Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rgoodermote 2

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] Rgoodermote

Withdrawn by candidate. Did not want to open RfA for another week [1]. Tiptoety talk 03:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(0/3/0); Scheduled to end 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rgoodermote (talk · contribs) - Rgoodermote is a persistent (in a good way) vandal fighter. He continues to amaze me with his kindness and his hard work. Rgoodermote currently has 5,862 contributions, and, despite having not used the edit summary box in the past, Rgoodermote has improved greatly, going to 52% for major edits (due to the fact that Rgoodermote makes only minor edits when vandal fighting) and 100% for minor edits (see here). I met Rgoodermote in November of 2007 when he warned me about my adoptees using Wikipedia were abusing the Wikipedia policy, using it as a personal space. He approached me with great kindness and I respect him greatly as a user for doing so. All in all, Rgoodermote would make a wonderful administrator because I know I can trust him in blocking and preventing vandalism, and he would make Wikipedia a much better place. –The Obento Musubi 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Obento, my last attempt was marred by my lack of experience in many fields. I admit I faltered in many areas, but this is because I am an anti-vandal fighter. I have attempted to bring my summary usage up but as Obento pointed out I am primarily an anti-vandal and I do not do a lot of work in writing articles. My goal here is the same as it always has been (November 12th, 2006 I believe). To ensure that this project continues to be successful. I ensure that the site is reliable and the articles are clean. I am intent on fighting vandals and their continued fight against our attempts. But as I stated before I intend on being a very kind administrator just like I am when now. I do not like the idea of using the block function for every little thing and if possible not to issue indef blocks. I intend on rehabilitating vandals and attempting to get them to join in and help the project. Instead of scaring to get rid of I want to scare to rehabilitate. My theory has always been and will always be, nobody is a vandal. They are just misunderstood. Well the majority of them (wheels) Rgoodermote  20:50, 18 March 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: In truth I intend on working in areas that get backlogged frequently, WP:AIV WP:UAA, CAT:CSD and any other that pops up. I also intend to do work at WP:AN and WP:ANI reporting to cases that otherwise end up getting ignored. I also intend on using the tool to help me in my continued fight against vandals and I intend on using the tool to speed up the process even more.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I really do not have any thing other than my continued and persistent battle against vandals and if you really think about it it really is one of the best things I can do. Because with my continued fight though not the only one this project can be ensured to have reliable and appropriate articles and over time it helps ensure the project continues to succeed.
3.
A: When I first joined I made several test edits See Here those lead me to be an anti-vandal. But there are three others, during my time here I have reverted many forms of vandalism. But under high stress situations I have made mistakes like other individuals and as previously stated all 3 I discussed the issue with the user. Out of the 3, 2 of them could have lead to me getting in trouble and only 1 of them has been called a small edit war (3RR was not breached and an agreement had been settled upon before the warning was issued an outside party issued the warning). I admit in all cases I was wrong in my actions and all 3 I agreed to the users view. Since the last one I have attempted to the best of my ability to stay out of conversations that could potentially lead to conflict.

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:
5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR, and when are you willing to use it? Is there a time you are not willing to use it? Should it be used in closing AfD's?
A:
6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A:
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A:
8. When is it appropriate to full protect an article on the main page? What about semi?
A:
9. You notice that a administrator is abusing their tools, (lets just say they are using them to gain advantage in a dispute), what action will you take?
A:

Questions from Majorly:

10. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?
A:
11. Why are bananas yellow?
A.
12. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.
A.
13. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.
A.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Rgoodermote Requests for adminship/Rgoodermote 2

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
  1. Sorry, I have seen great things from you but,
    • Anti-vandalism work is important, and like you said ensures that articles keep a clean and correct appearance for readers, but anti-vandalism work is not all that wikipedia is about. Please understand that administrators generally should be well rounded, as the type of decisions they make require them to be. Now I am not saying that you should contribute to every area of the project, as I do not know anyone that does but I am saying that you need to expand your area of work outside of vandalism reverts.
    • While I am not a very big article contributor myself, I still feel that it is important to have at least contributed (more that just a couple of edits) to a few articles and shown on article talk pages that you are able to clearly communicate in regards to editing as you as a admin may (and probably will) be called upon to deal with conflicts/incidents involving articles and content disputes. How are we (or I) to know you are capable to do that when you openly admit you have little to no experience with article work.
    • I also do not like that you refer to vandalism reverts as a “fight”. I feel that it is borderline not assuming good faith, we are not at war. Tiptoety talk 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A prolific vandal fighter (and "fighting" is, as far as I can tell, the term most used to refer to it) but doesn't show any desire toward article building and collaboration. How can a user be trusted with deletion if they've never built an article? I can't support such a narrow focus. (Not a big fan of edit summary usage either) Adam McCormick (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Fairly good wiki-space work, especially in the vandalism realm, however, I must echo the concerns above. Unilateral reversion for vandalism isn't everything. This wouldn't be such a problem though if you had prolific contributions in the mainspace toward article building, which, unfortunately, I see virtually nill on. Same thing with article talking. Doesn't even matter if it's just a handful, but there needs to be ample evidence that you understand mainspace editorial policy, and possess the ability to communicate in that arena. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:38, 19 March 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.