Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 21 January 2014

Keithbob

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (29/5/1); Scheduled to end 23:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination by Mr. Stradivarius

Keithbob (talk · contribs) – Keithbob has been editing solidly since 2008, and he is a strong content contributor with over 21,000 edits to article space. He has managed to bring Risk parity, Norman E. Rosenthal, Amos Lee, Bridgewater Associates and Arlen F. Gregorio to Good Article status, and has many other significant content contributions, which you can see listed at User:Keithbob/Sandbox2. In fact, that page makes my work as nominator very easy, as it lists all of the major work that Keithbob has done on Misplaced Pages, so I recommend that everyone take a look at it. For people who don't like clicking links, I will just give a few highlights.

As well as Keithbob's content work, a few things stand out on the list. The most impressive in my mind is his work at WP:DRN. He is currently its coordinator, and has made 328 edits there. The couple of discussions I checked there show that Keithbob has a calm demeanour when dealing with disputes, and that he is good at leading discussions toward resolution, both things that will help a great deal when dealing with disputes as an admin.

Keithbob also seems to have a good grasp of our deletion policies. His AfD comments are informative and concentrate on the sources and the notability guidelines, and his non-admin closures look good (for example here, here and here). He has been less active in PROD work and CSD work than he has at AfD, but he has still managed to get a fairly respectable PROD log, and has improved lots of articles while doing new page patrol. (See the "NPP" section of User:Keithbob/Sandbox2.)

One thing that I understand that Keithbob wants to get out of the way is this post on his talk page in April, where a couple of close paraphrasing concerns were found in articles that he contributed to back in 2009. Keithbob tells me that he has gone through and reviewed all of his content contributions for copyright and close paraphrasing (yes, all five-and-a-half years of them), so I don't think there is any risk of close paraphrasing yet to be found. And as if that wasn't enough, he has recently been contributing to Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations in order to get more experience in with copyright issues on Misplaced Pages. I think he will tell us some more about this in his statement, but I for one have no worries about Keithbob's understanding of copyright, and I think that the review that he has made of all his edits has made it stronger than that of many other regular contributors.

I think that Keithbob would make an excellent admin, and I hope that you will join me in my endorsement. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination by Keilana

I'm delighted to be nominating Keithbob for adminship today. He is a tenured editor with a real need for the tools and a record of great administrative work. His impressive knowledge of policy and his calm temperament will serve him well in the stressful environment of administrator duties. Even a cursory look at his talk page shows how he responds politely and calmly to any query sent his way, no matter how hostile it may be. He is kind and helpful to newbies and old hats alike, a respectful quality I believe is essential in admins. When notified about copyright problems he had created in 2008, he didn't just rectify the problem pointed out to him, he combed through all of his edits and checked thoroughly for copyright violation, and then proceeded to study policy and work at CCI to solidify his knowledge of copyright. Keithbob has also edited in very controversial areas (e.g. transcendental meditation) and has edited neutrally and never been sanctioned; he also has a clean block log. In short, I think Keithbob will be a net positive to the project as an administrator. Keilana| 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you Mr. Stradivarius and Keilana for your support.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: There are three areas where I am already active and where the use of Admin tools would allow me to expand my contributions:

1. AfD: I’ve participated at many AfDs and made a dozen XfD non-admin closures. Having the Admin tools would allow me to close more AfD discussions not just the ones that are ‘clear keep’.
2. Vandalism: As a protected page reviewer and Stiki user I have given hundreds of user page notifications and submitted many cases to WP:AIV. Having Admin tools would also allow me to assist in keeping the listings at AIV up to date.
3. RfC: I’ve participated in a number of RfCs and have made several non-Admin closures. Having the Admin tools would allow me to close a wider range of RfC discussions, as an uninvolved party, and help eliminate the backlog at WP:ANRFC.

I fully understand that Admin tools, if granted, could not be used in any areas where I am, or have been, an involved editor.

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

A: I’m the most prolific contributor (highest number of edits) on about 50 articles. I’ve created and developed 18 articles and taken 5 to GA status. However, some of my best contributions, I feel, have been in the area of mediation and dispute resolution. Examples include this thread at the Vacuum Bell (medicine) talk page which was recognized with a mediator’s barnstar. I’m also proud of this case at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, which lasted for 24 days. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

I feel it’s paramount that Misplaced Pages’s content be reliable, verifiable and comprehensive. At the core of this content building process is collaboration. When strangers from various backgrounds and sub-cultures communicate through typed conversations, differences of opinion naturally occur. So collaboration and consensus building are essential components of Misplaced Pages. Likewise attracting and retaining volunteer participants is also crucial to the continued success of the project. Therefore, content creation, consensus building and dispute resolution are areas where I feel I have made some of my most satisfying and helpful contributions.

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: Personally, I find that making mistakes (even though unintentional) is the most stressful aspect of WP for me because they can affect so many readers and community members. As a somewhat new editor in 2008-2009, I was negligent in both my understanding and application of guidelines concerning the use of non-free text. The most embarrassing instance was this September 2009 word-for-word copy and paste of two paragraphs from another website. This error was brought to my attention on my talk page in April 2013. In response, I've spent the last 9 months reviewing all my edits. I did not come across any additional instances of other copyright violations but I did find instances of plagiarism via close paraphrasing, which I have repaired.

In my early years of editing I spent much of my time on new religious movement (NRM) articles and I was a named party in the 2010 Transcendental Meditation movement Arbcom. During that period I was involved in a number of heated debates over content. However, I don’t believe I have ever crossed the line into personal attacks, edit warring etc. and I have never been sanctioned or blocked. I still edit NRM articles, but not as much as before. In recent years, my main focus has been on BLP’s and business related topics (see my last 10,000 edits here) as well as AfD, new page patrol and DRN, which I find rewarding. If stressful situations arrive in the future, I plan to remain calm, to take things slowly and consult with uninvolved editors and/or Admins, where appropriate, to get outside input and maintain a balanced, stress-free perspective and to minimize conflict and mistakes.

Additional question from Trevj

4. At User talk:Keithbob/Archive 5#Old issues with improper copying, you referred to a planned review of your edits during 2010, 2011 and 2012. How did you go about this, what did you find and how did you deal with it? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A:

Hi Trevj and thanks for inquiring about this issue. In my early days as an editor I had only a single small PC screen and developed the unfortunate habit of copying text from a source right into the WP edit window and then summarizing it before clicking save. This is a procedure I no longer use. For the past few years I have had two computer screens which allows me plenty of workspace in which to view both the WP edit window and source simultaneously and compose summarized text before entering it into the WP edit window. I've also studied the relevant guidelines more carefully and have a much fuller understanding of what is expected from an editor when creating content.

As you indicated in your question, a problem was brought to my attention by User:Moonriddengirl in April 2013. The first thing I did was review all of my edits on the article where the violation had been found as well as the mother article that it had been split from. That was done on the same day as the notification from Moonriddengirl. I then made a silent resolution to review all of my WP edits to make sure there were no other, yet undiscovered, mistakes. Over the next week I reviewed all my early edits (2008-2009) and reported this on my user page and stated that I would review the remainder of my edits in the coming months.

My procedure for reviewing was as follows: First I have always been vigilant about using edit summaries. In fact, I have “warn me when entering a blank edit summary” checked in my Editing Preferences, so I receive a prompt if I forget to add one. I also have a strict habit of starting my edit summaries with the word "add" whenever I contribute content and/or sources. So with this in mind I went through my contributions list, 500 entries to a page, and using control-F, I highlighted all the edit summaries that began with the word “add”. There were then three progressive levels of potential examination. First, I highlighted each entry using the Navigation Popups feature and examined the preview window for that edit. In some cases the text addition was only a word or two and/or I had added text in quotes and so those were automatically deemed OK. But most of the time I clicked on the (diff) and examined the actual edit. Then I went to the article and checked to see if the text I had added was still there. If the added text had been merged with other text or had been removed etc. then I moved on to the next diff. But most of the time, I located the citation, opened the source and compared my text with the source's text. If I found any indication of a problem, I summarized, added quotes or removed the text, depending on what I thought was best for the article.

During this examination process I did not find any instances of copy and paste like the one discovered by Moonriddengirl but I did find some instances of close paraphrasing, which I repaired as explained above. So this was my procedure for going through all 37,000 edits over the past 9 months. Because two thirds of my 37,000 edits were content related this was a large task which took me an estimated 100+ hrs to complete. I take this issue seriously and am deeply committed to absolute compliance with the guidelines from now on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from DGG

5. You have been significantly involved in editing articles in corporations, a field where COI is prevalent. What is your understanding of the present consensus or lack of consensus) on COI editing, especially with respect to paid editors? What aspects of it come under the role of an administrator?

A:

General comments

• Links for Keithbob: Keithbob (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Keithbob can be found here.
• Editing statistics are posted on the talk page. Tyrol5 01:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Collect (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Feel he is sound on WP:BLP issues from experience, though I would like to have seen more "clear !votes" for the AfD stats - it appears more heavily weighted to "delete" than I really like, but with almost half his !votes not being clear, I have no idea how to view the stats.
2. Strong support - Keithbob is a productive, good-faith editor as I am. I think he would make a good administrator, since he has also participates in several cases and dispute resolution noticeboards. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Keilana| 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Never interacted with him as far as I can remember, but I am familiar with Keithbob through my positive observations of him. Fine editor, superb judgment, good answers to questions. Based on what I've seen and on what Mr. Stradivarius and Keilana have said in their nomination statements, I'm happy to support. Acalamari 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Excellent candidate. -- John Reaves 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support – Keithbob has a great technical grasp and is very conscientious. He takes pains to produce strongly sourced and neutral content. He's also a helpful, collegial editor and I feel he has the good of the project at heart. Spicemix (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support I've just read through the DRN on UN Partition Plan for Palestine, linked from Q2. That's an impressive piece of work -- patient and methodical. Anyone who can do that can certainly wield a mop. --Stfg (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support per noms. Excellent candidate. INeverCry 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Strong Support - Amazing editor, really friendly, helps out at WP:DRN and cleaning up articles. ///EuroCarGT 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Support - glad to see he's running. My only concern is the two or three examples of AfD deletion nominations that ended up as clear keeps from the last 60 days. Since this editor has such a strong history of mediation, however, I have no concern that this is a good predictor of a problem once they have admin tools. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for your support and good point on the SpeedyKeeps. Those were noms I submitted by mistake and immediately withdrew before there was any participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

12. Support - Seems well qualified.- MrX 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Support — ChedZILLA 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (aka User:Ched)
14. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Support – As soon as I saw the name show up on the RfX Report, I felt a little "yes!" inside me. I've seen Keithbob all over the wiki and have no concerns that he's capable of growing into a well-respected and admired administrator. — MusikAnimal 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support Well-qualified candidate. buffbills7701 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Support - A good, sincere and very helpful editor who is well qualified in my opinion. Audit Guy (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Support — ΛΧΣ 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - Per Mr. Stardivarious. Kbob has the integrity and maturity to admit to and identify early editing errors and the care for the encyclopedia to painstakingly comb through all of his edits to makes sure any potential errors are taken care of. His more recent work including DR bodes well for admin work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
20. Support – Don't see why not. Keithbob seems well-qualified. United States Man (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support - We need more admins like Keithbob. MOMENTO (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Support An incredibly well-qualified candidate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Support - based on my interactions with Keithbob at BLPN, I see an editor who is eager to learn and improve, but also cautious when editing in areas they are not fully familiar with. That can only be a good thing with an admin. GiantSnowman 18:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
26. Support - I've been working with Keithbob at DRN over the last several weeks and have been very impressed with his calm demeanor and ability to defuse and move difficult situations forward. Clearly has clue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Support Looks good to me and the answer to question 4 is good. I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Support. Keithbob does a lot of positive work at DRN (where he currently serves as coordinator,) and has provided valuable contributions to AfD discussions as well as solid CSD tagging. He’s helped COI contributors who wanted to work to improve articles follow the brightline rule by helping implement their edits, but he’s scrutinized those edits, and made changes where necessary to make them more neutral. His approach to dispute resolution, especially in recent years, has generally been quite calm, and he has generally demonstrated that he’s able to interpret and apply content guidelines and policies during disputes while recognizing that sometimes deviations from policies/guidelines are in the best interests of the encyclopedia. TM articles are the one area of significant concern I have with Keith, but given his level of involvement in TM stuff already, it’s not like he could use the tools to POV push TM without being desysopped for a massive violation of WP:INVOLVED, so I see it as no barrier to him getting a few extra buttons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
29. Support - I've known Keithbob for years, I think I first met him at COIN about 4 1/2 years ago when he was still pretty new. He's always struck me as a very friendly, eager, and level-headed editor and he has provided great work to the project and has plenty of experience and clue. He'll make a fine administrator. -- Atama頭 00:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: Atama and I met as participants at COIN as I have never been the subject of a COIN discussion. In addition, as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic and I always edit with WP's best interests foremost in my mind. (see diffs here)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Exceptionally strong support — Long overdue. The only reason I didn't offer to nominate him myself was because I thought he had no interest in being an administrator. One of the most collegial, independent, and productive Wikipedians I've ever encountered. Kurtis 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The issue with the copyvios is that you aren't supposed to paste in content and then edit it. That would still be plagiarism. I don't think you really grasp this in your answers. Andrevan@ 00:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, you are correct that style of editing is problematic. But as I tried to explain in my statement, that is an old practice I used in my early days of editing which led to problems and it is not a practice I follow now. At the same time I respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to participate here. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   I understand you realize that blatant copyright violations are bad. I refer to your comment here, "But even as a newbie I'm sure that I had intended to summarize that content after pasting in the article. I think what happened is that I looked at the time and was late for very work or something and ran out the door and forgot to come back to this WP entry." This shows that in even in April 2013, you felt it was OK to copypaste content into a Misplaced Pages editing box and then "summarize" the content. This is still plagiarism even if you change the wording via your "summarization" process; the correct way to edit an article is to read the sources, summarize them in your head, and then write an original sentence about those ideas - not copy paste and then trim around until it sounds different. It also probably has to do with violating NPOV, since as this user comments below, you apparently accept the official POV of this religion and then present it as fact in articles instead of digesting a variety of complementary sources on a topic. Andrevan@ 05:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Have great concerns around WP:Conflict of interest editing from this user. Many of his edits in the transcendental meditation domain are exceedingly promotional in nature. Will add some difs soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Hi Doc James: as an Adminstrator you must be aware that WP:NPA defines a personal attack as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Please supply the diffs you mention, thanks. Spicemix (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment - I just wanted to point out that I've been heavily involved with disputes regarding TM-related content in the past. My role was as a mediator in such disputes, not taking a side. Keithbob's connection with the movement was never hidden, and in my experience he has always been fairly responsive to complaints in regards to his editing of the topic area and was reasonable when compromises were discussed and we attempted to reach consensus. He was one of the least aggressive editors in those disputes. Every person who edits Misplaced Pages has some bias or another, including administrators, and a good editor is a person who makes an effort to not let that bias control their edits and is open to criticism from others who point out when you're editing with a POV. -- Atama頭 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Concerns about understanding of plagiarism and copyright violation issues, as noted by Andrevan, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Almost solely focused on promoting fringe topic of transcendental meditation, 1600 edits to an article (+talk) with which you have a COI is unacceptable. Old diffs like this from the ArbCom case are clear evidence you are incapable of NPOV in this domain, but if this had stopped three years ago I would likely support—instead your most recent GA required the reviewer to remove things like According to Gregorio these personal habits contributed to his health, productivity and ability to handle stress. (referring to transcendental meditation of course), and that was last month. benmoore 16:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Hi Ben: I just want to clarify in case your comment is misunderstood. I've had a look and the content you mention was not added by Keithbob. This is how Keithbob left the article on Jan 31, 2013 – with no mention of TM – and when he came back on Feb 9 another editor had added the fully sourced text.

   And NPOV, all these actions appear scrupulously neutral to me. Promotional content removed, anti-promotional content added, respected uninvolved editors invited to contribute. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   That is really strange, another user did indeed add that greentext, User:Sundori, who has made no other edits before or since and whom Keithbob thanked on their talk page. I'm not sure what to make of that, is it just a coincidence that this user who almost exclusively writes about TM topics was writing an article and a random new account adds a lot of TM material to an article he's working on? Regardless, my COI concerns remain, if you are part of a fringe belief system or movement you simply don't make thousands of edits to every related article. If an ArbCom case isn't enough to make a user realise that I'm not sure what is. Misplaced Pages is not for promotion or advocacy of a position. benmoore 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Sorry, I can't support because of the COI issue. SlimVirgin 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   I can't vote. But I'm amazed at such enthusiastic support for a candidate who thinks that only having one monitor is a reasonable explanation for breaking the law. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Just speaking for myself, I wasn't taking it as "reasonable", but I was accepting that it was long ago and that this editor has gone the second and third mile to put it right and ensure not to do it again. I don't feel it requires a life sentence. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The incident might have been years ago, but their statement justifying it (and the 'only one screen' excuse) was right here, right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose, basically per benmoore. I can't trust an editor who choses to be so heavily involved in editing an article where he has COI, especially where he exhibits a pattern of promotional POV editing on a WP:FRINGE topic. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, due to the COI issue. A net positive otherwise, but this is important for WP's future. Miniapolis 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)