Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Astanhope

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] Astanhope

Final (5/13/3) withdrawn by candidate 27 Jan 2006, original ending date 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Astanhope (talk · contribs) A dedicated Wikipedian with something like one year and 1000 constructive edits under his belt. AStanhope embodies the Wiki ethic.

AStanhope introduced me to Wikipedia and taught me the ropes, the culture, and the philosophy. Admin tools in his hands would be a force for good and for Wiki improvement. He'd be a more effective editor - not to mention a very effective admin.--Bltpdx 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I accept this nomination, thank you! My answers to the Standard Questions are forthcoming. --AStanhope 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my nomination as of this moment. Hopefully someone will nominate me again later this year after I have some more experience. Thank you, everyone! --AStanhope 01:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Per nom.--Bltpdx 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Adam would bring a strong focus on grammar and punctuation as an editor he would be an asset to the Wiki efforts --ketan1y (User's first edit. AnnH)
  3. Support. Great attention to detail and unrelenting in purging articles of political agendas. His language skills are also top notch. --RFenno 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (User's twelfth edit. AnnH)
  4. Support. AStanhope's sense of fairness and singleminded goal of solving controversy through consensus would make him an excellent admin. --A6Patch 01:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (User's twenty-fourth edit. AnnH)
  5. Perfectly decent editor - deserves at least some support. And the line "So - they're not sockpuppets. They're shills." is priceless :D - Haukur 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. Good editor but not nearly enough experience. If the nominee becomes more involved in the community and edits more regularly, I don't see any reason to oppose in the future. --TantalumTelluride 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Too few edits for the length of time editing. Will support with more community involvement. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because of [1], [2], [3], [4]. I do fully recognize that the target of his attacks was a troublesome user, but an admin should be able to rise above that. AnnH (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Poor behavior on my part from almost one year ago. Thank goodness I have had time to learn and grow. --AStanhope 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per AnnH and not enough edits for the length of time. Olorin28 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, good editor, but too few project namespace edits. Also, in Astanhope's response to question 1, all of the tasks listed are ones that a non-admin can do. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 01:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - too many questions raised over user's behaviour as pointed out by AnnH, although that was some time ago. However I also have concerns that the user has too few edits in the time they've been here and those three possible sockpuppet votes within half an hour of each other when this nomination first began are highly suspicious. Also I have suspicions over the history between the nominator and the nominee: comparing their contributions they do not appear to have ever been online at the same time and both have contributed to each other's user pages (Bltpdx's was created by AStanhope). Even if they're not true I should not have to have these suspicions of a user that's about to become an admin. -- Francs2000 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    I hear you. I introduced Brandon (Bltpdx) to Wikipedia. After he nominated me [today], I asked several real life friends via AIM if they would vote, and they agreed to do so. I was as surprised as you to see that they all had so few edits. I didn't realize that I am the only real Wikipedia addict in my circle of friends! So - they're not sockpuppets. They're shills. --AStanhope 02:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    No problem. I still feel you need to have done more edits before I'd support you for adminship though - just over 1,000 isn't enough, in my opinion. Thank you for the courteous response. -- Francs2000 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Personally, I'm more of a disciple. Kind of the Judas-y kind, though.--Bltpdx 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per AnnH. Xoloz 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Way too few edits. BlankVerse 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Ann, Francs. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The answer to the first question below confuses me. The tasks you listed all can be done by regular users and don't require admin capabilities, so I am not sure why the user seems to really want to be an an admin. Could you clarify any? Furthermore, there isn't a lot of project space contributions, nor is there any edits to templates or images. The latter two isn't that big of an issue for me though, as it is only a minor concern. However, the edit summary usage is commendable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Reluctantly oppose. I'm sure that he's a nice guy and he's certainly been a good Wikipedian, but even with 1000 edits, I'm not sure that he's got the experience he needs. From a random sample of around 20 edits dating back from the last 150 or so, almost all of them have been spelling corrections, wikilinking and such, whether they have been marked minor or not. His answer to the first question also causes me some concern that he doesn't really understand what adminship is about. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per edits raised by AnnH. Also seems to be lacking sufficient experience. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Seriously? Those were four edits - some of which were to my own Talk page - that were humorous and non-threatening and they took place nearly a year ago. Have you never exhibited a sense of humor when writing an edit summary? --AStanhope 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, seriously. [5] and [6] are not to your own Talk page. Yes, i've made humourous "edit summaries" but these weren't edit summaries. They don't show off the kind of attitude which should be exhibited by an admin. You also showed little respect [7] for your peers, in commenting on what you wrote. Given time, maybe you'll make a good administrator. But with edits like those, and others, along with a relatively low edit count, I think you're lacking in both experience and an "administrator attitude". Also, I'm not sure why you need administrator priviledges to do what you want to do. Per your answer to question 1, you don't need extra tools to copyedit or write requested articles, and I would encourage you to do so, regardless of this RfA. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Your honest response is appreciated. I think that your reaction to these 4 edits from so long ago is disproportionate. Of the ones you cited specifically, I think missed the humor inherent in them. The "target" of them did not miss the humor and I think if you asked him he would tell you the same. "String the son of a bitch up" was a comment on the lynch-mob atmosphere present in writing that particular user up - someone I opposed, btw. Finally, I stand by telling somebody - politely, mind you - to mind their own business. I can't imagine anyone being seriously held to a standard where responding curtly to criticism isn't allowed. --AStanhope 21:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Not enough experience. Just like me. Pschemp | Talk 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Not sure yet. --King of All the Franks 02:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Given the contributions you want to make per your answer to question 1, I don't really get that you understand what adminship involves. It's not a status symbol or anything like that and you are certainly welcome to continue working on all those things. If you are interested in another try in a few months, get involved in the Wikipedia: namespace and you'll have more success here. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I think he's a great guy, and I wub him, but I'm not sure about a) whether he needs to be an admin to do what he wants to do, or b) there's enough policy experience. Proto t c 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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 have a professional background in copyediting and it is something that I enjoy doing. I generally nominally copyedit any article I read here. I will continue to seek them out for improvements. Wikifying articles is simple, non-taxing fun that I have engaged in several times while watching television or a movie with my family in the evening. I have enjoyed writing a handful of articles from Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. Perhaps I can do some more of that? --AStanhope 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have contributed to a number of articles related to Thailand and Thai people for which I think I was uniquely qualified. I was particularly pleased with my contributions to and the growth of articles about the Winter Hill Gang in Boston and related articles. Not long after I started work on those articles it was announced that a major motion picture was being made and filmed in Boston on the subject. That news appears to have created a great deal of interest in associated information, including the articles here on Wikipedia. --AStanhope 00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
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 had an unfortunate experience with Admin Lucky 6.9 over the handling of a new article stub I had created which was deleted less than one minute after its creation in the course of Lucky’s work on “New Page Patrol.” This was the one time that I had “lost my cool” on Wikipedia and I got angry and upset. Without ‘’attacking’’ Lucky, I indicated on his Talk page that if he were to callously delete another of my stubs in the same fashion then I would investigate the procedure for suggesting that his Admin privs be revoked. Stating this was out of proportion to his alleged transgression of deleting my new article and this upset him deeply. For a moment I didn’t care that he was upset, however after a few minutes I felt poorly about my behavior. I was able to sympathize with him vis-à-vis his task at hand and its importance to the Wikipedia. We made contact via email and patched things up and I would consider him a Wikipedia ‘’friend’’ as a result and hope to see him casting a vote in support of me here.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.