Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Netsnipe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Netsnipe

Final (66/4/3) Ended 19:27, 2006-09-03 (UTC)

Netsnipe (talk · contribs) – self nomination

I've been editing Wikipedia since October 2003, but I haven't considered myself a real Wikipedian until this year. It is with some irony that one of my oft-quoted lines on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion is "you are only notable when others are writing about you, not when you decide to write about yourself". However, over the last fortnight whenever I've been on #wikipedia or #vandalism-en-wp requesting urgent assistance to clear a backlog on WP:AIV, people have continually asked me why I wasn't an administrator yet. So here I am humbly asking for a bigger mop and bucket because I feel that I am ready to take on more responsibilities around here.

Deep down I believe that information wants to be free and I feel that it's my duty to make sure that this place doesn't fall apart while this great project tries to document everything worth writing about known to humanity. It's a sad indictment on human nature whenever people try and sabotage this noble endeavour by vandalising it and trying to hijack it for use as billboard and soapbox. Nevertheless, "many hands make light work" and I would like to contribute my dedication to the administration here. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:52, 27 August 2006 (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 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 chores that I would be helping out with most would be keeping the WP:AIV backlog to a minimum while I'm on duty. I'm already quite experienced at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion so taking on speedy deletions as well wouldn't be much of a challenge. However, I believe that my biggest impact is being able to intervene rapidly whenever Wikipedia:Long term abuse incidents flare up. I'm currently helping to track three cases (WP:BOBBY, WP:TOJO, and WP:UNID) as well as providing the occasional comment at the Administrators' noticeboard. I hope that by being an administrator, I can start rolling back large-scale vandalism and spamming earlier without having to wait for a WP:AIV backlog to be cleared first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My major contributions to Wikipedia have been behind the scenes including Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion where I put in a substantial effort into researching the subject before nominating as well as ferreting out related vanity articles. I received most praise for nominating the string of V. Alexander Stefan articles for deletion. I also create or update templates whenever I notice editors repeating the same task over and over again needlessly (e.g. creating Template:spa and Template:cv-r) or update them to provide more helpful information to users (e.g. adding a link to the blacklist submission page on Template:spam4).

While on recent changes patrol, I also fact check sources provided in contentious contributions to ensure that they are indeed Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. For example, upon noticing an edit accusing John Dugard of being an anti-semite by Zeq (talk • contribs) I discovered that the source he was providing was a partisan newsletter selectively citing from official United Nations' reports. In attempt to further expand the article recently, I've also uncovered a potentially fake source (statement proved genuine by email). Other examples of my source checking include uncovering the use of biased sources in articles such as IG Farben Building and the Korean War.

I do realise and recognise that my major shortcoming is that as an encyclopedia, I haven't been writing as much new material as I should be, since fighting link spammers and verifying sources is very time consuming. In the past I have only contributed when I've seen a major omission (eg Roman Catholic Church. United Nations Security Council veto power) but I hope that since I've joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, I can make more contributions along the lines of Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. At the moment I am also cleaning up the biography of former Nigerian military ruler Ibrahim Babangida which had recently been trampled over by edit warring since he announced a bid for a presidential election next year.

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: Yes. See User_talk:66.133.207.244 for one notable conflict I had where my conduct was recognised with a barnstar. When dealing with conflicts I always keep the Golden Rule in mind. Being hostile always has the potential of turning a new editor into a vandal and a small conflict into a "revert-war of attrition". I always try to picture in my mind how they see their side of the argument and when responding I try and provide a 3rd party reliable source that shows them the potential flaws in their argument or I suggest a way in which they could rewrite their contribution from a neutral point of view.

I also recognise that all people including myself have inherent biases and whenever I feel that I am coming across a brick wall I will ask others to take a look and see if they can provide a third opinion.

As for stress, I have enough to deal with in real life to get stressed on Wikipedia! = P But anyway, I can always de-stress by just hanging out with the community on #wikipedia IRC and on Wikipedia:Esperanza and maybe, just maybe start working on that great Featured Article one day.

Question from Andeh.

4. What are User:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k and User:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic Fuck? Please explain what these are, their purpose, and why they are here. Thanks.
A: A satirical userbox as fully explained and linked to at User_talk:Netsnipe/User_Bureaucratic_F**k. Part of being Australian is being able to laugh at one's own expense. If people believe that having this userbox around would be a bad reflection of me being an administrator I will be more than willing to delete it. Currently, I have 10 positive comments for it and 2 against. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from  (aeropagitica)   (talk) 

5. Why did you take such a long Wikibreak between August 7 2005 and April 20 2006?
A: I wasn't a Wikipedian yet as I wasn't yet aware of the machinery and community beneath the surface that I could have been a part of. Everything really kicked off the moment I encountered my first case of vandalism and I realised that for far too long I had been a "reader" of Wikipedia and not a "contributor". Had I discovered the Wikipedia:* space earlier, that Wikibreak would have been much shorter. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from Andeh

6. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.
A: Here's ten of them spread out throughout my editing history
Thank you.--Andeh 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question from Yanksox

7. Why are your user talk edits so much higher than your article edits? Yanksox 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I take the time to be helpful to anyone who needs it or asks for it. I watch {helpme}. I welcome new users whenever I see red talk links on my watchlist and comment on how they might improve their first article to avoid speedy deletion or an AFD if my initial investigations show some notability. Explain how WP:NPOV and WP:V works and why it's core to Wikipedia if they ignore the initial template warnings. I also post {AFDWarningNew} notices for all my AFDs because I believe in due process and the right to defend one's own work (if not patent nonsense) and I help people to rewrite borderline cases. To be a good editor isn't just about being a WikiLawyer who can quote all the rules inside-out and intimidate newbies by appearing elitist, but it is by being able to impart those same lessons one has learnt about being a good editor onto others. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Statistics for all user's edits. Voice-of-All 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Current tally: (66/4/3)
Support
  1. Support. Merovingian - Talk 15:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I think Wikipedia will benefit from giving this guy the mop. A top-notch vandal fighter. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support. Very good vandal fighter. I'm a bit worried about your inexperience, being that you made your last 4,300 edits+ within the last 2.5 months. --Nishkid64 16:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support About time! Shadow1 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. — FireFox (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2006
  6. Support —Xyrael / 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. "...it's my duty to make sure that this place doesn't fall apart while this great project tries to document everything worth writing about known to humanity." Well said. Dar-Ape 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I've actually been coming across your work for the last week or so in the vandal fighting arena . . . And it looks like you could use a mop. --heah 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Support A good vandal fighter but the low article talk edits is a bit of a concern. Anyway, I feel that Wikipedia will benefit greatly by giving this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support OK, the above answers are good and you seem to have a firm grasp of policy, demonstrated by the AfD contributions and vandal warnings. Not too happy about User:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k but that is more of a sense of humour thing rather than a major breach of policy and guidelines.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per (aeropagitica) I would probably prefer all references to ED were removed due to their hostility towards other editors, and I think it wise if (when) promoted that you remove this. However, Netsnipe has shown he is experienced enough with the tools, and another admin from this part of the world has got to be a good thing. - GIen 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think that the link to ED was removed a while ago, no?--heah 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. I've removed all the URLs to ED from the talk page as well. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, per vandal-stopping capacity and experience, notwithstanding the timescale. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support— Overall sound record. Already working long term abuse. No indication of any inclination to take the powers for deletion to an extreme. Has a sense of humor, which is good in an admin; I grant you that Bureaucratic F**k is hardly great humor, but certainly not a reason to turn down an admin candidate if there is no evidence it underlies deeper problems. And I’m particularly heartened that CrazyRussian only provided a Weak Oppose for inexperience and failure to use the preview button (flaws from which I still suffer as well); that’s almost praise. Give him the tool belt (no, it isn’t a mop or we’d award it with less pain) and let Netsnipe do some good. Williamborg (Bill) 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong support - it's so great when I see a report on WP:AIV from Netsnipe because when I see the report, I can trust that the user has been warned and almost always deserves a block. Meets my standards. —Mets501 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I can trust this user. Yanksox 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Netsnipe has had his share of confrontations etc. and has retained a positive attitude. I smell a rouge admin (just kidding, loved the userbox though) :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Strong support - He is more than fair, repsonsible, infinity resourceful, fantastically energetic, and always actively follows through with help - not just a cursory reply message. His Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V._Alexander_Stefan opened my eyes to the ways Wikipedia can be abused. Per the above comment, his research is always thorough and his conclusions sound; he always refers to relevant policy/guidlelines. He is resilient, never seems to take things personally, and flexible (demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios, and I love his note that "notice of this AFD has been emailed to <marketing at sinisterfilms.com>"). There are many good editors, there is only one Netsipe. Mattisse(talk) 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Changed vote after further experience with Netsnipe, now that he has dropped all committments to work on this application and did not follow through with me, when I really needed it as he had promised. He knows how to get what he wants in a seemly open manner. But now I see this is manipulative. Very questionable how he will behave in the long haul. He is moving too fast and is too anxious to get what he wants quickly. I change my vote.
  18. Support, significant volume of anti-vandal work. AFD contributions are normally well thought out and solid. Should be trusted with the tools. Kuru talk 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, a vandal fighter. I also will address concerns from others: For, "Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why," I think he should have included the userbox in Question 4. For his not using the preview button, Wikipedia:Avoid using preview button. Anomo 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Weak Support per Cyde's comments. Anomo 02:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support due to anti-vandal work. Michael 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I would've liked to see more article writing from the candidate, but it seems as if the candidate will use the extra buttons primarily to work on vandalism prevention and maintenance. I feel confident in the candidate's abilities in that respect and believe that he/she is to be trusted and is very well-intentioned, which are two of the most important characteristics I look for in a candidate. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. I'm pretty comforatble with this one. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - I'm always seeing this user in and around XfDs. I'm consistently impressed. Per investigation of the situation in oppose number two, I see no evidence whatsoever of an "edit war". Srose (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong support - I have awarded this editor a barnstar for identifying possible wikistalking against me. As of this writing the investigation remains underway, but one offending account has already been indefinite blocked as a sockpuppet/vandal. Not only did Netsnipe spot that my post to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse was removed twice, but followed up to report that (his?) initial notice on my user talk page had also been deleted. This is exactly the kind of diligence that foils persistent troublemakers. Durova 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, excellent vandal-fighter! --TheM62Manchester 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. this.Support(Netsnipe); --Chris (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak support, on this rare occasion of a newish user, and the users nice gift they sent me voluntarily.--Andeh 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Just so that no one gets the wrong idea, Andeh asked for someone to clean up some linkspam on #wikipedia and I volunteered. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Just a joke, it's not like you bribed me or anything is it. ;) --Andeh 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong support - He isn't an admin already? I'm shocked, seriously. Don't always agree, but a responsible editor. Captainktainer * Talk 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Hell yeah «ct» (t|e) 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Diligent work. F**k userbox is not helpful for newer users. Tyrenius 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - determined vandalfighter needs tools abakharev 02:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support about damn time too. --james(talk) 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support I think that you have been here for a long enough amount of time with many edits and I particularly liked your response to Q7. -- Casmith 789 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, don't see anything to be concerned about. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support yup. Computerjoe's talk 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Netsnipe looks like a decent editor that could be trusted with admin tools. Good interaction with others, and nice response to optional question # 7. Doing a little research before speedy deletions, hasty moves, etc shows quality contributions to Wiki. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. I've seen him around doing anti-vandal work and thought he already was an admin. Geoffrey Spear 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Examples I've seen tell me Netsnipe won't block new users for mistakes. Seems cool headed and unlikely to bite new users or delete poorly crafted new articles. Could someone provide me examples of the alledged edit warring? :) Dlohcierekim 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support I can trust him with the mop, and candidate seems dedicated to helping out other users, although I would like to see a higher proportion of experience in the mainspace.-- danntm T C 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Convinced me, although I would like to see him make more mainspace edits. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Needs a little more editing experience, but I trust him with the mop because he talks to people. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support The conflict handling I have seen him do (at AN/I, for example) seems vey level-headed and correct. A good contributor who looks like he would make a good admin. Fram 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. I really, really hate to use such a cliched line, but when I first saw Netsnipe I thought he was an admin. -- Steel 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Strong anti-vandal, seems to be very level headed, have never seen anything negative from him. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Strong support, very experienced and civil editor; has done a lot of work against vandalism.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, good editor, I grant that the low mainspace editcount is strange but the answer to Question #7 is good --- Deville (Talk) 05:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. I like the golden rule attitude (although the link should be disambiguated - hint hint ;-) --Ligulem 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (No thanks on my talk for voting please, this is a waste of time and resources. Thanks! )
  49. Support, vandal fighter, started slowly editing in '03! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. First encountered this user today; appears very tactful and grasps wiki policy firmly. A fine candidate. — Dan | talk 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support --Ugur Basak 08:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support experienced with policy and coolheaded. Shell babelfish 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support --Bugtrio 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support--MONGO 08:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support--Alex (talk here) 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support--Blue Tie 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. I didn't know he wasn't an admin before. Experienced and seems ready for the job. :) --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support per comments and answers to questions. Good user, can use the buttons, no significant issues. Concur that "that userbox" would best be dropped. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support will be good admin --rogerd 04:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support seems to be good for me. Good work! NCurse work 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support; don't see why not. Ryūlóng 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  63. AUSSIE aussie AUSSIE – support. Oppose concerns seem easily remediable. All the best, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Good answers to questions, especially #7. --Fang Aili talk 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support as a vandalfighter that would benefit from the adminship ST47 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, without reservations. Sango123 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose per inexperience (and failure to use the preview button). - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's not that often that I don't use the preview button on (main) articles (I'm guilty of forgetting to subst from time to time). It only tends to happen in cases where I've noticed that I've been the only person on recent changes duty for at least 15-20 minutes and I'm in a rush to get back to Lupin's live feed or chase down a multi-article spammer. I tend to do my patrolling during the time when English speaking people on both sides of the Pacific are asleep. Could also you please cite an example where my inexperience would affect my abilities if given administrative access? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps when he called you on this thing? Meh, I don't blame you, Netsnipe. I suppose you put the cart before the horse, but you did have some reason to do so. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Nah, minor nitpick, that's why I didn't include it in the oppose rationale. The fear with relative inexperience would be inadvertent misuse of the tools. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Inexperienced, and I'm not very impressed with his edit warring on Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Deuterium 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose seems like a nice guy, but needs more mainspace editing experience. Part of knowing what to delete and what to keep is learned from contributing articles. -- Samir धर्म 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. User's sig is not in line with WP:SIG. Admins need to follow the guidelines. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    I have no problem with Netsnipe’s signature. I myself have experimented with my sig to get it to where it stands out, easy to spot etc. The Wiki guideline says: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". I really don’t see any issue there. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose For reasons stated above under #18 but not moved down here when someone reformatted my vote. Mattisse(talk) 08:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Note to bureaucrat: Mattisse was outed yesterday by meta:Steward Rdsmith4 for sockpuppetry in an incident I was investigating. This vote was made simply out of spite and should be declared null and void. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral per Nishkid64. 2 months more of continuous great contributions and this'd have been a clear support. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there any particular areas where you see my inexperience showing in my conduct during the last month or so? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral seems like a good user, but since this is going to pass anyway I have to register my objection to that garish-website-from-1997 signature. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm leaving this comment here but would request that, should anything completely unexpected happen while I'm not watching and this becomes a close call, I should be "counted" as a support. Opabinia regalis 05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral: I support the user, but I have to be neutral on RFA due to time. Because he is heavily involved with the dark side, he comes into contact with our nastier folks. So far, his temperament has been very good and shown excellent character, and that's why I'm on "neutral" instead of my usual "oppose" on folks with such a short time on project. In time, I would be a support voice. Geogre 15:16, 31 August 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.