Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ief

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] Ief

FINAL (2/14/2); closed per WP:SNOW by User:Yamamoto Ichiro 15:57, June 8, 2007

Ief (talk · contribs) - I nominated myself because I don't feel good to ask another Wikipedians to nominate me. I have been on Wikipedia since August 26, 2005. I have not seriously started editing until July 2006. I use Wikipedia as a primary source for my investigations and whatever I want to discover. As you can see from my edit history, my main contribution to Wikipedia is about football articles and politicians. As for editing the encyclopedia itself content-wise, I most also admit that I have not contributed much in this field. As I said before I use Wikipedia as a primary source and I try to fix the articles that have been vandalized or that doesn't have the correct information. Ief 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like take part in any work that I can do and now about it, also I would like to fight against the vandalism in Wikipedia even more than I do it now. I would like take some articles and try to featured them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Generally I make contributions about football or politicians, but as I said before, I use Wikipedia as a primary source of information for my investigations and whatever I want to discover; I try to fix the aticles that were vandalized, so then I don't have in this moment an article that I can call my best.
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: No, I haven't been in any conflict over edits, and I try to understand all the points of view of the other Wikipedians to doesn't have the problem of the stress.

Optional questions from Cool Blue

4. Can you explain the image problem tags on your talkpage?
5. Can you give us a brief outlining on the fair use rationale, what you'd do to enforce it, if anything, and the importance of it?
6. Why do you feel that you need administrator's tools, and what ease, if any, it would contribute to your daily Wikipedia activities?

Question by JetLover

Mr. lef, I'd appreciate it if you answered these. You might get my vote.

1. What do you plan to do about vandalism? Please go into detail.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ief before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I don't think another vote will make any difference here. I've suggested withdrawl on the user's talk page. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, this user name is not Lef, but ief. Evilclown93 00:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral support. Listen to those commenting below, even to what BH (Black Harry) said (and please forgive his tone). —AldeBaer 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Kind of a cheap shot against me, don't you think? I'm not trying to kill the candidate, but by pointing out his flaws I'm giving him advice for how to improve his chances next time around. BH (Talk) 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    He's right, Ief, forget what I said with regard to BH's comment. —AldeBaer 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    I removed the link to my name, because having it there throws off automated votecounters, who would recognize it as my signature.BH (T|C) 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Moral support per Aldebaer. I suggest withdrawal, and becoming more actively involved in XfDs and discussions, as well as remembering to warn vandals; come back in 2-3 months and you will probably be ready. I would be happy to offer help and advice on how to reach the standard required for adminship. Waltonalternate account 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose (changed from neutral) - After more thoroughly reviewing, I feel that you're definitely not ready for the tools, and that the answers to your question are not satisfactory. Almost all of the edits on your talkpage seem to be from BetacommandBot. Sorry. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm afraid you aren't ready yet. I'm not an editcounter, but these three things made up my mind. First, your edit summary based on Kate is low. Secondly, with 10 user talk edits, not only you don't communicate much, it means you've probably never warned a vandal before. Thirdly, you have 11 wikispace edits, which means you haven't done any administrator-like chores or helped an admin before. To sum everything up, I don't feel you need the tools at all. Evilclown93 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose Your mainspace edits do look pretty good, but as Evilclown93 says, you've not done anything related to admin work, so you don't seem in a position to need the tools — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose your answers make me wonder if you really know what an admin does. In Q1 you discussed doing stuff you already can do. Q2 makes you sound like you never really help articles become better, except for taking off vandalism. And in Q3, you say you have no conflicts, but per an above oppose, you've barely write on others' talk pages. I strongly recommend you withdraw this nomination, and start communicating with other wikipedians, learn more about an admins duties, and try and wait until someone nominates you. BH (Talk) 00:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Mainspace contributions are good, but administrator candidates need to have experience throughout all namespaces on Wikipedia. Having a broad spectrum of contributions is useful because it gives you experience that will most definitely be useful as an administrator. For example, I see you don't have many user talk edits. As an administrator, you should expect to be talking and discussing articles or mediating disputes, quite frequently. With your lack of user talk edits, the community has no assurance regarding your behavior as an administrator. Also, you said you do RC patrol. You must remember that warning users is also necessary, because it gives a good indication to people if a user is vandalizing on a particular day, and it's useful for admins who may be processing AIV reports or just looking at recent changes for vandalism-only accounts to block. Just like with user talk edits, I see a lack of article talk edits. It's always helpful down the road when you know how to handle yourself in discussions and potential disputes regarding articles. It gives you valued experience regarding how to handle yourself in tense situations. Another thing I see a lack of, is Wikipedia namespace edits. I'm not that big on editcountitis, but when you have only a few edits in the Wikipedia namespace, this will not help me decide on how you can handle yourself with adminship. In the Wikipedia namespace you can edit policy pages or help out administrators by posting vandal reports at WP:AIV, requesting page protection at WP:RFPP, or participating in deletion discussion at WP:AFD. There's one final thing I must note. I suggest you read more about policy and the duties of administrators. From the answers to your questions (Q1 in particular), it seems like you don't have a full grasp on Wikipedia policy and the role of administrators (and what the tools are used for). All these things will serve as an indicator as to how you can handle yourself with the admin tools. Hopefully, you can learn from the constructive criticism provided by my colleagues and I. Remember that people pass RfAs after multiple attempts, and I am sure that if you practice what people have told you here at this RfA, then you will be suitable for adminship and probably succeed in your future request for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose you are not quite there yet. As said, your heart seems to be in the right place, but your experience is not as of yet. Jmlk17 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I feel that you need to get more exposure to the other parts of Wikipedia. Try reading some policy pages, participate in XfDs, and other centres of discussion and debate on here, so that you get a better grasp on Wikipedia and how it rolls. I'm sure you'll get my support next time though—arf! 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I have the sense that with more time and experience you may make a fine admin, but are not ready yet...best of luck. It may be good to withdraw this RfA now and run again after you have more experience. —Gaff ταλκ 05:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Nishkid sums it up pretty nicely. I don't see the need for the tools, in addition to a lack of experience. —Anas talk? 09:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose You did not do a good job answering the questions and I do not see that you have a need for the tools. I would suggest you withdraw from this Rfa. If you want to become an admin get active in Xfd's, vandal fighting, do some work on articles, and run again in 6 months. Sorry.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose No, not now. You must have more work in areas beyond the mainspace. JodyB talk 16:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, suggest withdrawal. For now, I don't see why you need the tools. Besides, you lack of experience in the technical and administrative aspects about Wikipedia. You can participate in xFDs, more article writing, image copyright problems, participate actively in the community. That can actually give you a lot of experience about Wikipedia. You need some more experience and you can run for adminship in about five to six months time. Terence 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, editor has barely participated in administrative tasks already available to him, giving him the mop does not appear that it will help him perform any tasks. PGWG 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, changed from neutral. He didn't really answer his questions, and that makes me feel un-easy. And he doesn't seem to fight vandalism. He just doesn't have the stuff, I think. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral to avoid Pile-On I'm sorry, but I've got no way to know how well you know policy with such a low Wikipedia space count and no way to know how you'll handle confrontation with so few Talk page edits. I would recommend withdrawing for now. Cheers, Lanky TALK 23:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

#Unsure as of now. I'd like to see him answer more questions, he has only answered a few. Not to mention I can't REALLY review his contribs well. He has no edit summaries. And apparently he doesn't revert vandalism, so I'll wait for a bit until I change my vote. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 05:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. Your heart's in the right place, but I don't feel that you're experienced enough to handle the tools properly yet. I don't feel that the answers to the questions were compelling enough for me to support. Try again in 3-6 months. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. neutral and advice: you should consider making use of Editor Review before you next apply--it's a less formal way of getting similar feedback, & you'll get an opinion of whether you're ready for a try. DGG 20:37, 8 June 2007 (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.