Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dell970

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] Dell970

(talk page) (0/10/2); Scheduled to end 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) - closed per WP:SNOW Enigma message 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dell970 (talk · contribs) - Hello, my name is Dell970, and I would like to nominate myself for adminship on Wikipedia.

Lets start with some history of myself.

I currently live in Canada. I enjoy Wiki, History, Music, gaming, books, reading, programming, marketing, sales, etc

Why I believe I should be a admin.

I am very active on Wikipedia, through editing and reading articles. I am a nice person and very dedicated to Wikipedia. I am part of the Anti Vandalism squad on Wikipedia, and I clean up articles and save them when people edit them wrongly, mess them up, etc. I believe seeing as I'm a CEO in Real Life, that I could be trusted more to do my job on Wikipedia. I also feel I am qualified to become a admin on Wikipedia as I have a clean slate on Wikipedia, and have never been banned except for one time about a misunderstanding that was dealt with. I edit articles a lot and have created many. I am currently working on Wikipedia Dale Brown section and his books as he is a great author and should be portrayed greatly on Wikipedia. I'm part of the Wikipedia Military Community and I am serving in the Canadian Forces in Real Life, and I enjoy reading and fixing articles on Canadian/US military and international. I speak French and English, English being my main. I mostly deal with articles about wars, Military, Gaming, Computers and Books with some history. I hope with this said, I will get supported on my quest to adminship and any questions, I will FULLY Answer.

Dell970 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I wish to work on the History section as I am a huge history buff and I enjoy history from the timeline of 1200BC to current. I know a lot about history and Once I read it, I don't forget it as I have a photogaphic memory. I also enjoy reading books and plan on working on certain books, up-coming books, and the Dale Brown Series. Seeing as I'm in the Canadian Forces, I will also work greatly on Military Pages like I have done in the past.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that the Dale Brown Series have been my best contributions to Wikipedia as he is a amazing author and needs more light on Wikipedia. The way he writes, draws you in and his style of writing and the history behind each book is breath taking.
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: Nope, I have a way with users on Wikipedia and haven't had a problem yet. :)
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 4. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 4a. ...an editor to be blocked?
  • A: I believe an editor should be blocked if he doesn’t follow the rules. If he constantly disobey warnings, rules, and commits vandalism , makes edits that are useless or subject to disagreement and facts that can not be backed up with references, he or she should be blocked.
  • A: Main reason for a page to be protected, is too keep it from being abused. Look at my user page, its semi protected, as I was getting edited by IP addresses and deleting my page, etc. Should a article on a situation like “Hitler” “President Bush” become a problem with vulgar edits, miss leading information, these articles should be protected to prevent abuse!
  • A: First I Don’t believe a Page should be deleted at all, unless its un relevant, advertising, about a clan, or has no clue about anything etc. Most pages can be edited to the standards and fixed, BUT If they are advertising, making pages about un relevant topics or touchy subjects, They don’t deserve a home on Wikipedia. First BEFORE I speedy delete, I would contact them via the talk page, explain the problem and then speedy delete.
  • A: Hmm, Consensus: "a broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group", I think you would decide by searching through it and the main topic and check the situation out with relevant references. I don’t believe a poll on a talk page would work through. You would need to back the consensus up with outside information. Just because it’s a Consensus, doesn’t mean its always correct, I have seen many people agree on something just because it was widely accepted, but no way to prove it.
  • 6. : User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: If two users are arguing/fighting over a page. I would stop it. First I would contact them both via their talk pages. I would then proceed to read both of their edits and research it via books, Google. If both of them are correct, I would merge them. If one user couldn’t back up his edit with VAILD references, Then it can not be used.

Optional questions from RyRy5

7. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A:
8. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A:

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/dell970 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Recommend withdrawal or a WP:SNOW closure here, I would do so myself but I am a participant in this RfA. Tiptoety talk 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that. This isn't likely to go in a positive direction. --Bfigura (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggested this be withdrawn (see below), and would have supported this being closed, but the candidate seems intent that this not be withdrawn/closed. (See User_talk:Dell970#My admin request.) Perhaps this may be treated as a learning experience in the School of Hard Knocks? - jc37 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I also suggest a withrawal. I don't think this user really understands admin work/tools per Q1. Also, this user has about 1000 edits. More experience is probably needed at this point. Most likely, this RFA would result in a WP:SNOW.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The editor should also be made aware that this edit is likely to prevent them ever receiving the mop under their current account George The Dragon (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is, if the editor shows a vast growth of experience and never vandalizes again, then the user will have a better chance. I think we should save the diff.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A withdrawal would be fine, but we don't have to wait for that. How many RFAs of this kind have been closed long before this point ? It sounds like the "CEO" stuff is given some credit after all, putting aside the racial vandalism. It's terrific, Cenarium (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment added after closing Just want to say that the opposes based on "racist slurs" should have looked at the user's talk page for that day. The account was apparently hijacked when Dell forgot to log off a public computer. Seeing as how there is absolutely no trace of similar behavior before, or since, this seems quite credible. Luna Santin accepted it and unblocked, and nothing similar has happened since. This user would have had an uphill battle to pass, but snow closing based on allegations of racism, and then archiving before they have a chance to respond, doesn't seem fair at all. --barneca (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, leaving an account logged in in a public place has made a hefty dent in an RfA or two in its time, and has certainly led to a few emergency desysoppings. Good catch, though, Barneca. Darkspots (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think you have enough experience per the amount of time you have had an account. Maybe next time, given more experience. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Less than 1000 edits, sporadic editing activity and edit summary usage, and not enough experience in admin related areas such as UAA, Afd, AIV. Improve on those areas along with some consistant activity, and 6 months (and 3-5k edits) from now your next Rfa should pass. ArcAngel (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I appreciate your want to serve and improve the project, but this RfA is simply too soon. Tiptoety talk 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose For a lack of experience and policy knowledge. Also, while I do believe in reforming vandals, I haven't seen enough edits since these rather offensive diffs: [1] [2] [3] to indicate true reform. --Bfigura (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Update after close in light of Barneca's comments. --Bfigura (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strongest possible oppose post-close downgrading after Barneca comment The candidate didn't understand that Wikipedia is a community where users are judged on their contributions and that we respectfully don't care about real life. Right now, it's premature, the user is unaware of our main policies and guidelines. There's a general lack of experience, maybe, in some months or years, it'll have a chance. And the diffs above just make me go away. a plausible explanation has been given, assuming good faith -- Cenarium (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Frankly, I'm not sure you know exactly what adminship entails. It's not necessarily being a CEO and having leadership. It's using tools like page protection, deletion, and blocking. If I were you, I would go through Admin Coaching. They will take a look at how you have been editing and how you can improve. You seem like you can be a great admin one day and you are obviously eager to get the mop, but you just don't have the experience necessary. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    My bad. This is the right link to Admin Coaching. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would advise to calm down his power hunger, and admin coaching is the worst way for that. WP:AAU for a start if he really needs it. This really should be closed. Cenarium (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strong Opppose A CEO who leaves his computer logged in so someone can use their account to add racial slurs into articles? Terrible judgement George The Dragon (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Looks like SNOW in the forecast. George's evidence says it all. --Bedford 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Very Strong Oppose per above>Struck after closing per barneca. Adminship is not about CEO skills. It is essentially more like being a sysop. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with less than/about 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with less than/about 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
    • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
    • WP:Admin
    • the admin reading list.
    • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    • Article building is viewed by many as essential to adminship. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to fulfill this. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be acceptable.
    • My suggestion to any nominees with less than/about 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment after closing stiking per Barneca below.#::On reflecting on the incredibly offensive, wholly inappropriate, racial slurring vandalism, switch to a very strong oppose and would not recommend another RfA for at least 6,000 edits and 6 months of exemplary behavior. Dlohcierekim 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I appreciate your enthusiasm and potential, but I believe that a few more months of experience and knowledge will be great for you. Edit on.  Marlith (Talk)  03:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - I think the candidate doesn't understand what admins are/do. This sentence: "I believe seeing as I'm a CEO in Real Life, that I am qualified to become a admin on Wikipedia." in particular. I would respectfully suggest that the editor withdraw their nomination. - jc37 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    See User_talk:Dell970#My admin request, for further discussion. - jc37 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    User_talk:Darkspots#1,000 edits are not likely to succeed is enlighting also. ArcAngel (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I am a little discouraged in this user's answers, more specificly, question #1 as it shows no admin work really and just normal contributions as in the candidates statement. Will reconsider !voting when further questions are clarified/answered. Cheers.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (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.