Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Placebo Effect 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] The Placebo Effect

Final (36/3/1); Originally scheduled to end 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs) - Hello. My wiki-name is The Placebo Effect. I have been editing Wikipeida sporadically since November 2005, although I became a true editor September 2006 with a three month break over the summer due to a summer job. I have done many tasks throughout my time here. I have participated in and started AFDs, nominated articles for SD, requested page protection, revert vandalism, and requested users to be blocked after warning them. I try to keep a civil tone in most of my discussions and believe that I have been helpful to Wikipedia and believe that I am ready to be given the Mop and Bucket The Placebo Effect 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. The Placebo Effect 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Some of the things I plan on doing are deleting SD candidate pages and protecting pages. In my opinion these are two of the most important admin chores because the help keep the encyclopedia looking nice. Pages that are SD candidates usually don't belong in an encyclopedia and helps to trim down the new articles being created that will likely not be sourced well. The other side of the coin, protecting pages, helps to keep the articles that we have about important or interesting topics safe from malicious edits.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my biggest contributions is the three pages that I helped promote to Featured Status (see user page). The featured articles, I had different levels of involvement in. For Wii, I only formated refs. I did the same for Avatar: The Last Airbender, in addition to adding information to the article and helping deal with various disputes. The last "article", List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, which will be covered more in the third section
The other thing that I feel is one of my major contributions is the work I have put in to the Features and Admins column in the Signpost. I first started by adding a removed featured topic that I had nominated. A few weeks later, Extranet hadn't started it by late Monday, so I took the initiative and wrote it for him. Since then, I am currently the person in charge of writing it. That is also how I received my only barnstar (see userpage).
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 biggest and probably only edit war (I'm pretty sure adding a deletion template after someone removes it doesn't count as an edit war) is the one mentioned above in promoting List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes to featured status. It was a very hard article to get promoted to featured status. This was mainly because I had to reason with other members of the Avatar WikiProject in convincing them that the old episode summaries were Copy-vios and that we couldn't use them. It took some of the reviewing editors to come to the talk page and help explain the situation from a third point-of-view in order to help end the situation. My personal view was that the episode summary was supposed to include what happened at the end of the episode also, while the others said that this was spoiling the episodes and wouldn't allow it. I had to give in to what they wanted as their were more on their side of the debate and I didn't want to continue edit-warring.
Optional question by Hirohisat
4.How do you think you have shown your knowledge of the policies?
A:My most recent example would be knowing that 3RR doesn't mean any three reverts. Recently I was engaged in a revert war with someone because they were removing SD templates with out a reason from 4 articles. Instead of just reverting the other person, I explained to them twice on their talk page why what they were doing was wrong. Also my recent nomination for these four articles at AFD after they were not SD because they did not come from a verifiable source and had no references proves that I know about various polices.
Optional question by EdJohnston
5. At User talk:The Placebo Effect#Lists there is a discussion about your move of List of academic disciplines into Wikipedia space in March, 2007. Apparently you moved half a dozen lists that you believed did not belong in main space. From the discussion, it appears that not everyone agreed, and some people thought that you should have got consensus before doing the moves. Can you comment on what your thinking was at the time? Could you state whether you would do anything differently in the future if you felt that Wikipedia policies called for moves that could become controversial? EdJohnston 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A: First of all, I was following bold, revert, discuss, and as can be seen, I did not move the pages back after it was clear consensus was against me. I was under the view that the pages that I moved (List of overviews, List of academic disciplines, Lists of topics, Lists of basic topics, and List of glossaries) did not belong in article space for a number of reasons, including they didn't fit the manual of style, they were more like table of contents then articles, and they shared the same template with Wikipedia:Contents, so I assumed they should all be in the same namespace. I had no idea that this would a controversial decision because the move seemed like a no-brainer to me. If Wikipedia polices called for a controversial move, I would use the same Bold, Revert, Discus system of making changes.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/The Placebo Effect Requests for adminship/The Placebo Effect 2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Placebo Effect before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support. I don't think this user will use the tools abusively. Much experience time-wise. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - been here a while and whenever I've seen him(?) around, I see he knows policy and as J-stan above me notes, I find it very unlikely that he will abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support --Hirohisat 紅葉 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I've seen you around; civil--Phoenix 15 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. I, too've seen you around. You seem civil, and, I can't see any reason to oppose. SQL(Query Me!) 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support no reason not to. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support based on time and experience, although I have minor concerns re: the number of edits (less than 3,000) and variety of edits to show knowledge of the breadth of WP. Apears to have learned lessons from last RfA. Bearian 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Good work on the Avatar the Last Airbender. We need more people helping out on SD pages. --WriterListener 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Forget about what User:Rackabello said while opposing. It is normal for users to go on long breaks. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Courtesy Support Sorry for my last statement. Rackabello 22:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support east.718 at 22:54, October 4, 2007
  12. Seems like a good user to me. Acalamari 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support This is a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Good editor, despite his somewhat eccentric areas of interest (Pokémon and Avatar: The Last Airbender). Understands the sourcing policies and is active in counter-vandalism. Also participates in AfDs like this one within his areas of interest, and clearly understands the basic tenets of deletion policy. All in all, seems like a good enough candidate, and I don't really care about wikibreaks (I've been semi-inactive myself the last few days due to freshers' week and resultant tiredness). WaltonOne 10:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - Good 'pedia building. I like Protectors...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, seems sane. Neil ム 10:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I've noticed him all around the mainspace, and I am very happy with what I've seen. нмŵוτнτ 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. While TPE isn't as active an editor as I would prefer to see, there's definitely no issues about whether or not he can be trusted with the tools. Ultimately, I consider that to be more important than a massive edit count, or spending days on end editing the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. I've seen Placebo around long enough to trust him. Good luck! · AndonicO Talk 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I appreciate your efforts in Wikipedia Signpost. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Even though this editor is not as prolific as some other recent admins, what they have done is good and has been sustained. Phgao 22:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Nothing indicates a likelihood of running amok with the buttons, plus I am a Siouxsie and the Banshees fan (not that it made a difference...) LessHeard vanU 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support More than qualified. Adminship isn't a big deal. --Sharkface217 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, although I really would like to see higher user talk interface overall. --Kukini hablame aqui 04:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support we've had successful RFAs with the edit count in the 2500-3000 range recently and they've done well once becoming sysops. I am confident The Placebo Effect will too. Sumoeagle179 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support you seems to have the experience to be admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. As long as we don't just think he's working. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support As per EVula Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - This user is just about ready I think. Strong Wikipedia-space and article edits make up for a weak overall edit count. No reason not to be trusted. Lradrama 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Has answered questions to satisfaction and appears to have the right experience and attitude. enochlau (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support good work in speedy area from time to time, seems to know the ropes. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support This user appears to have a grasp in the areas of policy for where he wants to help out. Lower edit counts than most, but I don't suspect it to be a problem. Tiggerjay 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Positive attitude, good answers to the questions, good work identifying CSD stuff. No issues here for me. Pedro :  Chat  12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose His three month break disheartens me. A sysop should make themselves available on a regular basis without large gaps Rackabello 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The three month break was unavoidable. I was working at a Boy scout camp with very limited internet access and sometimes I would make an edit and I would be logged off and the IP would get credit for it. I did not have they time during those three months to edit because I was camping in a forest. I was lucky to get as many edits in that summer as I did. The Placebo Effect 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you took a break from volunteering so you could volunteer somewhere. Sounds reasonable to me. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikibreaks are a terrible reason to oppose. Everyone's allowed to have a life outside of Wikipedia, even admins. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I even took a three month break after becoming an administrator because of burn out. Life happens. Keegantalk 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Admins are no different from editors; both need to take a step back every once and a while. I'd much rather have an absent editor or admin that will eventually come back refreshed than to have one burn themselves out and never edit again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Needs more editing time in a broad range of topics. As I've written before, janitors are fine, but admins should be leaders. No leadership here as i read from contributions and answers to questions. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Admins aren't leaders, we just have a couple of extra buttons to do mundane tasks with. You say it as if adminship is some special power that makes a sysop better than any other user when to put it bluntly, they're not. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Strongly agree with you Ryan. Admins should be anything but leaders, in a community driven project like this. Expecting admins to be leaders is not the idea of Wikipedia at all. – Aillema 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Just not enough experience yet. Jmlk17 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Feedback from RfAs should be constructive; the statement above, as it currently stands, is not. What particular areas do you feel that the candidate should focus their attention on? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I already asked Jmlk17 about his vague, unhelpful comments. Whether he'll change is another matter. – Aillema 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough. The editor has barely any edits in admin-related areas, very few overall in my opinion, and I'm not convinced they would know what to do with the tools. Jmlk17 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Was going to support, but noticed the user has far too little edits, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. Seems like a good editor, but I think he needs more time. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I don't think that this user would abuse the tools, but a few more edits might be useful. Tiddly-Tom 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you don't think he will abuse the tools then why is this a neutral? TPE has been here since 2005, maybe he hasn't got the greatest edit count, however 2500 is enough if good judgement has been shown. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral - pending answer to my question. --Hirohisat 紅葉 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Switched to support
    This seems a little misplaced, wouldn't it have been better staying out of this completely until after the question had been answered? I fail to see the constructiveness of this comment other than to get the candidate to prove something to you. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Right Ryan. I should have kept out. Just wanted to see how he thinks he knows the policies. --Hirohisat 紅葉 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    (Sorry, it's a little pet hate of mine!) I can understand the question, certainly worth asking, I just believe it's best to support, oppose or go neutral after the candidate has answered your question rather than before pending an answer. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Reply to Ryan I am not totally sure and the user does not sceem to be too active either. I have no objections to TPE being given the mop, just not a full support, hence I chose neutral (could be a considered week support) :) Tiddly-Tom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:45, 4 October 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.