Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floaterfluss 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Floaterfluss

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/2/0); Scheduled to end 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Floaterfluss (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself because I believe that I can better serve Wikipedia as an administrator. I registered this account on November 4, 2006, and have made 3,217 edits over the course of 14 months, with 2,351 of those in the main article space. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia and have contributed many articles and dedicate a lot of time to fighting vandalism and removing POV text. I have experience in all areas of Wikipedia, and would like to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 19 January 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 intend to speedy-delete obvious vandal/vanity pages that I see on Special:Newpages, protect high-visibility templates, help block sock puppets and long-term vandals (with consensus of course), and help settle disputes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I created the article 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, which was linked to on the main page in the "In the News" section. I have also created over twenty articles, and the following are the ones I am most proud of:

I also made significant contributions to:

I also nominated Image:Kittinger-jump.jpg to be a featured picture. It became Picture of the Day on May 2, 2007.

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: When I was a young noob, I got into a small tussle with a user two days after I registered, on November 6, 2006 (14 months ago), on a Nirvana-related talk page, in which I made a small personal attack, which was quickly reverted. I quickly realized how much of an idiot I was and have since been free of any such behavior, always following Wikipedia guidelines. I now always assume good faith (except in obvious vandal edits) and strive to handle conflicts humanely, without bloodshed, and following policy.

Optional question from User:Tiptoety

4. What is your opinion on Administrators open to recall? Would you add you yourself to the list, why or why not? Tiptoety talk 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A: I think it's a good idea. Administrators could be chosen by consensus in 2003, but consensus in 2003 is not the same as consensus in 2008; obviously if he/she just sits there and does nothing as an admin, they shouldn't have their priveleges. This makes sure that administrators will be forced to have a majority consensus to keep being an admin, which sounds like a great idea in increasing the quality of administrators. I'd probably do that, once every four months or so. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block? Tiptoety talk 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A: To me, they're mostly interchangeable terms, depending on who you are (for example, take the interchangeability of "soda" and "pop"), but Wikipedia uses the term "block" more often (like in the logs), whereas other sites use "ban". There's really no difference, although I'm sure that in certain cases there may be. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC) A ban, as per WP:BAN, is "a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia", while a block, as per WP:BLOCK, is a usually temporary measure where administrators can prevent users or IP addressess from editing Wikipedia. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. What is consensus and how is it formed? Tiptoety talk 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A: Consensus is what the Wikipedia community as a whole thinks or decides based on debate, not votes. This allows for better decision-making and allows people to better see both sides of the issue at hand. For instance, if an article about a trolling group (à la GNAA) is put up for deletion, the trolling group the article is about will likely flood the deletion discussion with dozens of votes to keep the article, spouting "LOL I LIEK IT" and stuff like that. If Wikipedia did not support consensus, then the article would likely be kept because of the overwhelming troll votes for "keep", ignoring the established and non-biased users who voted for its deletion. Consensus helps avoid situations like this, and is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is a great project. (See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy) Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7.What is your interpretation of Ignore all rules? Tiptoety talk 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
A

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Floaterfluss Requests for adminship/Floaterfluss (2) Requests for adminship/Floaterfluss 3

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Recommend withdrawal at this time. Tiptoety talk 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Support, I see no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Not a big fan of self-noms. There are also some questions brought up in your two previous RFAs that are unsettling. --Sharkface217 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Also, judging from the number of RFAs that you have had previously and that all of them have been self-noms, I would say that it appears that you are a bit too eager to get the mop. --Sharkface217 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not being a fan of self-noms is no reason to oppose a nomination simply on those grounds. Also, please note that the two previous RfAs occured when I had a total of 656 edits and 1,632 edits, respectively, both of which were understandably closed per WP:SNOW. However, I am far more experienced now, and am virtually a different person who has learned quite a bit about Wikipedia since then. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Upon review, I realized that my assertions regarding the questions raised in your previous RFAs are false and therefore have struck out the text. You have improved greatly as an editor. However, I still believe that a self nom is a legit reason to oppose, especially with your past history of two previous RFAs. --Sharkface217 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd also like to comment that in the past I have supported many self-noms but as of late I have decided not to support them (for the most part) because I believe that a person should be nom'd for the mop. --Sharkface217 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Your answer to question no. 5 does not demonstrate understanding of policy. As far as I can tell you don't seem to warn vandals after reverting vandalism which concerns me since you plan on blocking them. Are you going to be blocking vandals who have not had any warnings? Also, you don't seem to report any to AIV. I'm also a little concerned that you think your best contribution — 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel — is the creation of a stub which you don't seem to have edited since. You seem to be a good editor and will probably make a good admin one day, but I don't feel that I can trust you 100% with the tools at this time. (Edit): And then there's the fact that you have been lying about your age on your userpage... --BelovedFreak 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Your last sentence has nothing to do with whether or not I can handle the ability to carry out administrator duties. Without trying to sound too defensive, it is my userpage after all, I may do what I please with it. If I add that I'm 17, 21, 13, 706, or 9 months old on my page, what does it matter? It's all in good fun (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X. Secondly, I consider the creation of 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel to be a good contribution because it was the first edit to that page, and an important article. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying I'm proud of it (as the question asked) because it was significant. I never said it was my best edit; check the examples I listed below for those. Thank you, however, for the "good editor" comment and critique. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Best not to badger opposers in your own RfA. John Reaves 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Ok, I presumed it was your "best" contribution as it was the top of your list. Lying on your userpage is not my main reason for opposing but to be honest, it isn't a great indicator of integrity and trustworthiness. My objection is not so much to your age but to the dishonesty. --BelovedFreak 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Answers to questions show a lack of understanding of core policies. Also i do think that this self-nom RfA does feel a bit power hungry as this user has already had two un-successful RfA's before. Think it would be better to get nominated by someone else in the future. Tiptoety talk 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I completely agree with User:Tiptoety. SpencerT♦C 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Moral support - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being bold. To be painfully honest however, I don't think this RfA will pass. I think you should step back and do some more edits perhaps in the Wikipedia namespace. Also I would suggest if this RfA does not pass, that you should wait another 3 months or so and until another user nominates you; this way hopefully people will not believe you are too keen to be an admin, or powerhungry or anything like that. I would also recommend that you do not bold your answers to the RfA questions; this can sometimes make a bad impression when first viewing an RfA. Anyway, the best of luck and take the concerns of any opposers on board. Keep editing! EJF (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    I would also recommend reading WP:BAN, there is a difference between a ban and a block; simplified, a ban is a removal of a person's editing tools by the community, Jimbo Wales or ArbCom, because of continued long-term abuse of editing privileges (often because of edit-warring, personal attacks etc.) whereas a block is a technical mechanism to prevent damage to the encyclopedia by vandals. Blocks can sometimes enforce bans, if there is a suspicion the banned user may try to create sockpuppets to evade the ban. I would advise to make sure you to read plenty of policy. EJF (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Answers unbolded! You clearly have a good attitude, and hope to see you gain admin tools in the future. Anyone with a willingness to learn deserves a chance. EJF (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! I've also fixed my answer to question five after reading WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK as per your advice. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)