
• User:Bottoman who edits constructively

A:

General comments

• Links for The Interior: The Interior (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The Interior can be found here.
• Editing statistics are posted on the talk page.—John Cline (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support

1. Per my co-nomination. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - The Interior is one of the most qualified candidates for adminship I have ever had the privilege to support. Convincing him to run was a formidable task as he doesn't appear to expend much energy assessing his own value; instead, simply demanding his own best; in all matters, at all times—being satisfied for giving that of himself. Reviewing the talk page efforts to convince The Interior to run is good reading for anyone interested in knowing more about how this RfA came to be.—John Cline (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - As a fellow Wikipedian from the same city, I've had long-term positive observations of the candidate on variety of namespace. Calm, civil and consistent, excellent work with Canadian and Vancouver-related projects. Did you know? project would also certainly benefit with an additional mop from one of the most qualified candidates that I've also had the honour to support. Alex Shih^Talk 05:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support – Candidate is quite familiar with Admin-related noticeboards (in particular UAA and AIV); has demonstrated their tenacity and maturity through the clear-cut processes they follow when dealing with conflicts; has an impeccable reputation as evident by their thought-out answers. All the best The Interior! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, an exemplary editor, in word and action. –Quiddity (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - The Interior is the rare contributor who manages to do a lot of good work without causing drama or otherwise attracting attention to himself. We've interacted at DYK on-and-off and I've had his talk page watchlisted for some time now (for reasons I don't recall) and I can't recall seeing him say or do anything that would cause concern -- to tell the truth, I guess I assumed he was already an administrator. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is such a no-brainer that I can't even come up with an adequate support rationale to do him justice. So I'll just link to some examples of gorgeous interior design! My favourite so far has to be this one. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I haven't run across them before, but they seem like an excellent candidate to me. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Response to the CSD question is reasonable enough, which was my only concern in light of the lack of recent CSDing. Monty₈₄₅ 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support no issues. --Rschen7754 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - Has the temperament, judgment, and knowledge of policy to be an awesome admin. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per noms, a thoughtful, clueful candidate. Graham87 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. It's actually easier to find reasons not to support than reasons to support if they are to be qualified with more substantial rationales than 'Why not?'. In view of the strong, and almost unprecedented number of co-noms, I looked even harder, and all I can come up with is 'Why not?' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per the number of nominations. No issues and all the best towards your passing. Jianhui67 Talk 08:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - saw this page at creation and have been waiting a week for transclusion. It's about time. Absolutely no reservations whatsoever here. Go Phightins! 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - net positive most likely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Great contributor, see no reason not to. buffbills7701 11:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I see no issues here. Deb (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

1. Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) per [1] wherein he dismisses WP:BLPCRIME as policy IMO. Could move to support if he makes a strong statement of support for BLP concerns (I am not posing a question as such, as they tend to get answers found to be "tried and true" in the past <g>) .[reply]