Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smcafirst

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] Smcafirst

Final (2/17/1) ended 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Smcafirst (talk · contribs) - I have been here at Wikipedia for more than 4 months. Although the length of time sounded short, I made sure I know everything in Wikipedia. In fact, during the last 2 months, I had been editing on Wikipedia on almost everyday. As a local resident in the Golden Horseshoe, I also started a Wikiproject named WP:GHR, in order to improve road stubs in the Golden Horseshoe area. In total, I am involved in 2 Wikiproject, and in one of which I am the creator and editor, editting my members' work, and wikify the articles if needed be. Frequently do I mark stubs on articles that I think are short and lack of information. In many ways, I co-operate with others, and prevent vandalizing. During my spare time, I often patrol around in Wikipedia to monitor vandalizing, just like an administrator. In these past months, I made positive changes to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipediholic that made over 1500 edits in just 3 months, over 200 categories and articles in just 3 months. Most important of all, I marked stubs and wikify notices on articles for almost 500 times. Some of which are Steeles Avenue, and Simcoe County Road 8. I often drive 500 km, just to take a picture for Wikipedia, and often research until middle of the night, to write an article of something. Other than EN wikipedia, I also have another account at ZH wikipedia, which I made several articles and edits. I have been taking HTML Writing Class, Proofreading Class, and Chinese Typing Class, so that I could write bots, proofread others' work in a better degree, and contribute more to the Chinese Wikipedia community. I am also ready to start a Wikiproject in EN wikipedia and ZH wikipedia about bus routes in various cities. I am deeply in need of admin tools, such as protecting various pages, as some of the articles under WP:GHR are vandalized, and are in need of clean-up. --Smcafirst (Talk) 23:05, 2 January 2007. (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would be willing to do sysop chores such as keeping out vandalism from articles , reverting edits, patrolling articles, blocking vandalising users, and cleaning up articles. As previously stated, I am currently taking proofreading class, and HTML writing classes. I would be willing to keep vandalism out of pages, and proofreads others work, so that all articles are properly formatted. I would also be willing to patrol Wikipedia's articles, like I am doing now, reverting bad edits and vandalism, and potentially I would block IP addresses and accounts, or delete articles if the vandalism is serious enough. For the HTML classes, I feel that I would be confident enough to write a bot upon completion of my class. I also have a great experience of cleaning up pages, and certainly I could use that for my administrator position.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: It is very difficult to choose some articles, however, I am particular please at the articles WP:GHR (despite the fact it is a WikiProject), List of York Regional Roads, List of Simcoe County Roads, and Rodick Road. These articles I had put a lot of efforts into it, and provide a lot of details. Particularly the lists of York Regional Roads and Simcoe County Roads, they are detail oriented and took me 3 hours to create those pages. The articles is equipped with every single information, and I believe that these lists are the best I had ever created.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you believe other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a conflict of editing in the past with another administrator, RaccoonFox. I had created some categories, so that roads in the Golden Horseshoe could fit into their municipal categories. However, as an administrator, RaccoonFox reverted my edits into what I think were misleading names. We finally talked together on a talk page, and compromised. He admitted the names are difficult to understand at times, and he let me to rename all of the categories into their proper names again. In the future, I will do the same thing, because I believe talking on a talk page, discussing conflicts, and compromise is a better way of editing than reverting each other's edits over and over again.

Optional Question from Dar-Ape (talk · contribs):

  1. You also say you have made over 1750 edits, but according to Wannabe Kate you have made only 1509. Could you explain this?
General comments
  • See Smcafirst's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Other few links of my contribution to Wikipedia includes:
  1. Special:Contributions/Smcafirst
  2. User:Smcafirst/Active Participant

Discussion

  • I have been here at Wikipedia since September, that makes it 4 months from now. (As per Renesis)
    Not really. 27 September you made a few edits, then none till 19 November. --Majorly (Talk) 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe you misunderstood me. Yes, I had been inactive for several days. (From 27 September to 5 October, and from November 12 to November 18). During 6 October to 10 November, I have been visiting other cities (and on vacation). And during these dates, I am very active (indirectly). I have been researching from other cities, such as visiting the Simcoe County and Dufferin County. Personally, I live in York Region, and basically know nothing about these counties. Well, I visited these counties, and, this , in turn, lead me to writing some good articles about East Luther-Grand Valley, Ontario, List of Simcoe County Roads, Simcoe County Road 42, Simcoe County Road 27, Simcoe County Road 50, Dufferin County Road 18, and a lot more that I could not list here for the limited space. (Note: On November 11, I was taking a Wikibreak. Since I do not have a Userpage then, I did not notify anyone about this.)--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think there is any misunderstanding; that is what your contribution list clearly shows -- only 10 edits prior to November 19. If you have another account, it must have been in heavy use. -- Renesis (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstood me again, Renesis. I did not mention another account. During the period I was researching, I DID NOT USE ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS. Your misconception is that the wrong edit counts are from my other account, which is inactive since however long (haven't used it since 2003 or somewhere near 2003.). Presently, I do not have any other Wikipedia accounts (except for the one in ZH Wikipedia. (I really need to take Proofreading and Writing classes, there are too much confusion going on, about how people misunderstood me in the comments and et cetera.) --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    So you are counting days that you were "researching" as contributing to Wikipedia? Even having "Wikibreaks" during that time, even though you made no edits for almost 2 months (and only 10 before that)? That's the confusion then - I wouldn't say that's "active" at all, but I guess you do. -- Renesis (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment candidate has changed nom statement [1] [2] [3] without preserving the original text (and no edit summary). Considering this came after several comments (below) about the numbers, this makes it difficult to assume good faith. -- Renesis (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Moral Support to avoid a pile-on. I have already written most of my thoughts on your talk page. I wish you the best, but you are not ready to be an admin. Combine your enthusiasm with more experience, especially in areas relating to the admin tools. Also, please remember not to edit your own comments, just strike them out if you change your mind later. Dar-Ape 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. It is very stupid not to vote for someone just because he has not been active hear to long. This man is a fine editor and I have faith that he will not abuse the tools, and be able to use them right. I am going to go against the croud and support you in your Rfa. --Sir James Paul 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    That's awfully judgmental, and I'd have to say quite contrary to general opinion. I question whether you'd be able to find any candidates who have passed with only 1.5 months of experience. -- Renesis (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Sir James Paul. It is really unfair to judge someone by their edit counts and their time of experience. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    It certainly is fair. And the fact you have spammed several pages with the same message regarding "fairness" shows you really don't know as much as you claim to know about Wikipedia. --Majorly (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. According to your first edit, you have only been here three months with this username, so I'm not sure about the five months thing. You've only been active since November, and while I'm sure your intentions are good, I cannot support yet. Also, your signature is quite long – you may wish to take a look at WP:SIG. Try again with more experience in about two months, or about 2000 edits. --Majorly (Talk) 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not with that signature and not when you can't leave an edit summary when you list your RfA. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Furthermore, no candidate has a desperate need for admin tools, rather, Wikipedia has a desperate need for people who can be trusted with the tools. Even if you'd been the absolute finest candidate on Wiki, I would strongly oppose over the canvassing, that's my one by no-no for admin candidates. Changing the statement and such really isn't good either. Try WP:VPRF and come back in a few months. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Most of what you mention you'd like to do does not require sysop tools, and you have virtually no participation Wikipedia processes, particularly XFD discussions. Also, your numbers are a bit off—I see only 1500 edits and less than a month and a half active participation (10 edits prior to that). An inaccurate portrayal in a self-nom statement does not look good. -- Renesis (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Regretfully oppose. I'm not convinced that you have the requisite experience to be an administrator. You appear to be a very fine editor with a productive wikiproject, but I can't see any indication that you are in need of administrative tools. You focused on vandal-fighting in the answers to your questions, but I couldn't find a single vandal warning or report to WP:AIV in your contributions. You have 136 edits to the Wikipedia namespace (and 4 to Wikipedia_talk), which is pretty low, and nearly every edit is in relation to your wikiproject. From that, I'm unsure as to what, if any, grasp on Wikipedia policy and guidelines you have. In short, I think you're a great editor, but not an admin candidate yet. Participate more in XfDs and policy discussions, perhaps take a more active role in finding and reverting vandalism (and dealing with vandals). Also, just as a note, asking for people to vote for you on your user page is generally frowned upon. —bbatsell ¿? 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (edit conflict) per above. You are also advertising on your userpage for people to vote support for you. Usually canvassing about your RFA is frowned upon by some users, but canvassing people to vote support, is frowned upon by everyone. (why did two users comments get removed)--TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Sorry, that was my fault. I hit the submit button [4], but then immediately hit the "stop loading this page" button so I could expand my edit summary. However, the page had in fact been saved, and then something went awry. [5]. My apologies. Dar-Ape 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. There's just no way I can support a candidate with that signature. It'd drive me insane. I see you now (may have) changed your signature to conform to WP:SIG. However, considering the signature, it demonstrates a clear and crucial misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the way Wikipedia works. Your enthusiasm to serve is admirable, but you will need more experience before becoming an administrator. --Deskana (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose (edit conflict) per above. Deletion of pages and blocking users are the only tasks that require adminship; bots, reverting vandalism, proofreading, patrolling articles and the rest of the other things stated can be done without being an admin. There is also little, if any XfD, which I consider a very important part of being an admin. Also, there are few Wikipedia talk namespace edits, a long signature, and canvassing. –The Great Llamasign here 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Stronger oppose (yes, I am allowed to go straight to that). Misleading nomination statement, few edit summaries, changing nomination statement without telling anyone, and canvassing. I hope I see nothing else bad. -Amarkov blahedits 23:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Has a stupid sig (cf. [6]) that indicates to me he/she has more enthusiasm than sense. --Tagishsimon (talk)
    Please be civil even when opposing RfA's. Nishkid64 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    That was civil(ish). The sig was "annoying or irritating; troublesome" (a definition of stupid). Meanwhile you, Nish, might want to go back and reread WP:SIG, notably the sentence starting "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color". --Tagishsimon (talk)
  10. Oppose. I feel you need more experience dealing with AIV and XfD's before considering an RfA. Try again once you have met the suggestions left by everyone here. Nishkid64 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose I am usually very supportive if you appear to know what you are doing, but I think you need to be here just a bit longer, at least a few months and get in at the least another thousand contributions. More activity in XfD, as well. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. You only became a regular contributor in mid-November. Although your contribution rate since then has been prodigious, you still only have just over 1500 edits in total. More experience in terms of time and contributions is needed for the community to build up sufficient trust to grant someone adminship. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future. Zaxem 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose: I can't really believe you said Although the length of time sounded short, I made sure I know everything in Wikipedia. That's wrong on so many levels (using edit summaries on only 8% of major edits, to cite only one). John Broughton | Talk 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Sorry. Very limited contributions in WP:NAMESPACE, and not a vast number in mainspace. I think you need a few months more experience, after which you should succeed.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Lack of participation in XfD discussions; no evidence of vandal fighting and issuing of warnings on user Talk pages as appropriate and little-or-no participation in project space all indicate a lack of requirement for admin tools. All of these are easily solvable with new page/recent change patrols; reporting recalcitrant vandals to WP:AIV or appropriate admin noticeboard and giving opinions at XfD discussions backed up with policies and guidelines. The last one may go some way to living up to the claim that you "know everything" about policies and guidelines. (aeropagitica) 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose due to screaming in the discussion section, lack of expierence, and lack of edit summaries. Iced Kola 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. This candidate obviously is unqualified, and this RfA was brought to my attention when he posted a silly complaint to various opponents' talk pages (one of which happened to be on my watchlist). Nick's apparent inability to accept constructive criticism leads me to doubt that he's even on the right track to becoming a sysop. —David Levy 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I think there are enaugh good points to take away and work on for a future RfA, which I think will garner more support. And I hope this fixed the bot-parser Agathoclea 00:17, 3 January 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.