Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selmo

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

[edit] Selmo

Final (1/14/2) ended 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo (talk • contribs) - I've been editing Wikipedia since September, 2005. My first article was TransLink fares (Vancouver). I decided to accept the invitation to edit the encyclopedia when I was reading Toronto Transit Commission fares. My essential thought was "If there's an article about Toronto's fare system, why not do one for Vancouver? I have not always been perfect over the cource of the year, but I tend to be a law-abiding Wikipedian. -- Selmo

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I retract this nomination. Thanks for your input though. I've learnt alot.

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: I'm a regular RC patroller. Every other time I'm on duty, I find myself reverting the edits by users who were repeatedly warned and/or block. At the moment, when this occurs, I'll report the vandal. After about a half-hour, the offender is blocked. During the time the offender continues to violate the policy. If I were to become a sysop, I'd block them immediately, better helping the fight against vandalism.

I would also check the administrators' notice boards and help out whenever I could. This would include WP:AIV, WP:RPP.

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

A: I've spent a bit of time editing articles that are co-ordicated with WikiProject Vancouver. I would click on a red link on the project's page, and write down whatever I knew about the particular subject down. I've paid more particular attention to the TransLink section of the project. As I agian, wass looking over Toronto Subway and RT related articles, I was inspired to create a SkyTrain station infobox.

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: Yes.

• My earliest conflict was about inclusion of content from the XOOPS development team. My argument was a WP:NOT violation. The flaw in my argument that the development team was inserting propaganda into the article was that it sloey based on the Ad hominem logical fallacy.
• Secondly is the breif conflict with AOluwatoyin. Agian I lept before I looked. I later relized that the report on WP:PAIN had a fallacy to it: AOluwatoyin's comment was not a personal attack, but rather a simple disagreement of content.
• Thirdly is the Anime criticism section. I felt I was better handling myself, however I made a move that I now regret: making a personal attack.
• I've learnt from my previous mistakes and I'm currently reflecing this over at the current telepathy dispute. I'm not trying to take all legitimate criticism too personally. However an opposing party is a bit over-critical. I decided to stop talking with him and reported him over at WP:PAIN to let someone else deal with it.

Comments

• See Selmo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Selmo's edit count.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, looks like a great user.--Andeh 11:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Only 1000 edits total, only active since July. Admins need much more experience than this. I also had a look into this dispute you've been in recently, and as far as incivility goes you gave as good as you got. -- Steel 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose For someone who has been here a year, I surprised you only have 1500. More worrying is this which is not the reaction to a difficult situation that we need to see from an admin. If you had the tools I'm afraid you would use them badly if this is how you react. Sorry, Gwernol 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'd also like to point out that this RfA was malformed and the spelling and grammar are very poor. I am concerned that if this is the level of care you give to your RfA then you'll be equally sloppy in your use of the tools. Gwernol 00:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   poor spelling is not a barrier to adminship. trust me on this.Geni 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   It looks bad in an RFA though, and immediately shows that not much care was put into making it. --Alex ^(talk) 01:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   The inferences of Alex and Gwernrol as to the lack of care or attention paid by the candidate are, IMHO, quite properly made, but I think, pace Geni, that one might also be reasonably concerned about the candidate's ability to communicate with other editors, especially those for whom English is not a native tongue, such that one's erring orthographically might lead to his experiencing problems in his completion of admin tasks. Joe 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Few mainspace contributions and not too many positive interactions with other users as far as I can see. Although vandal fighting is part of an admin's duties, there are already many who do this. Also re. Steel's point about your recent dispute I'd have to agree with him it's too recent. Very sorry about that. --Alex ^(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Good start so far, but too few amount edits. If you get to around 3,000 before you apply again, you can definitely count on my vote (assuming there are no issues/problems). --Nishkid64 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Too little experience with project, per edit count of around 1000. Espresso Addict 01:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Although you've been around since September last year, you've only really become a very consistent contributor since the begninning of August this year. Succesful admin candidates usually have a track record of several months as a consistent contributor and, at a minimum, over 2000 edits. A track record of civility in interactions with other editors is also very important for admin candidates. Good luck if you apply again in the future. Zaxem 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I agree that Selmo's lack of editing experience and his careless editing and writing skills are sufficient reason to oppose this RfA. An even more important reason is his inability to disagree with other editors without becoming uncivil. Instead of answering their arguments, he makes personal attacks, threatens them, and then files frivilous complaints on WP:PAIN and Wiki:AMA. This is not the conduct we need in a Wiki Administrator. Askolnick 04:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per low edit count and limited responses. Michael 05:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I decided to stop talking with him and reported him over at WP:PAIN to let someone else deal with it. Huh? As an admin, you are the someone else. BaseballBaby 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Not enough experience. --Ineffable3000 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose as editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia policies, and complains of "rudeness" when asked if he/she has read them. Administrators must have a thorough understanding of the WP:RULES, and be virtually unflappable in the face of ad homs, rudeness, and certainly minor incivility, of which this user complained on WP:AN/I - not even the correct venue for this type of complaint. [1] KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I'm sorry; this editor has only 1000 edits and has got into a few disputes. -- Casmith 789 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Not enough experience despite being here for more than one year. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Good editor, but needs more article namespace edits before I can support. - Mike 01:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Is a fairly good editor, but spelling and grammer errors in submission, and low mainspace edits don't let me support. Hello32020 01:15, 17 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.