Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cholmes75

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] Cholmes75

Final (33/18/6) ended 23:10, July 8, 2006 (UTC)

Cholmes75 (talk · contribs) – As I'm coming up on the first anniversary of my first Wikipedia edit, now is as good a time as any to throw my hat into the Admin ring. In my time here, I have contributed a great deal to the project as an editor (creating and editing many articles as well as toiling away at the less glamorous but no less important admin-esque tasks), and am ready to contribute constructively as an administrator. While I don't pretend to have an all-encompassing knowledge of Wiki policy, I have a firm enough understanding of policy to further the project in a number of areas (details provided in the questions below) immediately. Finally, I know some within the community view self-noms as rather tacky or as a thinly veiled power grab—nevertheless I hope I will be judged on the merits of my contributions to the project, and my aptitude for adminship. cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I, of course, accept. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Strong support Rama's Arrow 23:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Yes. Iolakana|T 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. SushiGeek 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support great work in deletion and kudos for having the patience to dig through the wasteland that is WP:DEAD. Opabinia regalis 00:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. DarthVader 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Support been here for nearly a year now, looks like they've contributed a lot. Weak support due to the reasons under the oppose votes.--Andeh 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Glad to hear someone wants to deal with backlogs. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Support. I like your answers, but this is a weak support considering CanadianCaesar's comment. Roy A.A. 03:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Unfortunately Weak Oppose per your "warning" to Kappa. Kudos on you extensive contributions and your 2GA achievement. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Support I've been too harsh - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support I see no real reason not to --08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilerage (talk • contribs)
  13. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support passes my criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 13:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - Sounds competent. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. CanadianCaesar's diff would be a deal-breaker if it occurred, say, a couple weeks ago. It was, however, a couple months ago, and the candidate has acknowledged his mistake and learned from it. We can ask for no more, and to oppose for this incident alone, considering that it was an honest mistake and we all are, indeed, human, is a bit on the harsh side. Explaining that the incident was a mistake and learning from it demonstrates maturity and understanding. Giving this user sysop privs would be a net gain for the project, with little risk. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak Support, seems to be a hardworking editor with the right interests for a good admin. Incivility and biting newbees are real problems but the diffs demonstrated so far are not that bad IMHO to completely torpedo the nomination. I rezerve my right to change my vote if something worse will be unearthed. abakharev 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support he has a good record except for the incident below, and I believe he has learned his lesson from it. No one is perfect, but he is learning from his mistakes. He seems to be very experience with everything else and he has good intentions for his administrative time here. --WillMak050389 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak support. Mostly looks fine. CanadianCaesar's diff is definitely concerning, but it wasn't that recent, and you seemed to have learned from that incident. BryanG(talk) 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Seems good to be. One mistake does not earn an oppose vote. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per concerns sufficiently addressed IMV. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per above. NOVO-REI 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Weak support competent editor with lots of experience but the the incivility scares me a bit. But the individual isn't afraid to apologize and admit he made a mistake so I'll support. - Patman2648 08:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support everybody makes mistakes, that is how you learn. There is no good reason why you shouldn't be an admin, so you get my vote! Abcdefghijklm 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - we need more deletionist admins. Proto///type 11:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per is reasons behind requesting admin and WP contributions Alphachimp talk 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Joe I 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support based on what I've seen of him in IFD. howcheng {chat} 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I didn't even know the prod system existed until a friend of mine showed me an article he'd prodded, way after it had been implemented. ugen64 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support The prod complaint is interesting but was months ago and the candidate clearly has a better understanding at this point. The claims of a lack of civility are difficult for me to understand. Of the three diffs presented, one is terse and two are sarcastic but I see nothing uncivil. JoshuaZ 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support I will not oppose an editor who makes one mistake like the one cited by CanadianCaesar. — The King of Kings 01:42 July 09 '06
Oppose
  1. Oppose per [1] We do not need administrators who treat inclusionism as vandalism, reverting deproddings and sending test messages for it, claiming to give "official warnings" to good, outstanding, well-established Wikipedians like Kappa. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - This, unfortunately, was as a result in a lack of understanding regarding the prod process. I have since taken it upon myself to learn the proper procedure involved with prodding/deprodding articles. Mea culpa. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Cholmes75 was out of line here (and apologized for it), but to be fair he was far from the only user who had concerns about Kappa's frequent deproddings. Opabinia regalis 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Could you link the apology? I saw nothing at Kappa's talk page. -lethe talk + 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per CanadianCaesar; incident was only 6/52 ago -- Samir धर्म 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. CC's link shows an overzealousness and a fundamental lack of understanding of the WP:PROD system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Lack of understanding of policy combined with rush to hand out unfounded warnings to established editors is a serious danger sign, particularly from someone who spends so much time involved with the deletion process --JJay 13:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per the above. I note with great sadness that the offended editor stopped contributing regularly after this incident. Now is clearly not the time for the offender, however contrite, to be promoted. Xoloz 13:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - This may in fact be true. But looking at Kappa's talk page, he was receiving a lot of criticism from other users regarding the deprodding thing. And all within a few weeks of his leaving. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per CanadianCaesar. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I hate opposing; I really do. However, I think civility is an essential quality in any admin. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure if Cholmes75 has his skills in that area to an admin-level yet: [2] [3] [4]. If he can improve his people skills for the future though, I would probably support. Again, sorry! -- Where 19:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose It looks like he's a good editor, but these diffs provided have swayed my vote. These incidences of incivility are fairly recent, too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Where, Highway Batman! 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Fad (ix) 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Xoloz and Where have provided easy reasons for me to oppose. - Richardcavell 11:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the contributions cited by CanadianCaeser and Where.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per CanadianCaesar, especially after update provided by Xoloz. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. oppose per CanadianCaesar, we have no need for admins who enforce the own POV.user:bob000555 14:12 3 july 2006
    User's 10th edit. SCHZMO ✍ 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. From my review of the nominee's own talk page, it appears that as recently as May this editor did not seem to understand the AfD process or criteria for speedy deletion. I also don't like the tone of this editor's responses to some of the complaints on his talk page. In most cases, it appears that the attacks on this editor were unfounded, but there was no need for sarcasm (i.e.: here). An admin has to have a complete grasp of deletion policies and an even temperament. Agent 86 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. OpposeThe tone of this warning is enough for me to oppose. Whether you understand the policy or not, treating a long term established user like that is not on. consider this your first official warning on the matter??? No. Rx StrangeLove 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Some diffs above show civility issues. moink 01:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per CanadianCaesar. I'm really concerned about such recent issues with civility as well. --Vengeful Cynic 17:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral - The resume looks good but Caesar's diff shows a willingness to dive into processes before you fully understand them, which I see as a red flag for someone we are considering giving more tools. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Do you care to give some examples? Orane (talk • cont.) 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think ESkog means the diff link above provided by CanadianCaesar. --WinHunter (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: I am lost for words about my support for this user, per the above replies and his deprodding. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Looks like a good editor, but the above prod business is worrying - not because you made a mistake, everyone does. But because of taking action before reading the policy, rather than looking it up if you weren't sure. As an admin, such an action could have much larger ramifications. Once this event is a bit further in the past, and there's no sign of it happening again, I'd support. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian {T C @} 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I really want to support. You hit the nail on the head for question 1 as far as I'm concerned. However, I wouldn't really want an admin to respond to my comment with "OK, whatever". -- Steel 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Seems to be a fairly good editor. Concerned about the prod issue raised by CanadianCaesar. Nephron  T|C 04:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Comment Wow, all those oppose votes for just a minor mistake that the user did two months ago. I am suprised! And I really didn't feel it was that incivil.--Andeh 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • ITIS User Statistics. Icey 23:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User's last 500 edits.Voice-of-All 17:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Cholmes75 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 53 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 04, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 91.99% Minor edits: 99.58%
Average edits per day: 94.98 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 385 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.6% (30)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 3.76% (188)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 36.08% (1804)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 38.93%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3305 | Average edits per page: 1.51 | Edits on top: 31.92%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.3% (2715 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.04% (952 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10% (500 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 16.04% (802 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 49.48% (2474) | Article talk: 2.56% (128)
User: 1.46% (73) | User talk: 23.44% (1172)
Wikipedia: 9.56% (478) | Wikipedia talk: 0.28% (14)
Image: 12.4% (620)
Template: 0.12% (6)
Category: 0.62% (31)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (4)

Username        Cholmes75
Total edits     8747
Distinct pages edited   5473
Average edits/page      1.598
First edit      23:47, 6 July 2005
        
(main)  4836
Talk    263
User    227
User talk       1852
Image   848
Image talk      5
Template        41
Template talk   4
Category        49
Wikipedia       550
Wikipedia talk  71
Portal  1
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: Three words—backlogs, backlogs, backlogs. I have a lot of experience in adding to backlogs (tagging images, adding copyvio tags, prodding articles, tagging articles for speedy deletion, etc.) and look forward to actually reducing them as an admin. I would be particularly active in image backlogs, as I know that improperly tagged/obtained images are a thorn in Wikipedia's side currently. Another big area I wish to contribute in is vandal fighting. I participate in RC patrolling and have reverted vandalism/warned vandals a bunch of times (I will admit that my activity here was greatly helped once I got VandalBot). So I would welcome the opportunity to be able to get involved in WP:AIV from the admin side. I also anticipate helping out with closing xFD discussions and taking the appropriate actions (in accordance with community consensus). I try to be well-rounded as an editor, and I anticipate being well-rounded as an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Most recently, I was able to bring Peace Dollar and Winfield Scott (ship) to WP:GA status. I hope to do the same for other articles, and help get others up to WP:FA status. I am also pleased that I have helped make some serious dents in the backlog at WP:DEAD in the past. That's one of those "backwater" areas that doesn't seem to get its due attention. I have also tagged more unsourced/unlicensed images than I care to count, and I have flagged a number of articles with copyright issues.
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: Unfortunately, yes. Most recently, I was embroiled in a dispute over the Mark Chadbourne article. Here's the story in a nutshell—I came across the article while helping out on WP:DEAD. I did some investigation and discovered what I considered to be a copyright violation. So I tagged and listed the article appropriately, as well as advised the article creator. Another user left a note on the article page stating they were the copyright holder and it was OK to use the text, and removed the copyright tag. Knowing this is not the way the process works, I replaced the tag but left a note on the editor's talk page [5]. Next thing I know, I start receiving attack notes on my talk page. That's nothing new, but this person went one step further and used their own website to attack me personally (that version isn't up anymore). I explained why I did what I did (feeling that my actions had been perfectly justified), but was again attacked. I will admit that I perhaps got a bit snippy, I might add. The end result is that the text was confirmed as permissible, and the article was revived. I was stressed by the fact that I believe I was attacked most unfairly, but also feel that I didn't do anything outside the bounds of policy. The one action I regret from this incident was that in making some snippy comments I allowed myself to be affected personally by the attacks (I am human, after all). I try not to take things like that personally, and expect to not react similarly in the future.
One other incident (in the interest of full disclosure) involved what almost became an edit war involving the KISS discography article (as well as other related KISS articles), in what I felt was inappropriate removal of correct information. I did end up taking this to the article's talk page. Again, my main regret here is that I did allow some emotion to creep in, as reflected in some of the edit summaries on the articles. But were I an admin in this situation, I can say with 100% certainty that I would not have taken any unilateral action without consultation with other admins (to avoid any potential issues of bias).

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
A: The key thing that makes someone a good admin, I think, is a sincere desire to do right by the project. If an admin has that, it doesn't mean they won't ever make mistakes–but it does mean that they are willing to correct those mistakes and to find ways to prevent them from happening again. No editor works in a vacuum, and it shouldn't be that way for an admin. Another one is a willingness take responsibility for your actions. That doesn't just mean owning up to mistakes, but it also means to stand firm by your decisions when what you did was right. And lastly, I think a good admin looks for multiple ways to help out. I've not necessarily seen this myself, but I can envision a scenario where an admin might get into a comfort zone and just work on one area of the project (AfD, AIV, etc.). There's just so much to do here, an admin would be doing a disservice to themself and Wikipedia if they didn't get out and contribute in as many ways as possible.

Optional question from Where

1. After you understandably got confused about prodding and gave the warning to Kappa, Kappa responded on your talk page. However, I could not find your response to his/her response. Did you make such a response? If so, where? If not, why?
A: No, I did not respond to Kappa after he left his comment. And to be perfectly honest, the reason I did not respond was out of some embarrassment. After he left the comment, I re-checked the policies on WP:PROD and discovered that he was indeed correct and I was wrong. Not apologizing for the "warning" I left was a definite lapse in judgment. What I did do afterward, for what it's worth, was to follow the correct deletion procedure, and I subsequently nominated the contested article on AfD.
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.