Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fetofs

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] Fetofs

Final (37/22/4) ended 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fetofs (talk • contribs) – I think I'm an overall good user. I have contributed to WP:AFD and even closed some debates where the articles had been speedied by another user. I revert vandalism frequently, and have tagged a lot of new pages for speedy deletion in new pages patrol. I also have quite an experience with helping newbies out at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and at the Help Desk. This has led me into finding many policies I didn't even know that existed, and proves that I try to be always patient and ready to help (I looked out for the answer of one user for an hour). For those who care about edit counts, I have over 2000 edits, of those 556 are in the project namespace and 73 in project talk. Although I don't edit much per day, I spend 99% of my time online at the encyclopedia (well, not so much at June with the World Cup going), mostly reading and looking for minor and/or formatting errors. fetofs Hello! 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom fetofs Hello! 01:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) meets all my criteria, especially *FA with * FAs.
  2. Support.. Nice self nom, and thoughtful answers to the questions below. Would do good with the tools.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Kungfuadam's comment made me read through this answers very carefully and investigate this nom more closely. I noticed my head doing a lot of nodding in agreement. Appears to have what is necessary to be an admin. Agent 86 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, great answers. Roy A.A. 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Yanksox is correct that there are many useless projectspace edits, but there are good ones in there too, and though it may not be 900, it's more than enough. I disagree that age alone should mean someone shouldn't be an admin, and the answers below seemed to me to be rather well-written and thought out— more than I would do. This user appears to be a great contributor and would not abuse the tools. --Rory096 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    No, not age alone, Rory, per my criteria. I have serious misgivings about the extent and quality of his participation, as I said clearly in my vote below. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, but it shouldn't be a factor at all, and considering it was one of the two specific things you mentioned, you must think it's important. Maturity could be, but I don't see any instances of him being immature. I also don't see any problems with experience. --Rory096 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Kungfuadam. SushiGeek 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support Recapitulating my neutral (the length of which leads me to question my own command of the English language), I was concerned neither in view of this user's age qua level of maturity (believing that the latter not to be strictly dependent on the former) nor of his judgment (assuming, as I do, that he is well-versed in policies and procedures, etc.), but only in view of his less-than-fluent grasp of the English language, inasmuch as that grasp might be insufficent for him properly to communicate with other users, especially with respect to admin actions. Having reviewed his recent contributions, though, I'm convinced that his knowledge of English is at least adequate for the task of communicating with other editors, and, having no other major unallayed concerns, I've to support. Joe 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support seen nothing but good things, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per above. DarthVader 07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I've had good experiences with this user and none of the reasons offered by those opposing worries me greatly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian {T C @} 08:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. I find the votes based on age incredibly shallow. Age is not a factor. Werdna (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support based on very thorough answers. Both edit count and age are low compared to most admins, but user has convinced me s/he is capable of the job, and willing to do the sort of tasks needed by an admin. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Looks like a good editor, I think he will make a good admin. He will certainly be able to deal with RP patrol better with adminship. Age not a factor here, except I might not have stopped and looked at this RfA if I had not seen the oppose votes citing age as their reason.Dolive21 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Looks very good, I think he will do a great job with the admin tools. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support seems fine, although I would like to see a bit more experience and professional behavior, but I'm sure this will come with time. — Deckiller 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Thoughtful answers, enough experience for me, and age is one of the factors I never oppose on. BryanG(talk) 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per above. G.He 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Per BryanG. The answers to #6 and #7 are especially well-defined and thought out. With answers and ideas like those, age really isn't a factor; even some other older admin nominees cannot come up with such good answers. More power to you, Fetofs, and good luck. Thistheman 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Very impressed by the boldness of A2; he hit the nail right on the head--admin tools don't really help with article writing; rather, they help with administrative tasks. I am a little bothered by the age factor as most individuals that age are rather bad at admitting fault when they make mistakes (IMO, an important quality) and often lack the interpersonal experience needed. Nonetheless, had his age not been pointed out to me, I wouldn't have known; thus, I'm not letting it affect my vote. My experiences with Fetofs have shown him to be quite civil and willing to help, as well as suprisingly committed to the project for (again) someone of that age. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support neither age nor quality of article contributions should be primary factors in an RfA in my opinion, since they don't aren't what admins actually do. What admins actually do are administrative tasks which Fetofs has demonstrated that he knows policy and would implement it fairly. Eluchil404 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support You mean he wasn't one already? He's a great user! Freddie Message? 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support this user demonstrates the willingness and capability necessary to serve the project in such a capacity. --Jay(Reply) 03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. I have faith in this user. Fetofs' responses and demeanor indicate maturity beyond his years. (On the other hand, I could raise a handful of notable counterexamples to the stereotype that older users are "better-behaved" or "less likely to abuse the tools", but I don't feel like drifting into Personalattackville today). — Jun. 24, '06 [13:55] <freak|talk>
  25. Support per many of above, especially Freakofnurture. Some very good answers to questions. See also my RfA criteria. Petros471 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - per many above too (but not maybe the per many above directly above) - anyways, age is not a factor in adminship, I know many great people here who are quite young, many of whom can't even drive in the US and they do a great job, I see no reason why Fetofs would not continue in that fine tradition I've enjoyed -- Tawker 03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Age should not play any part in adminship, unless it affects the maturity of the candidate. Fetofs is a brilliant editor, and he is just as mature as most of the "adult" admins, perfect for the job. — FireFox 14:36, 25 June '06
  28. Support I don't see much coming from oppose voters that gives me pause. Perhaps the quality of project-space edits is of concern, but the quality of article edits isn't really a big deal to me since that doesn't relate too much to admin work. So overall, I'm satisfied enough the candidate to state support. joturner 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support diligent and thoughtful. -- Samir धर्म 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Belated Support I should start using "Oppose too old" as my #1 oppose reason from now on. -- Миборовский 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oh stop it, боровский. It's not that crazy a reason. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support age is not a reason to oppose someone 64.12.116.68 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry but only registered users can !vote on RFA's. If you have an account could you please sign this edit whilst logged in. Thanks, Petros471 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - no reason to believe he would misuse the tools. Friday (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. No evidence of incivility or unilateral action; liked his answers to the questions. moink 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support already a trusted member within the community, which is evident in his moderating VandalProof usage; I also liked that he/she's active in WP:HD hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support -- per nom --T-rex 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support I would just like to say that I think age is an entirely valid basis for RFA votes, since a generalisation that 'people below Age X tend to be immature and therefore not good admins', while regrettable, is entirely unavoidable. Unless you have extensive personal experience with a candidate, then you will always make generalisations that may exclude people who would turn out to be good admins (e.g. editcountitis, editsummaryitis, namespaceitis) and age is just another one of those - no more or less valid than any other such generalisation. I am voting support not because I think that age is an invalid reason, but because as far as I am concerned the candidate has shown enough quality to overcome that presumption. As for those calling for this RfA to be restarted - if you want to increase the chances that the RFA will fail then you're going the right way about it. Cynical 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Joe I 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support per nominator. Polonium 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per experience and maturity and my criteria - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Because of the widespread consternation regarding my voting rationale, I decided to open a discussion about this on my talk page. Please visit User talk:Crzrussian/RfA criteria to answer the question, "Is age an appropriate criterion in evaluating a candidate for adminship?" Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    What do you mean by maturity? --Rory096 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out, given my listed criteria. Age, as reflected in the poorly written answers below, and in the overall impression from his contributions. Fetofs is 13 years old per prior revisions of his userpage. I am sorry I had to elaborate - I was hoping people would read between the lines. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I can't see why you are opposing because he's 13~15. He acknowledges that he doesn't have the writing skills of many other contributers, and to me, that demostrates maturity and wisdom. I see that you say that you are unlikely to support simply because the nominee is under 19, and to me, that demonstrates a lack of maturity—you should be opposing based on factors that the candidate can actually do something about. The fact that this is a self nom demonstrates further maturity, in that the nominee is able to make decisions as large as are involved in judging one's readiness for adminship.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm 13 and an admin...(although I don't make spelling or grammar errors that often) SushiGeek 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    That's ageism and I don't really see it as a valid reason to oppose. I don't think bureaucrat Linuxbeak got those kind of votes either.--Andeh 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    You may not agree with his reasoning, but he has violated no rules by using age as a criteria. If you feel it is wrong to use that as a criteria, then you should propose a rule change. --rogerd 23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    I am 16, and also do not have very good typing. I see no problem with making Fetofs an admin. He seems to be a good editor (I do not know him), and I think will probably make a good admin. Age is definatelly not a good reason to oppose him for adminship.Dolive21 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting criterion. Do you also think there is a maximum age for adminship? — Vildricianus 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I do not. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    In my experience, many under-19-year-olds can be far more eloquent and mature than older people. Ilyanep was 13 when promoted. Redwolf24 is 16 and he's a total star. I'm 16 and an Admin (since I was 15) and like to think that I'm eloquent the majority of the time. I, personally, think that age is a totally irrelevant and unconnected to maturity, especially when it comes to places like Wikipedia, where we have to be geeks to contribute to such astronomical levels. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    *whistles* Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    *Older than these guys here but whistles, too* -- Миборовский 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    I was 13 when I became an admin (I'm 16 now) :) – ugen64 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose Namespace edit count is very misleading, no real activity from what I can tell recently. I don't believe this would be a productive admin. Yanksox (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Which namespace? --Rory096 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Whoops! Sorry, Wikipedia edits. Yanksox (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, you're right, lots of EA coffee lounge and hangman. --Rory096 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above reasons. --HResearcher 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose. I see the essential criteria to be determining if Wikipedia would be better with this editor as an admin. Unforunately the edit history and answers to questions don't tell me one way or the other. Need more page patrolling, WP:AfD activity at least to be able to tell from edits alone if adminship is a good idea. Can't see any issues in the edits I've viewed but am not confident of a support - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Just a question -- if you can't see issues but can't see good things, doesn't this default to neutral? fetofs Hello! 11:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    No - If I can't see enough to inspire trust in adding a new finger to the delete/block/undelete buttons then I can't sit on the fence. I am disappointed though in the opposes based on age - Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    Fine, just a clarification request. fetofs Hello! 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I originally voted support, but upon realization that the candidate is 13, I'm gonna have to change my vote. I don't want to offend the candidate, but there are certain qualities of admins that just come with age. Don't worry--in a couple of years you'll be an ideal candidate. AdamBiswanger1 04:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    You originally voted support because the nominee appeared to be a good candidate for adminship, and now you change your vote based on a factor that is completely outside of the nominee's control? If the nominee has demonstrated that they would be a good admin, why should age enter into it? You now say that "there are certain qualities of admins that just come with age." Please give examples of these qualities, how the candidate does not demonstrate them, and why you did not originally oppose because they lacked these qualities. After all, this lack of "certain qualities of admins" should be shown in the nominee's editing.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Peer pressure for one, vaporises with age, stops him deleting a page to show off if we have him wait. MichaelBillington 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Examples:Those listed by Michael Billington, plus the ability to reasonably monitor a dispute, the ability to write with percision and nuance, the ability to not be shaken by a threat from a vandal (possibly), or perhaps the ability to more clearly recognize a well-written foolish argument from a poorly-written good one. All in all, to me, the candidate hasn't demonstrated that he could be a good admin. I, like most people here, spent about 3-5 minutes looking at recent edits, etc. and I found him to be without fault. I probably should've voted neutral, in that I hadn't found any evidence of particularly good admin skills, but I voted support. In any event, I'd still like to stress that in a few years he'll be a great candidate.AdamBiswanger1 13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Peer pressure does not "vaporise with age." There are always peers, and there is always peer pressure. While I agree that many adults are better equiped to handle, one can't make such broad statements about age groups. Please, provide details of where he has demonstrated that he would bow to peer pressure.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    You said the editor is responsible, does this not prove that this article does not respond to peer pressure? Peer pressure is not deleting a page, peer pressure causes you to vandalize if your friends ask you to just blank the page and see what the admins do to you. If this person is not a vandal, they do not respond to peer pressure. You said they are responsible, they don't become irresponsible simply because of age. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    This is absolutely ridiculous. Age is not a factor in RfAs, period. I would like you to find statistics that support your idea that young admins are immature and inexperienced before you continue this pattern of voting. Werdna (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think we should beat Adam over the head with a stick because of his vote, but I would just like to point out that User:Ilyanep is a fourteen-year-old bureaucrat. He was made a bureaucrat at the age of twelve and an administrator at the age of eleven. Good judgement on Wikipedia comes with time on Wikipedia, not time in the real world. joturner 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    What's with all the ageism in this RfA? I hope the closing bureaucrat restarts this RfA and asks everyone to put age aside.--Andeh 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    From what I have heard, there might be some difficulty in finding an admin that would not be conflicted out of acting, or that those using age as a criteria would listen to (they all seem to be too young for those voting on age to listen to)Dolive21 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Respectfully, Andeh, it is anyone's right to use age as a criterion, so long as it is intelligently founded. I, however, agree with you-- Age is NOT a factor in RfAs. Why would it be? The usual immaturity and incomplete wikiskills that ensue are, though. Now, given the revalation of this young man's age, I examined the situation more closely. No offense to the candidate, but I see alot of...undesirable answers below. He has never been in an editing conflict. His answers to the deletion questions are more of a dogmatic regurgitation of policy rather than an intellectual understanding; he summarizes the deletion process ("[CSD's must not be controversial]") rather than explaining his interpretation of them. Overall, I see a lack of depth that comes with age. He seems to be a precocious young man, and I was one myself. And yet I know that I was fully incapable of being an admin at that time. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well, that was surely a better explanation than your vote up there. I only have to say that I wrote that mostly without looking at the policy, and the dogmatic way is my way of interpreting things. If a candidate had stretched the policies to common sense deleting, it would be his interpretation, as "interpretating" things, to me, does not mean to change what's there at the policy page. It's just the way you look at it, and I looked to it interpretating that the policies are as they are for a good reason (and following them generally helps avoiding conflicts). fetofs Hello! 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Adam, just because you didn't feel you were prepared to achieve admin status at that time it doesn't necessarily mean that Fetofs isn't. We all learn and develop at didn't rates. ;-D Without evidence of immaturity and a potential risk to wikipedia I feel it is silly that the users age is being used against them.--Andeh 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. OpposeI am changing my vote to oppose, and not just because of age either. He has had particularly low activity in the last two months if you check the graphs on thje toolserver :[1]. Just doesn't seem to spend enough time here to need any powers. I haven't seen this guy around anyway, i'll check contribs before i say anything more. MichaelBillington 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I had the impression that that tool hasn't been functioning properly in the past two months; at least that's what the notes on top say. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, you do realize that the toolserver has been effectively down, so it can't really be relied on.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Not enough mainspace edits. Of the 900 mainspace edits, more than a half are minor (mostly typo corrections) edits or repetitive cleanups and substitutions. Despite a relatively good work in the prject namespace and some vandalism reversion, I think this user needs some more time around. I also think he should start creating and expanding more articles. After that, I believe he can become a great admin. Afonso Silva 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Low mainspace edit count, low activity in general, little need for tools. -- Steel 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per Steel's comments above, and from other thoughts expressed above, to do with editing. I must just make a comment though: age in itself should not be a reason for an oppose vote. I think that such a prejudice, and stereotype is simply quite insulting. And per the logic expressed above by other people I could quite legitamately say I do not support a candidate because they are black, and because I'm a stauch racist (I should point out I'm not!) that I don't feel that black people can be trusted (or something along those lines). It is exactly the same logic, yet I'm sure some people will not agree. If we allow people to simply have such predujiced attitudes when voting I personally think that that is wrong. Alternatively one may feel that in a free society, and thus on an online community that Wikipedia is (to a degree), anyone should be able to vote with whatever views they have. I'm sure on Wikipedia we have KKK members, and so if one was to vote quite openly and blatantly as I suggested above I wonder if our opinions would be different. I'm sure people would perhaps be more critical of "oppose black candidate". --Wisden17 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thankkks for the kind words, buddy. Race does not bear a direct relationship to good judgment, as last I checked. Age does. This is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    I wish I was able to generalise as easily as you, however to say that age bears a direct relationship to judgement is questionable. I do not think that one can simply generalise as you are seeming to do. And I may believe that race does bear a direct relationship to good judgement, I may believe that being left-handed does, whatever, the point is that all the arguments are as weak as each other and are based on gross generalisations, stereotypes and predujices. --Wisden17 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    You certainly have the right not to generalize. Some people, however, are realistic and realize that some of what you call "generalizations" are true. We don't run from them. Some are true, some are false. Some arise from bigotry and predjudice, and others arise from wisdom and realism. This "generalization", my friend, is True. Your "KKK" argument attempts to show the absurdity of generalizations by using the same logic on other races, but the fact is, those arguments are false. There's no other way of saying it. A generalization is true, or a generalization is false. Let's leave it there. AdamBiswanger1 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    Every rule has an exception. Every generalization theoretically does too. fetofs Hello! 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    True, my friend. True. AdamBiswanger1 21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Having read the comments, I have a few reservations about this user, not including his age. Age plays no major factor in his ability to be an admin; a 35 year old could be worse than him, but would he then not be opposed on "mental" age? However, I see a few good points against raised. Chacor 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    What reservations are those? --Rory096 04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose does not quite fit my qualifications --WillMak050389 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Low use of edit summaries, as well as other reasons stated above. --rogerd 23:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think I have such a low count on edit summary usage. At least recently, I don't see any occasions where I have completely forgotten to input an edit summary, and I've been using a script to force edit summary uses. That is based on my last 1000 edits, take a look at statistics for my last 150 and you'll know I'm not lying. fetofs Hello! 00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. The age doesn't bother me, but this nomination still comes a bit too soon for my liking. Also, not enough productive work in the project namespace. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, low level of experience in article space. Try again in a few months. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - insufficient edits in article namespace. --WinHunter (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. -lethe talk + 02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weak Oppose - not enough article space edits, quite possibly would support in a few months abakharev 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Edit summaries are basic courtesy to other editors.—Perceval 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - needs a little more time, and especially more edits in the article namespace. BlankVerse 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - needs a great deal more article edits, and not just with AWB and similar minor changes. Only six "notable" article edits per Voice-of-All's summary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - you have done a great job so far, but you need more experience editing and contributing to great articles. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - Looks like a nice person, and the responses to the questions are careful and knowledgeable. My concerns are the candidates lack of experience with the cut and thrust of editing and the Wiki community's lack of knowledge of how the candidate will behave under stress. The candidate seems happy enough to bob along in quiet waters. I see no advantage at this point for either Wiki or the candidate of potential exposure to stress. I am unsure from the nomination of the candidate's reasons for wanting to become an Admin, other than to generally help out. The candidate seems uncertain. Perhaps, at this stage, some guidance from others on where Fetofs can help would be more useful than handing out blocking tools. SilkTork 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral

#I feel like opposing because of low activity + low edit count + lack of writing skill, but I don't want to annoy anyone with my editcountitis, so i'm sitting on the fence for now. MichaelBillington 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Can't support, can't oppose. I appreciate the frank answer to Q2, but that's also where this editor loses me. Along with wielding the mop, bucket and keys to the supply closet, being an admin/janitor also involves giving people directions. If you get in some more work writing articles, you'll be better able to help those who come to you for advice on writing articles. Count on my support then. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    NeutralAs Digital, I absolutely reject the idea that one can draw an accurate inference with respect to a user's judgment, maturity, and discretion simply from his age, but I recognize that most of those opposing draw conclusions about temperament and fitness for adminship from an analysis of his contributions, which, even as I'm disinclined to agree with those conclusions, I recognize as altogether fine. I oppose only in view of the user's less-than-stellar command of the English language (for the concession of which fact he is to be commended); even as I don't think the user would ever maliciously or even volitionally misuse the admin tools, I'm not altogether confident that he might not unknowingly misuse the tools (or, at the very least, properly use the tools but be unable appropriately to communicate with other users apropos of that use). It should be said, of course, that the usual suppositions of intellectual infirmity on the basis of non-conversance with the English language ought not to be essayed here, in view both of the user's being young and, more importantly, of the user's being a native speaker of Portuguese. Joe 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Moved to support.
  2. Neutral He seems to have spent a lot of time at the coffee lounge, hasn't been particularly active this month either, I don't have any specific reason to Oppose apart from the user hasn't been here THAT long and edit count isn't THAT high.--Andeh 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that my edit count isn't THAT high, but I'm not sure that I haven't been here THAT long. 6 months is more experience than a lot of people have. fetofs Hello! 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I don't know this user as far as I know, so I'll refrain from voting support or oppose. I feel compelled, however, to register my displeasure at people bringing someone's age into this. From my experience, it's actually the younger Wikipedians who have more integrity and are less likely to go mental and quit in a fit of rogue badness. - Mark 14:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. More article edits will be better.--Jusjih 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Fetofs (over the 2822 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 213 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 23, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 76.59% Minor edits: 99.44%
Average edits per day: 8.84 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 247 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2822 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.21% (6)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 3.97% (112)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.07% (510)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 58.73%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1427 | Average edits per page: 1.98 | Edits on top: 11.84%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 43.02% (1214 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 21.01% (593 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.31% (291 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 23.46% (662 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 31.86% (899) | Article talk: 1.67% (47)
User: 11.8% (333) | User talk: 16.87% (476)
Wikipedia: 30.33% (856) | Wikipedia talk: 3.37% (95)
Image: 3.05% (86)
Template: 0.78% (22)
Category: 0.14% (4)
Portal: 0.07% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.07% (2)
Username Fetofs
Total edits 2819
Distinct pages edited 1464
Average edits/page 1.926
First edit 19:09, 23 October 2005
(main) 899
Talk 47
User 333
User talk 476
Image 86
Image talk 1
Template 22
Template talk 1
Category 4
Wikipedia 853
Wikipedia talk 95
Portal 2
Just so I can save you some calculations, my project namespace edit count is at around 600 discounting WP:HM edits, WP:ESP/CL edits, and WP:MIND edits. fetofs Hello! 11:26, 26 June 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 plan on helping with the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AFD debates and RC patrolling with the rollback tool and the blocking tools, maybe checking WP:AIV as well. I'm not still very sure where I might fit in, but probably something has an administrative backlog that needs help.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I haven't done any contributions I could really satisfy myself with. I don't write much, because I think that I don't have the skills required to write a good article, and that's why I'm willing to help the community in any way I can. My main contributions are at Tietê River, Baillie-PSW primality test and Laura Z. Hobson (all pretty stubbish).
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 don't think I've ever been in any conflicts regarding editing. However, I can do say what I've learned from experience and hope to follow in the future, that conflicts are much better solved if you keep yourself cool and analyse both sides of the argument. I have mediated an issue at Elo rating system, and that is what I've seen that works best almost always.

Extra questions by Friday (taken from User:Fetofs/coaching):

4. (suggested question from Friday) What do you think of the "process versus product" issue? When do you think it's appropriate to ignore standard procedures in favor of doing something else?

Every case is different, and I would only ignore standard procedures when I've already asked for the opinion of the community on that and I feel we have nothing to lose and some to win with that attitude.

5. (another suggestion) Do you feel you've made any mistakes while editing? If so, what did you do upon realizing your mistake? Is there anything you've done that other editors appeared to have considered a mistake, whether you thought it was or not?

I feel I've made lots of mistakes in my beginning at Wikipedia, but I was too new to go back and check what others thought of that mistake. The only mistake I got warned of was mistaking good faith edits by an anon for vandalism and reverting it. He reverted me back and I learnt not to put myself editing content I do not know nothing about.

6. In your own words, tell us what you think the most important traditions and/or rules are at Wikipedia, and why they're important. These can be things that may or may not be official policy- I'm asking for your own personal opinions as well as your interpretation of policies. What are your thoughts on the role of admins in enforcing policy?

The most important traditions and/or rules at Wikipedia, for me, are the key principles, to which we hold on into building an encyclopedia and everyone knows by heart. That would probably be WP:NPOV, WP:BB, WP:NOT, WP:8W (consequently, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) and, something which every editor on this site finds quite important - the third pillar of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I find that consensus is only a bit different(because everybody gets to interact, support and oppose) and, therefore, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are very important in those interactions (that would be [WP:5P|the fourth pillar]]).

I personally don't like the WP:IAR thing, as it can be used to justify unilateral (read not consensual) actions without any need for discussion by trolls.

An admin should enforce the policy wholeheartedly, just like a normal editor would - warning users about disrespect to policy and trying to avoid being warned by that, in extreme cases blocking. Admins shouldn't disrespect policy, but if they disagree with it, they should propose changes (as they probably have a reason to disagree that should be heard). After that, if users still disagree, and the old policy is consensual even with the reasons transparent, the admin should follow it even if he disagrees.

7. If you're doing RC patrol and looking at things that have been tagged as speedies, deletion will obviously be part of your work. Deletions can, of course, be controversial. How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd? How do you typically deal with an article that's been tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied? What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria? Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content apart from the various deletion methods? Ideally I'd like examples, but I realize this is less practical because things that have been actually deleted are harder to look at.

Wow, those are a lot of questions into one! Therefore, I'll answer it into sections:

  • How do you typically deal with an article that's been tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied?

First and foremost principle of speedy deletion - they should not be controversial. If it meets WP:CSD it's deleted, if it doesn't (and I would have a reason to think so), I'd remove the speedy tag, probably explaining on the talk page; if I think it should be deleted anyway, I'd have PROD'ed it (as an article that looked like a speedy wouldn't have any controversy); if I think it should be kept but it's not clearly a keep, I'd let the community decide. If the speedy request was of an article that shouldn't be deleted at all (probably not knowing policy or in bad faith), I'd just have removed the tag. Of course, I'd explain my rationale to the original tagger in all of those alternatives.

  • How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd?

Speedy deletion is just for articles that meet WP:CSD, avoiding to have to follow the process when the article obviously wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to achieve success. PROD is for obvious deletions that are not so obvious to be speedies but aren't likely to be contested. Although they "aren't likely" to be contested, some are. They avoid unnecessary discussion on WP:AFD. WP:AFD should only be used for articles that the nom think have a chance to be kept on the community discussion. That is good, as it can normally define the community consensus on controversial deletions.

  • What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria?

Well, if "borderline" means meeting WP:CSD, I'd probably be on the safe side and tag it instead of deleting, that way I have two admin's opinions on the subject. If the second admin contests it, it's a sign that the speedy is not so obvious, but then there's no problem, as a PROD after that would be extremely likely to achieve success without any controversy that my speedy would cause. Anyway, trying for the speedy gives less problems than trying a PROD.

  • Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content apart from the various deletion methods?

Well, past revisions can always be restored and the undesirable content can always be substituted (even a stub is good), without needing to go through actual deletion. But when the title and/or subject of the article is something that doesn't merit having an article (i.e. Vanity, nn articles or just plain nonsense) deletion is the only alternative.

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
The kind of user whose sole purpose is to create conflicts with other users, and end up making good users stressed or even leave. In fact, adminship would make me even more exposed to this sort of thing.
Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
Edit counts can be a good overview of a user's editing profile. I don't see a more important statistic as one without the other would be useless to analyze anything, the important is the whole.
Q: Do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
Not an specific criteria. The user must know a bit about how things here works, and demonstrate that he'll likely not abuse admin tools. That's all.
Q: Lastly, what is your largest wiki-weakness? This is your view and doesn't need to be based on the comments placed by oppose or neutral voters.
Well, my lack of writing articles, to me, is my biggest wiki-weakness.

Optional question from digital_me(TalkˑContribs):

Q: How do you feel you would respond to negative peer pressure, such as deleting a page simply to show that you "could use the tools"?
Well, any admin actions have to have a reason behind it, so I'd explain this reason for my action, so that they could understand it.

Optional questions:

Dealing with frustration
You buy a dozen eggs. One of them is broken. Do you:
A. Eat eleven eggs,
B. Go back to Wal-Mart and pitch a fit about it,
C. Locate and kill the chicken, or
D. Other (please explain)

Normally we throw away at home more than one egg per dozen, so I'd eat eleven eggs.

Role model
Who is your favorite superhero, comic-book or otherwise, and why?
Naming conventions
What are your views on parenthetical disambiguation?
I'm fine with it, as long as there is something to point out where exactly is the page I want to go. I don't see any other way to differentiate different articles on subjects with the same name, and it isn't worth it to look for a new solution. It would be a solution looking for a problem.
Process vs. product:
We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?
Well, we are here for the good of the encyclopedia, so I would maintain the edits in place, and if I was certain that they were made in bad faith (because I don't think such a scenario would happen in practice), I would talk to the user.
To nuke, or not to nuke
If you could change one aspect of speedy deletion policy without being swiftly reverted with an edit summary employing the term "land grab", what would it be?
Perhaps adding a common sense speedy? I remember seeing some articles which are blatantly obvious speedies, but don't meet an exact criteria yet, so couldn't be deleted.

— Jun. 23, '06 [14:41] <freak|talk>

The above adminship 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_Fetofs_2977.html"