Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/9cds 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] 9cds

Final (13/18/3) ended 18:02, 10 June, 2006 (UTC)

9cds (talk · contribs) – I hereby nominate cds (9cds) for the mop. She's kind and civil, enjoys adding content to articles, is keen to follow policy and is specifically dedicated to referencing.

I actually first met this user while editing Big Brother (UK series 7). In fact, that is a very good example of why the AdminPowersTM should be bestowed upon her. This shows her openness to new ideas ([1]), commitment to policy ([2], e.g.), civility ([3]), commitment to referencing ([4], [5]), commitment to discussion (Talk:Big Brother 7 nominations table) and knowledge of WikiSyntax (a real feat of engineering).

For all these reasons, I think that she should be made an admin, and so should you :). Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- 9cds(talk) 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No longer accept. I'm extremely upset about the oppose votes here. Some are reasonable oppositions, but some are just stupid. To oppose me because another user malformed my AfD is just stupid. There is no policy saying I can't remove vote spamming. I'm withdrawing my acceptance from this RfA, and am going on indefinate wikibreak. This is not what I signed up to Wikipedia to waste my time for. Please close this RfA. -- 9cds(talk) 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I've come into contact with this editor several times, and always found the edits made to be productive and conducive to the standards of Wikipedia. I feel it would be beneficial to have this user as an admin. Celardore 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support not enough experience, but a great user. Computerjoe's talk 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Good, experienced user. DarthVader 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - per nom :). —Celestianpower háblame 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support per nom. Sweetie Petie 10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sweetie is a confirmed and indef blocked sockpuppet of JamieAdams.--digital_me(t/c) 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per CP. — FireFox • 11:25, 09 June '06
  6. Support heart's in the right place, works hard, productive, sizeable edits, forgive the misplaced RfA. Looks good -- Samir धर्म 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support good user. --Terence Ong 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per Samir. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support She has proved (to me) that she deserves adminship, and that she wouldn't abuse it. ILovePlankton 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support.-- As abosolutely been a great editor. Jboyle4eva 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Meets all of my criteria. Kalani [talk] 08:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support a good and very helpful user. Her presence at the Wikipedia Bootcamp is cherished by many. - Tangotango 13:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose Incorrectly placed RFA. ForestH2
  2. Oppose, Malformed RFA request. Naconkantari 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Looking through his Big Brother edits and the mediation case involving JD_UK, seems to practice a little too much WP:OWN and is too reactionary in general. I also didn't care for this recent edit of a JD_UK's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs)
  4. Oppose browsing recent afd debates left me unimpressed with policy understanding with too many per nom. Also, voting "keep" on a copyvio as "Copyright is beyond the scope of AfD" [6] was worrying, and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph D. Campbell as no consensus was a call better left to an admin (I'd have come to a different result personally) and no tag was left on the article talk page indicating the result as normal. Regards, MartinRe 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I feel that if there is a copyvio, then the article should be rewritten. The fact that it's copyvio should be taken elsewhere rather than AfD. -- 9cds(talk) 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    If there's a copyvio, it MUST be deleted (and then perhaps the article rewritten). AFD is not final in the sense than an article deleted is gone forever, a new improved version addressing the points of previous AFDs can always be written again. -- Drini 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Then what's WP:CV for? :) -- 9cds(talk) 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Where does it say that there should only ever be one way to deal with a problem as big as copyright? They fall under WP:CSD too sometimes. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Aguerriero. Nothing wrong with the answers you gave, just feel you shouldn't have blanked a message on somebody else's talk page. --Guinnog 00:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to Strong oppose on basis of comments below.
  6. Oppose per all above, doesn't appear to have fully read WP:GRFA and WP:AHTG. Intentions seem good though.--Andeh 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Do you have any example of what parts? -- 9cds(talk) 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    The guides say to spend time and craft your nomination carefully, I don't see this here. I strongly suggest you withdraw and try again another time.--Andeh 12:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't understand - the nomination is perfectly formed, and the issues with formatting weren't my fault (see RfA talk page) -- 9cds(talk) 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Compare your rfa to other rfa's for the standard required.--Andeh 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    I haven't checked the full edit history. However, I must point out that the only "malformation" I can see is that the candidate put the entry at the bottom instead of at the top (which may be serious or not, I won't judge that). I must also point that CelestianPower did a small modification to the templates that autogenerate the RFAs [7] which led to a small error in some external scripts that take statistics from the nominations. -- ReyBrujo 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per the above. --digital_me(t/c) 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per all reasons above. Do not get discouraged by this and improve the quality of your edits over the next 4 to 6 months. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per all above in general; specifically the answers to several of the questions below are without content. --Deville (Talk) 04:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - not only malformed the RFA, I noted she screwed up closing an AFD ([8]), leaving a sig there that caused the page to still be on the list of old AFD pages (despite all the AFDs on that day being closed. The preview button is your friend. Proto||type 11:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - the BB7 arguments have left a little to be desired, and I don't think only 2500-odd edits is enough experience. But as Siva1979 says, don't be put off. Budgiekiller 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose There was nothing wrong with the answers, but I wasn't really blown away bt them. Yanksox 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per above concerns with edits being blanked, a bit overzealous in new page patrol and the answers to the last set of questions seem to indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Shell babelfish 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per |Aguerriero and Shell. I wasn't terribly impressed by the nominee's answers to the questions. I think a little bit more experience is required and some time allowed to pass after the recent dispute with JD_UK. Agent 86 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose due to apparent lack of understanding of policy. I'm especially concerned by the answer to Drini's question (one reason we have outs like WP:IAR is because policy can't always cover everything). — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weak Oppose due to a deletion of a message on JD_UK's page. I don't really know, but he/she seems to be aggravating a fair few other members apart from JD_UK and myself. However, as an editor, he/she is generally OK, although as others have said, he/she's a bit hasty with deleting pages, comments and chunks of articles. I disapprove of he/she deleting Big Brother 7 chronology... godgoddingham333 15:40 UTC 10 June 06
    I didn't delete it, I put it up for AfD (which isn't a crime) and the result was delete, which cannot be blamed on me. -- 9cds(talk) 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment; I want to make it clear that my change to Strong oppose above is nothing to do with your raising that AfD (which I voted against), and everything to do with your lack of awareness of how bad deleting a message from another user's talk page looks, and your lack of any response to this point. Humility? Very important in an admin, I think. --Guinnog 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose The answers to the additional questions are weak and appear to be not thought-out. joturner 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral; can you answer the supplementary questions and I might support you? --Guinnog 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral After a lot of thinking, I've decided to go back to Neutral. Whether intentional or not, the user can come across as very hostile and passive aggressive, and I feel he went too far when he deleted a message on my talk page and nominated pages for deletion literally a minute after their creation. The user also reverts page edits and deletes whole messages containing what he interprets as a "personal attack" without trying to speak to the person involved. The user also chooses not to respond to messages if he feels a response isn't necessary for whatever reason. However the person has shown some dedication towards some Wikipedia pages and seems to have support from some users, and it would appear the user's potential is not being exploited fully solely due to the lack of options this user has available to them. I just wonder, should this adminship request be approved, would the user unintentionally misuse his abilities? --JDtalkemail 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    According to the nom, cds is a she (female). --Chaser T 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Really? --JDtalkemail 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Aaaargh. I'm really torn over this one, some of the concerns raised by opposers concern me also, but i want to see them as abberations as part of the learning process. I also feel that the number of questions below make it near impossible not to cause some one to oppose. They do not all convince either, me but i like some of them. I'll investigate a little more and see if that can sway me. Rockpocket 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral – a good contributor, but I'm reluctant to support her given some of the objections raised by those who have opposed. If she continues to contribute, takes a little time to read the policies, and takes on board what has been said above, I would support a re-nomination in a few months time – Gurch 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username 9cds
Total edits 2472
Distinct pages edited 779
Average edits/page 3.173
First edit 19:17, July 2, 2005
 
(main) 1143
Talk 244
User 164
User talk 465
Image 42
Image talk 1
Template 86
Template talk 3
Category 1
Wikipedia 289
Wikipedia talk 29
Portal 2
Portal talk 3
 G.He 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Move this to the top of the page, it's drastically misplaced. Yanksox 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it. ForestH2
Oops, sorry. Too used to adding at the bottom :) -- 9cds(talk) 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Point of Information. What is the rationale for opposing a nominee due to aesthetical faux-pas? --Folajimi 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Becaue of the bolded text on the main page: Add new requests at the top of this section. If a nominee can not follow these simple directions, then how are they supposed to follow more complex problems like copyright violations and 3RR disputes? Naconkantari 00:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the user's gaffe suggest an insurmountable ineptitude or insufficient cognitive abilities to handle administrative duties? Folajimi 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended anyone, but if a candidate can not list an RFA properly, then I will not support them. That's my personal preference. Naconkantari 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a PoI. --Folajimi 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
But, doesn't the nominator list the RfA? I thought the nominee just comes by and accepts... Aguerriero (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, nevermind... *sheepish* Aguerriero (talk) 02:18, 9 June 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 will continue working on AfD, helping with the backlog. I have been recently closing discussions that are keep, but I will continue by closing delete discussions, if given the powers. I will also continue to revert vandalism, with the ability to block consistant vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think that Celestianpower has done a fine job listing good contributions. I'm particularly pleased with the work I've recently spent on the Big Brother 7 article, keeping it clean and in particular the housemates infobox, which I converted to 100% wikisyntax this afternoon. I'm also pleased with my earlier work on the British TV shows and TV channels wikiprojects, where I created new articles, and added more detail where it is to be found.
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: My most recent stress will have to be from the Big Brother articles, where there was a lot of disagreement from JD_UK and others about the articles and its content. I feel I managed to keep my cool, and instead of making personal attacks, or edit warring, trying to discuss articles on the talk pages, and trying to follow wikipedia procedures and guidelines. I think I've done a good job with it, but I regret trying to not reach to JD_UK earlier to try and offer my help with editing wikipedia, and explain how things are done.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that punished is a strong word to agree with, I think that everyone makes mistakes, and the first thing to do is to explain on the admin's talkpage that the action was not covered by policy. However, I think that if this is persistant, the admin should no longer be trusted with the powers, at least for the time being.
So.. you would support the existence of a process for removing adminship for admins that don't stick to policy covered actions (except one or two exceptinal times)? -- Drini 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
These are two different questions - if an admin is blocking without warning all the time, yes, it should be removed. If there is a good reason for doing something out of policy, then no. There is no catchall because as you know, every situation is different, and some admins do make bad out of policy decisions. -- 9cds(talk) 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question from Yanksox

4. What do you think is the biggest problem inflicting Wikipedia? And how could you help solve this issue with admin tools? Yanksox 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The biggest problem I see on Wikipedia is the large amount of vandalism, of all types. Many users help with this by reverting and warning, as do I, but as an admin I will be able to block persistant vandals.
What is your knowledge of admin powers? Why do you want to be an admin and when did you realize this? Yanksox 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've worked the admin functions of a mediawiki in the past. I want to be an admin so that I can close more AfDs and block persistant vandals without having to rely on another admin.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A This is a tricky one, but no matter how respected the user is, they should use this trust and not abuse it. They should be treated as any other user, as sad as this may be.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A By working against the other admins, I would be no better. I would work alongside the other admins where possible, and ensure both parties are on the same page.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A Another hard one... I support trusted users having the revert button, and would like to see this implemented.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A The usual: sockpuppeting, indefinate banned users starting a new account, and questionable usernames.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A I would keep on no consensus, I would certainly not delete if I am not sure if there were sockpuppets being used, particularly if it is a close call.
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A Yes, I think there should be a minimum of at least three people who voted (who voted the same), otherwise there really isn't enough consensus.
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A I feel I should have to justify all my actions - and that if I have passed the stress threshold, to not do any rash edits.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A I would love to be able to help more on AfD and with vandals.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A Technical, since wikipedia is a group effort.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Could you please explain these edits: [9] [10] in the context of Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions?
This was purely down to being told that as a user I could close AfDs as long as they weren't "delete", after reading the guideline that users should only close as keep, I stuck to keep only.
2 Almost all your edits have been to articles about reality TV or celebrities. How would you respond to concerns that you have edited in a narrow edit range?
The large number of tv-related edits is simply because I have a greater interest and knowledge in the subject, however I wouldn't be adverse to editing other topics if I feel I have the knowledge.
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.