Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 3

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] R

(14/17/2); Ended 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate (see below). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

R (talk · contribs) - Hi. I'm R. I'm guessing most of the people coming here will have known me pretty well, since next month I will have been on Wikipedia for two years. I did a lot of vandal fighting up until a few months ago. I'd helped write a few things here and there, but I'll admit it once again, I'm no writer, and the stuff I plan to do as an admin doesn't really require that either. Over the summer I traveled frequently, and once school started, I had a lot of work, which everyone gets, plus I'm in two honors classes and two accelerated classes, so I've had way too much to spend hours upon end on Wikipedia. Besides that, I had just gotten bored and annoyed with Wikipedia, especially the fact that I was still unable to do simple administrative tasks like blocking vandals, and users much newer than me were getting adminship already. So I've been in a period of very little activity...hmm, from that I would expect plenty of opposes, but I really see no reason. Okay, it's been a few months, does that mean every policy on Wikipedia has suddenly changed? No. I doubt I've missed much. Have I fixed anything since last RFA? I don't really know, I haven't exactly done much. But it seems in my past few RFA's doing stuff on Wikipedia has made me fail....so hopefully this will have the opposite effect. :] If I magically pass this RFA, then great. Am I sure I will? Not at all, in fact, I probably won't, but there's nothing to lose. Feel free to ask questions and look at my past RFAs if you want. -- R ParlateContribs@ 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw. What on Earth am I thinking....and now that I'm using Huggle....I've actually made edits to Wikipedia. Lets wait a little. Sorry for acting like a newbie instead of experienced editor :]-- R ParlateContribs@ 03:39, 21 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: Note from R: These answers are going to be very simple. These questions are asked to every candidate on RFA, making it very easy for any person to give generic answers taken from RFA's of admins that have passed, making the questions mostly pointless. I also don't need to lie. I'm going to say what I plan on doing. I'm not going to say stuff like "going through copyright violations and fixing cut and paste moves". Why? Because I really don't know how to do those things well. I'm going to tell you what I really plan on doing. Nothing more. Thanks.

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on blocking vandals at WP:AIV and inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. I'll handle unblock requests also. I'll probably close some simple xFD debates, and do some simple protections. Besides that, I'll help anyone that asks for an administrative task (or non-administrative one) to be done, if I can handle it. Basically I want to do the easy things (at least right now) to save time for the experienced admins so they can handle the hard stuff.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably my vandalism reverts. I helped keep Wikipedia looking good and reliable. With no vandalism patrollers, our encyclopedia would be in pretty bad condition.
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've never really been in any major conflicts. Most were able to be solved on talk pages. I seem to remember a conflict between a user and me along with a few other people. Another person started an ANI topic on the user and I contributed a little to that. That's the worst it has really gotten. I'm not that controversial, sorry.

Question from Mercury at 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Is your password strong as defined by this section on password strength?
A: Yes, my password is strong.

Optional question from Animum (talk)

5. What are your positions with regards to IRC as a medium for deciding pertinent wiki-related decisions?
A: I think IRC helps a lot since it's a faster means of comunication then noticeboards and talk pages. However, anything discussed relating to something major being done on Wikipedia should either be have summarized on Wikipedia somewhere, or have logs posted (with consent of all of course). The latter will probably never happen, so the the former would seem like a good way to go. Just no secret cabal discussion :].

Questions from east.718 at 23:44, January 20, 2008

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is something in the software to prevent a user or IP from editing Wikipedia. They are used to prevent vandalism mostly. A ban is usually because of a dispute, and is formal. It could apply to some pages, or all pages. Someone banned does not have to be blocked. Though they may be blocked, they can also just be watched to make sure they don't violate their ban.
7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason, but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included, what do you do?
A: As said above, I don't really plan on helping with anymore than what I said. To be honest (yes I'm being honest, not trying to game the system), I have very little clue on BLP policy, so I'm not going to believe the material doesn't violate the policy :]. I don't plan on getting myself involved.
8. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
A: I've seen administrators who act like they're kings. And because they're admins, there's usually not a lot that can be done. Administrator recall is a good thing because it keeps people like this from continuing to act like that. If enough users in good standing agree this administrator is not being good, they should have to be reconfirmed by RFA.
9. How would you treat the following CSD A7 candidates?
  • "Loser McGee is a politician from Montana and has been a mayor in Billings since 1995." with no sources.
  • "Into The Abyss is a goth band from Northern New Jersey." with a source to an online music zine.
  • "Whitefire is a notable military contractor. In 2007 it registered sales of thirty million dollars." with no sources.
A: Once again, I don't plan on handling things like this. I will mostly handle WP:UAA and WP:AIV.
10. When should you notify ComCom after blocking an IP address?
A: ComCom should be notified when an IP on the sensitive list is blocked, or someone very high ranked, such as a government official.
11. What is your view of ignore all rules?
A: IAR is good when used in the right way. We have so many policies that sometimes we need to get something done and they stop us from doing it. However, if getting the task done helps the encyclopedia and will not cause a dispute breaking a rule is fine here and there.
12. Do you find this amusing?
A: No. I don't really it amusing at all. I would say it's mocking Wikipedia but it's not the actual site doing it, it's you :].


Question from Astral at 23:46 20th-Jan-08 (UTC):

13. From what I've seen on you on IRC, I cannot be sure you have the maturity to be an admin here. You've failed 5 RfAs in the past, with a lot of people citing maturity as the reason for an Oppose. How have you changed since them that could convince me not to Oppose you?
A: The thing is, IRC is informal. First of all Astral, I think most of the time I've talked to you is in a non-Wikipedia channel. On IRC I do tend to be a bit immature, but a lot more so in private channels than Wikipedia ones. I am a little immature in Wikipedia channels sometimes, but let's face it, most other people are also. If they weren't Wikipedia related discussion would still be going on there, but we all know it doesn't :]. If I was given adminship and access to the admins channel I would of course act very mature there, since I'm guessing it's mostly admin business discussed in there (I hope). I'll also note that on Wikipedia, I am very mature....with the exception of a few usertalk comments here and there. I guess I'll just have to kill the person that introduced me to IRC. I hope this answers your question, but if it doesn't just leave more below.
13a. Thanks for the reply. Whilst I'm a bit apprehensive about the "it's ok because other people do it too" idea, I understand your point. A few times I have seen you being a bit immature in the main WP channel but I will say it was during Non-WP discussions. I just have one further question, related to a few of the comments below; How come between your last failed RfA and this one, you've barely made any edits at all? Why are you any more qualified for adminship now than you were then, given that you've barely been here?
A:

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Time has passed, but without sufficient editing to address the concerns that other people raised in R 2. That was already my first thought when I saw this at WP:BN/R. At 8/5 already... hbdragon88 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I just wish to note my disappointment that for a community which could be considered a meta-experiment in assuming good faith, people sure are quick to jump to the 'power hunger' conclusion. I doubt he'd be willing to continually take a beating from callous and rude opposers if he were just in it for the - uh, free chocolate and 72 virgins? (After almost a year of adminship I still fail to exert or receive any added power) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Poor timing - but should make a good admin. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can someone elaborate on the 2 mentions of 'timing' of this RfA? the_undertow talk 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • See RfA/R 2 - not very long ago - however, still supporting per my nominating statement then :) As long as eagerness for the job is matched by backlogs cleared, I'm happy ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. As far as I'm concerned, vandalism fighting is his way of helping the 'pedia. I know he's learned from the past incidents, such as the AfD of a cricketer for which he received some flak; the extra block button should aid him on RC patrol. However, I'm not at all impressed with the somewhat spur-of-the-moment submission of this RfA. —Animum (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support R is a good user/editor, I have nothing but good expectations from him. The Placebo Effect (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as I think that since the last 5 RFA's (which is a lot) you have changed and would not abuse the admin tools. Dreamy § 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support per my nominating statements and extensive comments on the prior nominations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is really a response to a couple of the oppose comments, although sometimes editors are criticized for "arguing with the opposers," so I'll post an addendum to my support comment instead. The argument that "the candidate really, really wants to be an administrator ... and therefore he shouldn't be one" has never struck me as much of an opposition rationale. R has indicated, now and in the past, that he intends to focus his administrator work on things such as routine vandal and username blocks. If this is where an experienced editor believes his volunteer wikitime can best be spent, and his judgments have been sound in these areas (as they have), then I fail to see why the strength of the candidate's desire to help out should be held against him. I would add that most administrators find tasks such as monitoring AIV and UAA to be chores, sometimes resulting in backlogs, so the addition of an admin who might devote some extra time to these boards would not go amiss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can I get an "Amen" for Newyorkbrad? The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not from me, I'm afraid. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    No evidence that he has sufficient judgment to close "simple" XFDs (to decide if it is simple), do "simple" protections, handle unblock requests, or "help anyone that asks for an administrative task" (like what?) Q1 also gives the condition "at least right now". –Pomte 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support No problems here. Majorly (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support as Newyorkbrad. bibliomaniac15 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support He's ready, and eagerness is something I particularly look for in an admin candidate, especially one who can handle the job. Brad said it well. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. More specialized admins, please. east.718 at 00:31, January 21, 2008
  11. R U MAD support - Sure :) ...--Cometstyles 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Spebi 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. See what I said here. No good reason to oppose. Acalamari 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support...again. But I do wish you'd made a few more edits b/w the last one and this. But regardless, I !voted yes on the last couple and I stand by that. - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Only 65 edits since last RfA, mostly consisting of a few reverts on articles, some edits in userspace, voting in the ArbCom elections and a few RfAs - impossible to tell whether concerns that were raised last time have been addressed. BLACKKITE 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strongly, as per last RfA, and the fact this is the second time that after one of his RfAs failed, he stops editing. Nothing has changed since the last time. Maxim(talk) 23:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Six RfAs in little more than a year demonstrate to me that being an admin is too important to R. And comments like this "I had just gotten bored and annoyed with Wikipedia ... and users much newer than me were getting adminship already (my emphasis)" demonstrate immaturity. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose by principle, and not because this would set a bad precedent. RfA isn't a place to keep trying until consensus changes, or to make people say the same things over and over. The opening statement is depressing, and I suggest the candidate continue to do other things with his life. –Pomte 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Why post an RFA if you are sure it will fail? These things take time to respond to, so I think you have my nonsupport and I nonconcur with your request. Mercury at 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not nearly enough edits to show maturity over last RfA. After five unsuccessful RfAs, you do not seem to be any more mature. I suggest you withdraw and make many more edits over the next few months to prove that you have matured and are ready for adminship. Patience is needed in a good admin, and that is something that you obviously do not have. Timmeh! 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Nothing against the candidate but someone whose talk page says that he is taking a prolonged wikibreak and an editing history to match is not an appropriate candidate for adminship. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Same as others above, you've barely edited since your last RfA, haven't dealt with any of the concerns raised in any of the previous RfAs, poor answers to questions, fixation on adminship. This mentality of trying to forcibly bash in the janitor's door without responding to the concerns raised in previous RfA is just unbelievable. Sarah 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, I have never opposed R before, and have always supported if I saw an RfA for him/her. But in this case I have to agree with the above, especially Sarah. Prodego talk 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Agree with above statements really - I'm sorry, but your opening statement is somewhat depressing. If you're sure this will fail, why bother? For the sixth time? TalkIslander 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Two opposers have posed that question now, but it's based on a misreading. The candidate doesn't say he's "sure" he'll fail this RfA. He does say he's apprehensive that he will probably fail; but that is understandable after his experiences last summer, when he failed at least two RfA's that he should easily have passed. After that, he became demoralized. So would many of us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's understandable that he's apprehensive, but questionable that he got to the stage of becoming apprehensive in the first place. So the system might be broken, a lot of people agree. Repeatedly requesting such demoralization on oneself certainly doesn't help. This is a type of poor decision that I would not want to see an admin make, even one who tries to focus on uncontroversial tasks. –Pomte 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Pomte, so how should I become an admin without requesting demoralization? From what I can interpret, your saying I shouldn't run for RFA. But there's no other way to get adminship as we know. -- R ParlateContribs@ 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Saying you shouldn't run for RfA implies, by the knowledge that there's no other way, that you shouldn't be an admin. I'm not sure what to make of your question otherwise; my response to Newyorkbrad doesn't mean that I think it is necessarily demoralizing. –Pomte 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Agree with Sarah. Nothing significant has changed since last RfA. The opening statement was not encouraging at all. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose. I supported R 1 and almost decided to support R 2, but sadly this RfA is, well... i don't know what to say. You fail an rfa, stop editing, then try another one? Can't say I've seen that before. Constant RfA attempts is like picking a scab. Unless you leave it alone it's only gonna get worse. Wizardman 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - User cant take advice/criticism from the community, as they have made 60-70 edits from their previous RfA and requested another one, not becoming of a administrator. Tiptoety talk 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. I've tried to review this impartially. It didn't take long to look at every edit you made since last time. Nothing there is inspiring. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Self-noms tend to be from those who wish for the tools for the title. As this is your 6th RFA, I'm not sure what to assume. --Sharkface217 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not all were self noms. I believe this is the third self nom. -- R ParlateContribs@ 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, sorry. This entire RfA is quite self explanatory of why you should not be an administrator. Húsönd 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose — because of the little attention you've paid to the comments made by users in your previous RfAs, it has become quite clear to me that you don't listen to people. That's not exactly a good trait in an administrator. --Agüeybaná 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose; maturity concerns undressed since previous RfA, lack of encyclopedia-writing. --John (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Nyerrrr. That you've only made about 70 edits since your last RfA is concerning, as is the partisan notice on your user page. I'm really awaiting your answer to Astral's question. Thanks, Martinp23 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Good user, but the above concerns made me not support. I also don't feel like opposing this user, so I voted Neutral. NHRHS2010 00:35, 21 January 2008 (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.