Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crotalus horridus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Crotalus horridus

Final (8/13/4) ended 23:36 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia since May 2005 (with a short wikivacation due to real-world concerns). Although my editing has been mostly concentrated in the article namespace (which, after all, is the purpose of the project), I have also participated in policy discussions, vandalism fighting, and deletion debates. Since, per Jimbo, adminship should be "no big deal", I'd like to obtain the sysop flag. The primary reason that I want this is for convenience - Wikilife would be much easier if I could speedy delete patent nonsense, handle page move conflicts, and block repeat vandals if it comes to that. I could also assist with WP:AIAV. I generally believe in administrative restraint, and do not intend to get into wheel wars or to use administrative powers in a manner that lacks community consensus.

Update: As per the concerns expressed below by two contributors, I have now enabled email. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Well, it is a self-nomination, so... Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. User has fair amount of project edits, and is good with anti-vandalism. I registered around the same time as him, and he is as enthusiastic towards the encyclopedia. However, not much interaction with Users, and doesn't have email enabled Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
2. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. you want conveniance you can have it -WearingSunglasses 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I trust this user's judgment. Xoloz 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. This user is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. Please keep up the good work, and do whatever the nitpickers below are suggesting :) Then come again soon if you don't make it this time. - Haukur 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. This user is a valuable contributor to wikipedia, with a record of balanced, high-quality edits. While it may be argued that he does not have sufficient experience, I do not see that as a problem, because he is not at all likely to abuse admin powers. As Haukur said, just try again in a few months if you don't make it this time, Crotalus. Oh, and you have mail. :) -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I see no reason to suspect that Crotalus will be a problem as an administrator. The more administrators, the more quickly problems (vandalism, patent nosense) can be reverted. --Trevdna 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
8. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose until email enabled. --TheParanoidOne 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Only really active in December, needs a bit more experience --pgk^(talk) 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose I know quality of edits should be more important than quantity but surely this is not enough for adminship? Mark83 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose for now, user seems somewhat inexperienced with Wikipedia procedures. I'd suggest you take part in some more maintenance activities. I'd like to have a better sense of your judgement before I vote support in the future. --Deathphoenix 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Would like to see more user interaction. and more experience with other areas, such as categories and templates. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'd like to see just a little more experience on talk pages and with the warning of vandals. Come back in a couple of months and I'm sure you'll be set. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose for above reasons, but you're on the right track. --King of All the Franks 17:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - needs more experience. Commendable edit summary usage, however. Should hopefully make a good admin at some point in the future. Johntex\^talk 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. No user page, limited experience, limited edits except for recently, and limited interaction with other users. None of these would mean oppose by themselves, but together... I do notice a pattern of voting - keep on doing what you're doing and you'll have adminship in six months. Ifnord 01:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Reluctant oppose. I've seen this user around and he seems to be all OK, but judging by his contributions, he has way too little experience. Please reapply when you have close to 1000 edits. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per Ifnord. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I've only recently come to notice this editor being around, and from my entirely personal judgement I think more experience is needed. There's just stuff you learn with the passage of time, and being only really active since December is a factor of 3 or more too short by far. Just play around more, explore more, interact more, suggest more, generally come to show us by repeated good judgement that your judgement is thus, and try again in 2 or 3 months if you feel ready. You'll be quite surprised at how much happens in the meantime, and how much you learn in that time. (The amount I've learnt in the last 3 months is quite staggering, really, and I've been an admin for longer than that.) -Splash^talk 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose: nothing personal, but I do agree with Splash here. Jonathunder 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This RFA was clearly a little premature, especially as you have only really been active for a month. I'd suggest trying again in 3-6 months, since you seem to be otherwise spotless. Asbestos 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm certain you can make a userpage that avoids the userbox controversy for now; if you can get that done by Jan. 17th and I like what I see, I'll support you. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. This editor doesn't quite have enough time in the trenches for me to support this month but is clearly in line for the tools. Good edits, good interaction, even good use of edit summaries. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Good user, will support in the future with more experience.--Alhutch 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 25% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Crotalus_horridus's edit count with Interiot's tool.
• No user page (redirects to talk page) so hard to gauge what areas the candidate is interested in/working on at the moment. --TheParanoidOne 06:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would keep an eye on WP:AIAV and investigate cases there. I could also assist with resolving any other forms of vandalism I came across - rollback would be useful here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

A. I'm especially satisfied with my various contributions to Commodore-related articles. I've created articles on MOS Technology CIA (an important chip in the Commodore 64) and DOS Wedge, among others. I've also made some SVG-format technical drawings for chip pinouts, as well as a couple of SVG flags - most prominently, Image:Confederate Battle Flag.svg, which replaced an old PNG version. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Everyone has been in some conflicts over editing, or dealt with some level of Wikistress. In some cases, as when dealing with blatant trolls or POV-pushers, it is best simply to ignore them, and carry on about one's business. When other good-faith users are involved, discussion has been especially effective. See the "Thylacine" section on my Talk page for one example of this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. I usually default to {{test1}}. {{bv}} would be reserved for cases where the vandalism indicated some knowledge of Wikipedia policy and that the user really ought to know better. For instance, if someone inserted images of penises into a page, that would indicate at least a little knowledge of Wikimedia syntax, and thus I would use {{bv}} for this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. It depends on the circumstances. If they were a newbie, I would point them toward the "Intent of the policy" (aka "Electric fence") section, and advise them to discuss rather than continue to blindly revert. If they knew the ropes already and were deliberately gaming the policy, I'd block them for 24 hours. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

6. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. Speedy deletion should be reserved for either articles that cannot be kept for legal reasons (e.g. copyvio, blatant libel) or for articles that no reasonable Wikipedian would vote to keep. These were the articles that, before the expansion of the criteria, got unanimous delete votes on AFD. I would judge whether to nominate for AFD or to use speedy deletion on that basis. If I used speedy deletion and a good-faith user questioned that, I would undelete it at their request and list it on WP:AFD instead. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

7. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?

A. Without CheckUser, you can only go by behavior. Just today, I was suspicious of User:Nn-user due to strange behavior that seemed out of place for a newbie (the account was created less than 24 hours ago). The sockcheck was inconclusive. But I am convinced that this was a case of sockpuppetry. Of course, in less clear cases, the user must be given the benefit of the doubt. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

8. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?

A. Try to set aside personal biases and make the article as encyclopedic as possible. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

9. Why do you not have a user page? Ifnord 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A. I am waiting for a consensus to be reached on the userbox issue before creating a user page. I feel that creating a user page at this point either with or without userboxes would be seen by some as taking sides in that heated conflict, and I would prefer not to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you. Ifnord 01:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.