Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Folajimi

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] Folajimi

Final (5/19/4) ended 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Folajimi (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. Folajimi 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Folajimi 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Assuming good faith here... I hope this process doesn't discourage the candidate. He seems to have positive, productive interactions with people from what I can tell... I think he's on the right track, though perhaps he should withdraw this RfA because it's just not gonna succeed right now. --W.marsh 03:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I've had excellent exchanges with this talented editor. He's obviously devoted to building the encyclopedia and has the right ideas, which counts for a lot as far as I'm concerned. Not sure why he wants to be an admin, but he must have his reasons. -- JJay 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per all above. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Good faith Support. I've interacted with this friendly user on several occasions, and I like his interest in building this encyclopedia. I do think Folajimi needs to work in the "Wikipedia:" space a bit more, but I think given some time, we will have a future RfA candidate we can all support. — TheKMantalk 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Meets all my criteria (except edit summaries - keep them up!), which is enough for a support from me. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose (edit conflict) Sorry, but your malformed RFA leads me to believe that you aren't quite ready for the adminship role. In addition, your answer to question 1 is not specific enough, and the one specific duty you mention in there doesn't require adminship duties. I suggest you read WP:GRFA WP:ARL before nominating yourself (or being nominated) in the future. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. To be blunt: you've not given me any reason to think you should be an admin. No logical reasoning behind nominating yourself... especially since the admin jobs you have listed can be done without admin abilities. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Among other problems, the candidate's answer to question 8 is in direct contradiction to current policy. Furthermore, I am worried about a defensive tone in a number of the other questions, especially question 6. While lack of knowledge is fine for a general editor, a significant lack of Wikipolicy knowledge is not useful in an Admin. There are a variety of other, smaller problems with this candidate's nomination. I recommend that this candidate try to participate a bit more on WP:AFD and a few similar pages, and never to be afraid to ask a question when one does not know something. I strongly encourage this candidate to come back in about a 1.5 months with a better understanding of policy and a larger scale involvement with the Wikipedia community as a whole. At that time, I will enthusiastically support. JoshuaZ 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose From an answer below, it appears editor doesn't yet know what project space is. This indicates much learning is needed prior to mophood. Xoloz 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Your edit history and your questions to the questions indicate no need for adminship tools at this time. Please participate in more areas of wikipedia related to admin responsibilities such as fighting vandalism and increased paticipation in the deletion process and try again in three months and you will make it.--Dakota ~ ° 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't think you are prepared, try to learn more things, exploring the project namespace, after that, you'll be a better candidate. Afonso Silva 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. As per above-- malformed RfA. Nephron  T|C 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose malformed, above comments. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose: Sorry, I don't see a reason to support. Your edits are mostly adding {{wikify-date}} to articles and over 80% of your edits are in the main namespace. I would like to see more balanced edits and experience from you. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per all of the above. Don't like the answer to most of the questions given below especially Q10 by JoshuaZ. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Not enough project related contributions. — xaosflux Talk 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per all of the above. --Danaman5 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Spend more time on Wikipedia, and I will support your next RfA. Covington 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose, too few project space contributions. JIP | Talk 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose lacks of project space contributions. --Terence Ong 08:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose prefer editors have more experience and all of the above--Looper5920 10:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, potential admin's knowledge of policy & project-space and need for the tools should jump off the page in a self-RfA. Honestly don't see that here. Deizio 11:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral (S). Meets my standards, but due to answers to questions (etc), neutral. — FireFox • T [11:06, 5 April 2006]
  2. Neutral - For whatever it's worth, I'm voting neutral. This editor's contributions are good, but they don't seem substantive enough for the editor to be called an admin. - Richardcavell 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Better have more experience and better description why you apply yourself for adminship.--Jusjih 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Well meaning, enthusiastic and good natured, with some experience in the right areas will make a great admin. Martin 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 78% for major edits and 78% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See Folajimi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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: Mostly chores that most would find tedious, boring, or otherwise avoided — provided that I have a vested interest in the outcome. For example, I was involved with the recent effort to update Articles that need to be wikified. I joined the effort because I found the backlog to be rather irritating, and was willing to do edit all the entries manually, if I had to.
What I hope to get involved with are Requested moves/deletions, especially when the deletion is to accomodate a move.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While I am unable to pick a favourite, I am pleased with the contributions made by others to the PQCC entry. At the time I created the entry, most of what I could find on the subject was, for lack of a better term, subjective. However, another editor reviewed the content and was able to purge the POV from the entry which was [unintentionally] injected during the stub's creation.
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: Aarktica is a possible example of how I would handle such a situation. Within minutes of creating the entry, another editor jumped in on me. As annoying as I found that to be, what got under my skin was the editor's arbitrary decision to move the entry without contacting me. Upon contacting the user, I was given a rationale for the action. Although I was upset about the meddling, I elected to drop the matter since it appears that the user meant no harm.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 I notice that you did not finish formatting the top of your RfA (i.e. ending times, nomination statement, etc.) Is there a reason for this?
A: Thank you for pointing out the omissions. These happened because I had some trouble determining which elements of the template would be automatically modified/wikified by the system. I did notice the error myself, and did intend to correct any mistakes as time passed.
2 Please expand on question 2 above with other examples.
A: Most of my contributions are stubs; sometimes about people, sometimes about terms that I may be curious about. Most of these entries were created a few months ago (the last three are works in progress):
3 Please expand on your answer to question 3 above. Have you ever gotten into a conflict where you have not dropped the matter? If so, please elaborate.
A: This could be tough, considering that the example I was going to cite has been deleted. Nevertheless, I shall recall as best I can what transpired.
Yesterday, I stumbled onto Angela McMahon while working on wikifying articles. Based on its content, the entry on the subject was unqualified for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. As a courtesy, I placed a {{cleanup-date|April 2006}} tag on the entry. An anonymous user removed the tag without addressing the problem. The replacement tag I introduced was {{importance}}, hoping to educate the user on what was wrong with the entry. When that also was removed, I tried to engage the user in dialogue on the subject's talk page, but was ignored. My final action was to tag the entry for deletion, which was summarily carried out by a sysop. Only then did the anonymous user speak up, an action which I thought was pointless.
4 While you have an impressive number of mainspace edits(almost 2500), you have very few talk edits. Summing up all your different talk edits, one obtains about 300 talk edits or so. Can you respond to concern that this does not indicate an involved enough user?
A: Fair question, as I understand how that information can be seen as an indicator of a predisposition to antisocial activity.
Much of my correspondence is done with users offline, via email. It is my opinion that talk pages are for correspondence about content in the article space (after all, that is the face the world sees, right?) I have noticed the counter-productive activities (bickering, name-calling, wikispamming, wikistalking, retaliation etc.) that can occur on talk pages. This is a great demotivator for me, a real drain on my energy level.
The stubs and articles I have created draw a lot of energy out of me; I work at being as deliberate as possible when submitting contributions. This means that I spend a lot of time on diction, spelling and making the entry as coherent as possible. To this end, I have to limit my communication with others to what is constructive. There are users that I have either observed (or encountered) who seem to crave drama; something I am allergic to. I do not begrudge them for how they get their jollies; it is my responsibility to limit my interaction with such characters.
When I do contact other users, it is usually to request collaboration on an ongoing effort, inquire about an edit, or to offer my thanks and appreciation for an important revision which has been contributed.
5 You have almost no edits in project space. Do you have an explanation for this and/or a reason why this is not a strike against your becoming an Admin?
Pardon my ignorance; I have heard very little of this project space you mentioned. Could you explain what this is? Perhaps the person who welcomed me, ElBenevolente, should have informed me of that, as he was a mentor of sorts to me. He answered all of my questions, explained why an entry I created was deleted, and just gave me tips on how to work on articles. Then, a few months ago, the user suddenly "went dark" from Wikipedia; no note, no explanation. Attempts to contact by via email and the talk page were not responded to. Since then, I have done what I did best, create stubs, and try to clean up entries.
6 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
I am of the opinion that such privileges shoud be reserved for those who have shown themselves to be excellent stewards of that which they have been given. Since I started contribution six months ago, I have encountered users who are, in a word, disagreeable. For me, it is inconceivable to picture a scenario where such "undesirable unmentionables" can constructively collaborate with other users; giving such the capacity to act as an admin would be ill-advised.
7 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be(note, this question is open-ended, but I prefer interesting answers)?
Having a program to mentor newcomers would be very helpful. I believe that there are mistakes I made when I first came on that could have been prevented if I had someone to show me around. This may not be for everyone (those with a DIY ethos might object), but it may be helpful to have someone there answer questions, address concerns, and otherwise help those like myself who joined the project to help out while having fun at the same time.
Perhaps use of the Welcome tag should be restriction to those who are willing to offer orientation to newcomers?
8 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
None.
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.