Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Member

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] Member

Final: (13/11/6); ended 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Member (talk · contribs) - Hello! I am an old user who has been around since June 2005 and I personally encountered many instances where I wish I could use the administrator tools. This usually involves vandalism among other things. Personally, I think am qualified to be an admin; I have and will respect other and I believe maintaining a degree of civility is very important. My contributions are largely minor (albeit more or less significant), although I have started many pages for a Wikiproject relating to the area around my hometown. I have to admit that I have made reckless edits in the past, and I many times neglect to add edit summaries. Nonetheless, I hope I can make a positive mark on Wikipedia through adminship. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 09:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)*

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
This is a self-nomination.

[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: Mainly in helping combat vandalism. I also intend to use it for WP:AN
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are no contributions which I have made that I can mark out as best, mostly because I cannot remember :). There were a few articles relating to differing subjects which I am somewhat happy to have added to Wikipedia. These include John Needham and Music Academy of the West. I do not remember many of my very old edits.
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: I rarely get in conflicts with other editors and I do not participate in (and have not caused) edit wars. No one has caused my any stress here on WP except some questioning of what I have done, which only occurs rarely. I avoid flame wars per civility.
4. Could you please elaborate on your answer to question 1; which admin tools do you intend to use to fight vandalism? In what way do you think the tools will help with the admins' noticeboard? Have you done much similar work before? How often have you had to ask administrators in the past to take administrative actions for you that you would prefer to be able to do yourself? --ais523 09:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I intend to use the rollback tool and if possible, ban privileges to help dispel vandals. For the noticeboard, I can use the tools to help remedy any concerns (usage is limited by consensus on what to do, of course). I rarely ask administrators to do something for me, and I do it's usually regrading questionable articles and images. I was a bureaucrat on a now defunct wiki about a year ago.
Optional Question(s) from Anonymous Dissident:
5. -- I am going to ask you a few questions in relation to adminship, because your answers to the standard questions were not too in-depth.
5.1 -- You say you wish to combat vandalism. Please now run us/me through the process of dealing with a vandal, from the first warning to the point of blocking (this is assuming that the vandal does not heed warnings, or is a vandalism only account)
A:
  1. I would warn the vandal.
  2. I would warn him/her again.
  3. Last warning.
  4. Temporary block.
  5. Indefinite block .
5.2 -- What is wheel-warring and what should one do in the case of involvement in one?
A: Wheel-warring is extremely disruptive. Admin vs. admin can wreck havoc. I (or any other admin should) would back off and try to seek the support of other administrators short of escalating it.
5.3 (a followup): Suppose that the following users were vandalising; how long would you block them the first time they vandalised on a final warning? How long the second time? --ais523 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A user account created yesterday.
  • I would block him for a day and watch his behavior after. If he continues to vandalize, I would reexamine his contributions and decided what to do then (if he continues his vandalism, a longer or permanent block would be necessary IMO). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • An anonymous user with no contributions other than vandalism, but no extensive history of contributions.
  • One week IP block; if persistent then permaban (if vandalism is extensive enough). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • An anonymous user with several contributions on different subjects, some of which where good faith.
  • A one hour block, then some observation to decide what to do next. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • An anonymous user with two previous 1-hour blocks and a range of different contributions, mostly vandalism.
  • I would take a grain of salt before deciding how long to block I would look at his contribs and read his talk page. Similar process for the second time. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

--ais523 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operation. Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Cool Blue
6. You claim that you would permanently ban the user after once previously blocked. Can you expand on that?

IMO everything is based on personal judgment. If he/she continues to make vandalistic and bad edits with no positive contributions, then I would most likely block him/her permanently. If he/she is cooperative and beginning to make positive contributions, I would not ban him. As with banning anybody permanently, I would scrutinize his/her edits before I make the giant leap. Indeed he would have to have done many, many (~15-35) edits of bad taste by the time and have been warned by others before I permaban him. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've changed all the above (excepting this question) from 'ban' to 'block' due the (however slight) differences. I personally cannot ban someone myself if I become a sysop. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Statement from Member

This is not a withdrawal; however I have come to realize that my chances of succeeding is somewhat low. I still do have a chance, but it is unlikely that I will get enough support for consensus. Let the discussion continue and I will decide later whether to withdraw or not. I will work on the issues stated below, and if the self-nomination does not succeed, will try again in two months.

Please disregard this statement when verifying or supporting/opposing me in the discussion below. Thank you. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support -- I dont believe you will misuse the tools. I think you have been around long enough to have some experience. You have shown civility and tolerance, even though you have not garnered any support but this one. i think you deserve a chance. Good luck. Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support - Seems experienced enough, but unfortunately this request is unlikely to pass. Waltontalk 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per the dissident. I hope if this RFA fails (it will likely) that you come back back in September and try again. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I don't think you'll misuse the tools, however there is a very high chance this rfa will fail. I encourage you to try again in a few months should that happen. Ganfon 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I have no reason to distrust this editor or fear misuse of the tools. Understanding of policy and guidelines appears to be sufficiently demonstrated. Arkyan • (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Per Ganfon. ~ Wikihermit 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support You haven't been blocked in 2 years and a few thousand edits. Nonetheless, this request won't pass, so I recommend you withdraw, work on some of the concerns, try to participate consistently for a few more months, and consider asking some users if they think you're ready yet (eg through an editor review). Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support There seems to be plenty of good reason to support. Captain panda 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support No reason to oppose, you won't misuse tools, and have been around. --- Kpavery (talk | contribs) 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Moral support No sense in piling on the opposes at this stage. Over the next three months, you should strive to address each concern listed in the opposition. Once you have addressed each concern in the opposition and three months have passed, I would suggest attempting RfA again. You are a good editor and would make a good admin once the below oppose comments have been addressed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, absolutely no indication user would abuse or misuse the mop. --Rory096 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support well phrased (almost) withdrawal matches good answers to optional questions. Although I am slightly concerned about the briefness of the main answers, I feel there is nothing to show that you would be untrustworthy as an admin. (Good luck addressing the concerns raised below :) ) ck lostsword•T•C 00:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose — The encyclopaedia is the most important thing at Wikipedia. I don't see much article building from you at all.[1] Matthew 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    What, exactly, does that mean? Many admins are solely vandal fighters, and have not written any articles at all. Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    So creating Music Academy of the West means he doesn't want to build an encyclopedia? ~ Wikihermit 23:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    It's a unsourced stub. Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think so. Look at external links. Yeah, the article should have "inline citations", but it has a source. ~ Wikihermit 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter. Even if he hadn't created any articles, he could still be qualified to be an admin. I believe Matthew was wrong to say that. Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    I kind of doubt there are many admins who have not written any articles at all. Matthew is expressing his opinion, and it's a valid one: experience in handling encyclopedia situations comes from writing the encyclopedia, so lack of writing experience may leave an admin without critical insight into certain situations. Leebo T/C 03:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    I didnt mean it was invalid, I meant that, in my opinion, he was wrong to say that. And I know that I have seen admins who havent written any articles, I just cant think who. Still, you, Leebo, have a point. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per answer to question 5.3. If an anon has no extensive history of contributions but has been vandalising recently, it's quite consistent with the information I gave (although not certain) that it's a dynamic IP, in which case banning it for more than 24 hours or so at the most would likely get the wrong user by mistake. Permanently banning an IP would only be done in unusual circumstances, due to the tendency of IP addresses to change hands and/or be used my more than one person. I suspect there are other similar situations; although the candidate would probably act in good faith, there would be too much of a risk of making mistakes through inexperience. If you intend to get involved in vandalfighting, using rollback scripts (which you can use even when not an admin) and making more AIV reports would help you get experience. --ais523 11:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Weak answers to the questions. Also user uses the word "ban", when only ArbCom and Jimbo have the authority to ban. Also, the user says he would block indef after one previous block, however, says nothing about IPs. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    "Only ArbCom and Jimbo have the authority to ban?" I don't know who told you that, but that's nonsense. See the section on community bans in Wikipedia:Banning policy, and the entire noticeboard we have for the purpose. The Wikimedia Foundation also has the authority to ban users – Gurch 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm aware of community bans, but the point is that the user didn't mention IPs when he mentioned ban or indef block or whatever. We don't indef block IPs for normal vandalism. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose - User is shown to have issues with Fair Use in images, the vast majority of this user's edits do not contain summaries, and the user does not seem to have the proper deciseiveness that I would look for in an administrator. I can't seem to get past the fact that this user could not even assertively cite his "best conributions", and that he wishes to use his admin powers for one central purpose, two at best. Unless this user can turn things around, I cannot support, and I'm not so sure he would even want to put in the painstaking work that would require.The Kensington Blonde T C 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of administrators we have who regularly use their accounts for more than two administrative "central purposes". I didn't have any "best contributions" to cite when I became an administrator – I still didn't have any when I resigned, and I certainly don't have any now. And... ah yes, edit summaries. You really felt it necessary to wheel out that lame metric yet again? Enough said – Gurch 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I only stated the characteristics I think an aspiring administrator should have, and thus, it is only my opinion. Whether it is in the mainspace or otherwise, I think a user should have some type of notable contribution to present to demonstrate trustworthyness and dedication, say..a reversion of vandalism to someone else's userpage, or a new article, or a barnstar for participation in a WikiProject. If a user aswers this question with an "I'm not so sure" approach, this implies to me that he/she is not yet experienced enough for adminship. Second, there's no rule of thumb that administrators should concentrate on more than one administrative task, but AIV alone does not require adminship unless the user is very actively involved in it. Third, I do believe edit summaries are important. They serve to adequate explain why users made the changes they did. Many look for frequent edit summaries when considering whether a person is ready for adminship. I don't find it acceptable to see that only 30-35% of this user's edits carried them. For these reasons, I simply don't believe this user is ready for the responsibilities of adminship, but I would gladly support him if he made a turnaround. But as I said before, I think that would be difficult to do. Definitely not impossible, though.The Kensington Blonde T C 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    So a reversion of vandalism to someone else's userpage is a "notable contribution"? Hmm. What an odd notion. But I guess that's me sorted, then, so no point arguing – Gurch 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely. I could cite instances where users have received barnstars for an occurence. It's a form of looking out for fellow Wikipedians that is much appreciated and demonstrates good character. There's nothing odd about it.The Kensington Blonde T C 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I've fixed the rationales for Image:GUSD-1-.gif and Image:Dospueblos.dp.11953.png for the record. Image:Sbnewspresstopbanner.gif was deleted. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose With reluctance. 1) You didn't even provide an edit summary for the creation of this RFA diff which is poor IMHO. 2)This appears to indicate no knowledge of WP:CITE. 3) (and this is a bit petty but...) Your sig. - please sort that out! ... I'm sorry, I really am but I can't support or even abstain on the basis of my first two objections. Pedro |  Chat  18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    That second diff is from March 2006 - out of interest, was there anything more recent that you discovered to suggest continuing concerns about the candidate's appreciation of WP:CITE? Bencherlite 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    No I can't, and have moved to weak oppose based on weak answers to questions and edit summary usage - I know that's not overly important but not even summarising your own RFA entry ....Pedro |  Chat  07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    What's the problem with his sig? ~ Wikihermit 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    On my widescreen laptop nothing at all. On my little teeny baby one it keeps on wrapping round badly. It's not the code length (which is shorter than mine) it's the rendered length. It's minor, let's not worry about it too much. Pedro |  Chat  07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I am very unhappy about the apparent confusion in this users answers bwtween "ban" and "block". I am also unhappy about the intention to use the tools in WP:AN, where they are not needed. If the applicant did not mean what he appeared to mean, then this can only suggest an inadequate understanding of wikipedia structue. And lastly, and least important, the edit count percentage is very low. If this RfA fails, and if you re-apply, please enable compulsory edit count insertion in your preferences.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mean edit summary? - Zeibura (Talk) 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think he does, and if he does, hes surely right. DOSGuy member (what is wrong with me??), please remember to use edit summaries in future. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose I'm sure the editor is a fine person, and will make a good admin someday. The answers to the questions are minimal, however. Failure to understand the difference between a block and a ban indicates inexperience with policy. Now is not the time for the mop. Xoloz 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. General inexperience issues. I look forward to seeing a nomination in a couple of months, but not right now, sorry. Daniel 06:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose due to weak answers - confusion of blocking and banning suggests little knowledge of policy. A strong editor, but needs a little more experience. Good luck next time ck lostsword•T•C 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose Someone else who wants to police the project rather than build AND police it. Orangemarlin 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    What's wrong with that? Someone who perhaps isn't very good at article writing can't contribute in the way that he's best at? We don't allow users to contribute to the encyclopedia unless they actually contribute to the articles now? Do you see any problem with that view? --Rory096 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I don't see a lot of edit summaries in your history, nor a lot of talk page discussions. I believe that communication, discussion and consensus-building is an important part of adminship, and at this time you haven't demonstrated this ability. That isn't to say that you don't have those things -- I just haven't seen them in action. Just a suggestion for what to work on should this RFA fail and you want to go again. (BTW, the edit summary is critical regardless of whether you're going for admin or not it's something that should be in just about every edit). -- MisterHand 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. STRONG Oppose. I do not believe he knows enough about blocking, and banning people. In two to three mounths, I would be happy to support.Politics rule 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral He doesn't know the difference between between a ban and a block. RuneWiki777 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I do know the difference. Unfortunately, it's usually lost upon me :( --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Editors should note I have changed the changed many of the occurrences of 'ban' in the answers above to 'block'. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral - for now. A couple of things worry me. Firstly, your edit count summary usage. i myself used to very rarely use it, but now I see how useful it is. I think it is important to use edit-summaries. Also, the fact that you have failed to answer the standard adminship questions gives me no indication why you need the tools, what you would use them for, and the kind of contributions you are proud of. I may change to support; I may change to oppose. Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) - struck because I think this guy deserves a chance. Changed to sup.
    While you have answered the questions, I am in agreement with Ryulong below: they were extremely shallow and weak. Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC) -- has answered otional questions ok. Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I see some strange edits from you, such as here, I found an example of improper fair use rationales, and your answers to the standard questions are really weak.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Could you link the bad rationales to me? I do recall slapping together a few rationales to avoid getting the images deleted. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I haven't been watching this page. There was an image that I deleted because it was an improper fair use rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    And please explain to me how the edit was 'strange', being a suggestion from a image talk page. Thank you. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral - Pending answer to my question. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Only thing holding me back is that while you have been here some time, you only seem to visit Wikipedia every once in a while. Not to say you must be here everyday, but I prefer a more experienced and more regular editor. Jmlk17 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Give it a little more time before you try to become a sysop.--†Sir James Paul† 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    How much longer? He's been here since June 2005. ~ Wikihermit 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - You are a consistent editor, but your edit numbers are small, like 16 edits for June (also about the policies). H irohisatTalk Page 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - Kind of towards oppose just a bit. As previously stated, you aren't all that active. You could also revisit some of the Wikipedia guideline pages if this fails and learn more about the policies, because you really don't seem quite ready to take up an administrator position. C. Foultz 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Netural As said above, he is not particually active. I feel we need active admins. Politics rule 16:59, 5 July 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.