Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheFearow 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] TheFearow

Final: (5/8/1); Ended 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TheFearow (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Matt for his second RfA. His first RfA was unsuccessful, with several issues raised as to his experience. Since then...he's gained a lot of experience in crucial areas of the wiki, and I think he's ready for adminship. Most of Matt's work is done in bot related areas - certainly an area where we could do with as much help as possible. Rather then work in the mainspace, where he's uncomfortable, Matt instead makes it easier for everyone else to contribute to the project, through his bots, his dead end work, and around the help desk. Matt is a user who has shown he can be trusted around the project, and will do well with the tools. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt, aka. TheFearow! Giggy UCP 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Giggy for the fantastic nomination! I hope I will live up to your expectations, as well as those of all the people who support my RfA. If anyone wants to clarify anything I have said, or to ask me something totally different, just ask a question. I find these especially useful, as they let me think about things I wouldn't normally think about. No matter what you vote, thank you for participating, and thank you for all the comments and constructive criticism! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would primarily like to help out in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:REP, and WP:CSD. I know protection requests and editprotected requests can take a while to be processed, and are often inconvenient especially in urgent cases. I have seen some attack pages and copyvios stay for hours, which I would like to help with. I also plan to help out on WP:DYK and WP:ITN: I know I have not contributed heavily to these areas, however I plan to learn if necessary.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably, as Giggy said above, that of my bots, and to WP:BRFA. Apart from that, I would have to say my vandal fighting, newpage work, and my best article USB decoration
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: My main conflict has been over Enfield 8000 with User:Constantine Adraktas (see history). He, as a previous chairman of Enfield Automotive, had a COI problem. Both me, Douglasmtaylor, and User:Realkyhick have communicated with him regarding this, with me and Douglas doing a majority of the communication. The issues are currently being sorted out, and we are planning to work on the article in a sandbox. Most of the discussion can be seen on his user talk page.

Optional question from Eddie:

4: What is consensus to you?
A. My idea of consensus is similair to current, with something similair to 75% support rate, however I judge it on the number of individual reasons, not on the amount of users who support those reasons. That is why I recuse myself from XfD's and similair places. I would not perform any tasks requiring consensus on-wiki unless they are clear cases, such as 100% keep etc. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
A clarification: This is my personal belief. It is not what I believe on-wiki consensus is. I recuse myself from !votes, votes, and discussions on-wiki, except in clear-cut examples. Most processes I want to be involved in do not require consensus. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood this to be what I think consensus should be, not what it is already. To that, I answer: Consensus is a guage of whether the community approves or disapproves of a certain action. I judge consensus based on the amount of members of the community who support a given action, with weight given to the various reasons, depending on their support. I do give very little weight to new users, or users with very little experience, as it is usually not a good indication of the wishes of the community. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see this is still misunderstood - I meant, I give lesser weight to users who (most likely) do not know how the community works, and the reasonings for things. I would in no way ignore comments by anyone. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Trusilver regarding user blocks on WP:AIV.

5. Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to block a user with a history of vandalism who is not on a "final warning"?
A. In the case that it is a relatively new account, with only vandal edits, or the user is a trusted user who suddenly starts vandalising, as a possible compromised account. If there are ANY good faith edits, then I will warn the user with a im template if appropriate, and remove the report. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/TheFearow Requests for adminship/TheFearow 2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TheFearow before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Please, before voting about article writing, accept this: I cannot write. My english is horrible. It ends up terrible. Some people can't write, and need to help other ways - it's not all about writing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your ability with English shouldn't matter (trust me, I know). This is a wiki. Do the best you can and others will help. --Boricuaeddie 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My statement on XfD's: I do/will not close/participate in most XfD's, as my idea of judging consensus is radically different to most others, and I would get into quite a few conflicts. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what onwiki consensus is - that is just what I believe of the normal term "consensus". I recuse myself from everything requiring a !vote, vote, or discussion, except for clear-cut examples. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, almost all admin actions require determining consensus, and you do not seem to know that consensus is not just counting votes. --Boricuaeddie 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a misunderstanding here - please see my new answer to the question. With my new answer, I hereby un-recuse myself from consensus. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but the new answer's not very good, either. How can you ignore new users' comments!?! That would be biting and not assuming good faith, unless, of course, you have reason to beleive the user is a sock. --Boricuaeddie 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Beat the nom Support Good to see you here again, Fearow. I still trust you with the tools. J-stan TalkContribs 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Weak support, mainly due to the rather quick re-nomination here. It has been less than a month since the last RfA shut down and that tends to create an impression of impatience. Nevertheless, I've found the user's contributions to be helpful and constructive, and think he'd probably do ok as an admin. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    One month, two days, and around 18 hours. Not that i'm counting. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    According to the RfA page, the last one ended 01:42, 8 July 2007 - almost a week shy of 1 month? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I was judging by start dates. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Is the nom support Giggy Talk | Review 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I trust this user will be good with the 'mop'. More non-automatic mainspace contributions would help, but otherwise, I think he will be a great admin. -Lemonflashtalk 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - maybe you should have waited a bit longer before trying again Matt, but I support you again. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I also think it would have been better to have waited for at least another month, but that won't stop me from supporting. Acalamari 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I think this is a good user, and I was thinking recently that I would support him in a few (addendum: >3) months. However, the last RfA was less than a month ago, and almost all of the opposes last time were along the lines of "premature request." I am sure that, when the time comes, you will be a good admin. This isn't it, though. Andre (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    As I said, just over a month. Also, thank you for your comments, and future support. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    See above -- end dates, not start dates. Regardless, it's not nearly enough time to wait. Withdrawing this RfA would go a long way to convincing me that you're not overeager and impatient. Andre (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose Not yet. It's been less than 1 month since the close of the last RfA that largely failed based on limited experience and lack of substantial content contributions. You're doing good work, for sure, so keep it up, but 2000 additional semi-automated edits doesn't give any real sense of how well you "get" everything admins are supposed to, you know, "get." Sorry, I need a few more months and would like to see some more old-fashioned writing (good work on USB decoration...do more) and a greater demonstrated need for admin tools. — Scientizzle 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose - as per Scientizzle .--Cometstyles 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I like how you have come along and grown since your last Rfa, but too little experience has been gained. You are lacking in Mainspace editing, and overall experience. I know you are well on your way, but sit tight, and keep up the good work until then. Jmlk17 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, from neutral. Sorry, but you do not have enough contributions to the mainspace. This is important, since it's vital to know when to protect and to have experience with edit wars and content disputes. Also, you state that you do not like XfD's because it's not you're idea of consensus. Because of this, I can't trust you with the ability to delete articles. Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Candidate stated he wouldn't work in XfDs, and frankly, CSD is a whole different kettle of fish. Giggy Talk | Review 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    You misunderstood me, I said my judging of consensus is different, not that they arent my way of gathering it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I still oppose per my other reasons and the fact that not much in your editing pattern has changed since your last RfA. --Boricuaeddie 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to strong oppose. From his answer to my question, I can see that the user has no idea what consensus is. --Boricuaeddie 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not enough contribs to mainspace. Also, you have really been active since June which is quite a short period of learning for an admin. Also per Scientizzle--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The lack of experience concerns are worth looking at. The statement that he won't do things that involve consensus is just bizarre and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Also, he's not using the tools he already has all that effectively, and he wants bigger better tools? I am reminded of a kid who can't pass his driving test but insists he needs a faster car. Friday (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    What tools have I used ineffectively? Also, I am changing my mind, apparentally admins need to do all the consensus tasks. I will re-answer the question. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Edit-conflict Oppose Experience issues - the last RfA was less than one calendar month ago and the interim period has not been long enough to provide evidence as to the competence of this editor in the role of admin. I'm sure that this will become clear in time. (aeropagitica) 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

His work with bots is great, and he is very civil. Unfortunately, his most recent mainspace contributions are mostly automated edits with AWB. He also claims he wants to work with WP:CSD and WP:RFPP, but I don't see much experience in these areas. Sorry, but I'm neutral at this time. Good luck! --Boricuaeddie 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is true that I have not been as active with NP patrol as I used to be, but you can see from the edit count differences, I have 4100 edits including deleted, and 3727 without. I did do a lot of newpage tagging a while ago, now it's mostly other work. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's your edit count. I'm saying that because you have not participated in speedy deletion or XfD's, I do not know if you would delete pages correctly. --Boricuaeddie 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean that gives an indication of how much tagging/speedy work I have done. I participate in few XfD's, because I often find them a waste of time, and I would usually recuse myself from closing them as an admin, as I do not like the idea of them, and consensus is an issue I see differently to many other users. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The assertion that he's much more experienced now than one month ago on his last RFA surprises me. Can anyone point to substantial contributions in the last month to indicate this? Looking through the contributions, I see sometimes hundreds of edits per day that look automated or semi-automated. It's hard to locate edits of substance amidst all that. Neutral for now, until someone can tell me what's different than a few weeks ago. Friday (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing to oppose per bizarre notions of concensus. Friday (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral from support. The candidate's confusion and somewhat nebulous answers regarding consensus are making my confidence waver, and the new statement that he would afford "very little weight to new users, or users with very little experience" is disheartening. New/inexperienced users should be viewed with a grain of salt, but "very little weight" just because someone is apparently new to the project? This disenfranchises people just because they are not "active" editors, when they may have extremely valid points to make in a discussion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:12, 2 August 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.