Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peridon

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

Peridon

Final (64/3/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Peridon (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen of Wikipedia, may I in one of my infrequent nominations present for your consideration Peridon as a suitable editor to be entrusted with the mop and bucket.

Peridon has had an account here since May 2008, and has demonstrated competence in editing since that time both in article creation and in admin-related areas. I first came across this editor last year, and was impressed with their knowledge and expertise of Wikipedia procedures, policies and guidelines as evidenced by the competence shown in their work at speedy deletion pages and at deletion discussions. This editor's speedy deletion nominations (last five hundred edits) have been followed by deletion by an admin in almost 99% of cases, and several of the remainder have been saved only by hasty improvements made after tagging. There is a similarly high correlation with subsequent admin activity in his/her AfD proposals.

S/he shows a good level of editing skills in article creation and editing, and is competent at non-admin related housekeeping activities such as reversion and copy-editing. S/he is a reviewer and a rollbacker, and has a completely clean block log.

I believe that this editor would be a significant asset to the community if given admin responsibility, and herewith commend Peridon to you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

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'll work in the areas I work in at present, at least at first. I'm mainly found in CSD and AfD, but also can be seen in Articles for Translation and SPI, while also reverting vandalism, doing copy-eds, evicting apostrophes and adding/updating info. As I've wandered into these areas of working, I'll probably wander into other corners that may need attention with a mop - assuming I'm trusted with one - and other places I've not discovered yet.

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

A: Possibly hoax spotting for one. I should be ashamed to say that I enjoy a good hoax - one that takes a fair bit of digging to be sure of. I don't think I've been proven wrong on a hoax more than once or twice - if that. Yet, anyway. Just watch me trip up next week... Apart from that, my other bests involve saving articles from being marched to the scaffold. (For those who associate me mainly with speedy tags, I do sometimes rescue things. Sometimes they survive, sometimes not.) I also give advice to new accounts on why their pride and joy is an endangered species, and on what measures are needed to ensure its survival.

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: No stress that I can think of. Edit conflicts - other than with vandals and socks, not many. Some you win, some you lose. There's always tomorrow and another editor's eyes looking at things. Not everyone is going to agree with me, and vice versa. It never worries me to be proven wrong. How will I deal with it in future? Conflicts mean talk page use; stress would probably mean I was tired and ought to go to bed.

Additional question from TCO

4. What is the article you have conributed most content to before 2011?

A: That's a tricky one. I tend to add little bits and updates rather than sections. The longest text I've done will probably be Liberty Horn or Rover Scarab, although the text in the Sibiu Theatre Festival article is longer. That is however, a translation from an article originally posted (and seemingly abandoned) in Romanian. I have also added to Halsall, and was going to upload a pic of the Navvy, but someone beat me to it. I do quite a bit of tidying up after other people have added stuff.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. How will you reconcile your obvious appreciations for humour and levity with the seriousness and importance of administrative duties?

A: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". I often use a lighter tone when explaining things like how to improve something, but a serious tone is needed when warnings beyond a first are issued. Depending on the 'offence', a lighter tone could be used for a first warning. I'm open to correction on this, but it seems to work so far. Peridon (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Mkativerata

6. Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 12th of March (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?

Based on the discussions as at 1000 GMT on the 10th March (first chance to look at this properly):

a) Live at the Marquee Theatre

A: Relist (and hope Ron Ritzman was having a nice day off..)

Note: Has been relisted. Peridon (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

b) Tasteless

A: Looking at it as a brand-new admin, I would be torn between Relist and No Consensus. There seems to be a narrow margin for Delete, but I would reckon it too narrow for me to call. Relist would be a safe option. (An analogy would be to passing one's driving test - getting that licence entitles one to go solo. It doesn't mean one is an expert driver instantly. Expertise is gained through experience, and experience is gained through time spent and observations made.)

Note: Has also been relisted. Peridon (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

c) Daniel Hernandez Jr.

A: Keeps and Deletes fairly balanced but outweighed by those calling for a Redirect/Merge, which would be my opinion had I participated in the debate. Redirecting preserved the content and history in case he does something of note again. I'd go for Redirect.

Note: The result was Merge. Fair decision, and I hope a redirect is left too. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

d) Raheem Sterling

A: My personal opinion would be delete, but opinions on the page are balanced. I think the keeps are weaker in argument than the deletes, but I would Relist to see if something better can result. No consensus would an option, of course, but I'd prefer to try a Relist first.

Comment My compliments to Mkativerata on selecting this bunch... I would describe my approach as 'cautious', although I realise that some would possibly use the word 'chicken'. As my personal experience of closing here is so far limited to one non-admin closure with a withdrawn nomination for an article nominated in the wrong place anyway, I would think that being a cautious chicken would be preferable to instantly becoming an inefficient hawk and going splat. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from The Blade of the Northern Lights

7. I see you around on NPP a lot, and one thing we deal with is the never-ending flow of articles. So two short questions;

a. When would you unilaterally delete an untagged/unpatrolled article on Special:NewPages?

A (I don't think I've been in there before - I find them through contributions from New Accounts. Must look into that one.) In first days, probably only a rather blatant attack (I find most attacks fairly obvious, but from the tagging I find already on some not all do...) or an incredibly obvious spam with BIG TYPE inviting me to buy two get one free. When I started CSD tagging in the dim and distant past (feels like it anyway...) I started small and watched the results of my tagging carefully, and watched what happened to other people's tagging. When not sure, it's best to pass by on the other side in the knowledge that you aren't the only traveller on the road and that a Samaritan will be along in a quarter of an hour (or like buses, three of them in line). I once made a 'How to' s'heet for DTP trainee's about apostrophe's, which included the advice 'When in doubt, leave it out' with the follow-up 'Leaving it out is a typo. Putting a wrong one in is ignorance.' That applies to tagging (with the proviso that you do have another level of supervision and may need to test the boundaries) and deleting (with the warning that you don't and may face repercussions if wrong). (The apostrophe on people's is correct...) I'm not usually this Biblical. They do have some good analogies - or are they metaphors? Had a hard day. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

b. When would you accept an IAR speedy deletion nomination of an article (this can mean either explicitly tagged "per IAR" or a db-reason tag not covered in CSD policy) or do an IAR speedy deletion yourself?

A In early days, I would probably play the cautious chicken and leave it to the more experienced. Having said that, I've never yet seen one tagged "per IAR" (and haven't done it myself - but I've tried some IAR reasons and mostly been knocked back...). Unless I could see a very good reason in the article, I would appear to ignore it, but would watch for the eventual result. One can not only learn from experience - one can learn from observation of other people's experience. I've learned from my experience outside Wikipedia that that is very often less painful than first hand experience - and aren't first hand sources not approved of here? Peridon (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Peridon: Peridon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Peridon 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 to talk. —GƒoleyFour— 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Don't see any thing wrong with candidate. Baseball Watcher 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. (Missed first spot, had to be off-line).--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - a clichéd "Is he not already one?" !vote. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Support- yup, no worries here. Reyk _YO! 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Perfect candidate for administrator. ;) Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Support--Good English skills, good people skills, solidly NPOV. Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Can't see any issues here CalumH93|talk 23:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Peridon was one of the most reliable page taggers I knew back when I did a lot of CSD work. Glad to hear he's kept it up. Support with no hesitation at all. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support No reason not to. Swarm ^X 03:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Solid credentials. The biggest feather in the candidate's cap is the terrific vetting statement by Tony Bradbury — someone whose opinion I give great weight.--Hokeman (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose didn't sign the acceptance statement. Support. T. Canens (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Why not? Pol430 talk to me 08:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Support Having looked through the AfDs Peridon has been most active on, I'm very impressed with the way the editor handled large swathes of biased editors/IPs/off wiki campaigns. For example, just a few months ago here or here. Obviously works in deletion, with about a 1 in 3 edits deleted and (from what I've managed to unearth) understands the policies related to deletion. Worm^TT 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
18. Support I agree with Worm. Peridon seems like a reliable editor, who is eligible to become an admin. Novice7 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support - Per Worm That Turned and nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Support – Trustworthy user, giving him/her the mop would be beneficial. —mc10 (t/c) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
22. I reviewed some stuff, looks good, candidate seems like a nice fit for this role. Townlake (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - A sound knowledge of policies combined with level-headedness and a calm communication style is a great combination. I trust that Peridon will use the tools wisely. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. Simply why not? Reliable contributor with experience from different areas of editing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support on the assumption that this user can be trusted with the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetinkle (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
26. Support Knowledgeable and a fairly wide array of experience. N419BH 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Support. Yup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support a review of this user's history shows civility, precise construction of the 'pedia and good humour. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Support Why not? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:23pm • 10:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Support This is the type of user we need in this capacity. Kansan (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Easy call. An experienced editor with a winning (online) personality. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - Aye. Orphan Wiki 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Looks like a good experienced editor. =] Creation7689 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

    Support24.233.99.119 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

    Indented per WP:RFA: 'Any Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but only those with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote"'

35. Support. I don't see any reasons not to trust this user with the mop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Stephen 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - Has my vote. Enfcer (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Support - I'm impressed with the candidate's considerate responses, communication skills, attitudes and - above all - common sense. I see nothing that worries me in contribs, and in this specific case, the concerns regarding low content contribs are outweighed by other factors - including the plain fact that, here at RfA, the candidate has clearly demonstrated an ability to both understand policies and to communicate effectively (ie to "write well").  Chzz  ►  21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Why not? WayneSlam 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Excellent editor. No reason not to give them the mop. Good sense of humor. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 10:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
43. Support. Limited content creation. Otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
44. Peridon always makes sensible arguments at AfD and the answers to q6 show Peridon will make sensible closes too, even if appropriately cautious at first. Good luck! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
46. Nothing amiss here. BigDom talk 23:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
47. YESYesYesTofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
48. Support, no reason why not. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
49. Support; I went into this thinking I would support, and his answer to my question confirms it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. All my experiences with this editor indicate that he has the maturity and judgment needed for the job. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
51. Support. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
52. Support:--Sokac121 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
53. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
54. Great candidate with a great nominator. I do not have any concerns here. Acalamari 19:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. Erudite, articulate, and no red flags that I can find. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
56. Support. Siecor (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
57. Support—should do just fine as an admin. Happy mopping! Airplaneman ✈ 22:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
58. Support, excellent candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
59. Support No major issues and a stable track record. – SMasters (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
60. Support Clearly a solid candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
61. Support Happy to see that this will succeed! Eusebeus (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - sounds good to me. Deb (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
63. Responses indicate a sound approach to learning the ropes and I find nothing disconcerting in recent edit history.--ClubOranje^T 10:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Trustworthy, communicates well, has a sense of humour, isn't conceited, my first impression of him was that he already was an administrator here. PrincessWortheverything (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per fluffy non-answers to questions 2 and 3. Please provide real examples that we can use to determine your acumen. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment: If the answer to #3 is no, how could an example be given? You do raise a good point about #2. Kansan (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment It's a bit difficult to provide evidence of hoaxes I've tagged as they've been deleted. There are examples of work to expose them in AfD, including a fairly recent one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al twebia District (The site I referred to has now altered their list, by the way.) I tend to rate things as 'worked' or 'didn't work' rather than 'best' or 'worst'. Possibly the best contribution was my first - removing nonsense from Dill. Some might consider that my worst, as it got me into Wikipedia... Peridon (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Provide a structured answer with researched examples I think Andy is reacting to the lack of "content" in your initial answers. Why not go back and research what you've done (via memory and contribs) and then list the most prominent examples. Maybe with a sentence or two description. Really, your answer to his question, continues the pattern of "fluffy" (i.e. non content containing) non-responsive answers. Providing content is real work, but it is important work. If you can't show that even in your answers here (for an objective you are trying to achieve) than I think you lack the perspective on what needs to be done to create content in articles. The lack of significant work product (i.e. articles written) just fits into this pattern.TCO (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Will go wading back in time to see what I can trawl up. (Bad bit of analogy there. You know what I mean.) Peridon (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

   One bit of minor addition work (in terms of size) that possibly helped a small article to survive is at True's Yard Museum. This is what I would class as preserving content. On the other hand, while adding content is obviously a very necessary activity (what would we do with our time if someone hadn't added the first articles?), the checking of content is also vital. A minor bit of mine in this direction is at Talk:List_of_earls#Earl_of_Charlton_.281860.29. A film needs its scriptwriters, but it also needs its continuity persons... These are just samples - there's plenty more there. Non-glamorous, but needed to keep Wikipedia's accuracy up. Peridon (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Not enough writing experience to moderate an encyclopedia website. (I do appreciate the candidate's forthright answer though.)TCO (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment If you mean article writing here, you possibly have a point. Outside Wikipedia, I have written policies, manuals, information sheets, and a draft Parliamentary Bill (with a colleague), apart from a few hundred thousand words of fiction. Peridon (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   That's good and I respect your candid response (I am not one who thinks candidates should not "talk back" in RFA), but I would like to see it here. It shows dediction to our site. It's verifiable (unless you are willing to give your real life name and can point to professional publications). And the writing here can be different in terms of technical aspects, sourcing, etc. TCO (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too negative. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant cover. This is a respectable topic for which it is easy to find a good source such as Modern trends in applied terrestrial ecology. The candidate indicates that he knows something of the field but does nothing to help. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment I didn't offer to help because while I understand the quadrat method of assessing plant cover, I couldn't understand what this 'new' method was about as it stood, and it appeared to be OR. When improvements were made (by the author) to the clarity of the subject and to the referencing (which drew comment from myself about remaining issues, which were then addressed by the author), I changed my !vote to Keep. Following this improvement and a comment from Phil Bridger about the acceptability of certain sources, the nomination was withdrawn. Peridon (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   As I see it, you failed to look beyond the early draft of the article and only changed your !vote when others did the work of improving it. If you did not understand the topic and its potential, you should not have !voted delete. For admin duties, I prefer editors who exhibit the behaviour recommended by WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough point. However, as I see it, the person who knew most about the subject did the job quite well and without the amount of fuss that I often see at AfD, and we were left with a valuable article. I have always been willing to change my mind when situations change - and did in this case. I agree totally in the case of an admin that one should not delete when there is doubt. I was not an admin (am not an admin...), and was casting a !vote in a debate not pressing the delete button. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Although I see lots of good work, especially with CSD tagging. There is very little evidence of real vandal fighting (often the main thrust of admin work) - indeed the user has the rollback facility, but the use of that seems very limited - the number of automated edits is zero - I don't remember a recent successful RfA with zero (someone's bound to put me right..). Having said that I can see that this is a well respected editor, with obviously a lot of trust, and I therefore doubt if they will abuse that trust, so even though my initial thoughts were oppose, I'll keep it neutral for now.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment I use rollback sparingly, because I prefer to give at least a brief reason in the edit summary if possible. I rollback when speed is important, or re-reversion is taking place and a reason has already been given. As I tend to work anywhere up to 12 hours behind the latest edit, I don't always catch the latest vandal. I root out a lot of stuff that's been missed instead. At the start of runs through New Accounts I have been involved with stopping vandals. I don't use the tools because I've managed quite well so far without. I've nothing against them, just not needed them so far. Peridon (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment I've been informed that there is a way to use comments when rollbacking (rolling back?). Will be looking into it. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

   You can do that with Twinkle; it says "rollback" but you can provide an edit summary as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm sure I saw that Zone Alarm and AVG had a problem with Twinkle (or vice versa). I can't see that now. I don't use Norton any more, but do use AVG. Will look into that. Always willing to learn and/or be corrected. (Don't guarantee to like it, though. Will be polite.) Peridon (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

   FWIW I have had no conflicts with AVG.--ClubOranje^T 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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.