Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1

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] Flameviper

Final (0/31/5) Ended Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:26:23 (UTC)

Flameviper (talk · contribs) – A vandal-turned-contributor, Flameviper participates in several areas, including recent changes/new pages and cleanup (more here). He's familiar with Wiki markup and is an eloquent writer. Flameviper is also willing to get his hands dirty and make templates, and work on Wikipedia proposals. One of Flameviper's most notable contributions is Adopt-a-user (and all its related templates). If you're wondering who's writing this, its me (writing in the third person). ~ Flameviper 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. ~ Flameviper 17:00, 6 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will probably delete vanity and nonsense pages, discuss blocks with blockees, and perform speedy deletions (as well as partol WP:AN.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like my cleanups but I really like Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, because it offers help to otherwise clueless users. Also, it guides them to become useful contributors (and not vandals like I used to be).
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: Yes, I have been miffed by non-notability, but not so much stressed. I created the article Blue Hell, and it stood (and grew) for almost 6 months before I was told it was non-notable right after splitting off a sub-page. And I created the article Armads (now a redirect), which Axem thought was a game guide, and then I almost got zinged by 3RR. I deal with edit disputes usually by getting all angry at the other guy and using up both of our 3 reverts, then calming down and having a civilised discussion. Then, if it was a big deal, I'd take it to the ArbCom or Mediation Comittee. But all in all, talking is best.
Optional question from ais523
4. Could you explain what you normally do in Wikipedia-space? On this RfA's talk page, I've posted a sorted list of the pages you have more than 5 edits to, and none of them (except possibly Wikipedia:Vandalism and its talk page) seem to require administrator access. --ais523 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm...eh? Administrators seem to have much more sway in voting and such, if that's what you're asking. ~ Flameviper 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments
  • See Flameviper's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Yeah, most people are opposing me. I just want to say that I've put my logs behind me. My block log is the past; focus not on my previous shortcomings, but on my recent contributions.
  • And also, I only told one (1) person (Netsnipe) about my RfA, and that was because we're best buddies. ~ Flameviper 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And finally: I didn't notice this before now, but almost all my newpage patrolling is tagging new pages with speedy delete/prod. Furthermore, almost all the articles I tag get deleted. Thus, my editcount is way lower than it should be! Keep this in mind when critisizing my editcount!
  • This one is probably the most important one of all... I have accumulated over 600 edits with my two other accounts, Son of a Peach and Flameviper in Exile. Consider this also when criticizing my low editcount.

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose - concerns over the accounts issue, a little too soon after that incident for an RfA -- Tawker 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: Accounts...yeah, the sockpuppet fiasco was dumb. But alas, pray tell me how long it will take for my blocks to heal?
  2. Per recent block log activity, plus notifying others of your RFA is generally a no-go. – Chacor 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Again with the block log...jeebus!
  3. Oppose (edit conflict) per Tawker and Chacor basically. --Alex (Talk) 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply (no edit conflict) per my other replies, basically.
    Also I suggest you remove the fake new messages bar from your user page. --Alex (Talk) 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: Fine, I'll change it.
  4. Oppose Adopt-a-user is an interesting idea, but right now I cannot see why would you need the tools. No recent participation in AfD, no vandal fight. And the edit count is too low.--Húsönd 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: Hmm...this is the first positive thing said by someone other than me this entire RfA!
  5. Oppose. The past history, especially the blocks, are disconcerting to me. I also don't see a whole lot of anti-vandal edits, glancing through the logs, and the reverts that I've found have fairly immature edit summaries, as does a lot of the rest of the contribs. And I would recommend removing that fake new messages bar. Shadow1 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: My new-page patrolling is tagging nonsense with speedy delete, so most of those edits get deleted (and the only ones you see are the ones where my judgement was off).
  6. Oppose; per all the reasons above, also found first few edits were spamming their website own website.--Andeh 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply; at that point I thought Wikipedia was a blog, LOL. WP:BITE, anybody?
  7. Oppose; too soon after blocking & prior blocks require substantial time & effort to heal SkerHawx 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: I see. How long would you reccommend for letting the wounds heal?
  8. Oppose per answer to question 4, low participation to Wikipedia namespace and that fake new messages bar. feydey 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: Tell me you didn't just oppose my adminship because of a joke on my userpage. Please, please, tell me you didn't just do that.
  9. Oppose Your user Talk page and archives do not demonstrate a sensible and level-headed attitude that I would expect from someone in an admin position. (aeropagitica) 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per all above comments. I strongly suggest you withdraw this nomination and concentrate more on improving the quality of your edits. Do not be discouraged by this nomination and show to other users that you can be a valuable contributor to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: How shouldst I deau that, O wise one?
    Flameviper, I strongly recommend that you refrain from replying with snideness. That can be promptly regarded as uncivil behavior. Be nice.--Húsönd 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, user has greatly improved since his earlier days. However, the problem here is low experience in the XfD debates (AfD, CfD, TfD, etc) and a lack of mainspace and project space edits. Manual edit summary percentage is also low (use edit summaries more often to bring that up). Also, for future reference, replying to every single argument in a RfA is not generally seen as a good idea. I recommend withdrawing for now and working on these problems, and trying again later, though with your track record, your next RfA might also be an uphill battle. :/ --Coredesat (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: You rock, you're the only one to actually help!
  12. Oppose Can't support a user that uses multiple accounts and has that annoying "new messages" thing on there. I don't want a reply either. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per all above. Also, please sign your replies. Naconkantari 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Normally I'd avoid piling-on like this, but in this case I think it is necessary to stand firm. There has been no real demonstration of a need for the tools, but more importantly, this nominee has not demonstrated that he can be trusted with the tools. There is no indication of familiarity with policy. The nominee's "previous shortcomings" are recent; too recent, in fact. Some real time and effort has to be made to demonstrate that this nominee knows policy and can be trusted. The (unsigned!) responses to each and every comment (so far) is also somewhat irritating and does not indicate that this nominee will do well under pressure as an admin. Agent 86 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I hate to pile on, but come on... Flameviper, it's impossible to ignore the fact that you were blocked for three months; moreso, let's say I'm able to avoid that, and I want to judge you as an admin candidate. I'm supposed to be able to do that in the two weeks since you were unblocked? That's simply ludicrous. -- Kicking222 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I will certainly consider a re-app in 6 months. I certainly like the idea of a vandal eventually becoming an admin. Themindset 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Prior blocks, need more project contribution, and what was this all about? — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I really appreciate the fact that you are a reformed vandal and was going to vote neutral, but then I saw your swath of combative, unsigned replies on this RFA page and now I am pretty sure you do not yet have the attitude needed in an admin. Unsigned replies are always bad form. Keep working on it. Give it time, both in terms of editing experience and thinking before you edit. Irongargoyle 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose A look at the contribs demonstrates a lack of beneficial mainspace edits compared to the hoard of userspace and Wikipedia edits (in own userspace or in others). Another point of contention is your answer to question #4, which (according to my interpretation) you seem to want admin powers to "have much more sway in voting," rather than in benefiting the encyclopedia as a whole. However, by far the most important rationale of my oppose vote is your replies to the above votes, which show a flair of disdain and condescension on editors voting oppose. Behavior on an RfA speaks loads about behavior as an admin, and showing disdain and condescension here only reflects on your behavior towards others as an admin. --physicq210 02:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Firm oppose Well, pace everyone else, I'm not particularly concerned by the fake new message bar and am disinclined to oppose solely in view of the bar's erstwhile presence (FWIW, I don't think anyone has opposed exclusively or even principally in view of such presence). Nevertheless, I'm altogether certain that I cannot discern whether this user might, in good faith, avolitionally misuse the tools (I think it can be safely said that the candidate would not untowardly and purposely abuse the tools), such that I can't be sure that the net effect on the project of the user's becoming an admin should be positive (my RfA standard). I should say that I agree entirely with Irongargoyle and physicq210 that Flame's replies to objections at this RfA have not been particularly helpful; even as he has made the occasional fine point, he has tended toward the unnecessarily combative and has evidenced many qualities the presence of which in a prospective admin is not at all auspicious. Joe 04:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose due to reasons stated above, attitude during this RfA and weak answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per most concerns raised above. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose due to most of the facts stated above, low edit count, and recent 3 month block. --andrewI20Talk 05:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose "I deal with edit disputes usually by getting all angry at the other guy and using up both of our 3 reverts" - good grief! --Mcginnly | Natter 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose While I hate to oppose any RFA, the expiration of the last block was much too recent. It's going to take a while longer to regain the trust of this community. I'd suggest you wait at least 6 months before trying again. Also, while I'm not against self-noms, a self-nom by a user with an already troubled past on Wikipedia doesn't help your case. Good luck in the future. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - very scary answer to question 3, and answer to optional 4 suggests he wants to be an admin so his opinion gets more weight in 'voting'... bad, bad reason to do this --Mnemeson 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose: I would avoid the pile on, but the answer to Q. 1 brings out a very active and hotly argued philosophical point. Administrators are not a "promotion" above "editor." Administrators should not get more weight in an argument, except that their status merely shows long time participation. Geogre 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong oppose I'm sorry but I am going to "pile on" here since I have very strong doubts about a user who operated multiple abusive sockpuppets, extensively vandalized Wikipedia and trolled multiple admins. As recently as a month ago. Yes the "poacher turned gamekeeper" meme is a good one and I would like to see a reformed vandal become an admin - its a good perspective to have. But I will repeat my comment from Son of a Peach's one of the socks) second RfA on September 6: "long history of disruption and trolling from this editor. One month since last unsuccessful RfA which was strongly opposed. Doesn't use meaningful edit summaries. Very inappropriate candidate for adminship." One month isn't long enough to overcome more than a year's worth of disruptive, abusive editing. I normally expect 3-4 months of good work from new editors with no history of abuse. I don't see any reason to expect anything less from someone with your track record. Gwernol 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - and I'm not going to apologise for piling-on.. Immaturity, horrific misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy ("admins get more weight..." - OUCH!), and flagrant incivility. And that's just in this RFA. And I haven't even got onto the terrifyingly awful answers to the questions. Can a bureaucrat please close this now? Moreschi 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - per poor answers, edit summary usage, recent vandalism, childish jokes and writing style, poor knowledge of Wikipedia, and many many more, I'm not going to even bother to look. Michaelas10 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per recent block logs and poor answers to the questions. Also, the fact that you are acting immature and joking around on your RfA is a grave cause for concern because this would be the place to tone that down. Acting like a child on your request for adminship shows people that you probably act even more incivil and immature (as manifested by your blocks) when not commenting on this page. Sorry to pile on, but you are not ready for adminship. Wikipediarules2221 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral so as not to pile on. Also, you've no idea how annoying that fake new message bar is.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply: I do have an idea, and I'm removing it, per all you old grouches :)
    It's still there and still not funny. You don't appear to be taking this RfA seriously, looking at the above exchanges. (aeropagitica) 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: Yes, I did give you a second chance (that doesn't automatically mean I'm your best buddy on Wikipedia, just less bitter than most other admins! = P) and you've definitely redeemed yourself, but you're still too green to be an WP:ADMIN. 116 edits to the Wikipedia: namespace is way too low. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I have only noticed you once on my watchlist (although that was a good edit), and have not investigated further, hence the neutral vote. However, reading the comments of others (and your replies) I would recommend you withdraw this RFA, participate in some XfD debates, do some vandal cleanup, start/expand some articles, do some work on some backloged tasks that don't require admin tools (e.g. Wikification), etc. This will get you some much needed experience and demonstrate ability and comitment, keep your nose clean and if you are still interested come back and request adminship again. As for how long you should wait, I would recommend a minimum of six months, but with a three month block in your history even that might be too soon for some. Thryduulf 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral to avoid pile on. While I am thrilled you saw the light and have become a constructive contributor, it will take a considerable amount of time before the community can trust you with the times.-- danntm T C 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral enough opposes, no need to discourage the user. It's great that you want to improve, but I think that you need more time. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 09:10, 7 October 2006 (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.