Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 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] Computerjoe

Final: (22/15/15) ended 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe (talk · contribs) – I joined the Wikipedia in December 2004, and have been active since December 2005. I have over 2500 edits in various name spaces. I don't believe I've ever been incivil towards any editor, and I have created ways to discourage incivility. Computerjoe 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Self nomination. Accept. Computerjoe 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, it probably has been too soon since the last nom, but, he's done good anti-vandal work, increased his contribs to all namespaces, increased edit summary %, and I think he'd do well with the mop. -- Samir ∙ T C 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, I would prefer to see more discussion on Wikipedia projects as an indication of developing an understanding of Wikipedia policies, however I note user interaction on AfD and user talk pages--A Y Arktos 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support too close to last nom for me to be completely comfortable, but looks like he could use the admin tools. Prodego talk
  4. Support. I'm guessing this RfA won't go through due to the explanations in the opposes, but I think a strong vandal fighter like this needs the right tools to better do the job and get those vandalism changes that too-often slip through the cracks (even when RexNL is on overdrive!). JHMM13 (T | C) 07:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per Samir. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Likely to use them well. Haukur 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak-ish support - You would probably use adminship well, but I am wary of the fact that you've had 2 self-nom RfAs in the space of just over a month. haz (user talk)e 18:44, 10 March 2006
  8. Support per Haukur. - Wezzo 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - He's been on the wiki since late '04 and has over 2500 edits. He's unlikely to abuse. --BWD (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. support. --Irpen 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Probably won't make a difference, but Support.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Looks good to me. — TheKMantalk 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support I think he has the skills to become an admin. Whopper 17:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support he is ready for the job.  Grue  20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak support. Meets my baseline criteria for support, and adminship is no big deal. That said, would have been a stronger application if it weren't the second self-nom in as many months. --Alan Au 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Mostly Rainy 08:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support admin is no big deal and his edits tell me he won;t abuse the powers, so he gets my support.Gator (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support will use the mop well. --Alf melmac 18:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support-- Because admin should be no big deal. Plus I like Gator's response ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per nom. Bucky Covington 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong support. The objections in his last nom were having only 2 months experience and low edit summary count. The editors there advised him to try again in a month. Now, he has over 3 months of experience, tons more experience vandal-whacking, and 98% edit summary usage. Adminship should be no big deal, right? --24.46.201.42 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Uh, oops. --Rory096 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. This will likely not be enough, but even though it is soon since the first nom pulled, I see nothing wrong here.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose still too soon after last self-nom in which he withdrew from. Will support in a few months --Jaranda wat's sup 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose great editor but I want more experience from an administrator. Will have my vote in a few months.--Looper5920 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, still far too soon. NSLE (T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-03-010)
  4. Oppose as above, this is too quickly on the heels of the previous RfA. Xoloz 05:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too close to last RfA. GizzaChat © 06:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose. On the borderline of standards, but I tend to require a higher standard from self-noms. Stifle 09:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: too close to last RfA. My advice: just work on building the encyclopedia for now. In time, someone will nominate you. Jonathunder 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I want to see more Talk namespace edits. Admins should be able to deal with other users. AucamanTalk 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    Despite the fact I only have 56 edits in the talk namespace, I communicate with other editrs in the Wikipedia namespace (631), Wikipedia talk (28) and User talk (575). Computerjoe 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Jaranda and Looper5920. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - agree with Aucaman and Jonathunder. Be patient :-) |→ Spaully°τ 12:41, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Oppose Per above. Moe ε 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. User:Go for it!/Vote Oppose put some decent time in at Wikipedia:Tip of the day, and I'll nominate you myself. --Go for it! 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just for clarification, is this your reason for voting oppose, or is it just an advertisement for the project? JHMM13 (T | C) 07:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    This is an extraordinary vote. That's a page that has been dead for ages and is not live again until next month. Not having worked on it is hardly a cause for opposing adminship! Unless it is an advert for your project, or there's some confusion over whether adminship is a lollipop to be given out for pleasing another user on one particular page or not. -Splashtalk 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Too soon since last RfA, which was not mentioned in the nomination as it probably should have been Cynical 11:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    You can see a few moments after this nomination, I added this as a comment. Computerjoe's talk 16:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes but you should have mentioned it in the actual nomination, not as an afterthought. Even discounting that, I still feel it is too soon since your previous RFA Cynical 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    I respect that you may find it too early since my last RfA; but I can assure you it was not an afterthought. I made the comment within 10 minutes, and the majority of that 10 minutes had been spent filling in questions etc. Nevermind. Computerjoe's talk 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose because not ready yet. Thumbelina 18:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Not quite qualified enough. JaredW! 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'd like to see more experience. --TantalumTelluride 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. User seems pleasant enough to interact with and is co-operative, but a rapid self-renomination hints at a lack of familiarity with the way things work. Then again, I've no reason to think this editor can't improve upon his oppose votes, and would consider supporting on a future nomination. Rob Church (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral More experience will be better.--Jusjih 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, maybe later. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, Need more experience and main space edits. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, Time is fine, but more experience would be nice. pschemp | talk 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, maybe next time. --Terence Ong 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, still relatively new, but promising. At this rate, a shoo-in in two more months. ProhibitOnions 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. Just a little too soon. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. A little too soon after first RfA. JIP | Talk 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral: issues with experience.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral: I opposed last time around. I don't doubt the basic sincerity, certainly one of the "good guys" (IMO), but believe a little more experience is in order. Will almost certainly be supporting next time around. --pgk(talk) 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral Computerjoe, keep up the good work, diversify and you'll have my strong support in a few months.--MONGO 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Neutral --Ugur Basak 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 98% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Computerjoe's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • View my previous RfA here. Computerjoe 21:36, 9 March 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 intend to deal with WP:VIP, WP:AIV, speedy deletions - as well as continuing stub sorting, RC patrolling and cleaning up articles. I also am in the vandalism IRC channel, and I'll try to ensure the speedy blocking of vandals who require it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm happy with Wikipedia:Community Justice, the Wikipedian organisation I run. We've created civility warnings and special messages for talk pages. I am also happy with the article I created, Marske-by-the-Sea, when it was started, it was very small. It has since expanded quite greatly to cover much more. I still frequently edit it.
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've got into a few disputes over reverts I've made in error or which other users disagree with. In these situations, I either accept I'm wrong or comprimise. From time to time, some of these users are incivil, but I am always civil back - and I often receive messages thanking me for my civility.

Feel free to add your own.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  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?
    Obviously I would block the sockpuppet account and then I would ask the editor for his/her reasoning of creating the sockpuppet. If the editor didn't quite realise what he/she was doing I'd assume good faith; otherwise I'd create a RfC
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    I'd send it to deletion review and contacting the deleting admin to notify him/her of the deletion review.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    I would give the appropriate warnings, but wouldn't block them as a conflict of interest. I'd probably send it to AIV for another admin to review.
  4. 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?
    I'd respect the other admin's decision, but notify that admin of the scenario. I would then try to have a conversation between all four of us; and then make a comment to RFAR.


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.