Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floydian 2

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

Final (23/30/9); ended 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn - I will take in all the comments, continue with my improvement, and try again next spring. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian (talk · contribs) – A few years ago, I first ran into Floydian among the Canada road articles. Originally, he was a bit rough around the edges, which greatly influenced his first RFA. Over the years, however, he has matured and changed as an editor, becoming more diplomatic and willing to exercise self-control in heated situations. He has become an editor who is able to collaborate with others constructively, and is a great asset to the English Wikipedia as a content contributor and a colleague on the roads projects.

So the question that remains to be answered is, why admin? Floydian is an editor who could benefit greatly from the tools, be it editing protected templates (as one of the editors helping with {{Infobox road}}, a massive protected template), dealing with vandals, or helping with growing backlogs on a site with a declining active admin population.

For those who judge candidates by this sort of thing, Floydian has written 2 FAs (including Don Valley Parkway which was on the Main Page) and 28 GAs, and has autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker, and file mover, and over 24,000 edits. Rschen7754 04:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for this nomination Rschen. It is with great honour that I accept! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: The primary reason I have sought to become an administrator over the years is my technical expertise with regards to our template language. With a few extra tools in my belt, I will be much more capable of sharing these expertise and making necessary changes without the hurdle of edit requests. In addition, the declining number of administrators here means that an ever increasing backlog of tasks will be accumulating, which I am happy to take on. I am also a good third-party to discussions or debates and would take an active role in closing RfCs and deletion debates, a process I am currently excluded from (as non-admin closures of contentious debates are simply reverted).

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

A: My contributions fall into a few areas, and so I thought I would share what I feel to be my greatest contributions in each:

Content - My personal coup de gras is Highway 401, an article on the busiest highway in North America which I gradually rewrote from scratch and brought through the processes to featured article status. Expanding beyond that, my greatest plethora of content creation in recent years has been documenting the history of provincial highways in Ontario. I am extremely proud of this work and hope that one day it is looked upon as the benchmark of quality and quantity for other WikiProjects, much as the Military History project is today.

Templates - I believe my greatest contribution here was the discovery of a mechanism to overlay a KML file on Google Maps and Bing maps, allowing us to create vastly-informative geospatial diagrams placed over satellite imagery. Because of this, we are now able to chart river courses, rail lines, canals, highways, tunnels, etc. with a single pair of links. Using this, the template {{Attached KML}} was created by User:Scott5114 and is now on approximately 1000 pages and counting. I also helped User:Fredddie with reorganizing and simplifying the huge and over-complicated {{Infobox road}} template into a core-shell design.

Community - I can't lay claim to some suggestion that has gone on to become a useful feature unfortunately. However, I have created and maintained the backend of several wikiprojects over the years, including WikiProject Progressive Rock, the Ontario Roads WikiProject and the Canadian Roads WikiProject. While most of these are rather niche projects with limited participation, I believe they set out everything and provide the resources for new/future editors to jump in and make great contributions.

CommentHope its OK to put this on this part of the page. I'm not sure where else it should go. Without wishing to deny what you have done with {{Attached KML}}, we already had a method to "create vastly-informative geospatial diagrams placed over satellite imagery" by overlaying KML on Google Maps and Bing maps: {{GeoGroup}}. As of today, it has 12,555 transclusions. The KML it uses is derived from instances of {{Coord}}, the template which you refuse to allow on American roads articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geogroup requires the use of multiple instances of coord (it would require over 1200 to reproduce the Hwy 401 line). Numerous editors... far more than you could offer up against (because then you'd have consensus, but instead you'll claim there is a cabal or project ownership, because you can't find more of the community to support your opinion) insisted that multiple instances of coord adds a sea of blue which is undesirable in the opinion of that majority of editors. The RFC did not advocate the use of a limitless number of these, which would be required (I believe 10 was decided as an upper limit). Finally, KML is far far far more precise because we're not bound by a limit of 200 coordinates. There are over a thousand coordinate pairs in the Highway 401 KML, something Geogroup couldn't even dream of accomplishing. In addition, you can add notes (annotation), different coloured lines, and plenty of other stuff to KML that you cannot to coord or geogroup. Here is an amazing example of what KML can do that coordinates can not - reproduce something even close to that without KML, if you dare (insert evil cackle or mwuhahahaha here). I'll take accuracy, precision, and annotation over machine parsing or placing a link on Google Maps, any day! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment didn't make any claim about "a cabal or project ownership", and your allegation that I will do so is rather strange, given that you're here to demonstrate your suitability as an admin. What I did do, though, is point out that the discovery of the method for displaying KML on maps, from within Wikipedia, was not as you claimed, yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I judge people based on their contributions and actions. I see beyond just this page, Andy. You have routinely brought up WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You can also downplay what my finding have done, but your comparison is beyond apples and oranges (at least they're both fruits). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:01, 18 August 2012 (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: And this is where the brakes are slammed and the tires screech to a halt.

I have had a fair share of confrontations over the course of my several years of participation here. However, I have grown from this and I can certainly look back and admit that I was far too hot-headed for my own good and certainly for the collaborative atmosphere that Wikipedia is supposed to foster. As Rschen mentioned, this was undoubtedly the single greatest factor in the outcome of my first RfA. I can only hope the community acknowledges this maturity in behaviour and doesn't hold the past over me indefinitely.

My most recent confrontation has been over the past several months, as part of a debate over the inclusion of coordinates in articles covering linear subjects. I won't get into specifics, as there are far too many and the point here is how I've handled myself through the confrontation. Looking back at confrontations I had three years ago, I was quite abrasive, to say the least. I swore (not at others) and was occasionally accused of making borderline personal attacks and using inappropriate edit summaries. Today I rely on policies, guidelines and essays to make well thought-out responses that address the points of the argument, rather than the person making the argument. In particular I have sat down and read thoroughly through WP:NPA, WP:Civility, . I believe I have shaken off the abrasiveness, but I will leave it to the community to make the final judgment.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Thine Antique Pen (public)

4. A user uploads a file under a CC-BY-ND-SA license. How would you act?

A: Assuming that the user has not included an appropriate Fair-use rationale, the image does qualify as free content. The WMF licensing policy establishes that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. Wikipedia:Non-free content reads: "free content [is] defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially.". By applying a no-derivatives clause to an image, the uploader is placing a restriction on the reuse of the image and effectively making it non-free content.

I would begin by informing the user that the image they've uploaded is classified as non-free content because of the no-derivatives clause; ideally they would change the license or request that the photo be deleted, resolving the situation. If they did not respond after some activity or after a day or two, I would tag the image as non-free content. At that point I would follow-up on the talk page of the user, informing them of the process that has begun and the steps they need to take to resolve the issue. I'd inform them that the image would be deleted after seven days if no action was taken, per our copyright and non-free content policies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Dennis Brown

5. I've just downloaded coolimage.jpg, an image that is in the public ___domain. After extensive modification, can I upload here and claim a Creative Commons (attribution) license?

A Yes you can. This is the same concept that allows filmmakers to create interpretations of Shakespearean works, where the original work is public ___domain but the derivative is copyright. I'm trying to find a Wikipedia policy that states that, but cannot locate anything in the copyright policies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain we don't have a specific derivative works policy, but you can look at Commons:Derivative works for what is acceptable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 I've also decided to upload the original coolimage.jpg without changing it, under the public ___domain. Do I need to bother telling Wikipedia where I got it from, since it is PD?

A Of course. All our images must contain source information so that the copyright status can be verified by other users. In fact, even in the case presented in question 5, the source of the original image must be provided. WP:Public ___domain states "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public ___domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Mysterytrey

7. Have you had any editing conflicts in the past 6 months?

A: The only one I can recall is the one I've disclosed above, regarding a dispute between a large group of editors on the merits of coordinates in highway articles. This is a case where I believe two editors were being very vehement about their solution being the only correct method, despite an overwhelming number of editors voicing otherwise, and an RfC siding with the method that I implemented and stood upon. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jorgath

8. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: WP:ADMINACCT lays out that administrators are responsible for their actions, which are held to a higher regard by the community, and that their privledges can be revoked from improper use or by losing the faith of the community. More specifically, it lays out that administrators have a much broader impact with their actions than regular users; users confronted in a negative way by an admin are much more likely to feel cornered or backed into a wall, and for this reason administrators need to take the time to explain their actions to those users. In fact, most situations can be dealt with fairly quickly by simply communicating and informing the guilty party of the effects their actions are causing, rather than taking administrative action. WP:WHEEL lays out quite simply the detriment of wheel-warring. As admins, in many cases, are akin to a judge, it is imperitive that their decisions be respected so as not to disrepute the position or the person. There are very few justifications to reverting an admin action. Getting into a war over administrative actions is extremely detrimental to the project, the pages or users concerned, and the opinion of those who witness such actions. In short, you should discuss issues with the admin who took the first action so that they may make the correction themselves, where necessary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 99of9

9. You were "occasionally accused of making borderline personal attacks and using inappropriate edit summaries". Looking back on those edits (e.g. the diffs in your first RfA), do you agree with the accusations?

A: Certainly. I'll be the first to admit that I was not a pleasant editor to deal with then. Since that RfA, I've tried my best to zip my lips and approach situation from a level-headed stance, avoid derogatory edir summaries, and most of all abstain from making any (borderline or otherwise) personal attacks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10. As an administrator, how would you deal with a user like your former "abraisive" self?

A: With a light hand and a heavy heart (not sure if that is the correct idiom, but anyways). I believe these editors dance on that thin line between being prolific and knowledgable content creators and a thorn in everyones side. I would try to approach these editors, show them my past, and demonstrate to them that they can get a lot further, make much stronger cases for their debate, and overall come across as a more genuine and concerned editor by toning down the sarcasm, the jabs and the insults and replacing it with being social, seeking compromise and working collaboratively. I know of a few editors that have taken on mentorship and buffed out their edges; they are some of the greatest contributors we have now, thanks to some patience by one party and an attitude adjustment by the other. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Hahc21

11. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Newbie and general editor retention is one of my greatest concerns on this project, and I have spent a lot of time observing interactions with the hope of one day offering some solutions to this situation. To the user going through the experience, a block is almost akin to jail. It can be unexpected, certainly isolating, and undoubtedly damaging to a users experience of Wikipedia. For a new editor, it is often the death knell to their contributions. As blocks are supposed to be protective, not punitive, I believe that we should only block users that are clearly destructive or disruptive to the overall project. A dissenting viewpoint on one particular topic should not result in a sitewide block, but all too often I see just that. Our long rulebook of policies and guidelines is especially daunting to a new user, and anything but outright bad faith should be treated with a great deal of leniency and communication. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. Imagine that you are the first admin to spot a user is mass-vandalizing several pages related to a same topic with extremely rude comments and insults. Then, you warn the user and he stops vandalizing other pages but starts vandalizing your userpage. Will you perform the block by yourself? Will you protect your page and wait until another admin arrives? Would you consider yourself involved in the situation by the fact that the user started vandalizing your userpage?

A: I'll start by saying that I would not protect my own page. I'd rather this mass-vandal damage my userpage than our content. The action I would take would depend on the history of the vandal account. If an otherwise good faith editor with a long history of positive contributions suddenly displayed these behaviours, I'd be inclined to assume that the account had been compromised. Per WP:User account security, "Accounts that appear to have been compromised may be blocked without warning". I would follow-up by emailing the user detailing the situation so that if they are able to regain control of the account, the issue can be resolved. As I wouldn't be familiar with the situation, I would consult fellow admins to get a sense of if or when the rightful owner has regained control of the account. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Riley Huntley

13. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?

A: I would assess first whether the user is belligerent or simply emotional. In both cases, I would start by pointing them to our civility policy and letting them know politely that the cursing does not reinforce their arguments. If the user was belligerent, then I would seek an uninvolved admin to assess the situation, as my involvment in the content dispute would be a conflict of interest. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?

A: I think we all have the potential to rehabilitate. It would be hypocritical of me to state otherwise. That said, the key point is whether the once-vandal shows a desire or willingness to reform and contribute positively. We were all immature youth at one point, and most of us matured with time. Our blocking policy states "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", or in other words that all users should be given the opportunity to reform themselves and make amends. A block log is sufficient watching should their disruptive activity resume. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. In what situations would you be uncomfortable using your administrator tools?

A: There are plenty to list here, but I suppose that the best way to summize that list would be: any situation where I am uncertain. Certainly as a new admin this will crop up far more often. Fortunately I'd have several colleagues that I work closely with who'd be able to offer a quick second opinion on a controversial situation. I will definitely be erring to the side of caution, and only utilizing the tools in situations that I am absolutely certain they are justified. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Tagishsimon

16. In course of deciding the outcome of an RFC in your capacity as admin, you come across a small and strongly cohesive group of editors - in effect a cabal - showing very strong WP:OWN tendencies and seeking to limit the scope of content in classes of articles to suit their limited aspirations and arguably against wider and core principles of wikipedia. The RFC has a plurality of these cabal voices. How do you close the RFC?

A: I don't. I would allow another admin to close this, as it seems like it was a very heated and contentious debate from what you describe. At this point I'd rather stand back and observe a more experienced administrator. Also, for what it's worth, WP:there is no cabal, just a group of editors with a common stance on a topic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17. Should the decisions of closing admins in RfCs be honoured in their entirety, or is one permitted to pick and choose those bits that one agrees with, and ignore those that one disagrees with?

The closing comment given at the top of the RfC is what should be honoured; this is the closing admin's summary. In large RfCs, the admin may close each point or desired outcome separately to simplify decision making, stating whether those outcomes have any consensus. The overall RfC is then closed and the decision of the closing admin is presented at the top. Are you insinuating that I would use these additional administrative tools to enforce my point of view in a content dispute, or is there another reason you keep trying to reignite the coordinates debate here? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asserting that you are deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of an RfC to suit your own personal preferences. Is there some lack of clarity in the diffs to that RfC which I provided below? The conversation seems to stop dead each time I present the evidence. I'm not trying to have the coords discussion here, but I am trying to find out whether you are trustworthy w.r.t. the admin application. I'm not getting a good feeling back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can offer is that there could be several interpretations of the outcome of that RfC, but that the first line in the closure is pretty clear that shapefiles/KML had the highest degree of support. I never claimed that coordinates weren't allowed because of that, I merely indicated that the consensus was the most in favour of using KML, to which coordinates are sometimes redundant; highway articles being one of those cases IMO. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Newyorkbrad

18. If you were to make an inadvertent error in your editing, should we call it a Floydian slip?

A: As long as Freud keeps the honour of the dirty double entendres, by all means! :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Floydian: Floydian (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

• Edit summary usage for Floydian can be found here.
• Edit stats on talk page.

---

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

• Is there any possibility that you could add some string of normal characters to your signature? Even if it was ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ with something after it that could be used for the search. Right now, a ctrl+f yields me nothing when I try to find your contribs on a talk page. Ryan Vesey 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I've had the occasional complaint of it appearing as "square square o square square ia square" to users without a unicode set enabled (and likely many mobile users). I suppose this is as good a time as ever to change it to normal characters until I can find a way to make it searchable. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. As nom. --Rschen7754 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Many people may be wondering why I gave such a controversial nomination. Having worked closely with Floydian for years, I am well aware of the civility concerns of the past. However, I believe that Floydian has improved in this area to the point where it would not be an issue, and I do not believe that he would use his tools to further his position in a dispute. Among the opposes are people who draw the lines in other places than I would, and while we obviously disagree, I respect that. --Rschen7754 19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong support. But don't give up your major contributions to roads and highways. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You don't need this. You are wasting too much time dealing with this shit and these bastards will pursue you anyway. Come back to the dark side and call people anything you fucking want to. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Weak Support - but only weak because it would be a shame to burden such a prolific content creator with janitorial duties. Achowat (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support - This editor exceeds my RfA criteria. I like that he balances his contributions between mainspace and projectspace. He doesn't involve himself in drama or bureaucracy more than is absolutely necessary to get things done. His content contributions are also excellent, and if there's anything I truly worry about, it's just that those contributions might suffer if he is drawn too far into administrative tasks. Trusilver 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks good. I was impressed of the quality of the answer to question 4 (which is correct, by the way)! Thine Antique Pen (public) 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to oppose. Thine Antique Pen 08:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support - Floydian is a great and productive editor who I feel can be trusted with the admin tools and put them to good use. Dough4872 01:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Looks all good to me. – Connormah (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support—wasn't a perfect editor, still isn't, but neither are the rest of us. He's learned and grown and matured, and I think the tools would benefit him and his editing. I'm happy to see him add another avenue to the balance of his editing. Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   In the past, I would have thought myself extremely unlikely to be in the support section at the RfA of this user. Floydian said some cringe-inducing things as recently as 2011, including but not limited to the incidents mentioned by OwenX in the oppose section, but I also see tremendous improvement in recent times just by looking over his answers to the standard RfA questions and his participation in the AfDs that Axl linked to below. We need more administrators, and I feel as though Floydian would do the job well — with the obvious caveat that I most definitely do not want to see him lapse into his prior temperament issues. Kurtis (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Indenting support, moving to oppose. Kurtis (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support - We haven't always agreed but for the most part my interactions with this user have always been pretty positive. Kumioko (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support clean block log, very longterm user. Seems a fair bit more mature than he was in 2003/4, but if his age is as per his userpage that is only to be expected. I'm staying out of the infobox/co-ords wars, but all the evidence that I've seen so far is that he was a participant but not one doing things unbecoming of an admin. I vaguely remember the primary topic arguments, but though I'm almost far enough on the other side to support the ignore the last two centuries rule for determining primary topics, I'm happy to treat that incident as past. ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Writing 2 FAs shows that he knows the Wikipedia guidelines. Minima© (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I believe that Floydian has established through his behavior that would do the job well. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak Support: True, there are some rough edges to be worked on... but will eventually be a good admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support Floydian is one of Wikipedia's most hard-working contributors, he really deserves the job and would do it well. Support. Bright Darkness (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support not perfect (who is though?) but in my opinion will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. While I respect the opposes' concerns regarding civility, I believe that Floydian will do the job well enough. I do ask that Floydian be responsive to criticism if they are called on civility issues in the future. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will be, although I hope I am not called up on it in the future. I would be open to recall based on incivility of any kind. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support. Nobody is perfect. He'll do just fine with the bit. –Fredddie™ 22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Trusted user. Electric Catfish 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Good edits, clearly dedicated. Quite enough for me. --LemonTwinkle 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Move over to support. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I've found Floydian to be helpful and mature and his answers cause me no concern, and he's a good content writer (and that's what's important here). But more importantly, anyone whose opposers cite "civility" concerns tends to get my support. I'd rather deal with honest and abrasive people than smooth-tongued liars who whinge about the odd rude word. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Good content editor. I see no reason to oppose. We need new admins and we should embrace as many noms as possible. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Why not ? :) Sourav Mohanty (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, to balance out the ridiculous opposing argument based on his signature. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure there's anyone who opposes solely for that reason; if someone does, I hope they revisit this since Floydian changed his signature. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24. support w/ advice Most of the problems are distant enough that if candidate makes a sincere effort to accept the criticism offered and work on some personal growth should be alright for the next try. I recommend not being so quick to anger and to refrain from heaping coals of criticism on heads of others, even when they richly deserve it. Needs NOT to give the appearance of bludgeoning others. Sometimes less is more. Every long term user here has put their heart into the project and candidate has tendency to rip out hearts and grind them under foot. More work at AFD and DRV and evidence of more nuanced understanding will alleviate some concerns there. And give an opportunity to NOT bludgeon. We are all operating on a professional level-- respectful disagreement is a better tone to take than haranguing and hectoring. I would recommend avoiding entirely subjects or editors where WP:stalk has come into play. Avoid people who aggravate. This is a big project. The only way we can all get along is to work on getting along-- and avoiding those with whom we cannot. The best way to avoid an accusation of impropriety is to avoid the appearance thereof. We all feel passion for this project or we would not be here. If the actions of another cause anger, that is just a sign of passionate caring. However, one must never edit in anger as it destroys the collegiality that building an encyclopedia requires. I will close by recommending mending fences with those with whom candidate has fought in the past. Even if it's a simple and sincere, "sorry that in my zeal I failed to appreciate your finer qualities. Dlohcierekim 00:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Why? NW (Talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Just hazarding a guess here, but I'm assuming its based on my feedback at a request for comment regarding this user (diff). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A mop is not supposed to be a club. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   What exactly makes you think that Floydian is likely to use admin powers as a club? Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That sarcastic comment was one of the many reasons why the RfC was raised in the first place. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Floydian indicates an intention to close deletion discussions. However he has relatively few contributions to XfDs. This AfD is worrying. (Disclosure: I am not able to view the deleted material.) Also, the bizarre signature makes it awkward to search for his comments in a page of text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Floydian has participated in 87 AFDs. --Rschen7754 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the 'worrying' AfD. He was expressing an opinion. I am MUCH happier to see an RfA candidate that has dissenting opinions than I am to see a yes-man that only states an opinion if they know they are on the majority side. Trusilver 22:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   From looking through the contributions, I have found the following relevant XfDs from 2012: 6th August, 29th July, 18th July, 14th July, also 14th July, 4th May, 19th March (including sarcastic retort and edit summary), 16th March, also 16th March, another on 16th March, 14th March, and 1st February (I'm not sure what happened with that one). Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Generally my participation at afd has been on an as-required basis - when it shows up in article alerts, my talk page or my watchlist. However, I am well aware of the growing backlogs and shrinking number of administrators, so I'd like to volunteer some of my time to help where I have experience helping already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Just for the record without taking a side on this nomination (yet), AFD closure have been excellent this month in terms of time taken (compared to say June & July). By the time User:Mathbot can add a new day to WP:AFD/Old (after midnight GMT), there's been only a small number of open dicussions left. That said, of course AFD is not the only XFD around. KTC (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Even more worrisome than the AfDs listed by Axl is this AfD, where Floydian attempted to carry out a non-admin closure after taking a side in the discussion itself. Beyond the obvious ignorance of the procedure (which I'm sure he has since rectified), this shows a patent disregard for basic principles of fairness and neutrality. No, I am not ready to let someone like him close XfDs. Owen× ☎ 05:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   This was in 2009. --Rschen7754 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed it was. While I'm sure people can learn to be more civilized and avoid expressions such as "thick", "clueless" or "fucking tards" (all in 2011!), I don't think one's basic attitude towards fairness and neutrality changes that much in three years. Basic ethics and character traits tend to stay with a person. Owen× ☎ 05:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, still not seeing it. Obviously the close was improper, but the consensus was to SNOW keep by an overwhelming margin. It was more of a matter of waiting for someone uninvolved to close it. It was the right determination, and I am sure that Floydian will not make that procedural error again. --Rschen7754 05:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I never had any problem with the result of that AfD; on the contrary. But while I am sure Floydian will never make that particular mistake again, my comments about his character and ethics still stand, whether you "see" them or not. Owen× ☎ 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Improper NAC are a big issue to me, however 2009 is a long way to go back digging for this kind of stuff. That doesn't bother me in the slightest given its age, at first blush. Any reason it should? Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking back I am very aware that this was improper procedure. In my defence, June 2009 is when I began working on Wikipedia seriously (I was 16 when I'd last edited in 2003), and I can admit that I was not up to speed on most of our rules at that point. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. Floydian is a good writer and has obviously done some good work elsewhere on the wiki, such as with templates. However, his reasons for requesting adminship are wishy-washy and vague and do little to address how the project would benefit from him being an admin. More importantly though, he seems to have carried a grudge from this FAC to this current ANI thread. Bearing grudges does not become an administrator, especially when it gets to the level of weighing in (repeatedly, and with strong views) on an ANI thread tangentially related to an argument from some six months previous. This and the two discussions themselves seem to demonstrate a degree of bloody-mindedness on the part of the candidate, which is a trait we need in fewer admin, not more. They also speak poorly of the candidate's ability to deal with editors who disagree with him, which, if those two discussions are anything to go by, seems to consist of throwing a tantrum and starting a row which takes up a ridiculous amount of space. Finally, the sneakiness and disingenuousness of this edit (in which the candidate removed two sets of coordinates after the article was promoted to FA, having added them days earlier to ensure the success of the FAC, and did so under a misleading edit summary) and participation in the ensuing edit war is just about the farthest thing from what I expect of potential admins. For the purposes of this RfA, I don't give a flying fuck about whether or not the articles should contain coordinates; what concerns me is the candidate's deceitful, sneaky and dishonest conduct throughout the whole thing, and his belligerence in holding a grudge for an extended period. I can't support giving admin tools to somebody with any one of those character traits. That said, Floydian's work on Canadian highways seems to be otherwise stellar, and I hope he continues to focus his efforts on this instead of adminship or rows over metadata. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   grumble, I hate to be seen as badgering the opposes, but This is a fairly one-sided account of the dispute, missing context. I have also commented on the ANI above, and expressing a valid opinion on something quite related (as both situations involved coordinates) should be... valid. Pigsonthewing also hit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 (which closed two weeks ago) with coordinate issues, when coordinates are not part of the FA or GA criteria, and have been ignored by the FAC delegates. I see this not as a grudge, but as trying to combat repeated disruption on the part of POTW (which resulted in two ArbCom cases, by the way) - which is my exact rationale behind my own commenting on that ANI. --Rschen7754 07:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   IIRC, I, too, argued for coords in the two FACs you mention, and argued against GA for DE17. Should I too expect to see a bid to ban me from this or that because I've disrupted the equanimity of the USRD cabal? Since when is it disruptive to make a policy based argument that additional information is required in an article to merit GA or FA? You may not agree with Andy's opinion, or mine, or those of others, but I'd rather you see them as honestly held and good faith opinions, than as "disruption". --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Continuing discussion on user's talk page. --Rschen7754 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm as happy that this discussion be out in the open. You say on my talk page "The method that you are choosing to express your opinions is disruptive; it is not the opinions themselves.". So you are saying that I should expect the same ban hammer as Pigs because I have the temerity to argue for the addition of coords in a FAC, or against GA for the tissue-thin DE17? And you'd like another USRDr to be an admin. Good-oh. Nothing threatening in that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, reluctant to be debating this here, and wouldn't be offended if this got hatted or moved, but some of the above is simply not true Your oppose on DE 17 was not entirely based on coordinates, and Floydian does not edit U.S. road articles. Also, I have a list of a few candidates that I have considered nominating and/or encouraging to run for admin; some are roads editors; some are not. --Rschen7754 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The point you miss, and which is of relevance to this RFA is: it is not illegal to argue for coords at a FAC. An editor who thinks that making such arguments is "disruptive" and cause for a ban hammer is not an person I'd like to see endowed with admin powers. It may well be inconvenient to you and the USRD crew that others voice opinions contrary to yours, but your collective intolerance of the expression of those views is as chilling as the USRD group-think is limiting and cargo-cultish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I never claimed that editors with a dissenting opinion should be banned. But when two editors repeatedly raise the same points at numerous forums, it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It eventually exhausts a person's patience. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a rather poor example of cherrypicking inappropriate policy/guideline links to support your prejudice. You well know there's been one substantive RfC discussion on coords on road articles, which ended with no consensus either way. Where there is no consensus either way, there is little alterntive but to argue the case article by article. So if that's an example of your admin policy knowledge in action, I'm afraid it's a clear fail. You cannot, as an admin, allow yourself to pander to your "exhaustion" nor should you cherrypick policy to support your a priori views. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The closure of it reads "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article." (followed by addressing your canvassing of 130 talk pages, which the closer concluded was not detrimental, but still disruptive nonetheless). I'm not going to get into the debate here; there is a very clear line between being an involved party in a heated and contentious debate, and making neutral and uninvolved administrative decisions. Apples and oranges largely. It would be a conflict of interests. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, cherrypicking. The closing admin discussed explicitly what had and had not been decided by the RfC with respect to coordinates on highway articles - diff. You cannot on the one hand pick and choose only those parts of a closing admin's decision that suit your disposition, and at the same time offer yourself up as an even-handed prospective admin. Too much dissonance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not the disputes I'm concerned with. We all fall out now and then, but I expect a (potential) admin to handle it better, and certainly not to resort to that kind of chicanery. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose we disagree, but the "six months" part is false, as it cropped up two weeks ago. --Rschen7754 07:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   HJ brings up some relevant points, ones I haven't looked into. I hope Floydian comments on these points directly because I think this would be better dealt with early and openly for everyone's sake. Particularly for those of us unfamiliar with the ANI incidents referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I accepted this nomination knowing that the coordinates debate is a recent conflict that would be exposed in all its disgusting glory. I'm sure we've all been in them. I can safely say that there is no grudge being held here, but that I've certainly formed an opinion of the editors involved. We all judge people here based on their communication with us, and their actions. Certainly I am not alone in feeling that one of the editors was somewhat belligerent and disruptive, not just in this discussion but in general. I do not believe I threw any tantrums or went on any rows, though I can admit I lost my cool from repeating myself ad nauseum or dealing with what at times were absurd tangents. As both a matter that I was involved with and one that I have a great deal of passion regarding, I would certainly not be using any admin tools to lobby or enforce my position.

   Regarding the coordinates removed following the FAC, this discussion details the situation more. In short, the addition of coordinates were an attempt to reach a compromise. However, no votes were changed following their addition and no outcome altered by that addition, so I chose to revert myself. I did not spell it out in the edit summary because it would have restarted the same debate that had supposedly been dealt with at an RFC, but which continued to spill into several FAC's, TFA requests, and even a GAR recently. This was more an attempt to avoid reigniting the flames than to be deliberately sneaky.

   As to why I would benefit the project with these tools, I stated that my main area of focus would be in templates, where I feel my expertise would allow me to assist along the same lines of User:MSGJ and User:WOSlinker. Many admins have no technical knowledge, yet are entrusted with approving editprotected requests to huge complicated templates. I understand these templates and can approve such changes not just in regards to consensus (per WP:HRT), but also in regards to whether the edit will work. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - per HJM. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose (strongly). His answers to Q3 give me pause; now is not the time for him to start addressing his civility issues. 'Abrasiveness' is putting it mildly - Floydian is from nature combative, sarcastic, and at times, insulting. His spate of disambiguation attempts (all failed) in late 2010 could be interpreted as POV pushing, or at the very least, time wasting - Floydian created a series of move/disambiguation discussions claiming primacy of North American cities (especially Canadian) over famous major UK locations. None of his proposals were met with consensus in favour of them, and many comments were clearly derogatory towards UK users. He sometimes deletes rather than archiving his gross incivility in his talk page. [1], [2]. Multiple snide and argumentative remarks in his FA discussions Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2 also do not impress. With only just over 60% accuracy in his AfD comments, sufficient knowledge is not demonstrated for use of the deletion tool, and/or closures and evaluating consensus. Wikipedia's principles, and policies can be learned and knowledge improved, but generally a person's character traits won't, and his ability to get along with his fellow editors still leaves much room for improvement. He has not taken on board comment in his first RfA], and I would like to see at least another year of trouble-free editing before he presents again for RfA. (Assorted diffs: [3], [4],[5], [6], [7],Talk:Cambridge#Requested move2010, Talk:York#Disambiguation required, Talk:Cornwall/Archive 10, Talk:Peterborough#Disambiguation required, Talk:Sydenham#Disambiguation required). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Those diffs are from October 2010 - nearly two years ago. GiantSnowman 09:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Well noticed, the point being that nothing has changed since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I will admit that looking back on those move requests, a select few were pointy. However, the vast majority were done in innocence, as there were many rather standard UK towns that are not famous, a few that I actually hadn't heard of. This wasn't an attempt to give North America favour in any way - more often it was an attempt to avoid giving the UK favour and creating a neutral disambiguation page, as I felt then that far too many primary topics were based on the fact one is an older city. Anyways, the timing of these requests was based purely on the geographical areas of the province I was working on at that time (southwestern and eastern Ontario), and wasn't part of an attempt to disrupt or cause problems, though I sincerly apologize if it did. I do however find it odd that my opinions at AfD are being rated for accuracy. They're my opinion, and votes don't necessarily have to be based in policy or guidelines. It's up to the neutral closing administrator to appropriately weigh the value of the comments and come to a conclusion based on the arguments presented. For what its worth, I have tried my darnedest to live by the comments made at the previous RfA and to improve myself. I'm sure it hasn't been a smooth road, but it sure isn't the start of it. I will address the FAC point above soon, but more or less this was the very unfortunate conflict that I disclosed in question 3. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   With AfD, if you become an admin you will have the authority to close them and use a tool to delete the articles. A low level of corrects hits with your commenting demonstrates that you may not be able to evaluate which arguments are based on policy and which ones are purely deletionist, inclusionist, or sentimental. This also raises my doubts that you may still not be in a position to weigh consensus in other debates from a neutral standpoint, which reinforces the reasons why I mentioned the albeit somewhat older debates you started and the way you handled them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd respectfully disagree. I know well when I am voting with a stream of policy behind me, and when I am voting based on my opinion (which I am generally forthright in admitting). Aside from these older nominations, could you provide me some examples of my low accuracy in voting? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   This is one of your most recent AfDs on something other than a road, where you argued strongly to keep on what boiled down to your rejection of the relevant guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Rejection of other users interpretation of the relevance of those guidelines in that particular discussion. There wasn't an WP:ILIKEIT argument being made there. I don't see anything wrong with taking a stance on the discussion and making the arguments to back my case, even if the community eventually decides against those arguments. I wasn't closing the discussion, I was participating in it, and I accepted the outcome that resulted. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose - I hate to find myself here, but I have no choice. There is no doubt that Floydian is a good contributor who has been here a long time and has a great deal of experience, but admin need to be more than an editor with new tools. I started out thinking I would support, but then wrote out a Neutral response due to HJ Mitchell's concerns, and after a great deal of digging into past ANI, talk, etc, I find myself here. My criteria, the most important thing that matters to me, is the demeanor of the candidate. Period. Everything else can be learned, so past minor mistakes don't bother me, but we seldom change our stripes, our style of communication. While Floydian's style makes him a formidable editor in a debate, I fear it would be problematic when dealing with the vast array of problems forced upon him if he had the admin bit. An admin that is too gruff, rigid or blunt at times can cost us good editors, something I'm already having to spend time dealing with. Looking at the totality of edits, rather than any singular examples, I find an overall good editor, but not a good admin. In short, I fear it would not be a WP:Net positive for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose The candidate's personality is incompatible with proper administrator work. Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. HKM and Kudpung's comments ring true with me, as do another few of the comments made thus far. An examination of other edits brought up things like this and this from the not-too-distant past], both indicative of temperamental issues when things don't do Floydian's way. I can't remember having specifically interacted with Floydian before, but those seem to ring bells regarding other interactions I've seen. I'm also somewhat unimpressed with Floydian's responses thus far in this RfA, particularly this one: administrators are required to have a good understanding of our notability guidelines when working at AfD because it's the only way that they can accurately assign weight to the comments presented therein, and the implied difference between a "guidelines-based vote" and "opinion-based vote" does not actually exist in the given context. Lastly, while those supporting clearly think Floydian is a good (or even an excellent) candidate, I'm not especially convinced by the reasons given so far: Floydian is certainly a better candidate now than last May, but that's not really enough to sway me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, sorry. I had wanted to support, but I'm just seeing too many "fuck"s in talk comments and edit summaries and too much of an aggressive approach to discourse. I'm not one who decries the occasional use of swear words (and I don't pretend I've never used any myself) or a robust approach (in fact, some of my favourite content creators are pretty robust), but I just don't think it's a suitable general approach for an admin - I think admins should aim to "talk softly, and carry a big mop". You do a lot of good work here, though, so this Oppose comes with a big helping of moral support for that - good content creators are worth far more than good admins. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I decided to peruse my contribution since my last RfA. Aside from an edit summary on July 4th of this year, on my talk page in response to being compared to a longtime vandal for undoing what I believed was a hasty closure after 3 hours, the next instance of "fuck" is on May 3, 2011. I was wondering if you could kindly provide other examples? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    May 2012 (two "fuck"s), July 2012 (two "fuck"s, including a rather ironic edit summary of "How fucking dare you compare a conflicting post/closure with long-term aggressive incivility.") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The May example I'll admit was a case of frustration with a user. I lost my cool, and it shouldn't have gotten to that level. However, the July example, I will stand by to the grave. The accusation levelled at me was very poor judgment on the admin's part, and perhaps someone turning around and getting pissed will make them think twice before calling a long time contributor a vandal for daring to revert their edit. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - We are all, from the very beginning, collaborators. At all times we need to treat each other with respect. Aggression feeds itself and once it begins it kills discussion. Admins should have have "Peace-making' as the handiest among their tools. I believe this editor would have a problem finding it in their toolbox. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Enough evidence has surfaced in the oppose section to convince me that concerns regarding this user's temperament remain. I couldn't envision myself supporting until Floydian demonstrates that he can be civil on a more consistent basis. Kurtis (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Looking at the evolution of your comments over the years, I agree with you that at least some of the abrasiveness has been shaken, but I don't think all of it. Looking at some of the AfDs that have been pointed out, I do get the feeling you get more worked in disagreements than someone with the block and delete buttons ought to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per HJ, Simon and Chris; and in particular for the repeated assertions regarding the closure of the contentious roads coordinates RFC, where 10 of 11 proposals found no consensus, and the only one that did was a side-issue to the matter in hand, and had no bearing on the use or not of coordinates (by analogy, there was disagreement over whether the curtains should be red or blue, but there was agreement on a new suggestion that we should also have a table-lamp). Despite this repeatedly having been pointed out to him, by me among others, Floydian still cites the RfC as justification for pushing his PoV. It's not his PoV that's the issue here, but his inability or refusal to grasp the nature of consensus, and accept that his PoV does not prevail, to the point of being disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to back up Andy's assertions, here's the diff in which the closing admin in the RfC in question talks about his decision on coords. This appears to be the bit that Floydian wishes to ignore, for instance in edits made, err, yesterday on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Simon. And again in yesterday's claim of "an overwhelming number of editors voicing otherwise, and an RfC siding with the method that I implemented and stood upon". The issue may be one of honesty rather than understanding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose- Much too aggressive to be an admin. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose This is a case that reminds me of band. In my band, there are four levels. You start out in the first, after a year you move to the second, and after another year you move to the third. But to get to the fourth, you have to play something for the director to indicate that you are good enough. But even if you're good enough, you don't always move up if your behavior isn't the greatest. 24K edits, 28 GAs, and 2 FAs mean that he plays well enough (in metaphor terms), but his behavior, as mentioned by the other opposers, just isn't suitable for a higher level quite yet. But in band, wih RfAs, you can learn and improve, and maybe next time your behavior will be good enough. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Regrettably I need to oppose due to the lack of responses on his/her talk page from an earlier query. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, I must have missed that. I miss messages from time to time, but I assure you it's accidental and not ignorance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. I came here wanting to support (as I heard of the name before), but the candidate has too many AfD problems for me to trust them with closing AfDs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any chance you could provide some more details? What are you referring to when you say AfD problems? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I partially misread some of the first few opposes, sorry. Moving to neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose: Brambleberry of RiverClan basically sums it up. Great content work, but his behaviour isn't suitable. Thine Antique Pen 08:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose The Highway 401 article is beautifully written, and lacks only one essential ingredient. It is totally invisible to google maps- it lacks a single co-ordinate for any of the interchanges. All offers by other editors to assist in providing them (offers still open) have been stoutly refused and rebutted in an astonishing display of WP:OWN- to the point of creating an edit war. I see from comments above that User:Floydian still persists in ownership, perceiving anyone with an alternative view as part of a 'cabal'. I'd love to stand Floydian a coffee and learn from him some of his editing tricks but until we see Highway 401 visible on Google maps I can't support this application. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not just me, it was at least half a dozen other editors who agreed, and I'm sorry if I'm unwilling to add a single point to represent an 825 km line. You'd have a w in the middle of Pickering, what would that do? Google maps can update to synch with our new method; we don't have to base our content around what they do. See, they're a for-profit billionaire conglomerate, and I have no care in the world about the integration between our non-profit volunteer project and this company; the company can bend over backwards if it wants to work with our massive userbase and they can integrate a way of displaying KML line on the wiki layer. I fail to see what putting coordinates on an article has to do with my ability to use these tools in a trusted manner, regardless. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, Highway 401 is not invisible to Google Maps. –Fredddie™ 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You say here that you're "unwilling to add a single point to represent an 825 km line", yet the diff that HJ Mitchell provided above clearly shows you removing not one, but two sets of coordinates, one for each end of the highway, which you had added in response to ClemRutter's FAC concerns. Further, no-one has suggested that we "base our content around what [Google] do". It is this kind of misrepresentation and diversion that is the issue here, not whether or not you like coordinates; likewise how you respond in disputes over edits made by others, not what edits you personally are willing to make. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I added them then decided that they were both original research (determining which point is the most important point to represent, or the most representative point), clutter (needless DMS that is visible on the Geohack page), and redundant to the, IMO, far more informative linear representation of the highway. I self reverted. The two coordinates I had included are fully represented by the to extreme ends of the KML line (and the file also includes those as decimal coordinates for your machine readers). Again, no oppose or support was hinged on those coordinates (the FAC was closed with Clemrutter still opposing IIRC), and so I don't feel removing them was dishonest in any way. I'll admit I didn't indicate that was what I was doing in the edit summary, because I wanted to avoid another repeat of the circuitous discussion that had been ongoing for 5 months, with apparently no budging (because the RfC didn't ban the use of them, but did result in the conclusion (the part at the top) that what has become KML should be used for highways). I'm not going to debate this here though, I will only answer to my own actions. I'm certain you will raise the coordinates issue every time an FAC, TFA, or GAR props up, until the cows come home. By the way, I suggested that we are bending over to serve Google Maps. I am that someone. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose I was initially going to support, but after reading HJ's and Kudpung's reasons, I have to oppose. I think Brambleberry of RiverClan summed it up best with the band metaphor, as that is something that should be true in all aspects of life. Sorry, but better luck next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per HJ Mitchell. Albacore (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Very strong oppose. Didn't anyone see Floydian's response to Andy on this very RfA page??? Floydian: Numerous editors... far more than you could offer up against (because then you'd have consensus, but instead you'll claim there is a cabal or project ownership, because you can't find more of the community to support your opinion) -- That, to me, does not bespeak someone intent on bringing consensus, but rather of someone who assumes bad faith of other editors. Not to mention the edit wars, prolific use of f*** and other words in discussion, the 2nd RfA... I'm sorry, Floydian, but that's not the sort of behavior we need in our admins. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    AGF is not a suicide pact. Numerous times Andy claims a "cabal" and "project ownership", quite plainly. --Rschen7754 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only assumed bad faith of one editor who has left me nothing good to assume based on the past year of history. It's not a grudge, but at the same time you come to expect certain behaviours out of certain users when it becomes repetitive and unchanging. Now, edit wars? When? Prolific use? Where? 2nd RfA? Are we expecting all potential candidates to pass in their first attempt? I'm sorry, but you are making unfounded accusations against me, and setting the bar ridiculously high for any candidate at this time when everyone is crying out that we need new administrators. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose per HJ Mitchell and others - namely, the vague reason(s) for wanting access to the additional tools. Theopolisme _(public) 21:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose In the past this candidate has shown poor judgement regarding fringe topics. Skinwalker (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Which I haven't edited in well over a year. How long are you going to hold that over my head? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24. Strong Oppose That's my comment about it. By the way, it's per Theopolisme, Keepscases, Jsharpminor, Bzweebl and Boing! said Zebedee. If bad words aren't and shouldn't be in my vocabulary, so should he. No offense, just dug deep. TruPepitoM (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    They'll always be in my vocabulary, but I've certainly toned down my usage of them to almost zilch in the past year. Once when being accused of being a vandal by an admin for "having the audacity" to revert their edit; I stand by that use as completely justified in the circumstance. In May, not so. Haven't otherwise since my last RfA that I can determine. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a bit of unsolicited advice from a retired admin. Back when I was active. I'd have been drooling on the keyboard in my eagerness to support someone w/ your good points. IMHO, though, you will need to lose the colorful vocabulary. It will always raise concerns for civility and garner avoidable opposes. Support requirements have become excruciatingly high since my RFA, and you are too valuable an editor to lose supports over a few vulgarisms. The advice is still timeless as ever-- step away before you post a comment or edit summary will undermine your credibilty. It's part of the amazingly high standards and self control the community needs. You can do this. Best wishes for the future. Dlohcierekim 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I only hope I don't come back in a year or so, having avoided using any colourful language, and still be opposed based on language... Especially along the lines of "I don't use bad words, so you must be inferior to me since you do". Swearing != incivility. It is perfectly acceptable in moderation, to express the strength of your feelings. There is a huge difference between that and swearing AT someone, or being a foul mouthed sailor. This is why I stand by my use of "fuck" in July, and would react the same to a similar accusation being throttled at me by an admin today. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25. For me, civility is a bare minimum I expect from a potential admin candidate and the examples given by those above are too much for me to overlook. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. At this AfD the candidate wishes he/she could be an admin so that redirects would instead be red links.  This theme reappears at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchmount Road (2nd nomination), which starts with an AfD nomination which names an editor, and that seeks delete and salt.  Note the WP:BLUDGEON style in the discussion.  After the deletion went to DRV, it was revealed that the candidate had merged content from the article before trying to get the article deleted and salted, contrary to WP:MAD.  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwin Avenue, the candidate showed that he/she did not have novice-level understanding of WP:TPG, and Wikilawyers that an AfD page is not a talk page.  He/she modified his/her nomination text so that Geo Swan's following comment was taken out of context (diff), and then even after being shown the applicable WP:TPG, lacked the skills to apply proper talk page etiquette.  The candidate's use of edit comments at the Unwin AfD is also inadequate.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose after review. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose - after taking a look, I don't think Floydian is ready to be an administrator yet. I'm not as bothered by his temperament as others, but I'm very concerned about his approach to AfDs and don't think he should have the tools in that area right now. I'd definitely support if I saw marked improvement in AfD in, say, 3-6 months. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose. I had forgotten, but I am very forgetful, about this edit here. Ah, it's all coming back now--the beauty of ANI where everyone can take a crap on everyone else, especially if one is not an admin and thus feels free to let it all hang out. The person who made that comment is not a person who should be an administrator. That Floydian would tell me I am not fit to be an admin is fine, I can accept that in the spirit in which it was offered, but I do not want someone with a personal grudge and a short fuse to be equipped with a block button as well. "Not ready yet" doesn't even come into play (yet)--we don't need trigger-happy admins. Blocking (unless it's a case of clear-cut vandalism etc) is something that should be considered judiciously and calmly, not done (or proposed) hastily. I could comment on Floydian's good work in various areas and all that, but that's beside the point of an RfA. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What comment? "Reoccuring item, undoing hasty closure (ya, lets just continue to set a precedent of doing nothing, GREAT PLAN!))" - If that comment is one that is unbecoming of an admin, then what do you have to offer in defense of A) Your poor closure, B) Your accusing me of being worse than a long-time vandal for having the audacity to revert you (as if you are some special person above the rest of the community)? Where do you connect undoing your trigger happy closure with my potential to be a trigger-happy blocker? Why have you determined that I have a personal grudge? Because I was forthright in explaining those actions as the justification for one of my few outbursts of absurdity? I'd honestly like answers to these questions, please. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop digging. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose for extreme incivility and stalking, the former of which has occurred on multiple users. Have a long look at this ANI:User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK that I had no choice to start due to continued stalking and incivility,[8] this despite being put on notice by at least two administrators to stay away from me. His embarrassing attempt to explain away his more recent stalking behavior is in this discussion, not surprisingly on my talk page. This user has contributed a great amount of work on Canadian road articles but does not have the proper temperance or judgement to be an administrator.--Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd respond asking you to prove these stalking allegations, but I'm afraid of being accused of stalking you in doing so. I see nothing surprising about a discussion on your talk page, and if I happen across an article that makes no attempt to explain why the subject is notable, I'll nominate it for deletion, whether you started the article, or one of our many other contributors. You can spout the stalking line until the end of time, but it is your accusation and yours alone. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Readers here can view the WP:STALK violations in both Floydian's ANI case and that more recent case as demonstrated on my talk page and decide for themselves. But what's telling here is Floydian's above reply. Really, is this the temperance we want in an adminstrator when someone dissagrees with him? And believe me, this is mild as compared to what this user has demonstrated.--Oakshade (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31. Weak oppose The candidate's handling of oppose votes here is disturbing to me. Admins need to be able to roll with the punches; if the user becomes this defensive this quickly, it doesn't bode well for how they'd handle criticism of admin actions later. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The above was typed out before the withdraw, but I edit conflicted, and didn't notice until an hour and a half later. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral for now.VolunteerMarek 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I don't have a problem with the arguments Floydian 2 was making in regards to the demands for coordinates to be added in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2; the editors calling for the coordinates were, to be blunt, attempting to impose their personal preferences in a field where there is no consensus that the coordinates were required and went over the top with this, and Floydian was entirely correct to stand his ground (which can be a very good thing in an admin). However, this could have been done much more politely, and in light of the other concerns raised above I can't support this nomination at present, though I'm not seeing grounds for an oppose based on my positive experiences with Floydian's editing. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It is one thing to stand one's ground in a discussion of whether or not coords should be in an article. Another entirely to seek to have dissenting voices barred from editing wikipedia pages as HJ Mitchell discusses, above. No criticism has been levelled at Floydian in respect of his views on coordintes. And without wishing to rehash old discussions, the editors calling for the coordinates honestly believe that certain FAs should have such things and have, reluctantly, accepted the consensus that was expressed in the FACs discussions w.r.t. the articles under discussion. That's what one does at an FAC: argues one's point. The question of whether or not there is consensus for coordinates is somewhat moot; it's more a question of determining whether an article without coordinates meets the established "best of wikipedia" consensus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral (from oppose). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral to avoid piling on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral I'm really not sure about the answer to q.4. Firstly, whether or not there is an appropriate FUR, it's still not free content because of the -ND (No Derivative Works) condition - a FUR doesn't make it free content. foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't "establish" that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content, it requires it, but provides for exceptions, in the shape of the EDP; note that files uploaded under those exemptions do not become free content by virtue of being hosted on Wikipedia.
   Secondly, there is no such license as CC-BY-ND-SA - there is CC-BY-SA, and there is CC-BY-ND but the -ND and -SA cannot coexist, see Creative Commons license#Combinations. It therefore qualifies for WP:CSD#F3 as an improper license, and there is no seven-day grace. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   "Establishes" and "requires" means the same thing to me. On the hypothetical question, I assumed that if it was "uploaded with a license of [blah]" that such a license actually exists. In reality, the lack of such a licence would mean the image would show up without a licence at all (a redlink to a non-existant template), at which point WP:CSD#F3 would apply. I would still let the uploader know and give them seven days regardless, because unless the image is a blatant copyright infringment, I'm going to be helpful rather than a hinderance; we give seven days to images without any license (see Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status), and so should we with incorrect/invalid licenses. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. The opposers convince me not to support. Quite a few concerns. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. I respect the candidate's talent as a writer but I'm concerned about the temperament issues raised by multiple reasonable opposes. In the end, I just don't want to pile on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Non-pile. I am concerned not only with temperament, but also perspective on debate and closings. The civility improvement since the last RfA is commendable. A huge improvement. Glrx (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral. I have often said that I don't need to be persuaded that someone would be a good admin, my only concern is if I am persuaded that they would not. I don't see a clear persuasive argument to oppose. I also wonder, whether there's some period of time after which those who oppose will no longer bring up the sins of one's past. I know that when I'm asked if editing WP ever causes me stress, my response is limited to my witness of the ordeal one must submit themselves in order to pass this process. It is completely backwards (my opinion - no need to try and refute it, this is not something for which I am seeking consensus). Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:00, 21 August 2012 (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.