Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SunStar Net

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] SunStar Net

Final (10/27/20); Ended Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:58 UTC

SunStar Net (talk · contribs) – I have been an active editor on Wikipedia for 3 - 4 months now, although I have edited anonymously before (as here. I have participated in many areas of the Wikipedia namespace, as well as Articles for deletion and Miscellany for deletion, plus reviewing some featured article candidates as well occasionally. If given the admin "keys" as such it would be useful to me, and the encyclopedia. --SunStar Nettalk 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this, well, it is a self-nom! --SunStar Nettalk 18:25, 17 January 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 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 anticipate helping with CAT:CSD, as I semi-regularly mark pages for speedy deletion (see User:SunStar Net/Pages I tagged for speedy deletion), and also in salting pages (protecting from re-creation). These would be useful, as I participate in AFD/XFD debates quite often. I also anticipate being able to protect user talk pages (as there are users who constantly request unblocking, despite admins denying their requests) in cases of {{unblockabuse}} and generally dealing with any requests at requests for unblock. I would also like to be able to block users, as I check WP:AIV fairly frequently too. Having the ability to do these tasks would make it a lot easier for me on Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased at the fact I am adding information to Wikipedia. Okay, so it may be relatively obscure information (as it is on automotive, and English history-related articles). I have also created new stubs on British towns and villages (e.g. Blackford, Cumbria) and I have added detail to automotive articles that is obscure but not fancruft (so it is still encyclopedic). I have also been a member on at least three WikiProjects - Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland and have recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti. I may not have any featured articles, but I am pleased that I add new knowledge into the encyclopedia. It is not original research, as I have used automobile magazines, toponymy books and various other sources to get my information.
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 haven't really been involved in any major conflicts, other than a user criticising me on my editor review for nominating his article at AFD, even though I thought it did not meet WP:BIO standards. I warned the user about it, and he seemed to have taken my advice, and doesn't seem to have created any more articles on non-notable persons.

Optional Question from PullToOpen (talk · contribs)

4. Suppose you deleted an article under G11. Another administrator comes and immediately undeletes it, claiming that it doesn't fall under G11. You are certain that this article falls under G11. How would you handle this situation?

I would take this to WP:ANI first, and inform the administrators that what they are doing would constitute wheel-warring, and suggest that if the article is really worth being undeleted, it should go to Deletion Review.Just because you have sysop powers does not mean you can undelete things at will.Of course, every case has its merits, and if I had access to see deleted page histories, that would help make the decision easier.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
A: The five pillars of Wikipedia are important because they are the underpinnings of Wikipedia.
6. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Wheel-warring is a bad idea as it encourages abuse of power, and adminship is given to users who are trusted. I assume it would probably not be wheel-warring to undelete a deleted page for transwiki'ing to another wiki site, and then re-deleting it again.

To avoid it, there should be discussion on WP:ANI about the blocking of user (if another admin disagrees), or protect/unprotect & deletion/undeletion of a page. I would not want to wheelwar myself, I'd discuss with the admin who imposed the block. Well, it's only fair to try discussing first, isn't it??

7. Who has the authority to ban users?
A: Banning and blocking are two different things. Blocking is a software feature: banning is a social construct where the user is not permitted to edit Wikipedia (either permanently or for a period of time, usually 1 year) and they can appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo Wales.

The authority to ban users, is, at the lowest level, with community consensus, then higher up the scale, Jimbo Wales has the authority, and in rare cases, the Wikimedia Foundation board, although this has yet to happen.

A ban doesn't happen overnight, it takes as long as it takes to ban someone.


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Weak Support Seems determined and has the experience. The questions could have been answered a little better, but I think you'll be able to take on being an admin. without any problem. Ganfon 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support He will make a great admin, let him be one! --Hydroplainee 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Hydroplainee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Support Enough said. --IvanQasirr 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — IvanQasirr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Two spa's supporting: either this candidate is out of his mind by trying to use socks to support himself, or someone with a grudge is trying to sabotage this rfa. Patstuarttalk|edits 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • ...with evidence coming in for the latter possibility: [1]. Patstuarttalk|edits 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    These two editors were blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of User:Blotchun following checkuser evidence. See [2] Sarah 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I believe that SunStar would make a fine administrator, mainly because he has kept his ground in the midst of the questions he has been given. His answers could have been more formal, but they were respectively correct answers in the fact that he told the truth and maintained good manner, which is hard to find these days. I believe that his contributions, though few and not outstanding, were significant enough to let him be considered a member of wikipedia. All users should have the right to administrate, and I believe there is nothing stopping Sun Star. -nabilmmezher 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — nabilmmezher (talk •
  3. Support - Based on my personal interactions with this user, he has a level head and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. I've seen other admins with fewer qualifications made admins. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Seems to be a excellent canadite for adminship only problem is lack of time on Wikipedia and seems to make that up in drive to make a difference.--St.daniel 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I agree with St. Daniel, needs more time on Wikipedia, though great candidate. Carpet9
  6. Support I don't see any red flags, and I honestly don't think that it's necessary to demand more than 1000 total edits and 3+ months. Experience is helpful but so is enthusiasm. Eluchil404 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Sunstar seems to know his way around, and I find the editcountitic oppose arguments unconvincing. However, since this nom appears likely to fail, drop me a line a month or two from now if you want a new nomination. >Radiant< 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support looks like a good person, and he meets my guideline.-- danntm T C 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, 633 article, 94 talk and 743 WP space edits is exactly my new arbitrary criteria for the purposes of this vote. In all seriousness, nothing wrong, seems trustworthy, and thus why not? Proto::► 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support • I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I suggest you withdraw. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - fails my criteria, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too early, especially for a self-nom. Also, with 633 article, 94 talk, and 743 WP space edits, this is a bit lopsided. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above; you need to be around a little more. Yuser31415 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Experience. -- Steel 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose per experience, but I'd like to see more of you in the future. --Majorly 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose - lack of edits. Patstuarttalk|edits 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) changing to neutral
  6. Oppose. A good-faith nomination, but I must oppose this user per his lack of time commitment with the project, and his relatively low amount of experience in the mainspace. Consider going up for RfA again in a few months after you've accumulated more mainspace edits. Nishkid64 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - only a few hundred edits in mainspace?!?! Normally I don't care about the number of edits too much, but that is just pushing it too far! Even so, I'd have overlooked only a handful of edits as a reason to oppose if it had not been a self nom. I'm sorry, but I have to vote oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmo (talk • contribs)
  8. Oppose I must agree that 630 mainspace edits are a much too minimal. I would expect about 2000 in my own judgement. Your other spots appear to be okay. Work on the mainspace, then come back again. Good luck! --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Ehh...I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to RfA, but, just a few more months for this one. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - no offence, but your very first edits were not those of Wikipedia newbie, making me unable to shake the feeling you are a sockpuppet of someone. IP editing doesn't make me feel any better about this either, that IP has some odd stuff going on with it. Your first edits weren't just knowledgeble, they were creepy. Can't support. pschemp | talk 03:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    I was using public terminals then.... I can't control what other people edit. I'm no-one's sockpuppet. --SunStar Nettalk 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about other people's edits, I'm talking about the ones you made when you first started using this name. pschemp | talk 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    I'm technically not a new user, pschemp: I had an old account a long time ago - namely Bourne End (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) but I lost the password to that one, and for a while, interest in Wikipedia. There was no email enabled on that account, so it's unlikely I'd be able to use it again. I only registered that account because I didn't want to edit as an IP address: I was in university at the time, and I felt it would be unsafe to edit as an IP address. I did return to editing, once in March 2006, editing from a different PC when I was on the move (as seen in the edit to Bishop's Cleeve but then decided that I didn't really want to be a regular editor (unlike some IP addresses which do!). In late October 2006, I rejoined as my current username, and I wasn't trying to be a new user. Hope this explains it all, and makes it clearer. --SunStar Nettalk 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose- Not enough edits to mainspace and other reasons--SUIT42 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, lacks of experience, low mainspace edit count. Terence Ong 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose - A bit more contributions needed for mainspace. But otherwise, getting there. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I agree with pschemp; it's odd for a new user to welcome some other new user on his first day.[3] Something's weird about this nom. Coemgenus 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. I would like like to support you, but unfortunately I must oppose. I have to agree with Pschemp's comments. You don't have enough experience under this account, anyway, but if you had more experience, I would feel happier overlooking the query about your history. Sarah 10:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - you offer one example of your article writing: Blackford, Cumbria, which is poorly formatted and isn't sourced. Addhoc 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, I agree with everyone else. Come back in maybe two or three years. Ashibaka (tock) 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Inexperience - Come back in 3 months and I may reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, too much unnecessary tagging of vandal accounts against WP:DENY, and per Pschemp. Kusma (討論) 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    See your talk page for details. --SunStar Nettalk 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, not that worried by edit levels, but share the concerns of pschemp and Sarah. The nature of those early edits hasn't been explained sufficiently for comfort. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Replied on your talk page. --SunStar Nettalk 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - Not enough experience under this name, and seems ambivalent about Wikipedia. Jeffpw 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Sorry, but you've too few edits to main NS and I don't much like the answers to 5 and 6. ST47Talk 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Pschemp, sorry, and low mainspace edits. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I'm glad a lot of other users are expressing the same feelings I've felt since this user arrived. I have been, and remain, highly suspicious of motives and similarities to former users. Glad that many other people think this way too and I'm not one of a select few. Metros232 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I am not similar to any former user, for those that think so. I know people who have edited this site but don't assume I am like them. --SunStar Nettalk 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose experience is not sufficient enough to demonstrate suitability for admin rights.--cj | talk 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I have no knowledge about the *puppet suspicions, but I'm concerned about experience and I'm especially concerned about your answers to the questions. I didn't get a warm, fuzzy feeling that you understood policy and knew the best way to apply it and deal with conflict, which, in my opinion, will shine through from a good candidate. In particular, I thought your response to question #4 was not very good and a very quick way to start unnecessary WikiDrama. Bottom line, more experience needed all around. —bbatsell ¿? 07:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I see quite a few positive edits in a very short time, and nothing that really jumps out at me as a negative, but 3 months of editing here is a bit too new for me. The candidate has participated in XfD and vandal warning, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence of policy grasp. I may change my mind based on answers to optional questions once they are added here, but right now I'm leaning towards the opinion that this editor needs to have a bit more experience.--Isotope23 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral but very encouraging. I think that you really need a bit more experience on WP and a few more edits. I'd particularly like to see more mainspace edits, enriching the encyclopaedia. That said, I'm impressed by your involvement so far and I'm sure if you continue to contribute in this way for a few more months, your second RFA will be a walkover. I'm with Isotope23, I'm prepared to reappraise based on more answers. But please, do not be discouraged. The Rambling Man 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral I don't think you have the experience quite yet. Totally unrelated, but your IP edits you pointed to come from the same IP used by Willy on Wheels? That's...interesting. Metros232 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Changed to oppose, Metros232 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Quite a determined user, but a bit more experience is needed for something like adminship. Try again in a while, you have quite a handful of extremely positive edits in the AfD area. Keep it up. Floria L 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral as others have articulated, I think you might benefit from more experiance prior to becoming an admin. --Matthew 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral The editcount tally and spread across the main spaces is very encouraging. I would like to see some more participation in admin-related tasks before my opinion turns to 'support'. (aeropagitica) 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral A great user, but edit count is still too low. I'll be glad to support in a couple of months.--Húsönd 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I like the answers to the questions, I like the edit spread, and I like the user's additute. However, my concerns are the same as (aeropagitica)'s. PTO 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per everyone else. You're like that guy that needs a 1800 on the SAT but gets a 1790. You almost have a good enough edit count, you almost have enough AfD experience, and you almost got a support form me. I think if you had waited even a month you would've gotten a nice amount of support.--Wizardman 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral - per comments above. Try again after another 2000 edits. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral per all of the aboves. You're not ready. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Excellent job so far, but not enough edits/experience yet. –Llama man 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral per all of the above. ← ANAS Talk? 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Neutral per aeropagitica and others. If your contributions continue with the quality and (less important) quantity you've shown thus far, in a couple more months I'll be glad to support. Raymond Arritt 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Neutral Editcoutitis is bad. But I would suggest that you review the Administrator's Suggested Reading list a bit more, brush up on the relevant policy, and come back in a month or two. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Neutral. Relatively good answers, but I'm doubting if the experience is enough. bibliomaniac15 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Neutral Come back soon. You're on the right path. Welcoming people on your first day should be applauded, not seen as a shortcoming. Just H 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Neutral: You're doing great, but come back with more admin-related-task experience. S.D. ¿п? § 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Now that he's explained the previous account thing, nothing more gives me pause. Seen him around, and he seems to know what he's doing. Picaroon 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I've done some more thinking about this, and its lead me to wish to change to neutral. Picaroon 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support due to lack of experience . Otherwise, SunStar Net seems to have a basic grasp of how things work here and would, I believe, grow into the extra bit quite nicely. After further consideration, I cannot support, but I won't oppose, either. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Neutral You have great ideas, but you should try again in three months. But, the answers to questions were great.--CJ King 20:23, 23 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.