Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pb30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Pb30

Ended 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pb30 (talk · contribs) - I joined Wikipedia in August 2006 and promptly began doing maintenance tasks. I've worked mostly in recent changes patrol, new page patrol and CFD (more on my user page). Many of my tasks revolve around administrative actions, so having access to the extra tools would make the tasks a bit easier and more efficient. -- pb30<talk> 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: To start, I will work in areas that I am already familiar with. I plan on continuing to fight/warn vandals and will start monitoring WP:AIV and continue to watch new pages and help with WP:CSD. I also plan on doing more work at WP:CFD/W, which will be much easier with admin tools. As time goes on I'd like to expand to other areas like WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:RFPP, and WP:UAA once I become more familiar with the policies and practices in these specific areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't do a lot of article building, but I think some of the best edits are those that keep vandalism and other nonsense out of Wikipedia. Aside from these edits, most of my work has been reorganizing and helping at WP:DELSORT and other work through my bot.
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 haven't had too many conflicts with editors, aside from any repeat vandals. Looking through my talk pages, two incidents jump out at me ([1] [2]) where other editors were upset with my actions, but after apologizing and explaining my reasoning both editors agreed. Typically when there is any sort of conflict I tend to take a break and think the situation over, then reply with my reasoning. I am fairly calm and peaceful, and usually err on the side of caution.

:4 Gremolata.com, an article you created, was deleted as "blatant advertising." Can you explain this? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A: I don't recall creating that article, and have no association or even knowledge of the website. I think I may have edited or tagged the article, which may have triggered this PROD warning, but to be honest I don't remember the content or my edits. An admin would have to look. -- pb30<talk> 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The article in question was created by User:Owch. Per deletion log, "Pb30 . . . (Added {{advert}}, {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} tags to article. using Friendly)." Dlohcierekim 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Can you explain your rather uneven editing pattern? If this RfA succeeded, would you disappear again like you did between August and November last year? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A: There's no significant reason for my breaks. During the time I was just working on other wiki's or other websites. If my RfA succeeds I understand I will have a bit higher expectations, and wouldn't take such significant wikibreaks, especially without notice. -- pb30<talk> 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
6. What does the BLP policy mean, in your opinion? If someone famous dies (*cough* Heath Ledger *cough*) recently, should this policy be in tact, and why? miranda 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A: BLP means that extra care must be given to an article, especially with controversial information. WP:CITE is extremely important in biography articles, and anything controversial should be cited from a reliable source or removed. This is especially important when a significant event occurs around a person (like death), because more people will be drawn to the article and less concrete information is available. -- pb30<talk> 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
7. You express interest in working with WP:UAA, a much-debated process. What do you think should be done with usernames that are minor or borderline violations? Can you give some examples of borderline usernames, and how you think they should be dealt with? (I'm asking for specific courses of action here such as "block" or "warn", not general policy stances such as "disallow".) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A: I've started doing some reporting/warning of usernames and here's what I've been doing: Names using foul/dirty language are blatant violations and should be blocked. For company/organization names I've either been warning them (uw-username) or watchlisting them and monitor their edits. If they start promoting their organization then I have been reporting them. User:PixelPoint, User:Afstrinity are two that I've reported after creating articles on their organizations. User:Fgmarketing and User:Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C. are two that I would warn, but since they haven't edited I wouldn't block. WP:U and WP:UAA are fairly new to me, so I may not be totally correct, but that's what I've interpreted so far.-- pb30<talk> 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

(31/3/0)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pb30 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - looks like a good editor, dedicated to administrator tasks. Edits all over the place and would make use of the extra buttons in a constructive manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - I think he will make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support: I've seen this user around, everywhere, and am confident that s/he will use the admin tools wisely. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Meets my standards. no talk page indicators for incivlity or lack of understanding. Dlohcierekim 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Gnomes like this can use more tools. SpencerT♦C 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support as a good, solid editor. No reservations about this candidate's use of the tools. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. 10th support per above. Hopefully I don't run into edit conflict. NHRHS2010 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Nothing to make me worry about this editor's ability to use the tools correctly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, seems to be a responsible and productive editor. Regarding the UAA question I asked, his answers are reasonable. I would disagree that there can be a hard rule saying every name containing profanity should be blocked (after all, Wikipedia is not censored), but since most names with profanity are obvious vandal names anyway, we wouldn't disagree much in practice. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support He will use the tools well. --Sharkface217 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. SupportI am satisfied with all of his answers, should make a good admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Good user, I've seen them around. Malinaccier (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support - "I don't do a lot of article building" is not a valid reason to oppose an RfA. Using the admin tools has almost nothing to do with article building. If the user can spot vandalism and will help out constructively, quite frankly I couldn't care less if he's never made a single attempt to "article build" outside of reverting obvious vandalism. WP:DEAL, people. Gromlakh (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - I'm usually wary of those who don't really work on articles because it demonstrates a good understanding of how this system works and also indicates good interaction skills, but in this case, the user has stated articles aren't the main places he will serve as an admin. The places he has worked in show that this user should make a good admin. Lradrama 11:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - Come on, most of the "articles" I've created are stubs. Judging from everything else, he'll make a fine admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Jmlk17 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - While I respect someone's right to decide as they will, I think the common agreement for the last several months is that, provided someone is familiar with our policies and smart enough to know when they need help, article building is not the primary requirement for RfA. This objection was raised at my own RFA as well, and I remain unconvinced by it - the vast majority of the things that I run into as an admin have very little to do with content improvement to an article. They're mostly vandalism and username issues (plus some page protection and deletion, obviously). I have no reason to believe Pb30 would misuse the tools and every reason to believe they'd be in good hands. - Philippe | Talk 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Absolutely no reason not to. Majorly (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. No redflags here. Contribs look good, answers to questions look good. Best of luck with the mop. Keeper | 76 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support. I looked through a bunch of the candidate's contribs, and just see the candidate going around doing a whole bunch of useful stuff. This AfD nomination seems apt, for example, referring to a guideline listed at a relevant Wikiproject. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - seems worthy. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Looks fine to me. Acalamari 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support Dfrg_msc 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. The Transhumanist 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Looks fine. GlassCobra 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support No causes for concern. Someoneanother 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - Fine editor. --Bhadani (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support. the wub "?!" 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support - Yup. Cheers, LAX 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Per " I don't do a lot of article building" - whilst specialising in grunt work is fine, all admin candidates should also be regular editors, and should be able to point to at least some significant content contributions. If you can point to some, I may withdraw this oppose. Otherwise come back in a few months once you've seen the writing/editing side.--Docg 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Here's some of my content contributions: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Like I said most of my mainspace edits are reverts or cleanup (such as [7]). I tend to do more content building on other, smaller wikis. -- pb30<talk> 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I have to agree with Doc again. I have the greatest admiration for the work you've been doing for a year and half, but once an admin you will be given power that you can use outside of vandal-fighting as well, and I can't say I've seen anything telling me how you'll handle it. Relata refero (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
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.