Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Falcon Kirtaran.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Falcon Kirtaran

final (2/6/0) ending 04:25 21 June 2005 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself for adminship (although I failed this vote some time ago). According to Kate's tool, I have 1017 edits. I would like the adminship for RC patrol, primarily, which I am beginning to do more of now. I have been a proud Wikipedian since March 12th, 2004. Falcon 04:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. You could probably do with more interaction but I don't see why you shouldn't be an admin. Grace Note 06:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I voted Support back in July; I'm glad I stopped by here so I can vote Support again. Falcon is a great user, and his work on the Dewey Decimal System is profoundly appreciated. Generally, I don't support people with less than 1200 edits; however, I believe Falcon is good enough to be an administrator. --Lst27 (talk) 01:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not enough experience. Been around a long time, but a sampling of edits shows nearly all to be minor. Userpage shows a general lack of maturity (having nothing to do with age), as does editing pattern on Vampire lifestyle. Of course, keep up the good you do, but I'm not sure you need admin rights to do any of it. - Taxman ^Talk 12:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
2. Needs some more seasoning and a sustained effort. Editing has been very sparse since the last adminship self-nom a year ago: very quiet, then nearly four hundred edits in the last week. (With respect to those, it would be helpful if Falcon made more use of the minor edit flag.) More examples of interaction with editors would also help. I quite like the work on Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   • If one was to look behind the edits regarding WikiProject Punctuation, they would find a number of non-minor edits. I suppose I should use the minor flag a bit more, though. Falcon 17:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. I'd be inclined to support after a bit more sustained participation. What prompted the long absence, and why this rush for adminship now? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   • The long absence was prompted by a number of combined factors, primarily building a laptop in linux (which is highly tedious) and school being extremely demanding as it always is at that time in this province. I guess I don't really see it as a rush, myself, as I've been editing quite heavily since June 10th and fully intend to continue doing so. Falcon 21:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   • Oh, the impatience of youth. The tenth was just four days ago, remember? ;-) I'm not expecting a hundred edits per day forever, but I'd like to see a sustained commitment of at least a few edits per day for a couple of months. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote oppose. Besides not having much user interaction (a must for an admin), I feel like the way he discussed the Vampire lifestyle with another Wikipedian was somewhat inappropriate. Though I'm not saying which side was right, the inability to come to a civil compromise worries me. However, I do' believe that you (Falcon) are (is) a dedicated Wikipedian- keep up your good work, especially in the Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System! Given a few months and more interaction with the community, I'd be happy to support your adminship. Thanks! :) Flcelloguy 19:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • I did try to come to a civil compromise by repeatedly asking the user to provide some kind of example, however he replies each time by saying that the article is generally garbage or should be deleted, then reinstating a cleanup flag. I personally felt that the incident was blatant abuse of the cleanup tag in order to discredit an article, or perhaps from bitterness that he was unable to have it deleted. In any case, I have not found one instance of DreamGuy coming to any kind of compromise whatsoever. The editor appears to be invloved in a similar debate (albiet contradictory in behaviour to that in Vampire lifestyle) with respect to Succubus. There, an admin was forced to protect the page because of his failure to communicate effectively. Falcon 21:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Voting oppose for now; I think you can become a great user, but you're not to the point yet where admin privileges are necessary. ral315 04:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
5. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Because Boothy443 has opposed every adminship request on this page without reason, I have left him a polite comment/suggestion on his user talk page that he either provide reasons for his opposition or withdraw his votes. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   80.5.160.5 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Comment: What is the Wikipolicy regarding anon users voting? Thanks! Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 21:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

   It's in the fine print up at the top: Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment. I have stricken the anonymous vote, though the anon editor is more than welcome to comment on this—or any other—candidate. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Lacks the edits to be administrator, and in my opinion an admin should have more than 1,100 edits in a year. Could be a good user, but needs to interact more I think. Hedley 22:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Just for my own personal curiosity, what precicely is meant by communication, and in which cases should it have existed where it did not? Falcon 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• By the way, putting in a link to your previous failed nomination is a good idea. Grace Note 06:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Falcon's description of his spat with DreamGuy over Vampire lifestyle "a little while ago" may suggest that all is well now. It isn't: the two of them were arguing over it (on that talk page) as recently as 11 June, and inconclusively. Falcon is of course entitled to talk of his vigilance against "mass information removal" from that page, but others (including myself) regard at least some of this material as unverified, irrelevant to the ostensible subject, or both. Incidentally, his instruction of 11 June on Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive01, "Please add new archivals to Talk:Foo/Archive02", is a goof that anybody (or certainly I) could make, but it's strange still to see this on 14 June, even after Falcon brings up that article's talk page in an answer here. -- Hoary 07:39, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • I only consider that the reversions are in the past. The dispute appears to have moved on to a different topic, regarding the inclusion or exclusion of information (in which I am not being involved in a reversion war). Falcon 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Now I'm confused. I thought you were happy with the way you'd been "watching of a page that needs watching (mainly from vandalism and mass information removal" (see below). On 13 June, The Anome removed a lot, describing this edit as "a major trimdown, to try to get rid of repetition and twaddle, whilst still leaving the basic meaning there"; a little later (but well before your comment to which I am hereby replying), you put it back, describing this edit as "Revert massive deletion of useful information (food), and add changes from later edits." So it seems that you're still arguing over the page (if not with DreamGuy as your opponent), and, in your eyes, defending it against "mass information removal". NB although you seem to be in a series of skirmishes over the page with The Anome and although I tend to agree with him/her rather than you, I'm sure that you're acting in good faith and I don't want to use this as a place to censure your edits. No, what worries me a bit is what seems to me your slight difficulty in explaining clearly what you have been doing. An admin does have to explain his or her actions (e.g. deletion at the end of a VfD process) to other users. If these people are disgruntled about those actions, as happens, they're quite likely to seize on the smallest inconsistency or vagueness, leading to tiresome "arguments" (series of accusations) and the need for another admin to step in. -- Hoary 03:23, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
      • I think I've explained very clearly what I have been doing. And now that I have determined that The Anome is not simply being hostile to the page for whatever reason and is actually acting in good faith and intelligently, I have refrained from reverting the page and declared everything on the talkpage. Also, the more major things I do I am inclined to explain much better than what is more or less a revert of some form of vandalism. Also, I tend to wait for consensus before doing such things (like my actions with regard to Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System. Falcon 06:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would participate in things like speedy deletions, VfD occasonally, and RC patrol, along with anything else that gets called to my attention which I am allowed to perform. I will not under any circumstance use adminship as leverage in a conflict.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am particularily happy with my contribution to the Dewey Decimal classification and Vampire lifestyle. My liking of the former is due to the fact that if nobody does it, which nobody was for over six months, it simply will not get done, but it may yet flourish. The latter is due to my watching of a page that needs watching (mainly from vandalism and mass information removal) and the article's length. One day, I hope to get it featured.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I got into a small scuffle about Vampire lifestyle with User:DreamGuy a little while ago. The reason for this was his insistance on a cleanup tag when neither I nor anybody else (including him) were able to find anything severely wrong with the page. When questioned about it, he replied with a more or less stock answer. That was the cause of much of my stress. I dealt with it by continuing to ask him for reasons and waiting for a third opinion or editor. This article has caused me a few conflicts, but that is to be expected under such a controversial topic.