Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bloodpack

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.

Contents

[edit] Bloodpack

Voice your opinion (2/19/8) 1 May 2007; Scheduled to end 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloodpack (talk · contribs) - hello. my username is bloodpack and im from the small asian country of the philippines. ive been a wikipedian since january 20, 2006. eversince, ive been providing wikipedia with small edits which were common spelling mistakes and other minor punctuation edits. i find wikipedia so interesting and exciting as compared to the other online communities ive taken part, for a fact that you get to share valuable knowledge/information for the benefit of everyone. i felt my efforts are not enough to fully serve the cause of this community so now ive decided to take part in this rfa in hopes to contribute/help more by being one of its administrators in the english wikipedia †Bloodpack† 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:im highly involved in the WP:COMIC project, but i also browse the recent changes and scroll the newbie contributions. if given a chance, ill be focusing on new pages, check for unnotable articles and remove them. i would also like to do vandal clean-ups, but i will still keep my involvement in the wiki comicproject
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:as mentioned above, im focused on the wikipedia comic project. ive created articles related to the given subject. most of them are unknown comicbook artists from my own country who made significant contribution to the industry and deserve articles and yet none that ive found when i came here
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, ive been involved in edit conflicts. i wouldnt say "war" because as much as possible i try not to be emotionally involved or get highly agitated to someone i dont personally know. its either i asked for someone else's opinion to resolve the matter, or i add edit summaries to explain my point or if all else fail, i tend to lie low

Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite

4. You say you are interested at looking at new articles for notability. Could you please state what you would do with this article (and why) if you came accross it in the mainspace?
A:when i browse the recent changes section, i go directly to the newbie contributions and make immediate scans on the created pages. afterwhich, i open up the article and read it. most of the time its obvious to detect articles created that lacks notability/importance. once i determine these, i apply the appropriate warning template, watch that particular article and when i noticed that the creator revived that article, then thats the time i notify the user about his/her article
hmmm, that's not what I asked, re-read the question and try again :-). Ryan Postlethwaite 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A (2):i feel the creator of the article needs to review the regulations about WP:NOT particularly about soapboxes and social networking sites. the said article isnt notable enough to deserve its own content

Optional question from Lankybugger

5. What is your opinion on WP:Ignore All Rules and how do you feel this policy should be applied?
A:regarding this policy, i feel its the simplest and most modest way to remind wikipedian contributors that they shouldnt be afraid to voice out how they feel or when they contribute to an article. most of the time, seeing all too many rules intimidate them to contribute valuable information. but in every rule lies responsibility and responsiblity shouldnt be abused not only by regular users but to higher authorities as well. so i say, although its literal to interpretet this rule, "responsibility" to apply this rule to your own plays an important role

Optional question from Lankybugger

6. If you found an article or sentence on a living person which was not cited with sources and contained negative information, what would you do?
A:i would inform the creator of the article about WP:AUTO and WP:CITET policy, tag an appropriate template on the subject article and raise any related concerns in its respective talkpage or the user's talkpage. i can also do my own research about the subject article to verify his statements or ask for someone knowledgeable on the subject. so basically its a joint effort to enhance an article

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, and if so, how would you apply this guideline when dealing with newcomers or vandals?--U.S.A. cubed 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bloodpack before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

First, I really appreciate your participation on my "suicidal" RfA application. Secondly, what concerns me is there are those who gave emphasis to comment on my manner of writing and my grammar. I may not be that "good" but I DO know how to write proper English, it's just that I am more bent on answering those questions rather than meticulously stylize my writing. Besides, I don't feel (since Wikipedia is global) judging a person by how he speaks or write should be the basis for adminship when it should be his character and his knowledge about the position his/her applying. That being said, I feel honored to take part on this and I sincerely thank everyone who joined and took time to participate on this RfA. †Bloodpack† 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

Support - Seems OK. Could have better contributions in projectspace, admittedly, but with the present backlogs we can't afford to be picky about admins. Besides, adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Switched to Neutral. Walton Need some help? 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support - keep contributing, keep learning, try again in six months. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I like the work you've done at WP:RFP. Make some reports to WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and perhaps WP:RM, WP:MFD, or WP:TFD. You appear to be a dedicated contributor, you just need more experience in admin-related fields. Essentially, admins delete, protect and block—gain experience in those areas. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Sorry, I just get the impression from your answer to question 4 you aren't aware of the notability criteria. It gave you a great opportunity to say you would tag it for speedy deletion, or delete it outright if you were an admin because it fails WP:WEB, I can't trust someone with the tools that doesn't know what can and can't be included, or the correct process for deletion. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    normaly when i tag an article with {{db-sample warning}}, its definitely bound for deletion thats why i make it to a point to inform them about "notability" after tagging so itll help them the next time they create an article †Bloodpack† 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Please consider comming back in a month or so. Get some more experience under your belt. Increasing your number of edits to Wikipedia space, your use of edit summaries, and contributing to a couple of Good Articles (or even better, a featured article) would greatly help your chances. -- Pastor David † (Review) 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Adminship is not a big deal, true, but the answer to Question 6 implies a lack of understanding of WP:BLP policy, which is fairly important when dealing with negative information about living biography subjects. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    the reason i have greater stats on user talkpages because i discuss first certain issues with my co-wikipedians before i make any drastic actions. libelous, controversial articles, i believe, needs to have proper citations and these matter have to be explained to them. removing controversial statements just almost immediately without informing them first about how autobiographies should be written only tends for them to reverse the edit and it may probably cause edit warring †Bloodpack† 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    WP:BLP is a very important policy, created specifically for controversial information within a biographical article. If you're not going to follow policy out of a personal disagreement with it due to the fact it can cause confrontations, I can't support you as an admin. Sorry. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    pls. dont get me wrong. im very much into wikipedia policy. speaking of which, this particular question already happened to me once before [1]
  4. Oppose - I haven't seen a demonstration of need for the tools. Although I wish you all the best, and thank you for your contributions to the project, I'd ideally like to see you spend a bit longer getting to know the community standards (and by that, I don't just mean the ability to cite policy, but the more complex understanding of it - particularly as regarding WP:IAR). I hope you'll continue your work here, and make another run at this in a few months. Philippe 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose You need more experience. Also, some of your ideas that you have about Wikipedia seem odd due to your answers to questions 4 and 5. Wait a while before trying again, and you will have a better chance of success. Captain panda 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose User needs more experience, true, and the living people issue is big as well, but one other issue I'm hung up on is grammar. The user apparently does not know what capitalization is, and (I'm not attacking) I find that a big thing. I think it looks bad when someone, especially an admin has spelling or grammar issues. Jmlk17 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sincere apologies for my English grammar because English is only my second language †Bloodpack† 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. The candidate apparently does not appreciate the value of majuscules. While I fully appreciate the value in combating patriarchy like this, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Stick to USENET. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Reread the policies and guidelines and try again some other time--$UIT 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes I did and it states: "Please keep criticism constructive and polite..." =) †Bloodpack† 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    What was impolite about SUIT's statement? He said 'try again some other time' - that's encouraging, no? – Rianaऋ 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: To me it looks like the user has a lack of knowledge of the policies, also the user has low edit summary usage, and low Wikipedia namespace edits. Also, as said by Kelly Martin, the user does not use capital letters which would be nicer to have.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose: Answers to 4 and particulary 5 indicates distinct lack of understanding of policies. Particularly important if going to delete pages as they are created.--Dacium 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Q4. ~ G1ggy! ...chatterbox... 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Sorry, I can't support right now. Keep trying, familiarize yourself with the policies, and, personally, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:IAR. Try again in a few months. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose The answer to the BLP question is a bit worrying, and I'm not convinced by the understanding of IAR, either. Your heart seems to be in the right place, though, so keep contributing and hanging around the place and you'll probably be good to go sooner or later. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Bone up on policy requirements, get a little more experience under your belt, participate a bit more in talk and project space, and come back soon. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose due to concerns over Bloodpack's understanding of important policies and guidelines which admins use and apply very frequently. I suggest continuing in working and learning these before applying again. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Per 4-6 answers. Real96 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Please return with a better grasp of policy. JodyB 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose- as per Kelly Martin(wow, I never thought this would ever happen)..;-)..--Cometstyles 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Your a great editor but your very low edit summary usage is very low, and although its not the end of the world its still important for all users, on another note you say you make minor fixes and spelling etc to articles, well you have forgot to capitalise many areas of you RfA, anway thats irrelevant but I'll have to remain neutral for the minute.Tellyaddict 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. ?\Neutral No edit summaries at all??? Other things which are not looking so great are not enough contributions to Wikipedia pages and a lot of user page edits which make up over 1/10 of contributions but i am not tryig to pick things out, hopefully. Otherwise it is good you have been here a year and 1/3 and also shows that you have some good interactions. Keep trying. Simply south 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Could there be a problem with the edit summary tool, looking at the graphs of edits using wannabe kate's tool [2] seems to contradict the results. Adambro 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Something's not quite right.... The Rambling Man 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Their is something wrong with them, they keep displaying 0 and total wrong results.Tellyaddict 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for me, more experience of the policies here would be helpful, more interactions in the Wikispace. Also, not a great need for the tools, especially since your involvement at XFD seems limited and one thing you'd like to do is remove unnotable articles. Improve in these areas and try again, good luck! The Rambling Man 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral until further notice. I have to say that Bloodpack has a large number of edits behind him/her (1759, according to Kate's Wannabe tool) but some questions have not been answered with enough depth Booksworm Talk to me! 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral you seem dedicated, but you need more experience with the customs of the community, and get the your edit summary usage up.-- danntm T C 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - as Ryan Postlethwaite said, the answer to Q6 was unsatisfactory. It's essential that WP:BLP be followed in removing potentially damaging and libellous material - just warning the user isn't good enough. Walton Need some help? 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral due to grammar issues. Administrators need to be good communicators, in my opinion. – Rianaऋ 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Recommend withdrawal, as this will eventually be closed per WP:SNOW. Gather more experience and maybe try again later. —AldeBaer 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    It sort of erk's me to see WP:SNOW used in this way... The RFA process is in progress, SNOW is meant to be done BEFORE a process, to avoid a process that is obviously going to fail, not to avoid finishing off a process that is failing.--Dacium 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Noted there. Still, this is going nowhere. —AldeBaer 05:08, 2 May 2007 (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.