Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shimdidly

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

[edit] Shimdidly

Final: (0/7/0); Ended 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shimdidly (talk • contribs) - I would like sysop privileges for just a short while (maybe a week). All I really want to do is view the history of deleted pages, somewhat out of curiosity. I do understand the weight, responsibility, and respect meant to be associated with such a position, and that's why I am asking for a "temporary pass." I will not use any of these extra tools to damage Wikipedia in any way or to go beyond consensus, and I will not openly brag (i.e. look at me I'm an admin haha). So basically I just want to have a behind the scenes peek for about a week, unless that's not perfectly acceptable.Shimdidly 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept such a nomination

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: If I attain such a position, I will try to help Wikipedia the best that I can in that time. As mentioned above, it's really for one purpose, (just kinda curious about what I can't see). I will probably revert vandalism that I am able to come across. I would also not mind protecting pages that have been so requested of and are due for such an action. Assuming it is most appropriate.

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

A: I haven't done a whole lot here, except beat a dead horse on Talk:Zezima. I have started a two articles, which I don't claim for myself but of course release them wholly to Wikipedia. Antoine Silverman, Dan Yates. In an example case, if another user wanted these deleted, I would not use "admin authoritaw" to override him, I just want this position for the afore mentioned reason.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes I have. At first I lashed back like a child, and then realized how immature that was. I will never do that again, instead, I will 'comment on content, not users'. The same user that I have had issues with, I have taken the opportunity to apologize and make ammends where they are needed.

General comments

• See Shimdidly's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• This is an interesting request. I don't believe temporary adminship rights have ever been given out here (with the exception of three to edit the Wikimedia board election page). Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Those rights were given for a clear, necessary purpose. Shimdidly is requesting +sysop so he can take a look at the interface that he can't see, and that he can read deleted pages. I'm a little concerned about the implications of supporting such a request. alphachimp 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  I think if the community was going to entertain such a request, it would need a lot more specific information about what Shimdidly intended to do with the admin rights than he's giving us right now. A Train^{talk 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}

  I believe I understand what you mean by the implications. If I can become admin for a week, why not everyone else? You might be referring to the "slippery slope theory (one thing leads to another)." The implications for supporting this could lead to more temporary adminships for other users that have not entirely established trust, and thus use such abilities irresponsibly. If there is any way I can establish enough trust to allow this, I will do it. Shimdidly 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  The only way to establish that kind of trust is to amass a large (2000+) body of edits over a long period of time. I'm afraid there's no magic bullet for community trust. You're probably best off just withdrawing this request. A Train^{talk 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}

Is it possible to only attain some of the extra tools, but not all, or is this an all or nothing deal? Shimdidly 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an all or nothing deal. A Train^{talk 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}

• What if we created a role account which had sysop powers, but a program would enable the password to be only changed by crats or sysops? The password should change once a day, and people who have met the criteria required for such a test (like no vandalism history in last month, 100 + edits, of the sort) could have the daily password emailed? That will be such a useful tool for admin coaching, too. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  That would be instruction creep from hell, in my opinion. I'd suggest having a look at Shimdidly's talk page history and contribs before I started lobbying to create a new position on his behalf, if I were you. A Train^{talk 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}

  So basically I need to establish that I won't destroy Wikipedia with these abilities by amassing at least 2000 edits? What else do I need to do? Shimdidly 20:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Demonstrate an interest in the community, prove to us that you can be trusted, show us what you're interested in. We want to see who we're making an admin. There really isn't a halfway, you're a sysop or you're not. alphachimp 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. We don't have the community resources in place to allow such a request to happen, whatever the merits. You have less than 500 edits. If you would like to see the admin interface, email me. I can send you screenshots. If you'd like to see the text of a deleted article, we can do a similar thing. alphachimp 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose John254 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Barring a desysoping from ArbCom or Jimbo Wales admin status is intended as a lifetime appointment, not a peepshow for the curious. NeoFreak 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per everyone else. Acalamari 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose original suggestion, but giving all sysopp powers to someone with inadequate experience cannot be good, be for a week or a lifetime.--Anthony.bradbury 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm sorry; I hate to oppose, per Alphachimp. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Well this blows. Now I feel stupid. ): Shimdidly 21:13, 31 March 2007 (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.