Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 2

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] TeckWiz

Final: (6/19/7); Ended 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz (talk · contribs) – I've been here for almost a year, and believe the I have become experienced enough to receive sysop powers. I had a a previous RFA last month, which was closed 6/10/6. I'm renominating myself again in such a short time because I believe I've addressed and am working on all issues listed in the RFA, such as participating in AFD, AIV, and RFA more. I'm well trusted throughout the community and have never been in a major conflict. Since my last RFA I've received made about 1,000 more edits and started to participate in the Wikipedia space more. I have 100% edit summary usage. I've also adopted six users in the adopt a user program. I believe receiving administrative powers will benefit my self and the Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask me any questions, which I will respond to ASAP. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept as self-nom. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I withdraw. Consensus to promote will never happen in this RFA. And no, I wasn't kidding about my answer to number 2.


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:As an admin, I will help with things in the Wikipedia backlog requiring administrator attention, I will review and if necessary block users at WP:AIV. I will also block users who have violated their final warning, but haven't been reported by finding them while doing recent changes patrol. Also, I will respond to users at WP:AN. I will help in closing XFDs, and reviewing and deleting content up for speedy deletion. I will also help with all editing abuse problems requiring administrator attention (i.e. personal attacks, 3RR). Another thing I will work on is requests for protection. In general, I will help out in anything needing administrator attention in anyway possible.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've written a few articles and worked on a few, however, I don't see why this is a question for adminship, as adminship has nothing to do with writing or adding to articles. A lot of my edits are vandalism reverts. Adminship helps manage Wikipedia, not write it.
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 have never been involved in a major conflict and I've never felt stressed about Wikipedia. The few minor conflicts I've been in have been resolved on article or user talk pages. In these conflicts I've also been civil and have been able to come to a solution.
Additional questions by Húsönd:
4. A user requests semi-protection for an article because there's an edit war going on between him and an unregistered user. What do you do?
A: If the IP isn't vandalizing the page, I wouldn't semi-protect it, since the user would still be able to edit. If there was an edit war between and IP and user, I would fully protect the page for under a half hour. In that half hour, I would try to resolve the issue by talking to the users separately, and having them find a solution on the article talk page. If they can't come to a conclusion, I would consider blocking each for the 3RR
5. A user requests semi-protection for an article that has been constantly vandalized by an unregistered user. What do you do?
A: Protection is not used for vandalism by one user. I would block the user starting at 24 hours, and if it's a returning vandal, probably over 2 days.
6. A user requests full protection for an article that has been constantly vandalized by the sockpuppets of a banned user. What do you do?
A: I would semi-protect the article, as I believe users under 4 days old can't edit semi-protected articles. Sock puppets usually edit right after creating the account, so semi protection would be enough. If for some reason a user has sock puppets the are older than 4 days, I would ask a checkuser to find the sock puppets' IP and block account creation on it.
7. How would you proceed to decide whether or not to block users reported on WP:AIV?
A: First, I would make sure the user has received a final warning. Then I would review the contributions of the user. If the contributions weren't obvious vandalism, I would move it to WP:RFI, and then investigate it. If it is obvious, and the user has been active within the last 4 hours, I would block them for a certain amount of time, determined by the number of previous blocks. I would probably start with 24 hours. I say 4 hours since last active because many admins at AIV remove users that haven't been active for a half hour. However, if a vandal is reported, but stops to take a lunch break, and then comes back, he's now vandalizing again when he could have been stopped. For a rotating IP, I would use the standard, which I believe is 15 minutes.
General comments

Discussion

  • Please head to special:preferences and add a space to your signature, maybe between the </sup> and the <small>. It's stretching lines. Picaroon 03:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have implemented your suggestion. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

Support I've seen a lot of good work from this user.--Húsönd 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ironically I should add, I was the first to oppose your first RFA. :-) --Húsönd 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Suspending support while waiting for the answers to my questions.--Húsönd 03:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support, you are a very good editor with determination and patience. Yuser31415 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support From the look of things, you have tons of experience and have worked on more than a few articles. Your answer to number two was a little unconventional, but I liked it. It showed a lot of determination from you, and the amount of edits you've gathered in your time here is commendable. Moreover, you seem to have a firm grip on what you plan to do with the tools I hope you will soon recieve. Best of luck. Ganfon 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent user, with long running history of experience. Definitely deserves adminship. Imageboy1 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moral support TeckWiz, why didn't you wait a little longer? You should have waited at least 2 months before self-nominating again... now you'll have to wait even longer. I can't oppose, because you're a great user, but I wish you could have waited some more. --Majorly 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I support TeckWiz's becoming an administrator in due course although it's clear that the consensus is due course hasn't arrived yet. With every passing week, you're becoming a more and more experienced user in different aspects of the project, and I am confident you will continue to make good contributions to vandal-fighting, getting more involved in other project-space work, and also keep contributing content to articles, which counts too. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is going to be here for many, many years to come and that in the grand scheme of things, there is no harm in waiting to become an administrator until you are even more familiar with the duties that you will then be called upon to perform. Please withdraw this nomination, but please don't be offended or discouraged. Your contributions are valued, and your Wiki-friends will be glad to discuss with you when the time for your next and hopefully successful RfA arrives. Newyorkbrad 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per Newyorkbrad and Majorly. Good user but timing is not yet right for the community. Eluchil404 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I am sorry, truly but I feel that it is way too soon since your past RFA. I would've recommended waiting another 3 months so the community knows you are ready. Arjun 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - (edit conflict) not enough AfD edits, if you want to close XfD debates, should already be doing stuff there. I also don't think you understand all policies. -- Selmo (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in my statement, after my first RFA, I started participating in AFD more. Previously, all I really did in AFD before that was nominate article. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well, your first RfA was last month. I'm very sorry, but I can't support someone who is too focused on adminship. Consider doing other stuff first, it's just as fun. -- Selmo (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose good, well-intentioned user, but he has spent no significant time that I can see on article building, which he has commented that he believes is not relevant to adminship. This nomination comes very soon after his previous RfA, where experience was a concern. Lastly, I'm personally not comfortable with admins who self-identify as under 13 years old. Opabinia regalis 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    As I heard somewhere else on Wikipedia once: Sometimes 10 year old are more mature than 20 year olds. -TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    True, but the key phrase is self-identify as. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    What if a user self identifies as 20? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Nothing to do with age - I can see how a 10 year old could be a great admin, if s/he could show me a list of good articles s/he created and/or was major contributor to (in addition to maturity, etc.) His answer that 'adminship has nothing to do with writing' is 180° opposed to my own view. Crum375 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose starting an RFA a month after another failed RFA shows a lack of self-constraint. Sorry, try again later.--Jersey Devil 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Jersey Devil. Michael 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - the answer to #4 sounds a little off (protect for a half an hour and then consider blocking them if they can't work it out in that time???) Also, your edit count is a little light and most of your activity has been within the last two months ... I'd suggest another few months ... get it up over 4000ish. --BigDT 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose- Per above comments--SUIT42 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Crum375, I think admins need to have worked on articles. Trebor 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, based on your unconventional (non-) answer to question #2 -- not only do I think you have misinterpreted it and as a result lost an opportunity to help us know why you are a valuable editor, but I don't think that the standard questions are the place for challenges to the RFA process. -- Renesis (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strongly oppose per answer to Q2 ("I've written a few articles and worked on a few, however, I don't see why this is a question for adminship, as adminship has nothing to do with writing or adding to articles. A lot of my edits are vandalism reverts. Adminship helps manage Wikipedia, not write it.") -- was it supposed to be a joke or something? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose A facetious and way-off answer to Q2 blew it for me. If that's your opinion, fine, but stating it in the formal environment of RfA shows a thoughtless and almost aggressive attitude that worries me enormously. As does thinking you can close deletion processes when you've only been contributing to them for a short period. Regretfully, no. --Dweller 08:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose too few edits, not enough demonstration of policy understanding and, as per a number of editors above, answer to Q2 worrying. The Rambling Man 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, no, no and thrice no re:Q2. Deizio talk 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Good god, no! Especially not after this ridiculousness. – Chacor 11:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - the response to the question about blocking after a WP:AIV posting - First, I would make sure the user has received a final warning is just not nuanced enough. The extreme case - a registered user with only vandal-only edits, who has just attacked the main page article a couple of times - certainly should not be warned and then revisited when someone complains again - rather, the account should be immediately blocked, indef; let the user make a case for having the account unblocked. It's only for mixed (some positive contributions) or marginal cases that a warning is important. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy; users have "rights" only when they show at least some inclination to be a positive contributor. John Broughton | ♫ 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per question 2 and generally low edit count.--Wizardman 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose A key issue at the first RfA was inexperience of the nominee. Less than a month is not enough time to gain the requisite experience. Too new, too eager, needs to participate more. Agent 86 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - this is way too soon since the last RFA, poor judgment. What is more, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The job of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Why should admins not write the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a place for lawyering or career-building, and the idea that we should have some sort of divide between ordinary editors and process-wonk admins is just plain wrong and has to a certain extent already caused friction and wikidrama. Quite apart from anything else, admins with a solid background in article-writing have something to fall back on and are IMO less likely to burn out. Moreschi Deletion! 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral (changed from support) Sorry, I am only mildly satisfied with the answers. Maybe you should allow some more time before requesting adminship.--Húsönd 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - too soon, will consider support in 3 months' time. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I've seen TeckWiz around Wikipedia and have noticed some great work, but it's just too soon after the previous RfA. You are definitely on your way to admin material, but give it another few months. Thanks for all your work. AuburnPilottalk 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral My previous comments regarding XfD participation and vandal fighting still obtain. Work on those and leave it until Easter before re-applying for an RfA. You will have loads of valuable admin task-related experience then. (aeropagitica) 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral: Great user, but I feel that the second RfA is too soon. —S.D. ¿п? 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral sorry, but you need much more experience.-- danntm T C 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Too soon? Sorry. ← ANAS Talk? 19:35, 15 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.