Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natl1

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] Natl1

Final (16/18/13); Ended Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:57:21 (UTC)

Natl1 (talk · contribs) - Being an editor who is a regular editor and vandal fighter on Wikipedia, I believe that I have the experience and need too become an administrator on Wikipedia. As a vandal fighter, I try to Assume Good Faith and revert only vandalism after making 100% percent sure that it is in fact vandalism. As an editor, I try to improve Wikipedia by adding to and making articles understandable, adding references to articles ,and adding images for clarity to articles. In the Wikipedia namespace, I participate in WP:AFC, WP:IFU (I created it}, and somewhat in WP:XFD. I know policy very well, in my opinion. (In my spare time on Wikipedia, I like just to read through some policies. In conclusion I think I would make a great sysop and I have great need for the tools. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate to help with WP:AIV, making sure that users receive a proper set of warnings and blocking them, Speedy Deletion Candidates, to make sure that visitors to Wikipedia don't see vandalism, and also anything else which requires sysop tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very pleased with my extensive contributions to Coca-Cola which has become a good article, and I hope that I will be able to make it Featured very soon. Also, in the Wikipedia namespace I created WP:IFU which allows unregistered users to submit images for review; so, the images can be uploaded by a registered user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:49, 11 February 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: I try to stay out of edit conflicts and other problems by assuming good faith; however I can pick out the most major one I've been in. It happened on Campeonato Brasileiro Série B. I stayed out of the main edit conflict but I did revert someone a couple times after I saw consensus on the talk page. In the end Husond sorted it out and I along with other users confirmed the talk page consensus.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

4. You made a RfA that probably would be considered a little early by many participants. I'm sure you knew this - what led you to make a request regardless?
A: Yes, I know that with 2,000 edits many will consider that I made a request early. I made my request after closely thinking about Jimbo's Statement that adminship is a trivial matter. If you think about it, adminship is just a request for deleting articles, viewing deleted pages, undeleting page, protecting and editing protected pages, unprotecting pages, etc. I believe that these features should be given to anyone who proves they will not misuse them. After 2000 edits, and without a bad record, I believe that it is somewhat evident to the community that I wont vandalize or make very harmful changes unintentionally. This is a principal I apply to all RFA's when voting. As my record shows, out of many RFA votes, many for candidates that did not succeed, I only voted neutral for one because they had a history of rudeness and many blocks and at least one edit war, and I never voted oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. What would you do if confronted with a signed-up user continuously changing numbers in many articles, when you did not know which revision of numbers was correct?
A: If a user just changes many articles in an article I always check before reverting. This means I go on Google and look for a reliable source. I apply this rule to everyone, even unregistered users with many vandalism edits and few edits helping the project. I know this is hard to believe in the fast-passed style of recent changes but I do follow this rule, always.
6. What is consensus? How do you determine it in an unbiased manner?
A: Consensus is the agreement of many people on a certain point, which is not just a simple majority. Also, unlike in voting, the weight of comments can be assessed. To determine consensus I would see the most detailed and strongest points and then see how many people supported them by saying "Support User X" to see which opinions have by far the most support.
7. Can you provide us with a rough guide to IP blocking lengths?
Guide: I believe that IP adresses should be blocked in a highly structured way. My guide is:
  • IP recieves 4 (3, if the vandalism is very bad and the intention is evidently vandalism) vandalism warnings from level 1 (or 2) to four
  • The IP vandalizes another time and is blocked for 24 hours
  • IP receives 3 (or 2) more warnings from level 2 (or 3) to level four
  • The IP vandalizes again and is blocked for 48 hours
  • IP receives 2 (or 1) more warnings
  • IP vandalizes again and is blocked for a week
  • If IP continues to vandalize block after one warning or immediately without warning
For schools and organizations using a proxy it is different and the positive vs. negative edits from the IP must be analyzed but if all or most or excessive vandalism my plan can also be followed.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if I become an admim, I will try to split my time between admin duties and improving Wikipedia's content. I actually already do try to slip my time between vandal fighting and writing. To do this I use Template:Wikidefcon; so, when there are high levels vandalism I do RCP work, and when the level is low I do normal (writing content) editing.Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs)
In response to Ta bu shi da yu comment/vote.

9. The policy you set yourself for blocking users sounds kind of strict. Are you sure you won't bite the newbies.
The policy stated above is just for fairness. If a user has broken my policy and has proven to be a good user and if not mean, I may not block him or her. I folow this even now when I report people to WP:AIV. Also I follow the policy above to promote fairness so one user dosent ask to be unblocked because another user was only blocked after 15 warnings.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Weak support. I've reviewed your contributions and they show that you understand policy and apply it well. I think you should improve your edit summary usage outside of automated edits though... Summaries really do help, especially when people want to know why their page was deleted once you become an admin. Your browser's autofill function should help with this. :-) Grandmasterka 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. (from oppose) - Support. You seem to have a good handle on things. A few things that are a little bit nitpicky about your answers to my questions, but nothing major. (If you want to know what they are, I'll email you.) Yuser31415 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Three months and 2000 edits for a promotion are not new. All you need to do is address the oppose comments (spelling), wait a month or two and maybe next time you'll become admin. BuickCenturyDriver 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Seven opposers manage to raise zero significant concerns between them, and based on a review of the edit history I doubt there are any to be found. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per Christopher Parham. Apart from the slight eagerness, which isn't much of a bad thing, I cannot see any reason why this editor should not be promoted. The opposers indeed raise nothing concerning in the slightest. --Majorly (o rly?) 11:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Seems trustworthy and sensible. I am, frankly, baffled by some of the reasons given to oppose this RFA, which display a clear and basic failure to understand what adminship is about (ie, it's nothing special). Proto::► 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    It's a typical case of self nominatons vs. someone else nominating. When someone else nominates, it's a clear case of someone trusing them and they're more likely to get support. Self-nomination means that the user has the burden of proof of showing why they're ready. Many naysayers will oppose out of envy or edit count, but in my opinion it the quality of your edits, not the quantity. You can have 2000 edits and if the bulk of them are reverted, you're likely not worthy. BuickCenturyDriver 12:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support per the reasons given by others. Seems to understand things pretty well and won't do anything wrong, methinks.--Eva bd 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Although you have only been a member for a short time, your record is exemplary. Even though there a few things needing to be touched up with your edits (edit summary, marking minor edits as minor, etc.) I think you have a sound knowledge of Wikipedia and would be a great asset as an administrator. The opposers seem to think that being an administrator is a major thing - but it isn't and are only giving points that make it sound like it is. Jhfireboy I'm listening 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I think Natl1 is good person to be a sysop. So what he's been 3 months here? 3 months is easily enough for me. If he had 2500 decent edits after 4 weeks, I'd support him! Evilclown93 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    User's 30th edit, first was two days prior to this. — CharlotteWebb 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I'm not totally sold, but his answer to 4 gives me some confidence. YechielMan 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I've run into your work a couple of times, most prominently reviewing Coca-cola for GA, and it's always struck me as good quality. I'll take quality of edits over quantity any day. I've seen nothing particularly objectionable and much admirable in your behavior, and I'm convinced you'd use the tools well. Shimeru 02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Seems like a nice person, and a good candidate. --IvanKnight69 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    User's 30th edit, first was nine days prior to this. — CharlotteWebb 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. No reason to think s/he will abuse the tools. --Fang Aili talk 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. why not? --KP—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs).
    User's 13th edit, all are from today. Grandmasterka 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per the user's contributions. NoInsurance (chat?) 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support per above PeaceNT 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Only 2,008 edits in total, and only some three months experience, is not enough for me. Sorry. Come back in three months time.--Anthony.bradbury 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    It seems with the growing community it's becoming much more difficult to earn trust. I've studied some arhived RFAs from a year ago and many successful self-nominations came from users with 3 months and 2000 edits. You might cite that this user is good as RC Patrol, but legit reverting just to run up the count may make you feel that they need more improving of articles. I basically try to add links for articles that need them but I also add any new valid ideas that might make the article look better. BuickCenturyDriver 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I don't mean to be harsh, but you say "... and revert only clear vandalism" (italics mine). What if the vandalism isn't clear? Yuser31415 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Yuser31415 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    By clear vandalism I meant only reverting vandalism that I have made sure is vandalism; that way only reverting proved (clear) unlike unproved (unclear) vandalism.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Making good progress, but I don't think now is the time. Go for an editor review and receive some constructive criticism from other editors. Fix up some mistakes based on the suggestions you receive there, and consider an RfA in 3(+) months time. Nishkid64 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Editor review/Natl1 (aeropagitica) 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    When did time of being an editor make such a difference? As Jimbo Wales said 'adminship is a trvial thing', so why get so strung up by a time period? You must see adminship for what it is not, an honour - if the editor has made consistently good edits since he strated the why should he be denied the chance? I am not trying to sound harsh when I say this, but it is such a trvial issue to oppose an editor for. Jhfireboy I'm listening 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    I added the time period to my oppose because I felt that his time with the project has not fully allowed him to grasp many aspects of the encyclopedia. I'm saying that a few months' time would give him more experience and he would be fully prepared. Also, I have seen this user make some faulty AIV reports, all of which I attribute to relative inexperience. In a few months' time, Natl1 would be ready. Nishkid64 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Answers are too short and I stopped counting at 12 spelling errors. To me this appears to be a lack of thoroughness or hurriedness and perhaps a further indication that you are trying to do this too soon. I noticed that every comment on your editor review suggested that you wait longer; I would suggest that you heed that advice. --After Midnight 0001 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose One must be suspicious when Supporting a self-nominated RfA. Your record is not bad, but not quite admin level. Try again when you have a better record and someone else nominates you. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Suspicious? Good grief. --BigDT 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Lol. Really. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per After Midnight. Dionyseus 04:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose It's too soon, try back in a few months although you do have good intentions. It's not your edit count all together that is low, it's just the way you have them spread out, try more Wikipedia mainspace edits, policy edits, and Wikipedia article edits. Keep up the good work, good things shouldn't be rushed. Darthgriz98 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. OpposeIn a few months and no self-nom and you'll have my support. Your a good editor, but you need more experience. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry! This user has proved to be friendly and has previously nominated me for an RfA in which I declined for the moment and I'm very thankful for that; but because your account was only created in November '06 the lack of experience puts me off, sorry but I think you should leave it for 3 months (approx) and get some more experience in not just vandal fighting but other edits in the mainspace/user talk etc. Your a good candidate it's just this RFA is a little too early in my opinion.TellyaddictEditor review! 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for use of fair use images in userspace: [1] and [2]. Admins should know better than to use fair use images in their userspace. And this was a month ago. --MECU≈talk 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    This seems like a very minor reason for opposing a nomination. It's not as if these images were decorating his userpage; they were in article sandboxes. What happened to "But to fault someone for one instance (one period) of error for which they admit was wrong and hold them to that one time is erroneous and no one would pass RFA, unless they have never really done anything at Wikipedia, for which then lack of experience would apply."? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    That would be fine, except this was weeks ago. There are other means to not using fair use images in "sandbox" mode in userspace. --MECU≈talk 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Anthony Bradbury. — CharlotteWebb 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Come back in 6 months with more experience and I will fully support. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Too new here. Users should be here at least 6 months before becoming admins. Eli Falk 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, not true. Plenty of good admins have been promoted with les than six months experience. I myself had just 4, and that was in October. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: too new, prefer more experience first. Jonathunder 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, needs more experiences before getting tools. Please have at least 3,000 edit countis. Shyam (T/C) 06:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, needs more experience and should get an editor review. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - needs some more experience. A bit concerned about WP:AIV - I've seen him upload a number of fair use images (yes, they are logos, but I'd say let someone else upload them). Also would like to know more about his stance on blocking editors, and how to show sensitivity in this sort of thing. Would also like to know what happens if he gets into a dispute and how he would work through things. Trust me, adminship can be a very difficult thing when it comes to blocking! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Due to the experience issues noted above. Also, this confused vote in support of an obviously unsuitable admin candidate makes me question your judgment. Sandstein 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose As Sandstein notes, candidate's statement at the Zazzer RfA suggests -- at the least -- a significant lack of experience, if not a gravely flawed judgment. Xoloz 21:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"That's one thing that makes the world such an interesting place - different people think differently about many things, and there isn't necessarily a "right" and "wrong" in what and how they think. Or, as someone wise has said, YMMV. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)" from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zazzer.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: In listing this RfA, you managed to totally screwup the RfA page and the answers to the questions are painfully short. Your answer to Q1 doesn't show a definite need for the tools, but as we're short of admins, I'll certainly not oppose based on that. -- Heligoland 00:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't want to argue a vote but regarding the screwup of the RfA page, it was screwed up because Netscape dosent support foreign charecters on my computer (I don't know why) and from now on I will use IE7 or Firefox to contribute to Wikipedia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Go for Firefox - great built in spell checker which is invaluable here. -- Heligoland 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per above. Cbrown1023 talk 02:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Not a bad editor, but I'd like to wait a few months to see more. His main edits are in Coca-Cola, with a chunk of them being the fact template. (If you want to improve them try finding references for those points).--Wizardman 03:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral It looks like you took this comment at your editor review to heart and applied the moment you hit 2000 edits, which is just as arbitrary as any other number, really. I'm not too happy with your contribution to debates such as XfD at the moment, so if you can apply yourself to admin-related tasks and discussions for three months-or-so then I would be happy to review my neutral stance on your next application. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - please use edit summaries and remember to mark minor edits as minor. I don't think you had any edits marked as minor other than js reverts. As for editcountitis, 2000 is a gracious plenty, but lack of edit summaries convinces me that you could use some more time. Also, the answer to #1 concerns me a tad - "anything else which requires sysop tools" - what things require the sysop tools would probably be a good thing to find out before starting an RFA. I would like to add one thing, though - great work with WP:IFU. I took a look at it when looking over the RFA and am already thinking about ways it could be expanded. (For example, the image upload page should have a link to it saying if you don't have a clue what you are doing, go here.) --BigDT 06:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral you're making excellent progress, but you'll need more time around and some more contributions before I can support. Answers are kind of short and edit summary usage needs some work. I know adminship is not a big deal, but I'd like to see more activity before I can support. - Anas Talk? 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I had an RfA about three months into my Wikipedian days, which I failed due to low edits and inexperience. And while at the time I believed I was qualified for sysopship, looking back now, I'm not so sure (I've learned a lot since then). I don't won't to oppose, as your record is clean (except for the fair use violation, which is not a really big deal), but the answers to your questions are short and somewhat suspicious. Plus, you have a ton of spelling mistakes, which leads me to think that you may rush into things, without taking the time to think over what you're doing and checking to make sure it's right. I suggest you withdraw now, and come back in four months or so; I'd be glad to support you then, provided you keep your record clean and keep your dedication to Wikipedia strong, like it is now. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral for the reasons mentioned by (aeropagitica). Also "earliest 22:14, 27 November 2006", does give me the over all feeling you are being a little too eager. Now none of these are really good reason to oppose. So I'm not going to do that, but it does at the same time make me slightly hesitant to support. Sorry. Mathmo Talk 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I was leaning to support but given all factors, I think neutral is the best I can do. With a little more time, I'm sure I'll be much more confident in your skills. Sorry. Pigmantalk 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral to avoid pile on. Please come back in several months after you have more experience and understanding of community norms.-- danntm T C 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral for all the reasons above. Keep editing. Work in as many corners of the wiki as you can and come back. --Kukini 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral for now. Nothing personal, get some more experience and maybe try again in a few months. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Neutral per above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Neutral — needs another month or two of experience before I can be safe to support. — Deckiller 14:09, 18 February 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.