Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tv316

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] Tv316

Final (41/17/11) ended 07:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tv316 (talk · contribs) – I have run into Tv316 several times while on recent changes patrol and at WP:AFD and he has always done an excellent and quick job. He has been an editor since October of 2005 and I think he could make good use of a mop and bucket. --Hetar 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I graciously accept your nomination. Thank you. tv316 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Answers to questions could be better, and possibly too new, but I've seen this user around and haven't seem him do much wrong. So (first and faster than nominator) support. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm going to clarify myself; for the first part of my statement, it was directed to standard question 2, where he states he has not made a significant contribution to an article; that said, my (unwritten) voting standards don't hold it against him, and in recent similar cases, I have also supported. So as not to confuse anyone, there's why. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 07:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: per my nom. --Hetar 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. I like to see more edits in main that aren't anti-vandalism. That said, I think adminship would make 'em more effective at what they do well. Nephron  T|C 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Went above and beyond the call of duty to protect my userpage from a vandal. The rest of his edits look impressive, and he has my vote.--Danaman5 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. A great choice for administrator. - Richardcavell 09:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support Fantastic vandal fighter and all-round editor. Chairman S. Talk 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Terence Ong 10:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Excellent vandal fighter. --kingboyk 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support: He made many reverts of vandalism. --Ahonc (Talk) 11:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I am unsure about this but am leaning towards support. JIP | Talk 14:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support; the imbalance of edits (nearly two-thirds come within the past month) is something of note, but I'm still going to support as you appear to be a great resource, especially with vandal fighting, here on Wikipedia. joturner 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom. Also a good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Tv316 is a resource in the counter-vandalism effort. He would greatly benefit the project with a mop. --Jay(Reply) 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support meets my standards! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support. It looks like Tv316 would make a fantastic addition to the admin team. Lots of wiki edits (nearly 300), and a ton (literally) of user talk edits, which shows that he has great communications with the Wikipedia community, which is a big plus! If that isn't enough, he has been battling vandals tirelessly. The best of luck to you, I hope you make it! Weatherman90 21:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weak support but support nonetheless. Take care with content disputes, would you? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you please clarify? tv316 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Low Talk edit count means that the candidate might not be suited to mediating disputes over the disputed content of articles. Just saying, that's all. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support comes close to (or meets) my criteria, so of course I'll support :) — Deckiller 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Just look at his RC patroling! He sure needs the revert button!--Exir Kamalabadi 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support as per Kingboyk. SouthernComfort 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support A proven vandal fighter, he gets my support TruthCrusader 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support, Tv316 regularly reverts vandalism, showing a willingness to combat this problem. McPhail 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Weak Support. Meets my requirements 100% and all but has about 3,500 total edits and 0 images uploaded. Some user! Should edit more and upload some pictures. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)
  24. Support. pschemp | talk 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong support per McPhail, Exir Kam, and Master Jay, inter al. Joe 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per all above -- Tawker 06:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak Support Would be better if nominated again later Leidiot 12:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Go go gadget vandalism fighter! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. I've seen good things from Tb316, and I'm impressed by the answer to question 3. Thryduulf 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - A very good user. Well done. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - I can't see this user abusing his powers, causing mayhem or the like. <Insert sadly no longer relevant phrase about big deals in relation to Adminship here>. --Celestianpower háblame 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Good editor, would make a good admin. --Rory096 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Knows what he's doing, helped me get on my feet after my "censor" episode, in fact... I didn't even know he wasn't an admin yet! :) Funnybunny 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support--JB 07:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support--Jusjih 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Looks good, no major concerns TigerShark 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support good candidate --rogerd 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support --Edwy 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per this. Very low Talk namespace edits. AucamanTalk 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    I said it before, and I'm going to say it again: A user doesn't need 400 or 10% article talk namespace edits to suddenly be "good at managing disputes". A user could be great at managing disputes, and could help involved parties reach agreements with just a few talk page edits, or a user could do a poor job at managing disputes and could extend the dispute longer than would normally be needed, resulting in tons of talk page edits. I think setting an arbitrary number or percentage on such a thing is a case of editcountitis to the max. Rather than just looking at a fickle number and making a relatively uninformed decision, why not examine Tv316's talk page and see what he's been involved with and how he has handled everything? Also note that not all disputes are settled on talk pages (e.g., WP:AN, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR, WP:AFD, and so on). — TheKMantalk 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Many users require a minimum number of (Main) namespace edits to support a nomination. I happen to believe the number of Talk namespace edits better reflect how active a user is in contributing to articles. AucamanTalk 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting. I think I can understand (but disagree with the use of a number) your stance on why this is important regarding the person's discussion skills and ability to negiotiate and work under pressure, but I'm not sure how this is a measure of article involvement. I've written 4 FAs and have over 6000 article namespace edits, but have managed only 288 Talk edits. Furthermore, many of those are on articles that I haven't significantly edited. Am I just an anomaly? It's possible, I guess. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 06:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tv316 is interested in making contributions articles related to wrestling[1], and has been involved in discussion on related pages[2][3], and does appear to have spoken with several other editors multiple times[4]. Tv316 also stated in his answer to the 3rd question that he was involved in an editing dispute on Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship. I do prefer administrator candidates to have article editing experiece, they should be involved in discussing their edits, and behave themselves in editing disputes, but I agree with Spangineer that setting an absolute numerical cutoff in this case is not the best indicator of a user's conduct or ability. — TheKMantalk 01:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per above. Only three months of active editing, needs more time. Another three and a few hundred more talk namespace edits and I'll vote for you. Be patient; your time for sysoping will come.--HereToHelp 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Reluctant Oppose per User:Aucaman --Andy123(talk) 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per HereToHelp. Editor has only three months of significant activity. I'm sure he'll make a great admin soon, but there is more to the wiki than can be learned in such a short time. Xoloz 15:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Participation in the (X) Talk: and Wikipedia: spaces is important so that we are able to judge for ourselves on the evidence that this editor is good at those kinds of things. The community-pages operate in (perhaps unfortunately) idiosyncratic ways and understanding how best to engage in them is very important in an admin. For every admin surely finds themselves having to get involved there, whether voluntarily or not. -Splashtalk 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Splash. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Prefer admins to have more experience throughout the project and more time editing.--Looper5920 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Per Zoloz. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose The lack of talkspace and projectspace unfortunately does me. GizzaChat © 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose 3 months' membership isn't long enough for us to have a good idea of how you are likely to react in various situations Cynical 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) From below comments I was under the impression that Tv316 had only been on Wikipedia for three months - guess I should have read the nomination more closely. Changed my vote to Neutral Cynical 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak oppose per above --Doc ask? 11:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak oppose per above --Ugur Basak 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, needs more experience first. Thumbelina 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, too soon --Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose at this stage, could support with broader experience. Jonathunder 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Fad (ix) 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weakest of weak opposes: I weakly oppose, as the candidate is a very, very good contributor but a bit shy of my expectations. Come back in, hell, 1 month and I'd gladly strongly support (then again, he did steal my {{status}} template... :P) _-M o P-_ 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Weak Neutral Heavily leaning towards support. Tv316, you know I'm your friend but I really can't support 3 months of editing; just wait a couple of months and your will surely make admin. I might change this vote to support. Moe ε 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral would be support if it wasn't for the relatively small number of articlespace edits Cynical 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, leaning towards support. I'd like to see a little more experience, especially in project space. --TantalumTelluride 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Would likely support this guy in the future. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral A couple more months around the place at current energy levels and no worries Deizio 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral due to lack of experience. Try again a month or two from now. Stifle 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning towards a weak oppose... most editors cross my radar screen at some point - perhaps you are too new to have done so, but I can't shake the feeling that you are not quite there yet. BD2412 T 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. People whose opinions I respect are opposing. Hiding talk 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Do I think this guy is admin-worthy? Yes. But I don't think he's had enough experience YET. However, if he continues like this for another few months, I'll nominate him myself. Although he's proven himself to be worthy, I think the experience is a little lacking. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, leaning towards support. I think you may make a good administrator, but I mirror the feelings of others that you need a tad bit more time. Spend the next month or so getting versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, learn a bit more about AfDs (other *fDs, and the admin-backlogs), and make some quality contributions, and I'll make sure to strongly support you in your next RfA. — TheKMantalk 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Rob Church (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Tv316's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 would always have a tab in my browser open to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD and would take care of any vandalism and clear-cut obvious speedy deletions posted on those pages. I have added most of the frequently vandalized pages to my watchlist, and in addition to the pages already on my watchlist, I now have over 2500 pages watched. I would continue to go through all these changes and check for vandalism, in addition to now monitoring the WP:AIV page. In time, I would slowly monitor the AfD process, and then help out closing out obvious AfDs and then slowly moving on up to more complicated AfDs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I haven't written any articles from scratch, nor have I really contributed anything big to an article. As it relates to contributing to articles, I've been fixing errors in articles that I have knowledge about, as I come by them. I'm pleased with my contributions, in the way that I may not be strong on adding content, but whenever I edit an article that's not blatant vandalism, I leave an edit summary. I see most users on Wikipedia leave no or a little summary. I'm proud that I write out why I'm making the changes that I'm making, so when people look over the edit history, they can know what I've done without clicking on the diff. Also, recently, I have been going through the list of commonly misspelled words and fixing the errors. There are a lot of them out there, and I'm only up to a(d). It does not relate to anything having to do with being an admin, but I thought it should be known that I still do contribute to this encyclopedia.
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. Yes, I have been in an editing conflict before. On the WWE Undisputed Championship page, I got into an editing discrepancy with another user over the detail of what date an event had occurred on. I tried to talk through the conflict, but got pulled into a whole big mess of sockpuppets and personal attacks. I tried my best during that conflict to remain calm and objective, and I think I did well, for the most part. At times, it did cause a slight amount of stress on me to continue to do my regular vandal fighting during that time, but that only lasted for a few days, and I've been back on since. When the conflict was getting heated, I realized what was going on, and I attempted to mend fences with the other party and move on past it. I know that I may have a strong opinion at times, but I remain objective through the conflict and try to work it out. In the future, if made admin, I would not use adminship to further my side in a potential conflict. If I were to ever get into an edit conflict again, I would seek out an impartial admin to deal with the situation. The only times I would block someone if I've been in an edit conflict with them would be for repeated personal attacks or incivility, and for blatant vandalism.
The above 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.