Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/InDeBiz1

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] InDeBiz1

Final (5/15/2); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Gwynand at 14:18 June 6, 2008

InDeBiz1 (talk · contribs) - I have been a registered user of Wikipedia since September of 2007. In that time, I have contributed in various areas, including AfD, RfA, and have weighed in on various AN/I discussions. I believe that I have acquired the necessary knowledge to become an administrator, specializing in AfD and the handling of vandalism, in addition to spending a great deal of time addressing BLP as well as WP:CRYSTAL concerns. In my travels around the project, I often notice things that need to be addressed, but have not been, for whatever reason. I would like to lend my assistance to the project as another member of an already strong administrator team. InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 02:00, 6 June 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: As I've noted above, I plan to begin with the most basic of administrator tasks such as the participation in/closing of XfD discussions, as well as dealing with vandalism and reviewing biographical articles to assure that BLP is being strictly followed, as I believe that to be far and away the most important policy that we have here at the project. After reviewing the new admin school and gaining a better understanding of the more intricate details of adminship, I would branch out to those areas.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A I can't say that I can go through my edits and find a particular thing that most pleases me, but I'm not 100% sure that is a bad thing. I am a firm believer that everyone contributes equally to the better good of our project, whether it's the person who writes some little stub article that later grows into a great article through the help of others, the person who spends most of their time coming in and cleaning up copy after others, or the person that updates a reference that might be a dead link. I have all the respect in the world for those who pride themselves on being creators of content, but I will be the first to admit that is not my strong suit. I consider myself much better at being the type of person that can read an article, catch errors that might have slipped by, or question things that might seem suspect (in terms of articles about living people).


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 There have been a couple incidents where I (rather stubbornly) felt that my version of a particular item was the best/most accurate. Most recently, I was involved in a bit of a struggle over the naming of the article about the April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake. In that instance, there was a graphic made available via the United States Geological Service's website that named the event a certain thing. In response, I moved the article to that particular name, recognizing what appeared to be the USGS' official name for the event. A disagreement arose that, admittedly, got a little ugly because of my misunderstanding - at that time - of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and my belief (which I still hold, to a point) that an official government-declared name of an event like that should take precedent. However, after lengthy debate, I dropped my position and agreed to a compromise that was in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
For me, the best way to deal with any disagreement is to make every reasonable attempt to talk it out with the other party, with or without third-party (read: an admin or user with more experience than myself and/or the other editor) assistance. However, I recognize that situations sometimes arise in which that method does not work and will not work no matter how many times I beat my head against a wall. In those situations, I feel that it is best to bring in another party and ask for their input / guidance.



[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/InDeBiz1 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support, no problems here. I trust InDeBiz1 will use the mop responsibly. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Bold, experienced, subtle, smart... quality admin material.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yes. naerii - talk 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Seems to be experianced enough. The below linked "threat" was not actually one at all but rather telling a user to stop otherwise someone (not you or the Wikimedia foundation) may want to sue them. Not exactly your best action here, but we all make mistakes. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Moral support. clearly clueful, though participation in adminly areas is lacking. xenocidic (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose. You're off to a good start but need more experience. You have very few edits in article talk and on other user's talk pages. These sorts of edits are important in gaining experience communicating and working with other editors. Keep up the good work.
    Briefly, did you leave out something from your comment? Your second sentence doesn't quite make sense, as if you left out a word? Regards, --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    My guess would be they meant to say, "very few edits...", but I could be wrong. Useight (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I rephrased. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose - User needs to spend some more time at/in admin-related areas, especially WP:AIV if they wish to deal with vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Per legal threat. Tiptoety talk 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Candidate should be aware of WP:LEGAL. It's serious. It's obvious. "Don't do it." This makes me question the user's level-headedness and knowledge of policy. What would happen in the future if, as an admin, he encountered a similar situation? Block without warning? Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Respectfully, as I pointed out, that's not a threat. I intended that as a gentle reminder of copyright policies that the IP editor (who has been brought up as a suspected sockpuppet of several different accounts all promoting the fan-blog www.rihannanow.com) needed to keep in mind, in order to protect themselves from off-Wiki action that would not be beneficial. I have no interest in the matter at all, other than the fact that I work in the music industry and know how seriously actions such as the one that the user has been engaging in on Wikipedia are taken. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    In specific response to your concern, Wisdom89, yes, I would have blocked that user on-sight. That specific website has been a recurring problem on nearly every article related to that particular singer in the past several months and several different user names have been blocked in connection with it. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that it's not a threat, and I have no issue with warning people that what they are doing could get them in legal trouble (a reality check, shock tactics, a friendly reminder, whatever) but I think threatening to report them crosses the line. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Per legal threats and insufficient experience in admin related areas (eg. AIV). CrazyChemGuy (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose. You mention in Q1 that you want to help fight vandalism, but you have fewer than 3 edits to WP:AIV. Also, you don't have a whole lot of experience in the Wikipedia namespace as a whole (and that's where admin-related tasks reside). Those, combined with only have 5 edits to Wikipedia Talk don't show a whole lot of experience yet. I went through a bunch of your contribs and liked what I saw, but I think some more time and experience is necessary before passing RFA. Useight (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per User:Tiptoety. You're a dedicated editor, but I'd like to suggest that you withdraw the nomination, take the constructive criticism here to heart, give admin coaching a try once you've built up a bit more experience, and then try again in four to six months. Good luck! --jonny-mt 04:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose (EC) poor understanding of Wikipedia policeis. We don't threaten to report people for off-wiki legal action. Whether the anon in question was posting links to a subject's "official" site is not relevant. That they were making spamacious or disruptive edits is. Warning a user to not post spam or make disruptive edits is/would be the way to go. That you are "in the business" along with this threat to use off-wiki contacts to deal with a user raises the question of whether or not you can act within Wikipedia guidelines and be impartial. Iw ould also like to see more experience with article building as well as more participation in admin related areas. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose and motion to close per wp:snow this isn't going to get very far, too inexperienced, try again later in the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafford (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think that might be an extraordinarily long period of time. There's no reason to wait a year before another RfA seeing as the user is on the right path with some solid contributions under their belt. I could foresee another in about 4-5 months. Wisdom89 (T / C) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Fairly strong oppose per the legal threat. Also, you say you've been participating to RfA but i've never, to my recollection, seen you around her, so I don't think you contribute that regularly. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think I counted 6 RFA's candidate partook in. Dlohcierekim 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose now, may support a later Rfa when this user has more experience. NOTE: per courtesy to those with other views, I do not support swift closing per WP:SNOW. — Athaenara ✉ 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - just in the last few weeks, I see one very dubious contribution at XfD ([1]: a speedy keep with no rationale of an image that may be a copyright violation), plus one violation of WP:3RR (this sequence of edits: [2], [3], [4], [5]). These, plus the general lack of experience, do not lead me to think that you'll make a good admin at this time. Scog (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. You seem a little inexperienced, and I am concerned about judgement from the quasi-legal threat and from the speedy keep cited by Scog. I would also like to see some article contributions- I appreciate that it may not be your strong point, but it would be nice to see some recognised content or DYKs. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per legal threat. Once you are an admin, you will deal with a lot more trolls and vandals. You can't sue each of them for harassment if they insult you on your talk page or create articles like "InDeBiz1 has a crush on xxxx". Chenzw  Talk  13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Regretful oppose, moral support - We all make mistakes. On the basis that the candidate will hopefully find this experience constructive, I daresay he will realise the over-zealousness of his otherwise goodfaith attempt to stop a vandal, and he won't be repeating it. I would like to see more Wikipedia space edits, and a GA and/or some DYK contributions would go down well too. Consider reapplying in a few months once you've got more experience and solidified understanding under your belt. I don't think that this should be closed per WP:SNOW though. Let's give the candidate as much time as he wants to accumulate pointers and ways for him to improve his contributions without any prejudice should he wish to withdraw the nomination. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose: Errr ... threatening to report someone to a legal department is a legal threat, no ifs, ands or buts about it. No matter how it is being justified, I'm quite surprised InDeBiz1 wasn't blocked for it. Cierekim is dead on the money here. Beyond that, InDeBiz1's previous comment to the same editor was quite stern as it was, and if that didn't get the editor's attention, screaming harder and waving legal threats around instead of dropping in on AN/I or otherwise getting the attention of an admin showed poor judgment. The degree to which we can play self-appointed traffic cops has limits.  RGTraynor  14:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral, as the candidate does have good contributions. I am concerned by the threat noted above; It's obviously a good-faith attempt to get a spammer to stop spamming, and in that it is commendable, but it may have been a little too much (as noted by my colleagues above). I would advise the candidate to put in some time on WP:AIV and elsewhere, both to increase their knowledge of the admin processes they seek to work on, but also to demonstrate their committment to doing so properly and consistently (and, incidentally, without threatening anyone). Best wishes, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now. Good contributions, but as others have pointed out, threats are not appropriate and some more experience overall would be helpful. No reason to think this wouldn't be successful in 6 months.  Frank  |  talk  12:40, 6 June 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.