Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Topaz

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] Topaz

Final (1/8/4) Ended 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Topaz (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since May 18th, 2004 and have accumulated over 870 edits, most of which have been either minor copyedits in the main namespace or changes to scripts in userspace. Since these are my two main activities here on Wikipedia, I am requesting adminship to make both of these jobs easier on everyone else:

  1. I would prefer not to have to bother admins over simple copyedit fixes on protected pages; it would be much simpler if I could just make the changes myself. For a few examples of this, check my contributions for changes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
  2. More importantly, I would like the ability to more easily help users with their monobook.js and associated scripts. Since I seem to be primarily a script author, I try to help users whenever I can with installing my scripts on their accounts and getting their own scripts working. A few examples of this can be seen on my talk page archives. For example, it would be much simpler if instead of trying to explain exactly what comma someone needs to change or making a copy of their source, changing it, and telling them to copy it back, I could just go and make the change.

While these are not the conventional reasons to request adminship, I still feel they are good reasons and would, if addressed, make many peoples' lives a little simpler. ~Topaz♪♫∆ 11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Verily, I accept. ~Topaz♪♫∆ 11:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn as per suggestions. It seems my definition of admin is faulty. ~Topaz♪♫∆ 21:39, 5 November 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 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: In truth, I have only a mild in the conventional sysop chores. I might show up occasionally to help out, but most of my sysoppery will be spent helping users with their scripts. (see above for further reasoning)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with my wikiscripts - particularily with my status changer module, simply because it has gotten quite a positive response from the community. I enjoy seeing peoples' lives being made slightly easier by something I've built.
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: One conflict that comes to mind wasn't even really a conflict; I created some voting templates after providing counter-arguments against many of the reasons previous such templates were deleted. Sortly later, all of the templates were deleted, seemingly without reason or chance for rebuttal, and I chose not to pursue the matter further.
I also, at one point, seem to have incited a minor punctuation battle which later escalated into an all-out poll. The final verdict was in favor of my original proposal.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Moral support for scriptwork, long-term dedication, plus he was absolutely right about the comma. But the candidate should consider withdrawing this RfA and coming back after garnering some more experience with some other aspects of the project. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose due to relative inactivity - just under 900 edits in two and a half years. Only 102 mainspace edits, which for a productive editor is only a day's work. Just as a comparison, I can go through 100 mainspace edits if the vandals are really coming. You're going to need some experience writing article, vandal fighting, dealing with XfDs and other desired tasks. Sorry. MER-C 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Needs more experience. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, Topaz, but since you only made a few edits most months, your relatively low edit count, and inexperience with vandalfighting and other admin chores, I oppose. --The Great Llama talk 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Inexperience. Come back six months later and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - failure to understand image policy [1] --T-rex 16:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - the obvious reason: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the aim of Wikipedians is to write it. All else is secondary. More article writing necessary. Maybe withdraw - pile-ons are ugly. Moreschi 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I really hate to cite edit counts, but with only 102 mainspace edits, you need some more experience. Adminship comes all at once, all the tools at once. More experience with the whole encyclopedia, and I'll support next time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Your uncertainty of your necessity for adminship worries me. Also, you don't really have that much article-editing experience, and it appears that you have not been that active as of late. Nishkid64 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Does not seem to fully understand what an admin does, but I don't see any reason to oppose other than editcountitis. - Mike | Talk 14:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Mike1. I can live with the edit count, but I'm not sure the candidate knows exactly why he wants to be an admin, aside from having the ability to edit protected pages. With that said, I have no doubt that Topaz is definitely a good contributor. -- Kicking222 15:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Sorry, you currently don't have enough grasp of the community as I would like.-- danntm T C 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral The answers to the questions above don't reveal a deep desire to assist with the admin tasks and backlogs that we have to deal with daily. I'm not sure that this editor totally comprehends the responsibilities of being an admin. I suggest withdrawal and an editor review in order to receive detailed advice regarding what they want to achieve by editing here at WP. (aeropagitica) 20:11, 5 November 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.