Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Magog the Ogre

Final (65/4/3); Closed as successful by (X! · talk)  · @127  ·  at 02:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you, Magog the Ogre, for the role of sysop. As a user with over 8,700 edits beginning in August 2008, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, civility, and dedication, Magog the Ogre has been a valuable asset to the project these past two years. Although not amongst the ranks of some of our most prolific article creators, Magog has his own way of contributing to the project as a whole: cartography. A programmer by profession, Magog has authored a series of cleverly written scripts to generate a whole slew of freely licensed, professional quality maps for Wikipedia to use.

When not hard at work creating maps for Wikipedia, Magog spends his time working in the administrative aspects of the project, an area where he is well versed and experienced, particularly so in the area of media file policy. As can be seen from even a brief glance at Magog's contributions, he has an outstandingly sharp eye for detecting and correcting errors with media file description pages as well as making textbook-perfect file CSD taggings and deletion nominations. On top of everything, Magog also finds the time to revert vandalism, and is a dedicated RC patroller.

I am also proud to announce that Magog is a graduate of my my Admin coaching program. This was no easy syllabus he completed. Although challenged at beginning, through a a day-to-day commitment over the past five months, I have seen him make great leaps and bounds in his understanding of policy and in his growth as a Wikipedia editor. In the end, I can truthfully say that Magog has outperformed my expectations as an admin coach, and has been a student any coach would be lucky to have.

I think Magog the Orge has proven himself as an editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this editor to the sysop corps would clearly be beneficial to the project. I hope you will agree with me that he would do well with the tools. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, gratefully, thanks Fastily. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've worked on multiple administrative issues since I came on, and that's what I plan to continue working on:
  • I've done a huge amount of work in images. I plan to assist in image work of all sorts, notably deletion (speedy, pseudo-speedy, WP:PUF, and WP:FFD).
  • I've worked vandalism patrol in the past, so I will block blatant vandals. If WP:AIV has a backlog, I'll work there. And, to answer your likely question preemptively: blocks are never punitive. :)
  • I hate seeing backlogs. If there's a backlog somewhere, I'll want to work on it. For example, I've occasionally worked on WP:RM or WP:SCV in the past, and will occasionally work on it again when there's a backlog. Most often, backlogs are areas that administrators prefer not to touch because it's tedious: that's what I'd go for (e.g., Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons).
  • I will protect pages on sight that need it. Pages with less than a few pieces of vandalism per day generally don't need it. BLPs are the exception, most especially if they're not heavily watched.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm really proud of the maps I've created. A picture speaks a thousand words, and not a lot of other people have the programming wherewithal to create images like that. Even when images like that do exist, they are about never free enough for Wikipedia.
For example: File:WeisMarkets footprint.png. I picked this one among many, because it illustrates the work I've done. Creating this image to have county subdivisions across multiple states was easily the hardest part of the process (even harder than creating code to go from an address to a point on the screen). But seriously how informative is this image? I think it's quite informative. First off, almost anyone will immediately get a general idea of where the store does business, a very important part of understanding the store to begin with. Second off, people familiar with the area will get a specific idea, right down to a few miles.
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: I have been in conflicts, but I normally deescalate before it even reaches that stage. What I've done before, and what I'll do again, is to just not revert war, but hash it out on the talk page. Refreshingly, most often people are willing to discuss reasonable solutions there. For those who are unwilling (e.g., a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), WP:DR or (if trollish enough) WP:ANI is a better venue than reverting.
Additional optional question from ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣
4. You have had close to 2000 edits in the past 30 plus days or so. The previous 2000 edits took you 15 months or so; my calculations are approximate. The question is, should 'regularity of editing' matter as a factor when a prospective request for adminship is being assessed by editors and was that the reason you increased your edit count in the last month? What would be your criteria for assessing prospective administrators?Pl don't mind the question; I sail in the same boat as you, and I am interested in the answer as I do see you a positive contributor irrespective of my question; and irrespective of the 2000 edits, you have 6000 plus edits any which way; regards...
A: To answer the first question: no, I don't believe regularity should be an issue. Perhaps if someone spent a really long time between edits (e.g., 600 edits per year), so policy and procedure changes passed the person up. Otherwise, IMHO, 80 hours editing over 8 weeks is comparable to 80 hours editing over 8 days. As for the second question: no, my employment status changed (due to no fault of my own!), thus giving me much more free time. And for the third question: my criteria would require an editor have sufficient experience and intelligence to understand WP's most important policies and procedures well, and a clear history of abiding by those standards. Is that specific enough? If not, I'll clarify further for you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
5. Grateful for your assistance, a Wikipedia user offers to donate $1000 to a charity of your choice. How do you handle this?
A: First off, I'd honestly be a bit shocked; I don't think my actions, now matter how noble, have ever led someone to spontaneously decide to give away money to charity (even when solicited!). I would immediately of course mention the Wikimedia Foundation, given the nature of why the person is grateful. If not satisfied with that answer, I would have to probe a bit further to discover why the person is grateful and what sort of charity s/he wants to give money to. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Soundvisions1
6. You recently presented for deletion discussion several images you felt were possibly unfree. This discussion has now turned into a very lengthy one. Even before the discussion became as long as it is now you asked the uploader to provide a link or just summarize this because you did not have much desire to read the whole thing. As you are now in line for the mop and bucket it is a fair question to ask: If you were the closing admin on a lengthy discussion would you take the time to read all opinions, links and other information presented (Be they in summary form or not) or would you quickly glance it over looking for only "Keep" or "Delete"?
A: First off to clarify, the reason I said I didn't have a desire to read the whole thing was because 83d40m dropped 9 pages of mostly a text dump, where as it would have been considerably easier to read if he had simply linked to the page; for organizational purposes, it was hard to make heads from tails so I was asking for a better summary. Second, to answer your question, it's important to read all or near all of the text in order to give a proper closing of the debate, especially if the opposing sides haven't come to agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: see my response to Soundvisions1 in his neutral !vote below for an explanation on "near all". Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Jclemens
7. What are the differences between BIO1E and BLP1E? Why do they matter?
A: The two are written for entirely different purposes, and have different guidelines. BLP1E is written to avoid compromising the privacy of an individual who doesn't want it, and should be used with such a goal in mind. BIO1E is written to avoid writing articles about non-notable figures.
For example, BLP1E but not BIO1E applies in the case of Shawn Hornbeck. His event was too notable to qualify for BIO1E.
BIO1E but not BLP1E applies for a person whose only major contribution to notability was to run a publicity stunt (i.e., wanted the attention) that made several local newspapers. Is this a clear response or do I need to elaborate more? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'm not being smarmy in any way, I'm just not always sure how much I'm on the same wavelength with everyone else ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Panyd
8. A user leaves an angry message on your talk page about an article you have recently deleted. Checking your contributions, you realise you deleted the article by mistake. The user is very unreasonable and is now threatening to sue both you and the Foundation. What do you do?
A: First, I undelete the article. A mistake is a mistake. Second, if the user isn't placated and still is making threats, I take it to WP:ANI for a second opinion. If the community decides the user is violating WP:LEGAL, then the community should put out the block, not I, as I was involved with this user in a dispute. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Amatulic
9. Suppose you notice that WP:RFPP has a backlog, and you see that someone has requested semi-protection for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you see among the handful of edits per day, a slow edit war going on. Not all the edits are warring, and although there have been more than three reverts by both sides over the past week, it doesn't really qualify for 3RR. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe once every three days or so. The most frequent anonymous edits, however, involve an anon editor attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request to stop the disruption. The anon hasn't explained anything on the talk page, has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A: I would decline this request, and place a note on talk pages warning the parties to discuss. In a content dispute, semi-protection is only appropriate if all included parties are not autoconfirmed. Standard caveats for unusual BLP scenarios apply (I'm not addressing those here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Amatulic
10. (Optional question; you don't have to answer if this RfA's clock runs out first) The largest backlogs on Wikipedia are Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Regarding your answer to question 1, why do you think most administrators prefer not to touch these? Why do you feel it is important to reduce these backlogs? Do you have suggestions to make the process more efficient?
A: Administrators probably don't do it for a few reasons:
  1. Undoubtedly, a major factor is that it's tedious. Who wants to spend hours on end doing text replacements? How much more interesting is it to argue on ANI?
  2. Administrators are not wholly familiar with policy. In fact, there are probably only a handful of copyright expert administrators across Wikimedia in general. Who wants to have to deal with such gems as de minimis, freedom of panorama, and copyright rules like this? All of this and more must be accounted for when deleting an image as commons-replaced.
  3. Because administrators know that any time they play with images, they just might suffer abuse. I haven't heard this complaint in a while, but I certainly have before.
Why it's important to reduce backlogs... to summarize, the best word for it is streamlining; to expand:
  1. Duplicates cause confusion. A person looking at the same image on es.wiki as on en.wiki will wonder why it might have a different source, history, etc. Or if someone were to overwrite one of the images, confusion will now be complete.
  2. Copyright problems are harder to deal with. It sure is frustrating to go through a whole two week PUF process only to find the image on commons and have to start again. Or to have to nominate it at both locations.
Suggestions for making it more efficient:
  1. Add some capability specifically for this procedure to WP:AWB, if the existing capabilities are insufficient (which I think they are, given that AWB doesn't preview the appearance of an image - although I could be wrong).
  2. An bot or semi-automatic bot/script could certainly help. Actually, seeing as I am good with this kind of thing, it might be something I'd consider doing if I had enough time on my hands, and there was enough demand for it... Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional optional question from Elvey
11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion is for simple image undeletions. But, that (latter) page says "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria. Is it for images or just pages. Would you agree that either Requests for undeletion is, or isn't, for images too, and that the documentation is currently internally inconsistent? If so, what specifically, if anything, should change to make the pages consistent, and why?--Elvey (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support As nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my confidence in the nominator and the need for more admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks like a solid addition to the admin team. Jarkeld (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Let me just say that my heart dropped when I started reading his answer to question 3 here about blocking in his admin coaching until I got to the last sentence of his answer; that sentence allowing me to breathe a sigh of relief. Solid contributor, especially in the realm of images. Somewhat taciturn, like myself, but quite cordial. Clean block log. From my examination of his Wikipedia namespace contribs, appears to have good grasp of policy. Knows where to go to get answers to his questions. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually quite refreshing to review a candidate, I hadn't done that in awhile. Useight (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  5. Familiar with Magog's work, and remember the last RfA. File admins are needed, and he's a good candidate! ceranthor 02:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support – Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Also confidence in the nom. A serious coaching programme that has answered most of the things I look for. A serious editing history that supports the candidate's RfA. --Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good answer on #3. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Per Kudpung Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 11:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A dedicated editor with the good of the project in mind.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support As per Fastily and the candidate has worked and overcome the concerns raised in the previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support at this point I have a good feeling about MtO's nominations. However I would not like the admin work to detract from the good map work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Longterm user with a cleanblock log and judging from their talkpage an Ogre by name but not by nature. As for the referencing of articles, I'm happy to judge the candidate by their more recent articles. The point I take from their earliest articles is that they weren't ready to be an admin when they wrote them. I'm supporting now because I think they are ready now. ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support—my recent interactions with Magog have all been overwhelmingly positive. He has shown a vast amount of knowledge in the file area and has helped a new user in a place where I didn't know nearly as much (the file namespace). We need more admins working with files. I did oppose his last RfA, but I no longer think experience is an issue, per the nomination and my own experiences with the user. Best of luck, Magog! Airplaneman ✈ 10:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, no concerns, have seen this editor doing good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. File space work is great, article creation acceptable, policy knowledge seemingly fine. No reason not to support. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposer's rationale but I do not believe weighs heavily against the candidate that he was conservative on the issue of a logo's being copyrightable. I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I suspect it would come as a surprise to in-house counsel at the company using that logo that Wikipedia has declared it to be non-copyrightable subject-matter (do we know if the logo was registered at the copyright office? we do know from the file that it has been trademarked). Taken literally, that means not only that we can use it in articles without a fair-use rationale, but theoretically we could plaster it anywhere in the world we please (although I anticipate the response that perhaps ruling it isn't copyrightable doesn't mean it's not trademarkable). In any event, I don't see this as a basis for opposing the candidate, although I do appreciate having learned a new fact about Wikipedia today; I've been here four years but I don't do much image work and I'd never even heard of WP:PUF before. As for the BLPs, while consensus now agrees that these require sourcing, I find the candidate's response to this concern satisfactory, and it remains a category mistake to consider a simply unreferenced but non-controversial BLP as being in the same vein as a defamatory or privacy-invading one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Newyorkbrad :), that's quite thoughtful of you. And, actually, if you'll read commons:threshold of originality which I linked below, you'll see the some companies have tried to mark their logos as copyrightable and failed. I was kind of surprised too. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Looks like a great candidate for adminship. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No problems --Inka 888 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support There are pretty much always file-related backlogs here (and worse ones on Commons!) so someone with clue in that department is always a useful addition to the team. I've no qualms about this candidate. Rodhullandemu 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support because if Fastily supports with anything other than "Why not?" then the candidate must be qualified :) ...and per we need file-related backlog admins, but Support all the same! ~Pepper 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Looks great. --John (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Excellent user. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support well-rounded, fully-qualified. The candidate is someone who has taken all the right steps in preparing for the role of sysop since his first RfA--Hokeman (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I haven't encountered the user before but looks like he'll be a net positive on the balance of evidence :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Stephen 22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I think this candidate will do a good job...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I have seen only good things from this candidate. —fetch·comms 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Keepscases (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Looks like a good candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good work with files will always score highly with me. Candidate also comes highly recommended, and a review of his contribs shows nothing to conern me. Support as net positive.  Begoon•talk 02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yeah, okay. DS (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Positive contributor; well validated background; promise and potential for the future as an administrator. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 08:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - More file backlog clearing admins would be useful. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Nothing wrong here. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support appears to be a fine candidate. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tommy! 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support He fixed the BLPs mentioned in the Oppose section. —Soap— 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, but take into consideration the concern listed in the oppose section. Connormah (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak support doesn't meet my levels of expected content contribution, but seems to have a good head on his shoulders and gave clueful answers to policy questions. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Good answers, good contributions, particularly recently. A note about edit count regularity: My work life plays havoc on the regularity of my own contributions, as long as someone is relatively consistent, and/or knows that after a long break that they might be out of date and might need to exercise extra care (which to me seems a basic issue of the sort of judgment I want to see in an admin anyway), edit count irregularity doesn't concern me, and that appears to be the case here. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good answers and good contributions; images needs good administrators. Just try not to leave for too long without reading up again! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Experienced and smart editor, wants to work in areas that need it and clearly understands them well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. An exceptionally good editor nominated by someone who has a pretty good head for picking admin candidates. I don't see anything to make me think this editor isn't right for the job. Trusilver 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Understands the policies, seems levelheaded and bright, and there just aren't any good reasons to oppose that haven't been addressed by the candidate's actions; even the reasons to oppose were tenuous at best. — Chromancer talk/cont 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - reviewer, rollbacker, long-time editor. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Darn tootin'! Jmlk17 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: I believe the time has arrived! - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. The extra year of editing and preparation makes this one easy; adminship for this candidate will certainly be a net positive for the project. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Candidate has given the answers I look for in the questions that have been asked. Seems knowledgable and trustworthy with the tools. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Plenty of experience all over the encyclopedia, informed answers to questions in this RfA, no concerns. Magog has come a long way since the last RfA a year ago. -- Atama頭 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support This user looks well qualified and would make a great admin. E♴ (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Don't see any problems here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Not being familiar with the candidate or his/her nominated areas of activity, and having reviewed Explicit's early oppose, I've been waiting to see if the opposes materialised into anything more extensive in terms of evidence of lack of experience or competence in the nominated areas of activity. They haven't, so in light of the solid experience, testaments from those who are experienced in the nominated areas of activity, the way the candidate has responded to the oppose, and the good answers to questions, I'm glad to support.--Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support no problems, pile on support Polargeo (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per Newyorkbrad. Jonathunder (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Excellent history, clear and good answers to the questions, should make a fine admin. First Light (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per all of the above. Khoikhoi 23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Have seen work at various image-related discussions & think would make a good sysop. Skier Dude (talk 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support ThemFromSpace 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Courcelles 23:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I've seen Magog the Ogre plenty at WP:PUF and I'm concern of his employment (or lack thereof) of the threshold of originality concept. For example, he nominated File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg for deletion on the grounds that "I disagree that the arrangement of colors, the arrangement of changing font of the letters (larger font for the C and the K), and the line do not have enough creativity to exist for copyright." The logo is simply not copyrightable, and his assertion that the differing font size, color arrangement and a simple line beneath the company's name is creative enough to merit copyright leads me to believe that Magog the Ogre will mishandle these types of files that simply can't being anything but the under public domain. There was a similar nomination with File:Rachel zoe project logo.jpg as well. A more recent example is with the nomination of File:Ethanol.gif, where he states: "I see no reason to believe this is PD." Again, not copyrightable. Secondly, I see very little evidence of the candidate interacting with the community. Aside from his own and Fastily's talk page, the most edited user talk pages consist mostly of notices. Most edited article talk page... 16 edits. I simply do not see sufficient amount of activity where Magog the Ogre jumps in and interacts with the community; it seems a need for the community to reach out to him. Reviewing Magog the Ogre's first RFA (which will reach it's one year anniversary later this month), I noticed that there was concern with creations of unsourced biographies and WP:BLP. Reviewing those articles, I see that there's been little to no improvement to these articles—most of which were completely unreferenced to begin with, and still are to this day. All these concerns add up and it worries me to see a potential admin with this type of history under his belt. — ξxplicit 08:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like a chance to respond to the first issue of PD-text... you're right, something which I've realized [1] upon reading commons:threshold of originality (thankfully I was able to find that page as I had no benchmark to use previously). The PD-text angle hadn't occurred to me for the Ethanol images (they were uploaded under other licenses).
    As for the issue of the BLP's, they were my very first additions, all of which I just naively translated from the French Wikipedia (not knowing any better). And despite doing some searches, I just haven't been able to come up with any outright reliable sources. So you're right about that, I haven't been able to improve them. I haven't done any work on that within the past month or so on those articles, since which time Google has improved its news archive search. But if you wanted to place a prod notice on the pages, I'd be completely OK with that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind if I put a blp prod on them? ErikHaugen (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think articles made before this year qualify for BLP prod. Seems awfully silly to me, but I wouldn't bother declining a regular prod with "unsourced BLP" as the reason. —fetch·comms 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it wouldn't qualify, just put a regular one on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, you might consider just using {{db-g7}}... -FASTILY (TALK) 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No need anymore, I've sourced all the BLPs finally (thanks Google News Archive - I didn't ever use you before!). All but one have at least 2 sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – I believe that Magog needs more time to ripen as an editor before being granted an administrator position. I do not question his value in general, I merely believe that he needs more experience. I only have encountered Magog in thirteen puf challenges of images that he issued against me on one day last month. Seemingly triggered by one image uploaded at that time, however, he then opened my gallery of uploaded images and selected twelve unrelated images, essentially for a single concern, that had been uploaded over several years (and obviously had been reviewed when uploaded) that he also challenged. I believe this was imprudent because of the overwhelming sense of an assault that could not be addressed adequately in the allotted two weeks for a response before the images were deleted (while one image could have served until the general issue was resolved for the twelve and then extrapolated). I also found it very difficult to understand his challenge of the first image. When that finally had been clarified and the validity of the upload was apparent, he directed me to others to seek a solution (all over again) that he identified as a policy to "ease" the process. It certainly did not ease the process for me, adding an additional burden. Regarding the twelve files, none are illegal. As I attempted to address the fundamental issue of his concern, I found repeatedly that he did not read what I presented. I provided the lengthy text of the relevant law (for his convenience) and other support materials that, granted, were in poor format, but nonetheless, were the basis for legal upload. He declined to read the legal material and asked for a link to it instead (curious, because he still would have had to read it). I found that he had no knowledge of the valid legal basis I had for the uploads and unfortunately, relied upon a simplistic prevailing philosophy here that aided his prompt rejection of my premise. Other editors read the same materials I presented and came to the conclusion that I was correct, yet he persisted without seeming to read the opinions presented. One editor even provided the supporting advice of the attorney overseeing the information I uploaded. This was not addressed by Magog while he kept returning to a statement from a short article about one irrelevant peripheral subject in the laws. When for the second time I directed him to the existing template that should properly have been attached to the uploads, I discovered that he had changed the template so that it asserted his misinterpretation of the laws. The result was a template that now would be most misleading (and support his argument in the unresolved debate). That is a serious concern. I believe that he now realizes that he should not have done that, but remember that it was discovered only because I looked at it again. The debate remains in progress (endlessly) although I asked several times for it to be advanced to a higher level if he remained confused. Several times I have been left for days without responses to my replies. I do not want anyone to presume that I am making this objection because of Magog’s challenge of my uploads. That is unresolved, but I believe that the correct decision will be made—however—please consider my insight about his needing to continue to develop his skills in this area where he frequently works and my concern that in all areas he read the materials presented in arguments in order to make the correct decisions which will shorten the process and make it just, and most importantly, to seek advice if necessary. Developing these skills is essential for an administrator and will prevent valid responders from abandoning their objectives in simple frustration when they fail to persist as I have—the encyclopedia will benefit greatly. Eventually, Magog will deserve the status he is seeking. ---- 83d40m (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. He arrived on Sept 7 at an image of Ludwig Wittgenstein's family from 1890 that was tagged PD-old-50 (meaning the author had died over 50 years ago), and tagged it PD-US-abroad-1923, which requires that it was published before 1923. We don't know when this image was first published. I asked on his talk page if he had a source for the publication date, and he said no. It seems he just added that tag randomly. I asked him to revert himself, and he declined; said I could do it myself. He did this while the RfA was ongoing, which doesn't bode well. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my own defense on my talk page, I partially explained (not nearly as thoroughly as I should have), that a very unlikely sequence of events would have to happen:
    • The author of this work had to be known. ({{PD-UK}} + {{PD-US-1996}}... current copyright laws in the UK regarding anonymous works have been around since 1956)
    • The item had to be published for the first time after 1922, more than 30 years after it was first created. ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}})
    • If the item was published after 1977, the author has to have died after 1939, 50 years after its creation. ({{PD-old-70}} applies in the US in this situation)
    • If the item was published between 1923-77, the author has to have died after 1925, 35 years after its creation. ({{PD-UK}} + {{PD-US-1996}})
    Given that the source for the image fails to address a single one of these issues (it doesn't even explain where it got the image from, let alone certify an alternate publication date), and sans any evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to call this image PD.
    And an additional note: the license under which SlimVirgin uploaded the content was {{PD-old-50}}, which is not an applicable license in the UK or the US, and such should only have been tagged on the image as a side-explanation to a correct tag (if even then). Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Effort (and an extensive one at that!) to remove content for which PD-FLGov clearly applied (and which is, in turn, well-documented) indicates poor judgement, IMO. --Elvey (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. At this time I am Neutral on the issue because, while I don't for a minute doubt what Magog does is helpful, I have some concerns. The question I asked above arose because of a deletion discussion that is not uncommon, but the reply seemed to "neat" of an answer, almost as if that is the "correct" answer but, more important, the comment that "it's important to read all or near all of the text..." (Bold added for emphasis) worries me. A question posed by another editor stated that Magog had close to 2000 edits in the past 30 plus days or so and that concerns me as well. So it is not that I doubt that Magog's "heart" is in the right place and their work ethic is a good one, my concern right now is they would overwhelmed with information and the added "duties". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I do want to qualify my answer, if I could. What I mean is I think in a long discussion like this (it has to be around 15 pages+ now), if it's obvious that there is consensus, and the administrator understands the important part of the discussion (i.e., in your case, the nature that Florida government images are PD), that it's OK to skim (not skip) parts of the rest of the text. That's why I said near all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please note that this is a neutral, which to all intents and purposes is the same as commenting but not voting. I'm slightly concerned that you were reasonably inactive for four months, and then a mini spike before RfA 1, then relatively low activity for a year followed by a huge surge of interest before RfA 2. Don't get me wrong, 100 edits a month is fine. I just question whether your understanding of the way things work is through experience you have built up over time, or predominantly through the last 30 days. While I'm satisfied that you are a good thing for the project and as far as I can tell have sufficient common sense, I question whether your understanding of the consensus view will be the same in 12 or 18 months' time, given that policies, guidelines and general views have a tendency of evolving. --WFC-- 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mainly per WFCforLife. The burst of activity makes me think this might be an attempt to grab all the brass rings. I do not think an admin has to be dragged to the mop kicking and screaming, but I've always been a little concerned about bursts like that just before a RfA. That being said, the candidate certainly seems qualified, so I may look back at this later and change my !vote, especially if it begins to matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if it comes down to a close !vote, I will certainly point you to my answer to #4 above (just in case you missed it, though you quite likely may not have!). I'm really not exaggerating when I say the entirety of my increase is due to unemployment (plus an odd sleep schedule for long and complicated reasons... what else to do when you must stay quiet in the house at 5am?) ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand Theft? :-) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:50, 8 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Magog_the_Ogre_2&oldid=1091462683"