Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Booksworm

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] Booksworm

Final (25/18/6); Ended 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Booksworm (talk · contribs) - I have been here for a little over 1 year and a quarter (more exactly 472 days) and I understand how this encyclopaedia (encyclopedia, for those who speak American-English) works and I would like to use the tools given to me as an admin for good purposes... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (is a self-nom, after all) Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The candidate has withdrawn: [1]

[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: I wish to begin to work in places such as AIV (thereby meaning, taking action against Vandals, instead of just reporting them), to continue my fight against vandalism (using VandalProof, for example) and to help getting rid of pages that are of no consequence and/or benefit to Wikipedia
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This question is quite tought to answer. I feel that my best contributions to this amazing on-line encyclopaedia are essentially my edits/reverts of vandalism using the trusted VandalProof. Why? I feel that Wikipedia has to be protected from stupidities that people deem as "fun" to add to Wikipedia - because Vandalising Wikipedia is "so cool" (Why it is "So Cool" is far beyond my understanding of reality!)
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: There was a conflict between the user Arcayne and I, against the user Viriditas, after I had place one line on the article Children of Men, this line being: "The screen fades and the text "Children of Men" appears on the screen and the sound of laughing children can be heard.". Following this incident, Viriditas and Arcayne chose to have a little so-called "Comment War" on my talk page (apparently Arcayne had banned Viriditas from adding messages to his [Arcyne's] talk page, or something like that, it wasn't clearly explained). They continued to fight and for some reason as yet unknown, Viriditas accused me of being Arcayne's Meat-Puppet (which I found surprising as Arcayne, after checking his edits, has been a user for far shorther a time than I have). I then left messages that I deemed to be as polite as possible on Viriditas's page - I never received a reply, and to this day, Viriditas continued to uphold his views that I am a Meat-Puppet of Arcayne. What did I do with the stress? Well, I stopped using Wikipedia for a few days to calm down and I avoided my computer for that time too. If ever such a problem happens again, I will try my best to resolve the issue in question as fast as possible through calm negotiation.
Optional question from falsedef
4. What changes, if any, would you make to the following statement about The Beatles to be consistent with Wikipedia core content policy:
The Beatles are considered one of the best bands of the 20th century. [2]
A: I would remove the sentence as it does not uphold an NPOV. Also, the source does not specifically state that The Beatles are the best - on the contrary, it simply puts some of their albums near to the top - therefore the assumption that they "are the best" cannot be made based on how good their albums are. You could, however, count the number of albums on that chart and then say something of the sort: There are been x albums by The Beatles that are in the Rolling Stones Magazine Top 500 albums of All Time.
Question from Oleg Alexandrov
5. Your edit summary usage is kind of low. Would you consider improving it, and/or changing your preferences to be reminded to use edit summaries?
A: I find this question quite amusing, because I just recently - after going over the RfA page - noted that there was a way to remind me to add an edit summary. Now, I have done so and it is quite practical. Therefore I think my Edit Summary usage will go up.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • It's interesting to note that in days gone by (i.e. mid-late 2005, 2006), people didn't oppose for canvassing. It just goes to show that the opposers here haven't looked at the user's abilities as an admin. I look a lot at RfA history, and I've seen links in signatures, banners on talk pages, even spamming users with {{PAGENAME}}. Really, what is the big deal? He just wants to help out - you're all stopping him because he's asking people to support him helping out. Sigh. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider it to be unfair on those who do not canvass, personally I would not oppose or even go neutral because of a talk page/userpage banner, but when it gets to linking on other people's talkpages and using it in your signature I usually go neutral or oppose depending on severity. GDonato (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfair?! It's their own choice they choose not to... ah well, another perfectly good candidate here, ruined by cries of "OMG CANVASSING" and "ZOMG HIS EDIT SUMMARIES ARE BELOW 98%". Nothing to do with adminship whatsoever. This is why RfA is broken. Every one of you opposers should be ashamed. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they don't want to risk it because of strong opposers of canvassing, that is why I find it unfair. Edit summaries are important- no edit summaries could mean forgetting block reasons which can cause obvious problems. GDonato (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Admins have to take risks. This RfA should be no big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
And if people didn't oppose for such absurd reasons, it wouldn't be a risk. - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not absurd reasoning becuase it can skew consensus- it doesn't matter how much you say it is not a vote- in general, the number of supporters v opposers is still the main factor. GDonato (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If there are any substantial reasons to oppose a candidate then canvassing can artificially inflate support that overrules those opposes. In the interest of having clean elections, I'm not at all bothered that canvassing elicits quick opposition. Someone sunk by canvassing can always try again, but a case of a bad admin who succeeds by canvassing would be much more difficult to remedy. ··coelacan 23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Majorly on the "canvassing" issue. I find it hard to believe that users do not contact editors they are close with off wiki to alert them of their RfA. I'd hate to tell this editor that his mistake was asking people to vote in his RfA on wiki in a transparent matter. I'd rather have it this way than the way we default encourage by disallowing canvassing. Opposing for canvassing sort of feels like a "got ya!" oppose criteria. My thoughts of canvassing aside, the issue to me is not the "canvassing". The fact that he did not anticipate the reaction this would cause is unsettling. Anticipating reactions people will have to certain actions is, I believe, part of adminship. daveh4h 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to respond to Majorly's comment above, none of the oppose votes currently mention anything having to do with edit summaries. Like I said below, the RFA would have succeed without canvassing of any sort, so why do it? -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have to strongly agree with Majorly on this issue. At the most it should warrent a neutral, not an oppose. If you oppose by canvassing, how are you going to make sure that another candidate will not canvas by mass emailing or contact his/her supporters on msn/ICQ, etc.? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To me, canvassing shows the editor does not fully understand our policies and guidelines. If it was just a link to the RfA on his userpage/talk page, I wouldn't mind, but specifically going to user's pages and asking them to vote and putting a link in your signature is going too far. Vote stacking and canvassing skews consensus. By doing it in something as simple as an RfA, what's to say he won't do it an an XfD or something? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know what your saying. But what if other admins skewed consensus from off-wiki canvassing, don't you think it's unfair to this editor? From the past, there has been irregular number of users participating in RfA's (one of the evidence that few of the candidates might have been off-wiki advertising RfA), I think there has to be at least some admin's who canvassed and got away with it, how else could you explain if one RfA had 50 users participating while others have 200 users participating. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing shouldn't be ok just because some users get away with it. If I see an editor canvassing I'll oppose their RfA whether they're doing inside the wiki or outside. Just because some editors can get away with it doesn't make it right. Many people get away with murder, but does that mean you can walk down the street and kill a guy? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of canvassing as I believe it does skew the process. The argument for allowing canvassing on RfA is that "people who know the editor best will be most aware of his qualities". While this is of course true, they are also the one most likely to be oblivious to a candidate's faults. I would also note that good RfA candidates should be aware of policies and guidelines and it's not like the canvassing is an obscure guideline that nobody ever heard of. Also, I would like to believe that future admins read carefully about processes that they don't know and in particular, a candidate should have read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship which makes it pretty clear that advertising your RfA is not something you should do. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Casually browsing your contributions reveals nothing concerning - just a long history of mopping up Wikipedia the best you can without admin tools. Candidate seems patient with newcomers and civil to peers. --Spike Wilbury 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Maybe a little more edits could have been made besides counter-vandalism, but knowing that the user will use his/her tools to cleanup more vandalism makes me feel comfortable. Support. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Adminship is no big deal. No problems with this candidate. Walton Need some help? 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Can not see any reason not to. --Mschel 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. This user is very responsible and knows what he is doing. I see no reason not to let him admin rights. Black lupin 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)--
  7. Support No big deal. YechielMan 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks like another good candidate. (aeropagitica) 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support, You have low talk/wikitalk edits and a pretty low edit summary usage. Other than that I see no problems. Might wanna work on somethings other than vandal-fighting. Otherwise you're on the right track :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support in agreement with Walton monarchist89. Acalamari 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Same concern as Malevious. Otherwise no problems --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I think he looks good. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Would like to see a little more consistent summary use but thats no real reason to oppose. GoodnightmushTalk
  13. Support Minor problems but no real reason to oppose. --St.daniel Talk 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support in absence of any reason not to; seems fine. Trebor 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support seems like he would be a great administrator Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support: Seems to have plenty of experience, however, I would like to see a better edit summary usage. May I suggest making them forced in your preferences if you have already not?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Unrelated comment Sorry but I have to thank you for reminding me to do that. I've been meaning to do it an kept forgetting. Anywho thanx:) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support: I have personally commented on featured picture condidates and have seen this user comment on quite a few candidates. Looking at his contributions, I come to the conclusion that he has a wide range of interests in furthering Wikipedia, which is exactly what we're looking for in an admin. Ciao, --Gabycs 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks Great. --TREYWiki 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support-—arf! 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Support can be a great help in AIV. Yeah. —An<font color=#808080>as talk? 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Very experienced and well deserving..----Cometstyles 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. I see no reason to oppose. Let's let him work. JodyB talk 11:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support as a strong candidate for adminship. User shows understanding of policy and a need for the tools. As to opposing for canvassing, I don't see this having any relation to the ability to block, protect, and delete. In other words, this in no way makes me believe this user will abuse the tools. Support. - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support as a good candidate for adminship. Should be of great help to Wikipedia. - P.K.Niyogi 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Changed to support per Majorly's argument. Evilclown93 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - I don't see any reason not to. The canvassing thing simply isn't that big of a deal to me, though I wish the candidate had paid enough attention to RFA in the past to see how negatively it's looked upon. Canvassing is not, in and of itself, big enough to change my !vote though. Philippe 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Booksworm has notes on his userpage and talkpage canvassing people to "vote" for him in this RfA [3] [4]. He has also solicited the "votes" of specific users [5] [6] and has a green link to this page in his signature encouraging people to "Vote! Vote!". WjBscribe 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment:You may note that I did not specifically ask Black lupin to vote for me. I said I would be grateful if he did - I didn't specifically say that it would be necessary for him to vote for me Booksworm Talk to me! 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    OpposePer WP:CANVAS violation. Evilclown93 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to support per Majorly's argument.
  2. Oppose Switching my !vote to oppose. Having low edit summary usage (Even though you're working on it) low talk page edits and not much work outside of vandalfighting. As well as the recent WP:CANVAS violations. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per User:WJBscribe. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This is otherwise a a great nomination, but the WP:CANVAS violation is not acceptable. Gutworth 20:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I have removed these canvassing messages and I am going to leave a message with Arcayne Booksworm Talk to me! 09:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per the canvas issues, I still see you have not removed the vote! vote! link from your userpage which also seems to dsplay a lack of understanding and ability to listen to others requests. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: As you may note, your message was at 20:58 (UTC) which is 22:58 CET at which point I was already asleep - I did note these messages this morning and I removed the "Vote! Vote!" from my signature Booksworm Talk to me! 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, switched from neutral; unhappy with the lack of attention to the issue. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I have undertaken the steps and have stopped the Canvassing that I started Booksworm Talk to me! 09:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Sorry, but someone raised an immediate concern and there was no action. May revert to neutral if action is taken within a reasonable timescale but I have to oppose now. GDonato (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Now neutral
    Comment: I have resolved the "Vote! Vote!" issue and have removed it from my talk page as well Booksworm Talk to me! 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, but I stand by my opposition. I don't think it should have been done for the reason I have since twice stated on this page. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. In March, you threatened to report Viriditas to ARBCOM for talking to Arcayne on your talk page,[7] and then again for removing your comments from Viriditas's talk page.[8] I'm not sure that you understand the steps of dispute resolution here. Or if you do, I'm concerned by this overreaction. Either way, I feel I must oppose. ··coelacan 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I did enlighten you upon that subject in my answers to questions above! May I also point out to you that I was losing my cool as he was frantically trying to name me as being a Meat-Puppet of Arcayne (which I am not!). Also they shouldn't have started having such a dispute on my talk page - at least Arcayne showed some civility towards this issue and he did say that he was sorry Booksworm Talk to me! 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. oppose I dont want to do this but I dont think this user is quite ready for adminship. (I think they are a great vandalism fighter) I am dealing with Fair Use images and as such Booksworm has seen some of my notice's. But the issue is they dont know the difference between Fair use and Free use. which is a big issue Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sorry but I have to oppose due to a minimal understanding of fair use policy, and objections shown by Coelacan. I would forgive the canvassing issues, as it's not very important in regards to admin tools, but the fair use situation leaves a bad taste. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per diffs provided by Coelacan which IMHO show some maturity issues and naiveté to a degree that this candidate should work on before I can approve. —AldeBaer 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per User:WJBscribe's vote above and WP:CANVAS. Extranet is now E talk 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I don't so much mind the act of canvassing as the fact that you should have known that people wouldn't like it. The diffs provided by Coelacan are also rather troubling. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. The canvassing showed a distinct lack of judgement, and I don't trust you with the tools. Daniel 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per the canvassing issue. I realize some people disagree with that as the only reason to vote an oppose, but I think actions should enable a support vote, as well as edits. Jmlk17 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose unfortunately. Adminship is no big deal, but canvassing indicates an obvious lack of prudence. —Anas talk? 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, canvassing issue and the diffs shown by several users. Not too ready for adminship at the moment. Other than that, not much of a problem.` Terence 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Canvassing is bad, no matter what Majorly says. Also, the Wikipedia-space edits are too few for my liking. Captain panda 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Weak oppose - I find the relatively low edit summary usage troubling. The canvassing probably wasn't a good idea either, but that is secondary to me.--Danaman5 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. From oppose- Neutral per canvassing, I would encourage the candidate to try again later without the canvassing, possible they were unaware that this is a problem (based on type engaged in) GDonato (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Has partially resolved the issue and it appears little damage was done. Would have had my support if this hadn't happened though- please reapply later GDonato (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral The canvassing seems like a mistake and somewhat neutral, as it's just asking fo a blanket vote, not a support vote. Badtaste, but I don't think it warrants an oppose. falsedef 18:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. I know that I have opposed in a previous RFA b/c of this issue. However, for example in a previous case, some successful administrators have indeed canvassed for votes. However, IMHO, I don't think that the CANVASSING point should be the only reason to oppose this candidate. Neutral for now. Real96 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I apologize for calling you a meat-puppet, but Arcayne was the only editor who had insisted on that addition to the article, against the consensus of the active editors, and you arrived out of nowhere and reverted to his version, as if he had asked you to tag-team for him. And, just so you understand, Arcayne did not ban me from his talk page, I asked him not to use my talk page for discussing the article on February 8, [9] he refused, and I banned him from my talk page on Februrary 9, 2007, [10] and several times after because he didn't understand that the discussion was taking place on the article, not the user talk page.[11][12] In fact, Arcayne asked me to use his talk page after I asked him not to use mine [13] so your recollection of events is in error. You weren't even involved in this conflict until a month later on March 10.[14] —Viriditas | Talk 13:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per my comments above about canvassing. I suggest withdrawing and restarting the RfA fairly soon though. Pascal.Tesson 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Canvassing and a few other issues. I'd encourage a another one in a while. Dfrg.msc 08:24, 21 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.