Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skully Collins

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] Skully Collins

Final (13/17/8); Ended Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:07:49 (UTC)

Skully Collins (talk · contribs) - Skully Collins has been a user on Wikipedia since January 2006, and has made over 5,000 edits to the English Wikipedia. Skully has made a substancial amount of edits, and has worked on some articles so much that they have been promoted to FA-Class. These articles include Damon Hill, List of Formula One fatal accidents and Alain Prost. To add to that, Skully is currently working on Clay Regazzoni and WilliamsF1 articles. Skully is also a member of several WikiProjects. Davnel03 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept. --Skully Collins Edits 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I guess helping out with Images and Articles for Deletion would be the most likliest place I would help out, as well as my current efforts to improve Wiki's content on Motor Racing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I guess my most proudest achievement so far would either be getting Damon Hill, my childhood hero, up to FA class or getting List of Formula One fatal accidents up to Featured List status. Although I do admit I had help with both articles from 4u1e and Diniz.
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: Ermm...One. Which was with the Damon Hill article with a user called Ernham about a collision between Hill and Michael Schumacher which decided the 1994 title in Schumacher's favour. The specific content in question was whether or not Schumacher's car was damaged, as it had made contant with the wall prior to his and Hill's collision. Ernham motioned the idea that the car wasn't damaged at all and changed to content to support his feelings.
He then requested that I should find a valid source to support my idea that Schumacher's car was damaged which I did but Ernham deleted the cite under the grounds that it was "slander", in his opinion at least, because I don't think that a book by Bruce Jones, who used to be the editor for Autosport, is a "slanderous" source. Anyway, the article itself has no content as to whether or Schumacher's car was damaged because I can see it Ernham's point of view.
In terms of dealing with a conflict, I prefer to see it from both sides and trying to find an option that suites both parties. Or if I'm one of the parties in question, I prefer to see the oppositions view above my own in terms of priority. But I try and avoid conflict by adding references to any new content I put onto Wikipedia.
4. You have improved the quality of many articles to FA but where is your vandalism reverts, reports to AIV, participations in AFDs, MFDs etc?
In my field of work on Wikipedia (writing articles on subjects low down the "ladder" of importance, in comparison to some other articles) I don't really encourter much vandalism, although I have found a few pieces of evidence: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As for participation in AfDs, I had to go into a bit of research through my edit list for that, but I did find a few: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Now, I am aware four examples aren't really satisfactory (sp?) and I know that my responce to this question has been a bit slow (Although I'm not blaming it totally on this, I believe it contributed to the slowness of my responce. Oh and I'm not afraid in being bold about looking into others having it either ;-) but that isn't the question). Indeed, I do agree that I don't take part in much discussions for AfD and MfD, but as a few others have said in this discussion, everyone has their own way of editing Wikipedia and I'm, IMHO, a quick learner to things I'm interested and I know a majority of the core policies of Wikipedia, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOTABLE, WP:BLP. But then again, that's my opinion on my knowledge about Wiki policies because in the end it's down to my fellow editors to give me the mop or not. Anyway, I do hope that answers your question Meno, if it doesn't they just say (it'll probably be a misunderstanding of the question from this end if it isn't a good answer) and I'll be happy to try and clarify what I mean.--Phill talk Edits 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support judgement seems fine. 5000 edits & over a year is plenty of experience. am truly put off by attitude in oppose section. god forbid that someone who's mostly here to write articles should become an admin. Derex 11:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per lack of a reason given to oppose. Just because someone contributes to Wikipedia in a different way than you do is no reason to oppose. The user is obviously trustworthy, and that's what matters at RFA. --BigDT 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. support per criteria set ou on my user page, although admiration for Phil Collins is almost a reason not to support.Edivorce 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. All of our interaction at WikiProject Motorsport in the past has been quite favorable, and Skully has proposed great ideas. I trust Skully with the mop. Royalbroil T : C 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support unequivocally. Matthew 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Subjective support. I've had good experiences with this user, and I think he would make a good admin. But with his lack of experience in wikispace I can't see this RfA passing. Work at AfD for a while and try again in a few months.--Wizardman 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Trustworthy editor, zero chance of abusing tools. Oldelpaso 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per all above. Adminship shouldn't be an exclusive club for those who can reel off WP jargon. Any trustworthy editor in good standing should be able to achieve adminship. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Per above. Saying that 3,600 edits and 3 FAs doesn't show commitment is ludicrous, and actually suggesting that this user would actiely damage Wikipedia with the sysop tools which is the purpose of RfA on a very basic level is equally unreasonable. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support trustworthy and experienced editor.-- danntm T C 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Must agree with first contributor, oppose sections aren't too convincing. You have enough experience to warrant adminship. Imageboy1 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, strong answer to Q4. ^demon[omg plz] 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks like a good user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose - You seem to have very little experience in XfD, AIV, RPP, etc. I would like to see more experience in policy before you get called to start applying it. —dgiestc 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - no real desire to have the tools as per Q1, and if you're going to use them for AFD, you don't have enough experience for me. The Rambling Man 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Your response to Q1 is a bit unimpressive, and you lack experience.--TBCΦtalk? 08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too little AFD discussion. No need for admin tools for article improvement --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - You don't seem to show enough confidence in your responses. TML 09:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose, although this is not your fault, your nominator said you have 5000 edits, you only have approximately 3,500. The activity on Wikipedia is low but not too bad and it would be good if you had more work on XFD's and WP:AIV, give it a few months and some more varied edits and you'll probably pass! Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose You hve only some 3,600 edits, although the error is obviously your nominator's not yours. And you have some great articles in your edit-count. The difficulty is that we have to give you either all the tools or none - there is no halfway house. And that means that we have to see enough participation in admin-related tasks - WP:AfD, WP:AIV and so forth, to be confident that you will use the tools competently in these areas. And I regret that the number of edits you show in these areas does not yet demonstrate this.--Anthony.bradbury 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Clearly a good editor and trustworthy. However the few projectspace contribs don't reveal a thorough knowledge and understanding of policy (and give some indication to the contrary- see Chaser's neutral below). If experience showing that understanding is gained in future, I would no doubt support. WjBscribe 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, sorry. RFA too premature, very low Wikipedia space count, no need for the tools.--Húsönd 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Not 5000 but about 3600 Edits however your contribution to Wikipedia and as Meno25 Question, you havent contributed as much as to Wikipedia as you should have taking into account that you have been here for about 14 months...--Cometstyles 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    {{shrubbery}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    What do you mean?? All I meant was that as per Meno25 Question(which still hasnt been answered), the nominee hasnt contributed much towards Wikipedia as a whole ie he didnt take part in any XfD or AIV or vandalism reverts ..--Cometstyles 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's not what "...you havent contributed as much as to Wikipedia as you should have..." says to me. Leaving aside the editcountitis, it appears to be suggesting that RFA is for Stakhanovites, but what the RFA page tells us is that we should be looking for "trusted users who understand policy". Try framing your opinions in line with the intent of the process. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Basically I meant that he had lack of Experience when it comes to Wikipedia since he didnt take part in any of the XfD, AIV, RPP, etc and "...you havent contributed as much as to Wikipedia as you should have..." simply means that he hasnt been doing a lot on Wikipedia which is Quite Puzzling seeing that he is one of the most experienced of editors being on Wikipedia for a long time(I wasnt being rude, I was just concerned with his little contribution toward Wikipedia and believe me I would have voted for him but seeing his contributions, he doesnt really need the tools cause he has done a great job without it)..--Cometstyles 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Looks like 3600 good edits, but not enough indication (through procedural processes like AIV & XfD) to conclude whether you're ready for the tools. Broaden your horizons some and get active in the nuts and bolts of the project, and reapply after a few more months of quality work. -- Scientizzle 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Cometstyles. Michael 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Nom and the answers were short and unimpressive. Low Wiki edits. Edit count is not low, but nothing else tells me that you have proven your worthiness for adminship. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose for the quote in the yellow box on the top right of this subpage of the user's space at User:Skully Collins/Adelaide '94. Shows lack of understanding of WP:USER and hints at WP:OWN. Worse yet is the threatening of reverting any change and warning as vandalism. --MECU≈talk 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I'll be ready to support when you have a little more experience in administrator areas, however. Yuser31415 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - I see absolutely no experience in administrator areas. While adminship is no big deal, someone needs to have some experience. Even a little bit would be OK. Patstuarttalk·edits 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - Skully is on a great track: Already a valuable editor and working towards a demonstration of enough experience with admin-type duties. A little more experience in the later area is required, still, in my opinion. Johntex\talk 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral insufficient activity and experience in the project-space. No other problems. Work on XfDs and do some vandal-fighting and you'll get there. - Anas Talk? 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral You've been here too long for me to think you'd abuse the tools, but I'm underwhelmed by your contributions to AFDs, like this nomination, which was a clear speedy. You don't need the tools for what you've been doing, but if you want to close AFDs and IFDs, I'd suggest getting some editor experience in those forums first and doing a bit of New page patrol. Best of luck.--Chaser T 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Personally, I have no problems giving the admin mop to somebody who doesn't focus on admin duties on Wikipedia (such as XfD, AIV, etc) but I still like to see participation on policy pages that way I know that the candidate understands Wikipedia policies and will take the correct action if he/she ever has to use the sysop tools. There is a big difference between giving the tools to somebody who won't use them often and somebody who does not know how to use them. Kudos on your fantastic article contributions. Don't let this RfA discourage you. Go out and participate in a little more policy discussions and reapply in a few months.↔NMajdan•talk 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Wonderful article writer, but definitely needs more experience in Wiki processes. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral: I completely trust that this user will not misuse the administrative buttons but does he really has enough knowledge to be able to enforce Wikiedia policies correctly. If I just found some AIV reports or contributions in XfDs, I would have supported him. I asked him question 4 yesterday to give him a chance to clarify his position yet the question was not answered. If this user renominated himself after 3 months, I will definitely support him. He is a wonderful editor. --Meno25 08:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Encyclopedia writer; but you definitely need more experience in Wiki process edits.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, good writer, has admin potential. However, you need more work in admin related areas and more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Terence 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per Chaser and NMajden. Thought I agree with the sentiment behind Derex's and BigDT's comments, I can not support at this time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:38, 16 March 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.