Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Roastytoast

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] Roastytoast

Final (1/8/4); Ended 02:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Roastytoast (talk · contribs) - A contributor of almost 7 months,racking up over 3000 edits. I feel that I would be well suited as an admin. And can be trusted the mop. ROASTYTOAST 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:I plan to help out at whatever needs attention (backlogs), but mainly at WP:AIV and the recently created Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. As a vandal fighter (I bet the non admins feel this too),it frustrating that all I could was warn and report them while the vandal was still creating havoc and getting away with it. I would also help out at WP:CSD because junk also comes in the form of pages. Request for protection is also a place I would keep an eye on, I feel the process is too slow and needs to be revamped like the AIV.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:As a gnome most of my edits are minor but a few months ago I started the WikiProject Arena Football League because the coverage of the AFL was pretty dismal. Since then, we have grown and made forward progress. I'm also involved in Adopt-a-user and have helped others even if I didn't adopt them through {{helpme}}


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 been told that I jump the gun when it come to reverting vandalism. I try to do my best when judging if something is vandalism and apply the duck test:
  • If there are many edits by the same editor.
  • There is no edit summary
  • And it is a large addition/removal

then it's usually a duck vandalism. But rest assured that I don't usually make mistakes, and if I do I admit that I'm wrong

[edit] Optional question from Durova

4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. DurovaCharge! 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A I'd warn them that their behavior is not only unacceptable, it is unethical. If they continue it would a block, obviously. We strive to be EB or better and if they want to be distruptive, we will stop them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roastytoast (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Optional question from Think outside the box

5. Can you name any weaknesses in your editing skills or any areas that you think you will improve in over time? Think outside the box 10:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My actual article writing, kinda stinks. I plan to wikify some articles and gain some more experience in the next months. ROASTYTOAST 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Roastytoast before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I do tag articles using the {{db}} if it isn't already tagged. And I've learned from my stub mistake (for the above wikiproject) that XFD can be a long process.
XFD isn't that long of a "process". Some aspects may be, but keep in mind that XFD has eight subdivisions, a general knowledge of which are crucial to adminship, in my opinion. --Phoenix 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm speaking from my experience, Grutness forgot about the discussion and didn't close it till a few days later.
A long process? Who else is to get involved other than admins then? Tedious tasks can't be left to everyone else. --Phoenix 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I'll start to add my 2 cents to the discussions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roastytoast (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Don't bite me, because I obviously thought it unimportant enough to not oppose. My concern isn't specifically with XFD, but with every thing in the Wikipedia namespace. --Phoenix 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't try to sound mean, it's a good sugestion that I will follow.--ROASTYTOAST 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Cautious support. After reviewing the candidate's talk page (and archive) and contributions, this seems like a very reasonable request, and the candidate is willing to admit his mistakes, which is a big plus. I'm not encountering any obvious shortcomings, so I support. (Although, you might want consider cutting down on some of those userboxes. I'm just saying.) Grandmasterka 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Looking through your contributions list to the mainspace, I see that almost all of your edits are semi-automated vandalism reversions. Vandal-fighting is an important job, but administrators need to be experienced with processes such as WP:XFDs and such. Sean William 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not enough mainspace, sorry -- Samir 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose You have some issues with images that are not properly documented. The fair use rationale is questionable here, missing here and the Spalding logo here is not yours and the work seems to be a derivative of their logo. Sorry. JodyB talk 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, I took the picture of the football and released it under public domain. As for the other logos when I uploaded them I never knew about the FU rational or got a notice about them, but I will put on on now. --ROASTYTOAST 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Wikipedia and Wikipedia-talk edits are too low. Captain panda 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Just a bit too inexperienced for the mop just yet. But seems to be on the right track; just broaden the horizons and edits, and try again in a few months. Jmlk17 04:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Short and inadequately written answers. Some grammar issues throughout the page, and forgot to sign in Q4 without realizing it instantly. A bit too inexperienced as noted above, come back after few months. Aquarius • talk 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per edit summary count and per edit count. Try again in a couple of months. May need an Editor Review. Real96 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: Lack of experience. Edit summary usage for major edits is also low. Also I suggest signing your comments in the future as some were not signed above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
nope, it was just this page that I didn't sign. I guess Mathbot doesn't count my edits using VP.ROASTYTOAST 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, too few Wikipepdia namesapce edits. I think anything relating to quantity of edits in a certain department is insufficient reason to oppose, so I stand here. The answers to the questions could really be exapnded as well, particularly number one and two as they don't show enough need for the "mop". --Phoenix 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Roastytoast mentioned that he would concentrate on AIV as an administrator, and judging from his AIV reports in the past, I don't see any problems. I don't really see anything that would indicate XfD or deletion experience, which is why I can't support this user at the current time. Perhaps if the user would bump up their Wikipedia namespace experience by participating in XfDs and also do CSD tagging, then I could make a better evaluation of this user's credentials. Another problem I see is a lack of encyclopedia writing work. Most of Roastytoast's edits are just vandalism revertions. My personal philosophy is that if a user writes articles and gets involved in discussions with others on talk pages, I can better gauge and possibly anticipate their suitability for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I've noticed that Roastytoast is a dedicated vandalwhacker, and that's good. He's also done some good work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Roastytoast has enough experience yet. Maybe get involved with other areas of Wikipedia? I certainly don't want to oppose, but I can't bring myself to fully support just yet. I am pretty confident, however, that I will be able to support him in the future. WODUP 08:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral as suggested above, you need more participation in the article space, and you need to really involve yourself with other Wikipedia space edits like XfDs and the like. You're doing a good job fighting vandals, but that just doesn't do it for adminship. I would be very likely to support if these issues are addressed in a future RfA. All the best, Anas talk? 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral My only encounter with this user was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit, and to be honest (no offense) I didn't really find his contribution overly helpful. I also don't like the lack of article work. Sorry mate, maybe next time, and please seriously consider all the advice given above. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 23:25, 14 May 2007 (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.