Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morphh

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

[edit] Morphh

Final (0/14/0) ended 13:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Morphh (talk • contribs) – I've been an editor on Wikipedia for over a year and feel I have learned enough to lead. I do many repetitive tasks on project contributions (Stargate Wikiproject, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Comics, & WikiProject North Carolina) that would benifit from Administrive rights and associated Wikipedia tools. Morphh 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept - Self Nomination Morphh 19:55, 1 September 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 use the tools to make repetitive tasks easier such as adding banners to every article under a particular category. Making changes to tags across multiple articles. Editing Templates that are Admin Locked. Quickly revert vandalism. Running checks on articles that I encounter for common mistakes that a tool would pick up easily. I would consider working on Articles to be merged, NPOV disputes, Articles with unsourced quotes, Articles with unsourced statements, Category needed, & Needs infobox

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

A: FairTax - I've done a lot of work to this article and succesfully worked through many disputes. While it still needs some work in regard to third party references and prose, I hope to get it to FA status soon.

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: Followed Wikipedia guidelines for conflict resolution. I would deal with it the same in the future - they work well.

Comments

• See Morphh's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Morphh's edit count on the talk page.
• Thank you all for your consideration. I also thank you for your efforts as Administrators. Perhaps in the future I will better qualify for this responsibility. Morphh 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Final: (0/14/0)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. You do not need the admin tools to merge articles, mediate NPOV disputes, fix unsourced material, add categories or create templates (infoboxes). None of those are admin tasks. Furthermore, looking over your contributions, I see less than 100 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Of those, there is only participation in two AfDs, one copyright problem, and you reported the same user three times to 3RR over the course of several days. I'd like to see more evidence that you understand policies. You have less than 50 edits to Wikipedia Talk which shows little community involvement and you have 100 edits to user talk since 1 July 2005. None of your edits in user talk have been warning vandals. Admins do work that you seem to have no experience in. Some of their tasks include fighting vandalism, responding to requests for intervention and block/ban, protecting and unprotecting articles (and talk pages, etc), deleting pages, and closing XfD discussions. You have almost no experience in dealing with vandalism and have participated in only two XfD discussions. You do not demonstrate a knowledge of policy. However, keep in mind that adminship is not a "leadership" role, as you seem to believe. It's not a prize or reward. It's an extra set of janitorial duties. You are a great editor and can continue to be a great editor without being an admin; you don't seem to need to be one. Srose (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry - You misunderstood me, #1 is what I would do in addition to the task that I normally do that could utilize the tools. I would use the tools to make repetitive tasks easier such as adding banners to every article under a particular catagory. Making changes to templates accross mulitiple articles. Running checks on articles that I encounter for common mistakes that a tool would pick up easily. Morphh 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry; those tasks still do not require admin capabilities. AWB, for example, is a tool that checks spelling in any article you read. To change a template across the board, just edit that particular template and everywhere it shows up (unless it's a subst warning or message, like a welcome note or a blatant vandal template) it should reflect the change. You can also make a bot (or request/suggest that one be made) to do things like "adding banners to every article under a particular category [sic]". Please read the Administrators' reading list. None of those tasks are tasks you have any experience with. You haven't participated in the deletion process (other than when two things you were heavily involved in went up for deletion), you've apparently never fought vandalism - those are the things administrators do. Srose (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I see you've added fighting vandalism to your answer to question one, but the thing is - you've never fought vandalism before, so we can't just give you the tools and hope you'll do the right thing. You have to prove that you can do admin tasks. Try participating in XfDs (see WP:AfD and WP:MfD for starters). Watch the recent changes and revert vandalism. You can't fight vandalism for the first time when you're an admin. You haven't proven your judgement to be sound enough yet because you've never attempted to fight vandalism before. Srose (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I've done so on a small scale - the 300 articles that I currently monitor. When I see it, I revert it. I'd rather be working on articles and therefore have not made it a normal task. However, I expect it is part of the Admin duty and I would therefore do my part if so given the status. Otherwise, I'd rather be editing. Morphh 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Answer to question #1 does not have anything to do with admin tools. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   See comment above Morphh 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I've read the updated comment, and I'm still not convinced you understand what's involved here. Take a look at the Wikipedia:User access levels which shows the "tools" that an admin has. I'm not convinced you need any of them to accomplish your goals. Plus, there are the issues mentioned by the others here. -- RM

3. Oppose Not enough edits in the main space. Adminship is not an award - its more of a burden. You need more experience in all the areas to avoid getting into trouble with the advanced tools. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Your answers don't reveal a requirement for additional tools and admin responsibilities. A competant user with standard tools can do most of the tasks stated. Out of 1973 edits only 115 have been to user Talk pages. Talking to users is an important part of being an admin, so this number should be increased substantially before you reapply. Advising people, warning of speedy tags placed on articles, vandal warnings, etc. All grist to the mill of being an Admin. I suggest another editor review to get an idea of where the community thinks that you should work on improving before reapplying in ~2000 edits/three months' time. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose: Again, the tasks you list aren't tasks for which you need adminship, except for reverting vandalism quickly. And I don't see a lot of vandal reversion anyway, and that's something an admin should have a great deal of experience at. Heimstern Läufer 22:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Potentially a good candidate in the future. But right now, although you've been here since June last year, you've only become a very regular and consistent contributor since June of this year. More time as a consistent contributor as well as more involvement in the Wikipedia space is needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Zaxem 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, you seem like a good editor, but I don't think you need administrative capabilities to do what you do. Being granted adminship isn't a reward, or validation, but an extra set of duties, and not always pleasant ones at that. Please read all the suggestions above if you really do want to be an administrator, but if you're happy continuing editing the way you are (and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing), then don't worry too much about adminship. All the best, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Why should you be an admin.? I see no solid reason. Michael 02:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose I suggest you withdraw this nomination soon. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - great editor, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't purposefully abuse the toolbox, but after reading your answer to Q1, you really don't need admin powers for any of those. I would suggest staying on the same track, and joining Esperanza's admin coaching program. In the meantime, I suggest withdrawal from the RFA - the WP:SNOWBALL just keeps rolling... -Zapptastic (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, per Zapptastic. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 06:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
12. – Chacor 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose as above, and there are barely 2000 edits altogether. Sorry. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 10:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose - fails to understand the concept of being an admin. It is not to provide leadership. It is to administrate the project. Carcharoth 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.