Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarret

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] Tarret

Final (17/9/13) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-14 (UTC)

Tarret (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I nominated myself because I believe that I can continue to improve the Wikipedia in various ways.Tarret 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Tarret 20:36, 7 August 2006 (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, 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 believe that keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism is important to its sucess which is why I like many others cleanup vandalism. I would use the admin tools to block repeat vandalisers as well as the protection/semi-protection tools to keep pages from being repeatedly vandalized. I also go through the new pages and I look for and tag all the articles that meet the CSD so I hope to help clear out the CAT:CSD. Since I occasionally find copyright vios I would also help out at WP:CV. Tarret 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As a supporter of the good article process I contribute to it in many ways through reviewing, and the updating of the GACOTW. I know that it isn't writing an article but I feel that it is my place. Tarret 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
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: I haven't been involved in any major conflict nor do I hope to ever be involved in one in the first place. If I do get involved in a conflict however I would try to use my experience to try and bring peace before things get out of hand.Tarret 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. (additional question by Voice of All) What primary qualities make an effective administrator? Additionally, if you see a contraversial article being injected with uncited and baised material by users (possibly stealthy banned sockpuppets), would you get involved even if that means you will get dragged into the conflict (and have rude comments/block complains posted on your talk page and AN/I) or would you rather just stay away from it and hope that others can keep nonsense out of the article?Voice-of-All 21:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A:I believe that two qualities are needed to be an effective admin. They are the administrator needs to always trust that they are doing the right thing while doing what they believe will help the Wikipedia grow stronger. The administrator should also always learn from their mistakes even if it is under the worst of circumstances. Answering the second part of the question I would get involved if I came across this problem because I don't believe that someone else should do it and most likely with the size that the wikipedia is the problem won't get noticed until it becomes a problem. Tarret 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. (additional question by Voice of All) Could you expand more on what tasks you would perform as an admin and how that related to your current activities (i.e. "voting on AfDs" to "closing AfDs")? Voice-of-All 21:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A:My main focus is vandalism so many tools such as the blocking and page protection tools would help alot in my war against vandalism. As said previously I go through the new pages and tag articles that meet the speedy deletion criteria so I will help clear out the category. I will also make my presence known on AfD by closing some if not alot of them. Tarret 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: I would treat them as I would treat any other editor. Even if the person is well-known and well liked I am confident that the Wikipedia community would understand what the user still broke the rules and that they should be treated as would anyone else. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A:I would respect the other admins decision as they most likely had a reason to do what they did. I would however work with the admin who block the two users (and the ArbCom if accepted) to help resolve this issue with the two blocked users and try to come to a peaceful, lasting solution.Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A:Firstly there are many things that I would want to change, but to me the most important thing that I would do is I would remove all the negative aspects that the Wikipedia has and make them into positive ones. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A:I would indefinetly block a user without any direction from the Arb Com if I find that a user has been blocked multiple times and still cases trouble after a block is lifted. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A:If most of the other comments are valid I would rule out the sockpuppet votes and close the AFD accordingly. I would after attempt to investigate and see if my suspicions are correct and then take the appropiate action for the circumstance. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

  1. A:I don't believe that there needs to be a minimum number of people to close an AfD as long as everyone agrees on what should happen to the article. If there is a debate I would look at all the comments and decide for that what should be done with the article. I would treat RfDs and CfDs in a simalar manner but I would adapt it to each circumstance. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A:Yes, I do feel able to justify myself under pressure but if the pressure gets to a point which I can't handel I would take a break and then I would finish what I was doing. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A:I want to be an administrator because I want to help keep Wikipedia running in an orderly fashion. I also want to keep it a place where people get along and work together instead of fighting and not getting anything done. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

A: To me an administrator holds both positions because administrators have tools that control the way the wikipedia works and admins are usually called on to help settle disputes that take time, effort and quality away from the articles.
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Tarret (over the 2235 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 290 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 08, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 93.51% Minor edits: 99.05%
Average edits per day: 4.7 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 412 edits): Major article edits: 98.7% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2235 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 2.06% (46)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.15% (48)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.06% (560)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 23 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 60.79%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 0.22% (5 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.04% (1 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.04% (1 edit(s))
Page protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.36% (8 edit(s)) (2 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.72% (16 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 2.91% (65 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1369 | Average edits per page: 1.63 | Edits on top: 9.44%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 21.12% (472 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.69% (753 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.36% (254 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 30.16% (674 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 63.49% (1419) | Article talk: 6.09% (136)
User: 2.86% (64) | User talk: 5.95% (133)
Wikipedia: 15.75% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 1.43% (32)
Image: 1.48% (33)
Template: 1.97% (44)
Category: 0.45% (10)
Portal: 0.54% (12)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Username Tarret
Total edits 2230
Distinct pages edited 1365
Average edits/page 1.634
First edit 19:09, 22 September 2005
 
(main) 1418
Talk 136
User 64
User talk 130
Image 33
Template 44
Category 10
Wikipedia 351
Wikipedia talk 32
Portal 12
Support
  1. SupportWould make a fine admin. :)--Chili14 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Experienced enough in my opinion, and would make a good admin. DarthVader 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. A trustworthy editor, Tarret is not the type who would abuse the tools. --Gray Porpoise 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Seems experienced enough to me. Singopo 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support Seems experienced enough, and trustworthy enough not to abuse the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that your activity will pick up a bit, but please consider the comments in the Oppose and Neutral votes. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak support per phocoena phocoena and consistent with my criteria. Joe 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, seems likely to make a good admin. --Aquillion 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support re user comment on talk page and re RandyWang --Robdurbar 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Maybe its slightly soon, but he seems like a reasonable, trustable, editor that will stay out of anything he can't yet handle.Voice-of-All 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I trust him. That's 99 per cent of my criteria. If he makes an error or two, he'll be in good company with dozens of admins, including me. Opposers in any RfA who expect perfection are doing Wiki a disservice IMMHO. Moriori 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per Moriori. Rama's arrow 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support no reason to think he'll not be fine --Doc 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - solid responses to questions, editcountis is a null and moot point IMHO -- Tawker 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support I like his answers to the questions, but I hope he'll consider the comments in oppose/neutral. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Doubt he'll abuse the tools, and basically meets my criteria. I do think the oppose and neutral comments are mostly valid (though not enough for me to oppose), and I hope he'll keep them in mind for the future regardless of how this turns out. BryanG(talk) 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. I didn't have to prove to the DMV that I was going to drive every day before they gave me my driver's license. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - reasonable answers to questions show he knows what it takes, though E/C is a bit low. Although this RfA is unlikely to succeed, please continue contributing and maybe you'll be more successful with another RfA in 6 months. Kimchi.sg 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Nice start, but too few edits. Needs more exeperience in AfD and RCPatrolling. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, recommend Wikipedia:Editor review as the process you are looking for. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm afraid I must decline due to the lack of experience (few edits) and weak responses to questions above. Keep working and re-submit in several months. Michael 05:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose While I don't doubt the contributions of the user, his answers to all of the questions are incredibly weak, and from these responses, I don't think he even needs admin tools. -- Kicking222 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per few user talk and WP space edits. ViridaeTalk 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Dlohcierekim and Mike 7. --WillMak050389 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Fails my criteria for maintalk and usertalk edits (less than 200 for each). Themindset 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose per standards. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral

#Neutral You seem a good user and one who would not abuse admin tools. I wonder, though, whether your relatively low contribution rate means that you have enough time and commitment to the project to be an admin? You seem to have picked up a decent range of page edits and experience. Perhaps a promise that you would be able to devote more time as an admin would persuade me to vote support --Robdurbar 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) change to support

  1. Neutral I wonder whether an editor review wouldn't be a better place to ask for opinions as to your merits and demerits as a Wikipedian rather than an RfA. Tagging pages and reverting vandalism can be done without admin tools and your low Talk counts need to be increased in order to demonstrate a balanced and neutral point of view, even and perhaps especially in the case of swingeing critcism or outright vandalism. I'd be happy to support you in future when you address these issues and demonstrate a grasp of Wiki policy too.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Sorry to just pile on neutrals, but I'd agree with the above. You have a decent amount of contributions, and from looking, you seem like a good editor, but the very short answers for one make it hard to support. It does sound like mostly you want feedback, so you may want to try using the editor review page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral: The edit setup's nice, but...I give my vote here per weak responses to questions above. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, work on your responses to the questions, and I might support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I don't see any reason to oppose, but that in itself is not a reason to support either --T-rex 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I don't really have a reason why I shouldn't trust you with admin powers, but because of this comment; "I nominated myself because I know that even if I am not granted admin status I will at least learn how I can be a better wikipedian", I'm have decided to vote neutral. It seems as if you're not very motivated to become an admin..it appears that you don't know what you should do with adminpowers and hence you're just nominating yourself for the feedback that usually accompanies an RfA. There's no need for a nomination there, you can just ask someone on #wikipedia how well you're doing, editorwise. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral You are a good contributor but your answers to the questions are quite weak. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral leaning Support I'm on the fence, but would happily support upon an elaboration in Q1 about how you would use the sysop tools to prevent vandalism and perhaps answering the optional questions, as these venues will help me get a better feel for how you would use the administrator role. Thanks hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Good articles acceptable alternative to FA. Kudos for organisation work, but need to see more actual writing. -- Миборовский 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - You prove yourself a good editor, but I feel that the answers to the questions are a bit weak. Kalani [talk] 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral, weak answers. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your answers are very weak. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral. Fails a couple points on my criteria. I've seen your good work on WP:GA and you've made great contributions to upholding the quality and verifiability of things on Wikipedia. Try editor review. Grandmasterka 05:32, 14 August 2006 (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.