Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quadell

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Quadell[edit]

Since the entire opposition to Quadell's nomination rested on an asuumption concerning the appropriateness of his comments on a single article, I took the liberty of asking Jimbo whether he could claify his own position on Quadell's actions. I received a response two days ago, but waited for Jimbo's permission to reproduce his comments, and they are below, verbatim:
"I have no opinion about the RFA, (I don't know him) but I did not see his work on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz as being bad or damaging. Indeed, his research was very helpful, I think, and as you put it, it just looked like "good journalism" to me. His closing remark was a bit rough, but I don't see any real problem with it.
"And you are right of course, if I was really worried about a lawsuit, I could have just deleted the page, protected it, put a stub in there, asked people to tread lightly or whatever. But (a) I am not really worried about a lawsuit and (b) I want the article to get things right.
"If we do NPOV the right way, then we will say virtually nothing ourselves, and merely report on what other people are saying. We will be safe.
Even now, I feel that the article could be improved. "There is evidence that NCB, bin Mahfouz's bank, was involved in funding an al-Qaeda group." That is *us* making a particular claim. We should avoid that. Who claims that there is such evidence? Let's just report on that.
"--Jimbo"
I have restored this nomination for the three days that were "lost" since the first discussion of bin Mahfouz article. Since all the voters made their votes in good faith, we all now have the opportunity to reconsider. My only other comment is to note that Quadell has dealt with this issue with patience and exceptional good grace, further demonstrating his fitness for adminship, -- Cecropia | Talk 17:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I feel I could contribute to Wikipedia as a moderator, and I'd like to try. I've been a member for three months and a day, and in that time I've made a little over 1300 edits. Look over my work and see what you think; in the past week, I've created new articles on Amanullah Khan, Ben Webster, Richard Boone, Patrick Jenkin, Table Alphabeticall, Festival of Muharram, Cursor Mundi, Hobson-Jobson, Hereward Thimbleby Price, and others. Quadell (talk) 20:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Quadell has discussed this issue on his User Page -- Cecropia | Talk

Support

  1. [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason]] I think he'll be fine;)
  2. Cecropia | Talk 19:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) He wikifies, works on requested articles, does the kind of dog work (categorizing, copyedit) that admins should do, and expresses a positive desire to do admin work. Gladly support.
    • I have had no knowledge of Quadell before this nomination. I've again reread the material on the Talk Page of the disputed article. Jimbo could have (1) deleted the article with an explanation or (2) protected it and asked that discussion cease. He did neither. He did say the article needed to be corrected, but didn't say to whitewash it. Some of us are pillorying Quadell, but it's Jimbo's neck that is on the line, not the critics "defending Wikipedia". If Jimbo speaks on this and says his intent was not to try to affirm apparently true parts of the article, that's one thing, but I've been a journalist, and what Quadell did looks like good journalism; everything we he said is sourced. If some of those sources have been recanted, tell us and we can say so. So, until Jimbo says I'm wrong, If he erred in doing research that Jimbo seemed to be encouraging, so be it, but this makes me think moreso that he would be a fine admin. I strongly reaffirm my support for Quadell.
  3. Cribcage 21:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambivalenthysteria 03:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Handles tight spots (delicate subjects) very well. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:28, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, why not. You seem level-headed enough, and quantity of edits does not necessarily correspond to quality of edits. Plus I didn't want to be in the same boat as Acegikmo1. Just make sure you're familiar with all the policies, okay? blankfaze | •• | •• 06:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. Nothing personal, but in light of your actions discovered by Secretlondon combined with my original skepticism, I no longer feel comfortable with this vote. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lst27 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC). In my limited dealings with Quadell, my general impression is of someone who is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, a quick learner, & willing to go exploring to find out more about Wikipedia. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Lirath Q. Pynnor A superb user!
  10. Danny 04:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think we are overemphasizing this entire Khalid bin Mahfouz thing. In al other respects, Quadell has been a top-notch user. His response, even if hasty, was to an exceptional instance of someone who is clearly under some sort of suspicion attempting to force Wikipedia, through litigation, to clear him. While the situation is delicate, it is certainly not one that admins should be expected to handle. I therefore support, based on Quadell's other contributions.
  11. VV[[]] 19:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I agree with Cecropia's assessment that Jimbo's instructions by no means precluded the route Quadell took, which he clearly put much research and effort into.
  12. Beth ohara 19:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) Quadell is a proficient researcher, excellent writer, and works very hard to keep his views neutral. He takes his role on Wikipedia very seriously. He has a humble attitude toward his articles and places Wikipedia's mission ahead of his own motivations. He would be an excellent admin.
  13. David Remahl 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Changed from neutral (see below). I agree with Cecropia that the candidate has handled the pressure of this whole situation with great calm.
  14. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good contributor, did well on the Khalid bin Mahfouz article - excellent research - commend him.
  15. David Cannon 23:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm not one to beat about the bush, but now that Jimbo has clarified the legal aspects of the article in question, I am withdrawing my opposition to Quadell's nomination. My overriding concern was that a lawsuit should be avoided at all costs; now that Jimbo has allayed my fears, I have no further reservations about supporting this nomination. Quadell is a writer who does his homework. BTW, thanks for explaining on your user page where you stand, Quadell. That explanation puts your actions in a different light altogether. I apologise for making 5 out of 2+2 earlier.
  16. Looking through contributions, a lot of them - several hundred at least - are minor edits, mostly adding categories to articles. That's no criticism: it's all necessary work. But it does mean that you perhaps don't have as much experience as some others might have with the same number of edits. Combined with the fact that this is a self-nomination, I'm inclined to oppose, for now, but would certainly reconsider in a couple of months.Neutrality is right, adminship should be no big deal. On that basis, and on the basis of what Quadell has said here, and on the basis that other Wikipedians who I greatly respect seem to have no problem, I'm moving to neutral. As with at least one other here, I have found myself in all three camps over the course of this nomination. But unlike blankfaze, I've ended up in Support, I've read carefully over all aspects of this issue, and Quadell's response to it. He demonstrates maturity and a commitment to NPOV (regardless of his own point of view). Supporting - and hopefully this will be the last time I move my vote! -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. My concerns have been addressed. Support. --H. CHENEY 21:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Ditto what Dick said. Neutrality 00:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. 172 00:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Hopefully the last time I move my vote :-) EddEdmondson 06:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. David Gerard 10:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Your response to the threatened libel action on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz doesn't give me confidence that you have the maturity needed. Secretlondon 02:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    In all honesty, perhaps I'm missing something. Jimbo posted information about this suit. He did not protect the article and say we should abandon it, then he said "in the meantime, some specific points to research include:" followed by a number of talking points. Then I see Quadell posted an amount of information which appears to be well-sourced. Don't you think it's up to Jimbo to say if Quadell's material is inappropriate? Was Quadell supposed to "read between the lines" and assume the article should be whitewashed or espunged? It seems to me that if Jimbo's intent was that, as a matter in litigation, we should leave it be, he would have said just that. Am I wrong? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Yes you are, IMHO. When lawyers take exception to claims made in an article, Wikipedians should not comment on the content unless they are absolutely sure they know what they are doing. In a provocative summing up, User:Quadell repeated/embellished some of the points challenged by the lawyers. So Wikipedia effectively re-published information that lawyers had already taken exception to. I'm sure Jimbo Wales didn't intend that to happen when he mentioned points to research. Moriori
  2. I agree (to oppose). A paragraph Quadell wrote on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz has created a much greater threat to Wikipedia than the original article. I suspect Quadell does not know why. If Elf is correct that Quadell is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, (and) a quick learner then I guess I might change my opinion in a few months time.Moriori 03:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    As a PS, I think Quadell should no longer edit Khalid bin Mahfouz. On his user page, Quaddell says I also, somewhat perversely, enjoy shining a light on influencial people who would rather not attract too much attention, such as ...... Khalid bin Mahfouz..... Rightly or wrongly, some people might say that indicates he is editing with malice.Moriori
  3. I've never voted against anyone before, usually I abstain if I choose not to vote positively. But in regards to Khalid bin Mahfouz, as well as Quadell's user page, I must agree with Moriori, as it troubles me to think of the consequences if something like this happened repeatedly. Rhymeless 05:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Wow, this is the first time I've ever voted in Support, Oppose, and Neutral on one person. But seriously: I was originally only going to withdraw my support vote, by I am really concerned with the Khalid bin Mahfouz stuff. I don't think you're ready for this. Get a clear head and come back in a few months. Nothing personal. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • While I still oppose (I think more experience can't hurt), I would like to thank Quadell for handling the aftermath of this whole Mahfouz thing honourably and patiently. I'll support in a month or so. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • David Cannon 12:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Quadell, I am disturbed by your apparent lack of discretion with respect to the lawsuit threatened by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Wikipedia's. I would expect a greater sense of responsibility from someone who wants to be considered for any kind of leadership position. I'm not saying that the opinions expressed were necessarily wrong; I am simply saying that you need to be a lot more discrete about how and when to air such potentially inflammatory views. When Wikipedia is threatened with a lawsuit is not the time. I have noting against you personally, Quadell, but I think you need to demonstrate greater maturity in tense situations, and I fear that appointing you as an administrator would be seen by the people threatening the suit as Wikipedia's throwing a cloak of approval over your behaviour. For that reason, and also on principle, I oppose this nomination. Changing my vote to support on the basis of Jimbo's statement.
    • "Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Wikipedia's." This isn't entirely fair. Once legal action has been threatened regarding libel, it's perfectly reasonable to assume a plaintiff might name individual editors in his suit, alongside the Wikimedia Foundation. I find it unlikely Quadell was ignorant of this possibility -- and while the wisdom of his action may be questionable, it certainly took guts. Cribcage 22:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it took guts, and I admire him for it. I like Quadell as a person, and have a lot of respect for his scholarship as a writer. My chief concern here, however, is that Wikipedia doesn't get sued. I'll be happy to support Quadell's nomination once this legal issue is resolved to Jimbo's satisfaction. In the meantime, my opposition remains, but I think I did overreact, and apologize for doing so. David Cannon 02:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Acegikmo1 21:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) I remember your username because I've come across your edits in the past. A brief scanning of your contributions confirms that you've made many excellent edits and have also engaged in good discussion. My only reservation is that you've only been here since April. I would be happy to support in a few months.
    • IMO, kind-of a low number of edits for a self-nomination. Plus, from a quick glance at the User's talk page, he seems to not be as familiar with Wikipedia policy as he need be. I'd probably support after 2000+ edits and a thorough reading of all of our policies as well as Wikipedia:Administrators. blankfaze | •• | •• 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Will support after 1500 edits. --Merovingian✍Talk 09:55, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Although Quandell's comments on the aforementioned talk page are troublesome, I sympathize - I suspect he is n ot completely off the mark in his assesment of the person in question, and I think it very unfortunate that Wikipedia needs to let itself be bullied by people who have enough money to spend threatening British libel cases against anyone who says things about them that they don't like. That said, the situation required tact and care that he didn't display. Adding more potentially libelous statements to Wikipedia was not entirely helpful. I do not think this incident is a reason to oppose, however it combined with the relative newness and the sense that it is perhaps too soon for a self-nomination, I am at least concerned enough to withhold support until a later date. Snowspinner 15:03, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • David Remahl 17:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) He did what Jimbo Wales suggested and researched the points pointed out by the lawyers and posted them on the talk page. If we cannot discuss a page accused for libel in the open, how should we then handle it? I would support, but in this case I think waiting another month is warranted. Changed to support in accordance with my first instinct.

Comments:

  • User has exactly 1354 edits as of this minute, for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answers: Yes I have read the Administrators section, and yes, I am interested in sysop custodial duties. Some of what I would want to help with are things I already do in a more limited capacity: looking through recent changes for errors, welcoming new users, adding most-requested articles, and watching out for vandalism. I would also want to be able to respond to editor requests for assistance. Quadell (talk) 15:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any part of Quadell's history I could look at to see how they might handle an edit war? Quadell - have you ever edited a controversial article for instance? Given this is a self-nomination an indication of how diplomatic you can be would be helpful. EddEdmondson 15:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, when I first discovered Wikipedia, I jumped in with creating and updating biographies of 9/11 Commission members, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and Katharine Gun! Those could have been landmines, but I tended to discuss before making big changes, and I didn't run into any conflicts right away. But when I tried to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article, I ran into a conflict (which is preserved in the amber of Wiki). I suggested a change here, and after murmers of approval, made the change. Another user reverted the changes, and I responded here. I didn't know much about Wikipedia policies at the time, but I tried to be polite. I offered to put it up for a poll, but the other user did not want to. Not knowing the procedures for dispute resolution, I simply let the matter drop. Knowing what I know now, I would request third party assistance, start a poll, or ask for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Still, I did not turn the dispute into an edit war, and I have never participated in one. I tend to avoid these sorts of conflicts when possible, and with a few embarrassing exceptions, I don't let my ego get me into a fight. Quadell (talk) 18:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, you sound like a Buddhist, all right. :-P blankfaze | •• | •• 19:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • People lose sight of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal," demanding that sysop candidates have thousands of brilliant edits before supporting. This is misguided. Neutrality 01:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but our view is outnumbered. What drives me nuts is that there's no consistency. If y'all are going to insist that adminship must be doled out carefully, and not simply granted to anyone who behaves responsibly, then change the stated policy. Cribcage 06:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Like most everything else here, the policy has been chewed over until there is consensus, which may mean agreement, but also may mean lack of opposition to the current understanding. The quotation of "no big deal" came after some users were virtually wanting to raise a Star Chamber in chewing on certain candidates--this is not a coronation and the new sysops don't become princes and princesses of the realm. That is why this is not a big deal—However, we sometimes go in the opposite direction now (not referring to this candidacy, which I supported early and firmly) and start passing out adminships like peanuts just so somebody and say "hey, I'm a sysop on Wikipedia cooooool!" and then rarely ever perform the work that underlies the desire to have more sysops. I think at a minimum, a candidate should exhibit some measure of maturity and calmness, fairness in dealing with others, including those with opposing views, and a positive desire not to be a paper sysop. For those purposes, and those alone, this is a big deal. If we just want to make sysop a simple right of passage, then give out "I'm a proud Wikipedian" awards with a nice graphic to put on home pages. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, a few immature people may want adminship solely for status ("paper sysops"). What's the harm? Those people aren't going to perform cleanup duties, etc. whether they have sysop status or not. If they want cheap bragging rights, why do we care? Cribcage 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no great harm, except that we want to encourage people to take sysophood seriously. People do not respect what is cheap, and we need people to have enough pride in obtaining the position to take it show willingness to make an effort, not just accept a title. If they can't show a desire to understand the duties and make a non-binding commitment upon seeking a position of responsibility, the community should be aware. If sysophead sysophood were really "no big deal [at all]," our polling would not have indicated that a requirement of 75%-80% assent is almost universally expected for promotion. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)

  1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  3. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?

Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


Quadell's Answers:

  1. It is very difficult to select just one article that I am proudest of. If I had to narrow it down to ten, I might choose B.K.S. Iyengar, Aboriginal Tent Embassy, Daniel Ellsberg, Fibromyalgia, Tian Tan Buddha, Daniel Berrigan, Pema Chodron, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Buddhist philosophy, and, ironically, Khalid bin Mahfouz (the article itself, not the talk page.) But in some ways, one might say I have contributed most successfully to the John Mitchell article and its disambiguated links. (It was quite confusing, with all the alternate spellings and misspellings, to make sure the right person was referred to.)
  2. I have attempted to be helpful, structurally, to the adding of categories (such as Bibles et al, and Politicians by nationality et al), and in fixing pages listed on Wikipedia:Deadend pages (and removing pages that were not deadends from the list).
  3. I'm not yet sure whether my discussion on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz was a mistake or not. I'm still thinking about this. Perhaps my biggest regret is that when I was a new user, I enthusiastically added images to articles without worrying about boring issues like copyright. ;) I found out too late, those issues matter a lot. This created a lot of extra work, both for me and for other people. Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I was shocked to discover so much discussion on this page about the Khalid bin Mahfouz page. That page is potentially the most important to get right on the pedia right now. At first I thought few people were working of fixing it because few knew about the problem. However upon visting this page it becomes abundantly clear that many of Wikipedia's finest know about it, but have decided to do nothing except attack the person who has tried to fix it! That looks like a pretty poor show to me. Pcb21| Pete 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Quadell&oldid=1090625797"