Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Viridae

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

[edit] Viridae

Final (16/13/6) Ended 13:30, 2006-08-02 (UTC)

Viridae (talk • contribs) is an MCB student that hails from Australia (his name means "virus family"). I believe Viridae will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator.

Viridae is a dedicated RC patroller - he warns vandals, follows up on AIAV, brings complex cases to AN/I, tags articles for deletion.

• Activity: >3000 edits in 3 months.
• Interaction: Communicates intelligently and civilly; helps others at WP:HD, WP:VP.
• Conflicts: A few minor disagreements; Viridae reacted with composure and resolved the situations peacefully. Avoids unnecessary confrontation.
• Experience: Participates in WP namespace: WP:AN, WP:AFD, WP:HD, WP:VP, WP:AIAV, WP:RFA, WP:CP.
• User page: Clean, non-polemic.
• Edit summaries: 100%.

Viridae is unlikely to abuse administrator tools and would benefit from having them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-01 08:51Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept. Viridae^Talk 12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing. No chance of a consensus being reached thankyou to everyone who participated. Viridae^Talk 13:25, 2 August 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: As an admin I would help close discussions in WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RFD but at the same time, not limiting myself to closing disscussions - also continuing to be involved. I will not close any discussion in which I had been involved unless the concensus is clear. I would also reguarly check on CAT:CSD to make sure speedy deletions are exactly that. I would have WP:AIV on my watchlist, nothing is to be gained from a backlog building up there. I would also have the various Administrator noticeboards (such as WP:AN and WP:ANI for instance) on my watchlist in a similar way to how I currently have WP:HD and WP:VPA on my watchlist now. I find the administrator noticeboards very useful for dealing with complex situations needing administrator, and I wish to help others as others there have helped me. I can see myself involved in WP:RM too because that is frequently backlogged. Last but not least I would continue RC patrol and new pages patrol. This is all just a starting point , I hope to utilise my new mop, if I get it, wherever it may be needed within the project.

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

A: My largest and most time consuming edit was definately the addition of the Non-viral methods section to Gene Therapy. This was also the article that prompted me to sign up to Wikipedia and start editing. I am (as mentioned by Quarl) a third year molecular and cell biology student, so noticing that non-viral methods was severely lacking from that article prompted me to leave a note on the talk page asking someone to expand that section. When noone did, I did it myself. It took several hours of research, looking through review papers on pubmed and my own lecture notes to write but I think it has been a worthwhile contribution and I hope those who read it find it useful and interesting. My involvement in writing the encyclopedia will probobly continue to revolve around my studies - as I learn fascinating things, I come and look at the relevant wikipedia articles (if they exist) and if I notice that they lacking in some department, I will research and add to them as needed. That said, the research and translation of material from scientific jargon into quality articles takes a lot of time and brain power and the latter is not something I have a whole heap spare of these days so for the most part my involvement in the encyclopedia is with minor edits and vandalfighting. But I will continue to slowly add as I see fit.

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 been in some minor editing disputes at times, some of which have temporarily raised my blood pressure but nothing serious. I find the best way to deal with disputes is to approach them calmly and thoughfully. Calling names, and getting very angry is useless. The first violates Wikipedia policy and achieves nothing and the second shortens your life span and also achieves nothing. I suppose the best example of how I handle a dispute would be this dispute with the recently blocked* editor Ste4k. As you can see, I tried to remain calm and literate and present my argument as I saw it. The dispute was not resolved, but as you can see it was concluded when we agreed to disagree on the matter. I also recently got frustrated with the amount of ridiculous information in the Mini Mammoth article and ended up removing large chunks of hoax material, in the process leaving an edit summary of "removing crap" (which I immediately regretted). My deletions led to a minor dispute with another editor with him implying I was a vandal and my pointing out to him that the inclusion of hoax material in an article was vandalism, not its removal. This dispute finished when I decided that I did not want to be involved in a dispute over something so trivial, especially when the AfD was progressing rapidly to a deletion concencus.

(Ste4k was recently the subject of a RfC in part because of behaviour similar to that which she displayed while arguing with me. This resulted in her getting permanently blocked.)

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Voluntary recall: Yes I was and yes I would consider placing myself on such a list once I was confident I was not going to make a silly mistake. The threat of having the powers revoked if you don't conduct yourself well is only going to be further inspiration to try your absoloute best.

Rouge admin: I was also aware of that category but I am not sure I ever understood it properly. I have always regarded it as humerous wikipedia culture not a true assesments of those admins who I have seen with the rouge admin logo on their userpage. As a joke category, I would therefore not be worried by my being placed there.

(Forgive me if this doesn't make a whole heap of sense, I have only just got up.)

Comments

• See Viridae's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Disclosure time. In a recent RfA some people took exception to tools such as vandalproof being used to rollback non-vandalism edits. I admit that I too have done this occasionally. If, while on RC patrol, I come across an edit (made very obvious by the diff) that depreciates the article and I cannot see any way that its inclusion could benefit the article. I ussually (though not always because its quicker) do a custom rollback citing why the edit was reverted. (However this leads to ammusing edit summaries like this.) Viridae^Talk 12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Edit count via Interiot's Tool 2 alphaChimp ^laudare 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Username Viridae
Total edits 3444
Distinct pages edited 1916
Average edits/page 1.797
First edit 06:16, April 28, 2006
(main) 1298
Talk 154
User 191
User talk 1133
Image 3
Image talk 5
Template 1
Category 3
Wikipedia 638
Wikipedia talk 16
Portal 2

Support

1. Support, as nominator. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-01 08:51Z
2. Support - This user will not abuse the tools. I personally see no reason to oppose, seeing as I was promoted at 3 months with 3000 edits. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:10, 01 August '06}
3. Support I am sure this user will not abuse. Seivad 13:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per Firefox. I've seen Viridae a around a bunch, and I've been impressed with the way he conducts himself. There's just no good reason for me to not support. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Rama's arrow 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Dedicated contributor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Unfortunately it is quite apparent that few share my POV here & this RFA is quite reminiscent of my first RFA. My advice: Relax, let some time go by, keep up your amazing contributions and re-apply again sometime in October-November. I see you as an stellar future admin. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I found Virdae to be a very helpful user recently when I was making enquiries regarding my edit count at the 'Village Pump'. Wikiwoohoo 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great job so far! I think the candidate's varied experience to this point likely has given him a firm grasp on policy areas. I hope he will commit to quickly learning what he doesn't already know. I don't think arguments based on tenure or edit count are convincing for this candidate. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support 3 months is enough time, lots of users passed with 3 months before Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support a valuable contributor to articles plus enough maturity for the mop. Even if he is not totally familiar with all the weird little nooks and crannies of this place, he can learn on the job--the only irreversible thing you can do with the mop is piss people off and he doesn't show a tendency to do that. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, seems to be good at dealing with people. --Aquillion 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong support per FireFox and Srikeit. Joe 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom. Viridae is ready for the mop. Eluchil404 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. Would make a good admin. DarthVader 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature. Three months is usually not enough time to gain the experience necessary to become an administrator. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I figured some people would say "3 months is too soon". My own view is that a better proxy to experience is amount of time spent editing (e.g. measured in man-hours) rather than the amount of wallclock time elapsed since the first edit. When I passed my own RFA I had been actively editing for 2 months. Wallclock time really measures patience more than experience :) Viridae has shown good judgement in learning policy, so I'm not worried about the experience he will get "on the job". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-01 13:39Z

   For me personally, I would feel better if he had spent some more time (measured in months) on Wikpedia before becoming an administrator. Per AdamBiswanger, I would be happy to support in a few months hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Hoopydink. Has not been here at least 5 months, as stated in my standards. Will gladly support if you request adminship again in a few months. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose nice editor, too soon. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Two more months in the oven and you have a support AdamBiswanger1 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per above, a bit too soon, although would happily support in a few more months. --Wisden17 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose, a little too early.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose User would benefit from a few more months of experience. Xoloz 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Fails two of my criteria (less than 6 months, and less than 200 maintalk edits). Will most likely support in November. Themindset 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Too new and lacks a great deal of communicative experience. Michael 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry? I'm not sure what you mean by communicative experience? Viridae^Talk 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose, too new. --CharlotteWebb 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, just too soon, sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Too soon for me. 1ne 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose. Per above. --Masssiveego 08:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral More time is required to get to grips with the complexities of Wiki policy and procedures. Would be happy to support if this user comes up for re-assessment in the near future. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, too soon. Come back in a month or two. --Guinnog 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Guinnog. Please continue to contribute; in 3 months another RfA will surely be successful. Kimchi.sg 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, too soon. Roy A.A. 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral: The edits and summary usage are looking good, but he's been only here for almost half the time I'd love to see admins get promoted. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:30, 2 August 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.