Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emt1472

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] Emt147

FINAL (11/20/0) ended 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Emt147 (talk • contribs) – Self-nomination. Wikipedia member since October 2005 with a number of edits, a lot of back end work with AWB and template writing, and vandalism patrol/reversal. My previous RfA failed due to lack of experience (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emt147), I have been involved in a considerable amount of behind-the-scenes work since then. I consider myself an Exopedian in the sense that I do not participate in the social(izing) aspects of Wikipedia. I actively take part in discussions relevant to the projects I am involved in. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the strong divergence of my attitude towards vandalism with the opinions of the group and prevailing editcountitis, I wish to withdraw myself from RfA with no intention of applying again. There is a difference between being a newbie (bad writing, bad formatting, etc.) and scrawling obscenities over someone's work. Good day and thanks to those who supported me. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept (self-nomination)

Support

  1. Support. Self-proclaimed exopedian, but nevertheless is actively involved in community consensus on articles and vandalism reverts. Has over 3000 some edits.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support A good and active member of Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Very strong support. I don't want to criticize oppose voters, but trust me--Emt deserves the mop. Absolutely a great mainspace editor, with nary a black mark (is 116 really too few namespace edits? Seems like editcountitis to me...) Anyways, good luck. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support. You really needed to do even more wikipedia namespace edits than you've done to prove that you are experienced in process. I think that you will make a good admin. DarthVader 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support don't think lack of Wikipedia namespace edits is relevant at all, seems to be a consistently good user, no reason to suspect he'll misuse admin tools Tuf-Kat 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. An excellent, level-headed user. Regardless of Wikipedia space editcounts, has been enormously active with meta-stuff. Ingoolemo talk 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak SupportAnonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Moral support, please take note of the objections below, and hopefully you'll succeed next time. Kimchi.sg | talk 13:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looks fine.--Jusjih 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes, the candidate might have come on a little too strong when warning anons a few times, but not for the most part, in my analysis. So I can't subscribe to the present opposition in that regard, per RickK's departing statement. Redux 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose a lack of edits (116) to the Wikipedia namespace. Computerjoe's talk 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - A bit too much of an exopedian, not to say that this editor is not valuable in the slightest. Keep up the good work on that front, but no participation on WP:RFA, hardly any on any of the deletion processes, and not much reversion of vandalism. --Knucmo2 20:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- Please don't consider this a reflection on your personal character or abilities as an editor. You are a valuable member of this community; you may get more basic work done than others. But adminship requires intense community involvement. I might be persuaded to alter my comment if shown by another member community involvement I have overlooked. John Reid 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Nom mentions lots of work done "behind the scenes". I don't know what that means. Mentions work in particular projects, but no mention of what those projects may be. -lethe talk + 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    This is addressed in answer to question #2 below. I would be happy to elaborate. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I am concerned that a quick look through the candidate's user talk contributions throws up a lot of instances were he went straight to a {{test3}} warning - including cases were the vandalism was the user's first edit. In fact, I am having great difficulty in finding many that don't match this pattern of going straight to a final warning. Some recent examples are [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The edit that lead to the first warning was this, from a dynamic IP with a history of good edits - which hardly warrants a final warning TigerShark 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per above. NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-04-25)
    I use test3 as the first warning followed by test4. I've had better luck getting people to stop than with test1's and test2's, especially when vandalism is obviously malicious and not just a "test." - Emt147 Burninate! 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm at a loss to see how you could reply in this way. Here's an anon IP posting for the first time: [5] It might be wrong (I honestly don't know), but how can you regard that as 'obviously malicious' or otherwise deserving of condemnation? I realise that you'll get people to stop quicker but that's not necessarily a good thing. - Richardcavell 07:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak Oppose need more distribution with edits. _-M o P-_ 01:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per TigerShark. Immediate use of test3 is a little discouraging. One hopes more experience will help candidate become a bit kinder to newbies. Xoloz 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    WP:Vand states these templates need not be used sequentially and test2 is only a suggested starting point. Why be gentle with obviously malicious vandalism? Some "newbie" users are the same vandal attacking from a different IP or a copycat since the vandalism is exactly the same. Again, in my experience test2 is ineffective in deterring vandalism because the consequences are not explained. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - I've examined a sequence of diffs in which the candidate assumes vandalism for what is probably just innocent testing. Don't bite newcomers. - Richardcavell 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above. Vandalism is easy to change, hard feelings aren't. Would prefer that an admin be willing to WP:AGF more often, even if the vandalism seems obvious. Would also like to see some more community involvement. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Due mainly to concerns about use of test warning templates, and am especially disturbed by his claim in question three that he "follow(s) the warning/listing procedure." Otherwise would meet my conditions. Come back in a few months and we'll see. JoshuaZ 07:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Reluctant oppose. The cited instances of jumping to test3 indicate an overly harsh approach to RC patrolling. When someone replaces an article with profanity and disgusting images along with some spam links, I have no trouble with going straight to test3 or bv, but newbie testing the, which adding "good bye" at the end of the article falls under, is specifically listed as not vandalism. Indeed, "these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox". I am not confident giving the blocking tools just yet, but keep up the good work, learn from this RFA experience, and try again in a few months. Since you are a good and responsible contributor in general, I will probably support then. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, too harsh on newbies, as per Sjakkalle. Some more experience would stand you in good stead. Proto||type 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, skipping test1 is often appropriate, but skipping both test1 and test2 as a matter of course is too harsh. There may be cases where it would be best, but they are by far the minority. --Tango 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Edit conflict Oppose, not enough Wikipedia namespace edits and harsh on newbies as per Sjakkalle. Royboycrashfan 11:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose as per concerns raised by Sjakkalle. Well, we shouldn't be harsh on newbies, we shouldn't bite them, more experience needed. --Terence Ong 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Everyone was once a newbie (clueless or otherwise), so we should make them feel more welcome than coming down hard on them. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, don't bite newbies, also, I don't see any community interaction, even in those 116 project namespace edits. Fetofs Hello! 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. 'Oppose basically per everything above, the newbie test issue raises a few red flags, address the concerns, wait for a nomination and you'll fly right in -- Tawker 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, nowhere near enough Wikipedia namespace edits so it suggests to me that you aren't very familiar with policies. No opinion on the newbie issue. You don't need admin powers to do splits, merges, wikification, cleanup, categorization, or vandalism reversal. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, Just adding insult to injury.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs).
  1.  :# Comment has about 20 edits, started yesterday, created Timothean religion which was a bogus religion which User:Naconkantari deleted, then pestered Naconkantari. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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: Housekeeping chores in the backlog including splits, merges, wikification, cleanup, categorization, and vandalism reversal and blocking. Also I would be happy to address other tasks as they come up as well as requests for admin assistance. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have written/significantly expanded a number aviation articles including the core of the current versions of F-4 Phantom II and F-105 Thunderchief which I am currently improving to FAC status, as well as several contributions to WikiSource. On the back end, I am engaged in a complex AWB-assisted migration of WikiProject Aircraft articles to a unified layout (Airtemp, Jetspecs, and Pistonspecs templates), and I was involved in writing several related templates. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:51, 24 April 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: Not really. Vandals are irritating but I follow the warning/listing procedure and remain civil. I did resort to WP:PAIN against one user who made a number of unprovoked personal attacks but I remained very civil with the user. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:51, 24 April 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Emt1472_467f.html"