Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Markovich292

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] Markovich292

(2/15/2) Ended 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich292 (talk · contribs) – Well, I have been using Wikipedia for a few years now, so I figured it is time to get more involved. I just signed up recently, but I have been making edits for about a year now. They were modest, mostly fixing typos and the like, but useful in my view. In the past few weeks, I have done a lot of work with improving some articles, and been actively engaged in keeping Wikipedia neutral. Through one such POV debate as well as independent reading, I have become just as familiar with policies here as many current admins, so I feel that I am qualified. I realize my number of posts is lower than what many people look for, but I just thought I would be bold in mentioning that I can help out. I can't make 3000 edits in 3 months or anything like that, but I will do what I can for the project. Markovich292 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I should note that I visit wikipedia for learning just as much as I do for editing. As a result, admin tasks that I would mainly address are those that a) allow me to help wikipedia while learning at the same time (like reviewing articles to merge or reviewing articles for deletion) or b) are tasks that have a certain urgency and do not take massive amounts of time (e.g. reviewing unblock requests). That way I can work on admin stuff and keep contributing to articles without taking time from other pursuits. Markovich292 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markovich292 (talk • contribs) .


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: The main thing I would deal with probably would be in addressing accuracy disputes and POV cleanup/addressing requests for admin intervention in POV disputes. I am already looking toward wikipedia more to build a general knowledge about a variety of subjects, so as an admin I could do that and help to verify the content of the article as well as merge/delete topics as requested (once I am familiar with them). I also feel that my logical nature could help in any POV disputes that I may happen upon in the course of doing the admin cleanup work mentioned above. Another task that looks particularily useful to me is reviewing requests for unblocking.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I would have to say my work on the People to People Student Ambassador Program is the one I am happiest with. I went in and found dissatisfaction with alleged POV problems in the article, and was able to work with the person(s) to resolve the situation. I wrote much of the program summary as well, so I am pleased that people are happy with it.
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: Of all my contributions and interactions with other editors, I have only had one editing conflict (as opposed to civilized debate). I started out logical and as calm as can be, but through the course of the debate, other editors began with uncivil behavior. I just brushed it off, but more incivility and personal jabs followed. I did respond to them, but my primary way of dealing with this was just to reiterate the facts of the argument. In the future I think I will stick with that philosophy of keeping to the facts (unless I am repeatedly the victim of personal attacks).
Questions from Chacor: You're a bit new. You say you are familiar with policies. Could you explain WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V (they usually go together). If you could change any policy, which would it be, and why? Cheers. – Chacor 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A:Taken together, I would have to say that these all come down to accuracy of information. Since this is an encyclopedia, everything needs "quality control" if you will. Each is sort of a piece that keeps the quality high: NOR is in place to make sure unproven or unreliable claims are kept out, citing is there so that only claims/facts with enough merit to be in a reliable source can be added to wikipedia, and verifiability is primarily to make sure that a) we are not adding unsourced material and b) we can add material that is sourced even if it is disputed. Markovich292 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A: The policy I would change would have to be either BLP or AGF. BLP is to vague and allows bias to creep in. I think AGF is to much of an umbrella policy that covers actions that should be addressed; people don't address them because they are afraid of violating AGF.
Optional question from trialsanderrors: Could you give as a context why you reverted this entry as vandalism? diff Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A: I was not as familiar with WP:Vandalism at that time as I am now so I was a little quick to call it vandalsim. It didn't have a source and seemed to be a sarcastic comment so I removed it as vandalism instead of adding a fact tag or something like that. Markovich292 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, it took me about 30 seconds to find a source corroborating the claim. Several of the hostages who were held in the embassy have claimed that he was there and played a key role. A former naval captain, Donald Sharer, remembers him as a "cruel individual". Ahmadinejad denies all involvement in the hostage-taking. Irish Independent: A Saddam for the 21st century January 21, 2006. ~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Support

  1. Moral support but urge withdrawal at this time. Please continue contributing, get active in the other activities you suggest, and try again when you have more time and experience here under your belt. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, looks like a great user.--Andeh 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Reverting a perfectly viable if unsourced edit by an anon as vandalism shows that you might be on a steep learning curve wrt policies, but you aren't there yet. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Your willingness to resolve NPOV issues would be greatly appreciated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, but you haven't indicated a need for administrator rights to do sysop chores yet (which is a totally different kettle of fish). If you want to become an administrator, you need to get down and dirty vandal fighting, tracking incidents and reviewing articles for deletion. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not nearly enough edits & participation in the Wikiproject space:
    We would need to see the edits that you have performed under your IP address to balance this apparent lack of participation. I suggest an editor review to allow you to see where the community thinks that you should improve your participation before trying again in ~3000 edits/three months' time. (aeropagitica) 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose You seem like a valuable editor willing to help and I am glad we have people like you here at Wikipedia. But experience is not the same as just reading the policies and participating in a POV dispute. You really need to stay here for a while longer and participate in a larger variety of areas to understand everything well enough as would be demanded from an administrator. For the tasks that you want to help with, you really don't need to be an admin; Wikipedia admins are really more like Janitors rather than some sort of POV-fixers. I say withdraw from this RFA, get some experience and come back in when you're more experienced.--Konstable 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. You need more experience (at least 3000 edits). Sorry. --Alex (talk here) 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose - interesting answers, but I think the other opposers have said what is basically expected at RFA. Keep up the good work though. – Chacor 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Sorry, too new. Keep up the good work and try resubmitting when you get over 1,000 edits :-) - Mike 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Way to new. Keep up the work though.Voice-of-All 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, seems like a good guy, but too new, keep up the good work, and try again in four months. --Terence Ong (T | C) 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose - WAY too new, too few edits, try again in a couple of months. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, inexperience, come back 6 months later. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose 202 edits in total cannot result in enough experience. Pete.Hurd 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Just over 200 edits and a membership time of not even two weeks is not nearly enough. Michael 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. You are on the right track, but you definitely need more experience. There is a lot more to being an admin than meets the eye; better understanding only comes with time and experience. You'll see :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose just 202 edits. started editing a month ago.--Ageo020 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  • #Provisional neutral until questions are answered, cheers. – Chacor 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on oppose. I'd suggest withdrawing this RfA. alphaChimp(talk) 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral You seem to be a sincere user of this project. However, I strongly urge you to gain some experience first and suggest you withdraw this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:32, 8 September 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.