Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar

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] Rmrfstar

Final (18/18/5) ended 11:11 May 15, 2006 (UTC)

User:Rmrfstar (Talk - Contributions) has done tremendous work for Wikipedia, and at one point created an article that made featured status. I am one of his classmates from school, and looking at his brilliant attitude towards Wikipedia, and his edit count between 2,000 and 2,500, it is of my pleasure to nominate this user to be an administrator. He is a sysop already for the Staples High Wiki and considers himself a "Wikipediaholic". He has been editing Wikipedia since March 2005, and is part of the Staples High School Computer Club. --NicAgent 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am flattered and I accept. And thank you. -- Rmrfstar 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make a blanket statement to all of those who are objecting on the grounds that I haven't made enough Wikipedia namespace edits, or won't use the admin tools. I think you are missing what's important when considering who should be an admin. Now I'm not saying I should be one; I never desired to be one before now. But many of your reasons for objecting are based upon beliefs that administrators are special Wikipedians: Wikipedians who patrol AfD and RfA, fight vandals and change protected pages. This leads to objecting perfectly good noms (such as BrownHairedGirl) for not being "well balanced" enough. What makes Wikipedia great is that every editor can choose to focus on what areas they want. I choose to write an article on a ballet and not vote on AfD. It's just not my style. And my motives should not be questioned when I defend myself (as I do now). I don't need the admin tools. I might never use them. But admin tools should still be given to those who are an "active and regular Wikipedia contributor", "familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy" and is "generally a known and trusted member of the community." If you can't trust me, say so. If I'm not well known enough, say so. But I ask you, don't say to me or to any other editor, that we need a "few more edits in 'administrative' areas such as AfD" or "Please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now". -- Rmrfstar 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawal It is a sad process by which a candidate may be opposed for reasoning (or lack therof) against policy and logic and when he tries to defend himself and discuss the matter, garners more oppose votes and is accussed of "harassing" voters. I shall spend no more time on this futile struggle, but instead shall return to "building the encyclopedia" (I'm sorry, I can't get over that line). I'd like to thank all of those who supported me and NicAgent in this endeavor, especially Tyrenius, before I put this behind me. Now I shall. -- Rmrfstar 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Agree because he seems to be one of the more productive members ive noticed.  Heltec  talk 
  2. Weak support though having more experience will be better.--Jusjih 08:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Trustworthy user. DarthVader 13:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Why oppose? Why not support? We "love" so many vandals and POV pushers, and give them repeated chance and opportunities to waste the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation and the wikipedians. Our system sometimes fails to keep the contents in order build by the toil of so many of us. Is this nomination so bad? I am supporting him, he shall learn and shall have an "on-the-job" training as an administrator. All the best! --Bhadani 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak support. I have slight concerns that this editor is pining, but nothing fatal to the nom. I just went through his recent FaC and noticed that he started to get slightly testy at one point, then stayed calm and addressed the concerns, stringent thought they seemed to come across to him; that speaks in his favor. I generally like to see more experience, but I have no reason to oppose. RadioKirk talk to me 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Adminship is no big deal. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support. We need more "content contributor" admins. This one seems good. Kimchi.sg 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (2x edit conflict)
  8. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, as for being the nominator. --NicAgent 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong support I am extremely impressed with this candidate's conduct. He does not react spikily to challenge but is level-headed and shows maturity. His talk on User talk:Speedway has been cited against him, but I find it does him credit, showing a great deal of patience and desire to help another editor. I also agree with his points about article space edits being a sufficient criterion (see RfA talk on "Specialist admins"). Tyrenius 04:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong support, because of this candidate's response to RfA criticisms, where he has shown the ability to make coherent arguments and keep a balanced outlook, despite being under pressure.
  11. Support. I have no problem with admins who aren't going to spend all their time adminning. His thoughtful answers to this RfA itself are enough for me to go ahead and support. That he says he loves reading policy space suggests he knows enough about it, and from looking I do not believe he would be likely to abuse it. Every little bit of effort helps; I don't think we should deny adminship to a decent candidate simply because he will not use it often. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Very weak support I suggest withdrawl. ForestH2
  13. Weak Support Incredible content editor/contributor. However, per Elkman’s “oppose,” needs more work in RFAs and AFDs, and to be a little more even-tempered with users. Change from Neutral on reflection. :) Dlohcierekim 06:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Has astounding dedication to Wikipedia and has started two complete articles from scratch (Roman Vishniac and Sylvia (ballet)), one of which made featured article status. He also came up with the idea for the Staples High Wiki and is an admin there. He is trustworthy and responsible and I don't see any reason why he should not be an admin. --Jsherman256 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    User's 23rd edit. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support -- per canidates own blaket statement up top, wikipedia needs to do more to encourage that mentality here. In my eyes that shows that Rmrfstar could be trusted to activlly contribute and not to see wikipedia as anything more than a really cool encyclopedia --T-rex 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, with the assumption that you will read up on any policies you may have previously missed as a result of low Wikispace edits. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 00:18 UTC
    Definitely. -- Rmrfstar 00:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Normally you would not have my vote but I liked the note you added and I agree with what you said and the fact that you had the cajones to say it on your RFA means something as well. Good luck and keep it up.--Looper5920 10:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Seems to be a good user. Though he may not extensively right away, I am sure he would use them to their fullest potential as some time goes by.Jordy 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Your article edits are good — and congratulations on your work in getting up to FAC — but I don't see much of a necessity for you to use admin tools. You mention that you'd use them for AfD's and vandalism, but I see little participation with AfD in the past and few vandalism edits or indication of extensive involvement. I'd like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits as well. However, please don't misunderstand my oppose vote as negative; Wikipedia could use more great editors like you... adminship is not necessarily a sign that a user is a valuable member of the community. If you show more participation in processes which adminship is necessary for in the future, I would gladly change my vote. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    In my own defense, I cite Wikipedia:Administrators: "Wikipedia practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." No, I would not use the admin tools extensively, but I think we should hold to the original Wikipedian values and trust users who have proven themselves. Admin tools should not have to be a "necessity" to be given. -- Rmrfstar 10:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed. But if you've been around RfA a while, you'll see that it isn't really the practice. The key here isn't the part about being a contributor for a while (which is vague, and intentionally so), but the latter two. You'll note that I trust you as a member of the community, but would like to see more involvement. More importantly, though, is that there isn't much in your history to indicate a familiarity with Wikipedia policy, the second point. While I'm inclined to believe that you would do well in the future, it's difficult to tell for sure without past edits to look at. In any case, if you don't have much use for the admin tools, why ask for them? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    You'll note that I didn't ask for them originally. NicAgent even noted on my talk page that I never really desired the tools. But as I have been nominated, and I do meet the criteria, I will support myself. -- Rmrfstar 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I understand the acceptance of the nom as tacit approval of receiving admin tools. Why else would you accept, after all? Concerning your responses to my vote, and the note added near your nom acceptance, I think we're just prioritizing differently. As I explained, I consider well-rounded contributions important in an admin, and vote accordingly. You may not, and you're free to add your votes to RfA's as you see fit. I also suggested some things that would change my vote to a Support; there may very well be some who ask for more xfD, more Wikispace, or whatever else, while they may be actually concerned with trust. That's not my concern, though. I trust your edits so far. And I trust that, with some further involvement, you will be a prime candidate for admin. Just not yet. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per TijuanaBrass. Rama's Arrow 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above; adminship is no prize, believe me. Pardon the cliché, but a little more time is needed in areas like XfD, AIV, etc - a toolset does you no good if you don't have experience with the wood. --Jay(Reply) 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I've reverted enough vandalism in my time here to desire the rollback feature... -- Rmrfstar 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I'm not convinced you're ready to be an admin. You have little Wikipedia space experience and your answers are rather weak. Though you say you want to help fight vandalism, I looked through your user talk edits and you don't seem to have been doing much of that. Royboycrashfan 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose due to lack of Wikipedia space edits, which indicates to me a lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I was asked on my talk page to clarify this vote. I beg to refer to the standards page, where if you search for my name you find that I require at least 400 Wikipedia namespace edits to support. This indicates a basic level of involvement with Wikipedia processes outside of building the encyclopedia. You do not need admin tools to write articles or improve them to featured status. If you insist that I pick one of your reasons to oppose, so be it: you're not well-known enough. Now Strong Oppose due to basically picking fights with people who disagree. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    "Picking fights" as a criticism is unfair. This candidate is making sensible coherent arguments in a straightforward and not aggressive manner. In any other area of wiki (e.g. AfD, article edits) this is common practice. There is therefore no reason why it should not take place in RfA, although it seems in RfA that an expectation has developed that there should not be any response from the candidate to those making observations on him/her. This seems to me to be quite contrary to the open nature of wiki, and is an expectation that should be curtailed. An admin will have to debate with others in the future, and a demonstration of that ability is to be welcomed in the RfA. Tyrenius 19:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response, even though I think it is incomplete. You did not address the reasoning behind your 400 edit minimum, nor the insignificance of "needing admin tools", cited above from Wikipedia:Administrators. Also how you humored me when you picked one of "[my] reasons to oppose". But I'm not asking for further discussion with you, I don't want to make you feel defensive. I did not mean to pick a fight with you, or anyone else here, when I asked for a more complete justification for your "oppose". -- Rmrfstar 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - A lack of policy edits does not equate to unfamiliarity whatsoever but I am concerned at the lack of administrative actions in this users history (e. g. Vandal fighting is scarce, AFD etc.) Given his statement above he sees an RFA's as either praise or condemnation of his efforts, which is not the spirit of RFA, and does not seem to understand that users have different standards for admins (Users are encouraged to look for evidence of "Helping with chores. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as RC Patrol and articles for deletion.") He's said that: "I don't need the admin tools. I might never use them. But admin tools should still be given to those who are an "active and regular Wikipedia contributor" not realising that "Adminship is, in essence, janitorial duties for Wikipedia." The editor does write excellent articles, it should be noted. --Knucmo2 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Let me just say that when I argue with objectors, I am only looking for reasoning which fits policy, that is all; I do not take any of the negative comments made here personally. I have already dealt (to the best of my abilities) with the rest of your arguments above and below. And thank you for the praise, (that is praise for my efforts is it not?). -- Rmrfstar 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    You have responded to my objections, but you cannot be said to have "dealt" with them. Yes, as an editor, keep up the productive work so far. --Knucmo2 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sorry, but I have to oppose. I don't see a lot of work in vandal fighting, although that isn't my main concern. I checked through the user talk edits, and some of the user talk edits (as in User talk:Speedway) seem a little short-tempered. Maybe spend a little more time vandal-fighting, participating in RFAs and AFDs, and be a little more even-tempered with users, and I'd support later. --Elkman - (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Excuse me, where exactly was I uncivil? If my tone bother you, you'll note that Speedway was uploading dozens of copyvio images to Wikipedia and placing them in dozens of articles. I was forced to bold my comments to catch his attention and make known the seriousness of his actions. -- Rmrfstar 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't say you were uncivil, but the following comments look to be short-tempered: "I must insist that you fix the address the problems that I have mentioned ASAP, else I will be forced to delete a lot of work of yours." "Please respond!" (That's for User:Speedway. Others include: I believe my "argumentative responses" are quite necessary. (No, they aren't. We're trying to build consensus in this RFA, and trying to build an encyclopedia in the overall project.) Or this: this response to someone who has objections to your RFA -- "I see adminship as a mark of trust and acceptance by the Wikipedia community." It's one thing to trust and accept a user as a good Wikipedia editor; it's another to trust and accept that they won't argue with other administrators, or bite new users, or cause wheel wars.
    Also, I know what it's like to be short-tempered -- I've done too much of it myself. I ended up contributing to the partial destruction of Esperanza because I took this statement as a personal attack. As a result of that, I'll never have a chance of being an admin, no matter how many worthless articles like Seventh Street Improvement Arches and Washburn "A" Mill I contribute. --Elkman - (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    I thought arguing was necessary in creating consensus, and that it was OK to argue with administrators, not "quarrel", but, "To put forth reasons for or against; debate"[1]. -- Rmrfstar 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: not nearly enough experience, sorry. Please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now. Jonathunder 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    What are we all doing if not that? Admin tools are around to help editors build this encyclopedia, and rollback, page deletion, the ability to edit protected pages would all help me do exactly that. -- Rmrfstar 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, over 550 edits (roughly a third of mainspace contributions) are to the candidate's two favorite articles, as compared to only 200 or so edits to Wikipedia: namespace, a large number of which, unsurprisingly, relate to featured-article candidacy of this user's favorite articles. May reconsider in the future if the candidate can diversify his contributions, a lot. — May. 13, '06 [10:28] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Do you think I could have done the work I have not being familiar with and respectful to Wikipedia policy? -- Rmrfstar 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. I'm not accusing you of ignorance or disregard for policy, but the scenario you've suggested is far from impossible. — May. 15, '06 [07:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  10. Oppose Inexperience --Masssiveego 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. An excellent article editor, who I hope will continue making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. From his comments above and below, it doesn't sound like he really wants to dedicate his time to the type of duties that admins are expected to get involved in right now. Zaxem 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per freakofnurture. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose seems to think he has the right to tell other people how to vote. And that's BEFORE we give him a nice shiny 'block' button. Cynical 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    If you'll read what I've written, you might notice that I said, "I'm not saying I should be [an admin]". All I've been arguing is that your criteria should be valid and in accordance with Wikipedia practice, policy and philosophy. -- Rmrfstar 16:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per 1) a lack of diversity of mainspace edits and 2) a lack of Wikipedia edits. To be clear: the second is a concern because a) a lack of policy knowledge could lead to an admin making a serious policy mistake or similar problem. b) The candidate states a desire to help out with AfDs- closing AfDs requires a lot of hands-on policy experience and experience with many AfDs, which I don't see in this user's record. I will be happy to support in a few months. JoshuaZ 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I dont' feel the editor is particularly well balanced or has expertise in any one area of wikipedia but I definitely appreciate what he's done for the community and he has plenty of articles that he's worked on to make beautiful masterpieces. The main reason I have to oppose is the users short-temper just from what i've seen in this Rfa, the need to angrily challenge everyone's vote scares me and their tenacity to become an admin. is frightening, if the user was more civil and got more mainspace edits I'd support them. - Patman2648 01:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, for several reasons, but mostly because of the responses to earlier oppose votes. Those responses are so argumentative that I'm not comfortable giving this user the mop. --Deville (Talk) 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I read your note above. Ok, I'll say it then: I don't trust you. Why dont I trust you? Because you haven't done enough for me to fully guage what you stand for. Some of the arguments that you raise in your statement prove that you are not ready for the job. For instance, you say that you do not vote in AFDs because its just not your style, but people should not oppose on such a ground. However, it is by these kind of edits that others know who are experienced and familiar with the policies. If you do not edit in places like these, then people are gonna assume that you simply do not care about maintainance, or you do not recognise a "deletable" (I know its not a word, but bear with me) article when you see one. Moreover, if you simply work on articles without community interaction, how can anyone trust you? There are many people who work well by themselves (some have even written featured articles), but would make very bad Admins because they are uncivil, ignorant, or abusive. Despite your mistaken (and forgive me, but seemingly ignorant) beliefs, "few more edits in 'administrative' areas such as AfD" or "Please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now" are perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose. I apologise if I sound harsh, but it's the truth.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose; harassing users who oppose isn't a good way to get yourself adminship. Ral315 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, doesn't need the mop, but wouldn't abuse it. --Rory096 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    As per above, I shouldn't need the mop; anyone who wouldn't abuse it should have it. -- Rmrfstar 10:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Debatable. Who knows whether you'll go rouge in the future or someone will guess your password? No reason to risk it if you're not going to use the tools anyway. --Rory096 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    It's the exact opposite of that. We need all the admins we can get. It's not debatable, it's the Wikipedia way. Admins are not special users who "use the mop", but every user who can be trusted. I'm not going rouge, and no one will guess my 8 digit random alphanumerical password. But I will be able to edit more efficiently, rolling back blantant vandalism that I see, fixing typos on the main page, moving pages, where before I had to make requests to admins. -- Rmrfstar 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Rory096 Steveo2 11:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, will gladly support later if you get a few more edits in "administrative" areas such as AfD or vandal-fighting. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral as per Rory096. Maybe later. Nephron  T|C 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Incredible content editor/contributor. However, per Elkman’s “oppose,” needs more work in RFAs and AFDs, and to be a little more even-tempered with users. :) Dlohcierekim 02:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Switching to "Weak Sopprt" :) Dlohcierekim 06:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Just a question: I have seen very little activity in the Wikipedia namespace. What are your views on the community and your contribution to community building? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me first say that I love the Wikipedia community, love to read the Wikipedia namespace and love all of the pages in it. I think the documentation and community projects on Wikipedia are great assets of its, but I don't generally take an interest myself in actively improving them. I just enjoy academic topics more. Every Monday night (or early Tuesday) I do read The Signpost, I plan on attending Wikimania this summer in Boston, I did vote in the recent Arbcom elections, and I have thought about starting a Wikiproject... but most of my edits are in the article namespace, where my interests (and skills) lie. I value welcoming newcomers, but I really don't see the point in my joining Esperanza . So I care about community building, but when I log on to my computer, I go first to the articles I want to improve myself. -- Rmrfstar 00:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit count with Interiot's tool2:
Username   Rmrfstar
Total edits     2305 
Distinct pages edited   797
Average edits/page      2.892
First edit      04:25, March 6, 2005

(main)     1545
Talk    157
User    162
User talk       153
Image   78
Template        6
Template talk   2
Wikipedia       199
Wikipedia talk  3


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: I would probably help with AFD. If I saw vandalism, I would use the rollback feature and warn/block (when appropriate), and maybe clean up some backlogs, but I am an editor first and foremost.
I was thinking of what JoshuaZ said, and I realized he's right: AfD is not the place for me, at least not at first. I don't know that I'll do any "sysop chores", and I shouldn't say I shall. -- Rmrfstar 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes. I am quite pleased with the way that Sylvia (ballet) and Roman Vishniac have come out. I worked very hard on them, for a long time, and got them through FAC.
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: There is one particular conflict which I should mention. I once uploaded a work of art off of User:Jinwicked's homepage and used it in Universal Turing Machine, improperly claiming fair-use. User:Jinwicked discovered it, notified me and had it deleted. See the discussion on her talk page and on mine. If a dispute ever again happens, I will deal with it the way I did that one, calmly, respectfully and humbly.
The above 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.