Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PaulWicks

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

[edit] PaulWicks

Final (1/12/3) ended 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PaulWicks (talk • contribs) – He is good enough to be an admin. He has been on Wikipedia for a time now and has been making useful edits.Arichperson 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept

Hi all, I've been on Wikipedia for a little while now and have had ups and downs along the way. I use Wikipedia as a reference source at work on a daily basis and have gained a great deal of knowledge about it on a variety of topics ranging from the live-saving to the trivial! My focus would probably be on scientific and medical topics, and like my fellow science editors the goal would be to increase the quality of information using cited references and improving clarity for non-specialist readers. Withdrawn: Thanks for your comments guys, they have been helpful and constructive. I agree that at this point I am more of a content person than a process person, so I will continue burrowing away at my niche for a while longer. Will probably request an editor review when I hit 1000 edits. Thanks for your input. --PaulWicks 08:02, 15 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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: For me the things that stand out from the backlog are stubs and articles needing verification. I've expanded a few stubs now (see below) and given my academic background I've been able to encourage accurate citations of articles, for instance in my contributions to orbitofrontal cortex.

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

A: Recently I've enjoyed working on Beck Depression Inventory, because it's an article that was a fairly brief stub back in October and is now a well-referenced and comprehensive overview of the test along with a history of its development. We have submitted it once for "good article" status and following our revisions I hope to do so again soon. Labile affect was an article I created based on my experience in motor neurone disease and with recent advances in treatment for this condition I think it will be a useful reference for patients and healthcare professionals. More generally, I have contributed to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neurone disease, and Parkinson's disease.

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 have become used to reverting occasional random vandalism on the pages I watch, usually as soon as I've spotted it. Other than that there has only been one serious conflict with an editor, which was the "General Tojo" saga[1]. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. On the one hand it was truly inspiring to see a group of editors and admins spring into action to protect articles and act in a coordinated fashion to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. On the other hand it provoked behaviour that was sub-par by many editors, myself included. Although "don't feed the trolls" is a worthy ideal to aspire to, it is very difficult when the line is blurred between an opionated editor and a true troll. Vandals putting "dave is cool" on pages are peanuts compared to a committed vandal with sleeper agent sockpuppets, a personal agenda, and a lot of time on their hands. That said, the process we went through showed me a lot of the rules of Wikipedia that I had never seen in use before, such as 3RR, bans, and blocks. I agree with the recent move away from glamorising "anti-vandal squads" and categorising vandals under their own pages as it does just feed the beast. However I do think that our GT page was a useful home base from which to monitor activity, flag articles that were under attack, and share information.

I think that the vast majority of trouble makers on Wikipedia are one-off offenders who are just playing with the system, and I don't expect to come up against a vandal of GT's ferocity very often. I hope that the next time I do I will maintain better control and consult other editors for guidance before acting. In particular I am impressed with JFDWolff's firm yet fair position and to act in the same way in future.

Comments

• See PaulWicks's edit count on the talk page.
• See PaulWicks's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

• This user is still to new IMO, I'd give it a few more months of experience.Voice-of-All 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Suggest early withdrawal by candidate, give it a couple more months. -- Миборовский 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Making good edits on medicine.Arichperson 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm sorry to have to oppose, Paul, but your answer to question one shows no reason for being an admin. You are an article writer and editor, but these types of Wikipedians, while essential to the project, aren't necessarily administrative material. Also, your experience in the Wikipedia space is very low. A larger amount of contributions in that namespace are necessary in my eyes. Picaroon9288 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   To expand on my last sentence: A larger amount of contributions in that namespace are necessary, in my eyes, to show that you have good grasp of Wikipedia policy. Picaroon9288 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Under 1000 total edits is not enough. Michael 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per all of the above. John254 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per all above also. Sorry, paul. Hello32020 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose The candidate appears to be a good editor in his niche, but he needs to expand his horizons before seeking adminship. As an aside, the nominator's account was created on September 10 and has only five edits total as of now, four of which are related to this RfA. BaseballBaby 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   An RFA nomination troll? How odd. I'm sorry Paul didn't check up on past nominations to see what kinds of metrics people use. I reiterate, an excellent candidate but too soon for most contributors here. Thatcher131 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   I think the point is it's better to choose a nominator who has a longer track record and a reputation of trustworthiness in the community. Someone whose userid was created just prior to the nomination does not inspire that trust or make the community feel comfortable about the nomination. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose and critique. A quick glance at your edits shows you are a good editor. However, you don't need the admin tools to perform the tasks you list in your answer to question one. The tools are more relevant to such things as deleting articles, blocking vandals, protecting pages, etc. In order to do these things, you must first have practice with related tasks. You need to take part in WP:AFD discussions and reverting, warning and reporting vandals at WP:AIV. I saw you have been reverting vandalism, so you are off to a good start. Continue as you have been and take greater part in these activities. Request an editor review a few thousand edits from now to see if there are things you need to do better. Then try again lateronce you have ironed out any problems. Choose a nominator who has a reputation for good quality work when the time comes. Hope this helps. Cheers, and happy editing.Dlohcierekim 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose— I liked your edits, but agree with BaseballBaby & Thatcher131. Nomination by User:Arichperson, who joined us on 10 September 2006 and whose first action was to nominate you for Admin is a first on the AfDs I've seen. It sets off extremely serious alarm bells. Suggest you come back when you are nominated by a current administrator. Williamborg (Bill) 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per all above. I write not to pile on but instead to urge withdrawing the RfA before it turns uglier than it has been. User seems to be a fine editor, and I would hate a brutal RfA to sour any enthusiasm for the project. With appropriate levels of experience, I would very likely support in the future. Erechtheus 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Sorry, just not enough experience yet. And as others have mentioned, I'm not sure you need the mop for what you want to do. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - reason #1 shows no need for admin tools -- Tawker 04:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, lacks of experience, and no need for the tools at the moment. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per all above. I urge you to withdraw this nomination and gain more experience first. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Wikipedia needs more experts, and your conduct throughout the Tojo mess shows cool levelheadness under stress, which is an important quality for an admin. While your edits in Wikipedia space are very low, I have no doubt that you would take the time to familiarize yourself with any policies or procedures you needed to know before entering a new area. In short, I have no reservations that you might misuse the administrator tools, despite your low edit count compared to previous successful candidates. However, the things you want to do per question one do not require the admin toolbox. It is generally the case that successful candidates need to show some involvement in meta-issues before seeking the adminship, and it is not enough to be a trustworthy editor who might occasionally need an admin tool to do the good work he is already doing (no matter how sensible that approach might seem). If you are really interested in the meta-issues as well as editing articles, and demonstrate as much, I'm sure you will easily gain approval on your second go-around. Thatcher131 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Great editor, who has been here for over a year, but too few edits in that time. Only 768 edits altogether, and only about 270 of them are in the article namesapce. - Mike 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
3. NeutralI suggest that this RfA is closed early to avoid WP:SNOW oppose votes and that Paul instead goes for a editor review. The community can suggest areas for involvement and if you still want to be an admin with that information, you can come back to RfA in three or four months' time/~3000 edits. (aeropagitica) 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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.