Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N

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] N

Final (talk page) (4/15/6); Ended 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

N (talk · contribs) - I have decided to self-nominate again after trying to get a admin coach and getting User:Dgies, who has been so inactive he hasn't been able to help me much. I have learned a lot since my previous RfA... I have learned to master my wiki-temper, I have been much more civil towards other editors, and I got a free picture of that flute. It actually took a bit of sleuthing to find, as the word "flute" is misspelled on the original Flickr page. There are no obvious Google hits suggesting the flute is in the Henan Museum as the media seems to have lost interest in tracking the story once the original discovery story broke, plus the fact that everyone is content reprinting the non-commercially licensed image from the Brookhaven Lab. I determined the name of the closest museum to the archaeological site though and looked on Flickr, lo and behold a picture of the flute, but as All Rights Reserved. One re-licensing request later and it is now a free image. You are all welcome to look at the notes I made in preparation for Dgies helping me, including a candid self-assessment of my flaws. I am trusted on Commons to review Flickr image licensing. -N 21:00, 21 July 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 particularly enjoy tracking persistent sockpuppets, so I suppose that would be something I would work on. I also enjoy looking at dubious image licenses and improper use of non-free media. (I recently got to combine the two in a checkuser report that used evidence gathered on 2 wikis). I would generally participate in reviewing and deleting image backlogs and discussions. Betacommand may be controversial but he's doing the right thing. We do not need pictures of every boy band and TV show ever produced. I am much more critical of these than important historical pictures, ones where NFCC#8 ranks much higher on the scale. -N 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I suppose it would be the dozens of free pictures I have uploaded to Commons, as well as what I've done to try to track down difficult sources on images or work on the rationale for them. It saddens me that many historic photos other sites have no problems using are deleted here because nobody knows who took a photo[1]. However, my views on this matter will not stop me from enforcing the policies. I will just be sad when I delete those images. -N 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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: Yes I've been involved with conflicts in editing. Sometimes it was caused by my temper, although I've learned from those mistakes. I've learned to just walk away from the computer when that happens, and remember we're all human and we all make mistakes. Most people trying to do edits that aren't in line with policy aren't trying to vandalize Wikipedia, they're trying to put in what they feel is right. I've very patiently tried to explain the NFCC to several editors lately, and while it's frustrating to see them not get it, I just accept it and tag the images and walk away (and then revert when they remove the tags from the images). -N 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from Wikidudeman
4. Could you give an example in an image deletion discussion where you thought editors were displaying "copyright paranoia"?
A. No. I disagree with some of the decisions made by others, but Wikipedia is run first by policy and second by consensus. (and vice versa, consensus can make policy). If the majority clearly thought an image's copyright status was too unclear to keep, or if the closing administrator did so, and the decision was not successfully appealed, it is in no way my place to debate it any further. I may not agree, but it's not paranoia, as we should err on the side of caution in difficult cases. As Quadell pointed out to me in the link above, in those cases the image could still easily be under copyright. -N 00:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Wikihermit
5. Do you think it is okay to parade your views around Wikipedia, such as the userbox {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/ACLU}} on your userpage?
A. I do know the ACLU has been more than controversial, such as protecting free speech rights for extreme fringe groups, but I do not see anything wrong with that box. -N 11:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. S seems to be a good candidate. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    Mandatory follow-up: This RfA is for N, not S. ;) Black Falcon (Talk) 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think the S stood for Support. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    The smiley ;) indicates Black Falcon knew that and was just kidding. —AldeBaer (c) 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm not bothered by the SLG stuff. Giggy UCP 01:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Protest Support. This is specifically a response to the vast majority of the opposers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of an unofficial club in userspace for single-letter-name users. While it would be inappropriate in projectspace, the presumption with userspace content should always be to allow it, unless it's actively disrupting the encyclopedia, which the SLG was not. Non-single-letter-name editors were, reasonably and politely, requested not to edit the page. Some people decided to deliberately contravene this in order to pick a fight, and now N is being wiki-mobbed as a result when s/he has done nothing wrong. Furthermore, the alleged "racist comment" on the SLG page was not, in fact, racist, nor were any of the alleged "immature" comments particularly immature, nor was the SLG particularly elitist or exclusionary (far less so than, say, bureaucratship). All in all, I'm extremely saddened and shocked by the opposes, some of whom came from people I previously respected; it just shows the insidious influence of political correctness on Wikipedia, and the sad move away from the freedom that was once enjoyed in one's own userspace. WaltonOne 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. — Rlest 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose. This user has made some edits not assuming good faith and attacking other editors in the recent past. Most notably my experience with him, where I nominated an image for speedy deletion which hadn't quite been up for the 7 days, he stated that my "cavalier attitude towards established policy appalled him". [[2]]. The image was indeed deleted and even if I was a bit too early to tag it, he didn't treat the situation very well by attacking me and being confrontational. Also this edit [[3]] seems to indicate the same. I don't believe he has corrected his problems since his last RFA where his temper and attitude was also brought up and was one of the main reasons it failed. Perhaps in a few more moths and more experience dealing with people and not attacking them would be in order before becoming administrator. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    When I pointed out to you the image did not meet the speedy deletion criteria your reply seemed to indicate you were perfectly aware of the policy but you chose to ignore it. I do find that appalling. -N 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't ignoring policy. I explained clearly why I nominated the image for deletion. You need to read WP:IAR and WP:AGF, the deletion of the image benefited wikipedia as it served no purpose and was being used soley for an article deleted by consensus. Your response (even if I was in the wrong) was itself in the wrong. You attacked me and labeled my attitude as "cavalier" and stated you were "appalled" by it. A simple objection to my nomination of it would have sufficed, however you saw the need to attack me. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    I do believe you were acting in good faith, but the speedy deletion rules are especially immune to IAR for a reason. I'm sorry I called your attitude cavalier though, apparently "cavalier" means the macho attitude a hero (or horseman, ie knight) shows, and you definitely were acting in good faith. -N 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    It's good that you apologize, at least you recognize that you were in the wrong by attacking me. Though it still shows that you're probably not quite ready for the mop. P.S. Tell me where it says WP:IAR doesn't apply to WP:CSD, that would seem to be an oxymoron and a contradiction of WP:IAR itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nowhere explicitly, although WP:CSD does start off with "The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion" and if you hang around the CSD talk page much or WP:DRV you would see people being angry at stuff being deleted when it shouldn't have. Administrators should not delete things on a whim, or their personal ideas, hence the commentary at CSD about how such deletions should be uncontroversial. Such deletions are rapidly overturned at DRV unless there's another reason to keep the page deleted. -N 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Reverting an edit of an experienced user here on the basis that they were purely not a member of the "Single Letter Group" and therefore had no "right" to edit that page, is conduct which I consider unbecoming an administrator. Also, characterising a bunch of experienced users who protested the fact that this page was a joke as "trolls" ("Looks good. I think we should ask R to have the page deleted and then re-create it after the MfD. That way we can start over. And somehow avoid attracting the trolls") isn't too fantastic either. Further, you supported the deletion of edits selectively on that page ("Nice that you deleted the diffs from the people who didn't qualify"), which was proven to be in terrible judgement by the general consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/Single Letter Group. A lot of general concerns as well, as pointed out above, including having a confusing username. Strong oppose. Daniel 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Experienced administrators performed the deletions. I made that comment before anyone complained. And people randomly editing the page just to prove they could is what I consider trolling. It's a wiki. People can edit pages. Doing it over and over to prove a point is just WP:LAME. -N 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 01:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Self nominating could easily mean that the individual wants the extra functions to improve wikipedia and is aware that having them would help them improve wikipedia. I don't see how that necessarily means "power hunger". You're jumping to conclusions and not WP:AGF. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Kurt this is an rfa when the are quite a few good reasons to oppose, maby you should drop the self nom and use a good reason. Hint hint nudge nudge wink wink. is it getting through to you? --Chris g 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Kurt, you are very, very wrong there. And taking an attitute like that is not something any Wikipedian should be doing. A self-nomination is a request for extra tools in order to further their abilities on Wikipedia in the fields they work in. It is in no way a hunt for power. Lradrama 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose per Daniel. Conduct of this editor regarding the "Single-Letter Group" shows both inexperience and temperamental concerns. The timing of this RfA, so soon after that controversy flared, also demonstrates poor judgment. Xoloz 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mean taking people's names off the list that don't meet the criteria? -N 01:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    To answer your question, the SLG is -- at best -- only a joke and a toy. Wiki-Projects, and race classifications -- are neither jokes nor toys. Jokes invite odd edits; legitimate pages do not. Xoloz 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to Strong Oppose per Michael below. Candidate exhibits severe maturity concerns. Xoloz 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per Daniel, unacceptable behavior in a candidate, I also found this to be disturbingly immature. --MichaelLinnear 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please tell me how adding your name to a page that clearly does not include you is anything but intentional aggravation for the maintainers of the page? What if I randomly went into someone's wikiproject and added my name to a list that had nothing to do with me? -N 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    If you don't understand the distinction between a serious article, a serious wikiproject, and a page that was tagged as "humourous" then I think we have a problem. The fact you were so annoyed by Cyde seems peculiar when the page is meant to be humouruous anyway. --Deskana (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I have concerns about the candidate's maturity and judgement. Needs at least a few more months experience. Chaz Beckett 02:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I was coming here planning to support. But all the diffs above are slightly troubling, and this totally did not help. He said "This is disturbingly immature", not "You should have let Cyde add himself to your page!" Defending yourself by saying "but look, he did something bad too!" is stupid, and I don't understand why so many people recently seem to think it's acceptable. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per all the concerns above. I suggest that you do not lose heart over this and try running for adminship again after a few months. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per 1. degree of involvement with SLG that includes edit warring (as laid out by Daniel) as well as encouraging misuse of sysop tools (deleting on-SLG edits), 2. immaturity shown on SLG MfD (... is just mean.) and by POINTy ideas, 3. confusing username (I have commented on that already and now echo JayHenry's neutral comment). Миша13 09:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose (and admonish nominator) in the interests of fighting systemic bias. His deletion nomination of Xiaxue shows poor judgement. The article (when it was AFDed) mentioned multiple claims to notability (blogging awards, hosting a TV show, being a columnist for several Singaporean newspapers and magazines). During the deletion discussion, he compared the Bloggies (the most prestigious blogging awards) to "Hero of the Turkmen" (an award dictator Turkmenbashi gave himself). Fortunately, I, Rifleman 82, SpLoT and other SGpedians managed to save the article from deletion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    I still have seen no reliable sources backing up the notability of the Bloggies (although sources backing up the notability of Xiaxue have appeared). -N 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose Although I originally came here possibly leaning towards support, each oppose vote has brought up more and more comments from the past that show lack of maturity and a lack of respect for others. The AfD stated above does not help his case either. PeteShanosky 12:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. This user's reaction to the SLG MfD, and to SLG in general does not make me feel good about this user becoming an administrator. Furthermore, the replies to the opposes further re-enforce my view. Note that I believe replying to opposes is good in most cases, but it is what was said in them that made me believe this user is not ready. --Deskana (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Immaturity and that comment. SLSB talk ER 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong oppose in light of that comment on Cyde's talkpage - not something I'd like to see in any user, let alone an administrator. N seems to have a problem with controlling his temper, not an attractive trait at all in a potential sysop. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Looking at his past edit history, as well as the concerns laid out by the opposers above, I see a reasonably good editor that shows exceptionally poor judgment at times. The way in which he has attempted to defend some of these poor decisions in this RfA has failed to impress me as well. Trusilver 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I would support, however the opposes are too hard to miss. I would recommend trying again later. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Maybe it's because I'm stupid but I'm finding it impossible to keep track of all the single-letter user names. I almost opposed because I thought this user requested adminship last week, but then I realized that that was R I was thinking of. Or possibly E. Or both? Or W? H? A?. I don't even know anymore. Not much of a reason to oppose, but I'm genuinely confused and finding these names unhelpful. --JayHenry 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, leaning oppose except for the fact that I wanted to use something with an N in it, mostly per Daniel. Plus, I don't even know who you are. I must say that I do like the answer to Q4, however. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - lots of experience, good number of edits, interaction with other users, good Wikipedia space usage, but as is said above, the opposes are too hard to miss. Lradrama 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral While my interactions with N have been nothing but positive, I'm somewhat concerned over the Single Letter Group drama. That affair doesn't allow me to cast a vote for support in good conscience. Blueboy96 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral to avoid pile-on, but suggest withdrawal. —AldeBaer (c) 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Walton's support rationale is not enough for me to join in supporting this RfA, but he raises some very valid points for everyone to chew on. —AldeBaer (c) 18:22, 22 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.