Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast

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] Wassupwestcoast

(45/15/2); ended 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) - I'm nominating myself. I've been a reasonably active editor for a year. I've created articles and requested articles to be deleted. I've merged articles and split articles. I've debated policy and warned vandals. I've involved myself with projects. I've read the talk behind the Good Article and Feature Article process. I've cleaned up the community portal page by requesting that defunct 'collaboration of the month' notices be removed. I've even fought off vandals on the main Wiki page. Wikipedia has opened my eyes to disputes I didn't know existed. In short, I've done most things that an editor can do without being obsessed with any one thing. Wikipedia is a hobby that I enjoy spending time at. I would like to be an admin simply to help. There is a lot of work to do and all of it is voluntary. On the other hand, not being successful at this nom won't affect my ego or my Wiki presence. Really, I'm just volunteering to help. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:41, 8 December 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: I don't intend to work in any one area but help out where needed.
Comment: Although this answer is vague, I don't see admin work as being anything more special than the desire to help out where needed on Wikipedia. Whether or not I'm successful - and perhaps it is most likely to be unsuccessful - I see an RfA request as sticking up my hand and saying "Yea, I'll help out." Supposedly, admin is not an honour but a glorified maintenance guy who needs to be trusted enough not to cause trouble. If I should gain the support of the community, then I'd use the tools like a 'mop & bucket' and clean up a spill in aisle 2 or change the toilet paper in the men's room: whatever needs doing. (And, yea, I know Wiki policy well enough; enough to know that it is ever changing and always will. I try to keep up.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've been asked to expand my answer. My understanding of being an admin is that they are editors trusted by the community to have access to extra tools. My involvement with Wikipedia is as a hobbyist - as it should be for everyone. It is an all voluntary endeavor to build an encyclopedia by contributions from a wide variety of people from all backgrounds. I like adding content that meets the approval of the community. I find it enjoyable. I also come across problems here and there that make the Wikipedia experience less than fun; becoming a person that can help directly rather than increase the workload of another Wikipedia volunteer would be good for Wikipedia. I am a wikiholic but not obsessive about it. But admin work is not a reward or honorific for obsessive wikiholics. The questions are really: have I shown trustworthiness to the project and does Wikipedia need another volunteer to help? My nomination statement stands; this is not an ego thing, I will continue contributing to Wikipedia as a regular editor. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better off with one more trusted volunteer with the 'extra' tools? Wassupwestcoast (talk)
Comment: I am going to expand my answer further. Wikipedia is a voluntary effort: Every editor decides for himself or herself how they wish to contribute. In policy debates, there has and is a long history of attempts to restrict regular editors ability to contribute to Wikipedia. The most well known is the ban on IP accounts from creating pages. So far, that is the only serious restriction except for the occasional page semi- and full- protection. My Wiki philosophy is against restrictions except where vandalism is severe. I don't want a Wikipedia where some one is the boss of me telling me to do this and do that. I believe in a project that is about building a free encyclopedia and not a dense set of rules and policies that only a bureaucrat could love. Wikipedia is a fun hobby and not an obligation. I want to help with admin duties wherever I can help to make Wikipedia better but not to play some weird political science study on experimental governance procedures. Just like my role as a regular editor, I’d try my best to keep the project serious without being draconian; a democratic project as best possible. I don’t want to become admin so that I could create another citizendium, for example, with its restrictions. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My most complete contribution to Wikipedia is single-handly dragging Harry and the Potters from an almost deleted article to GA status. But I don't consider it my 'best' contribution. I'm happy when I make edits that 'stick' - even small ones - because they inch Wikipedia forward. I was happy to have been - as far as I could tell - one of the few editors who made edits to Intelligent design while it was the 'Today's featured article' on the main page that weren't reverted.
Comment: In various academic studies on the reliability of Wikipedia, the 'stickiness' of an edit is a metric in a overall reliability algorithm. I'm speaking in generalities but reliability algorithms are usually built on various trust metrics including page views, and the stability of the text per editor over time. I haven't actually subjected any pages I've worked on to such reliability algorithms but I think my contributions do have a high trust value. Some of my earliest edits have remained unchanged for over a year.Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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 suspect I have caused other editors stress but I haven't been stressed over the situations. I treat Wikipedia as a fun hobby and I don't have any sado-masochistic tendencies. I leave the article if things start going sideways. My talk page has a few stressed editors: for example, one IP editor was stressed that I removed their unsourced and contentious statement from a Featured Article. I'm afraid that I just shrugged and went elsewhere.
Comment: As to the question of the unsourced and contentious statement, here is the [1]. Note that the IP editor a) placed contentious text roughly into an FA article without a source, and b) provided no edit summary. On my talk page, the IP editor then attacked me - see User talk:Wassupwestcoast#Re - and I replied. I did not run away. I was articulate. I explained the situation on the article's talk page - see Talk:Elizabeth I of England#Source of info. Then I left things alone. I did not get into an edit war. And truth be told, all was well. That is how I handle stressed out editors and contentious edits. I don't 'run away' but I don't try to be aggressive. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Optional question from Auroranorth - You're in a situation with an IP vandal. He is repeatedly recreating an article you've already deleted twice with the words 'Wassupwestcoast is a homo'. You block this user after the sufficient amount of warnings, but two days later the same article is recreated with the same words but by a different IP. What next steps would you take? I would be happy to support your nomination pending an answer to this question. Auroranorth (!) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear on the scenario. An IP vandal can not create an article because IP accounts are not permitted to create articles (although I understand that this may change in the near future). Let's say that the article is notable and legit but the IP vandal keeps inserting his/her nonsense into the text; well, then I would be wary of blocking an IP account because it may be shared. I would rather semi-protect the article against IP editing for a brief period. If you were wondering about the steps to take to identify sockpuppets, I - personally - don't consider different IP accounts sockpuppeting because there are so many legit reasons to appear with different IP addresses. Hope this answers your question, Auroranorth. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Several 'opposes' have commented on my answer. First, the question simply does not make sense and perhaps I should have left it at that: IP editors can not create articles. I agree with those who said I should opt to block briefly a purely vandalizing IP editor rather than semi-protect the page. This would be true if there was just one rogue IP account. But the question implies that there is a multi-IP account attack on one page. In such a case, semi-protecting the page for a brief period might be more productive than fending off a possible sockpuppet-happy vandal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you got a negative response for your answer, let me clarify. Say that the user creates an account then, vandalises with the same comment ('Wassupwestcoast is a homo' or something of the like') and he is blocked after warnings. The user then appears a few days later under a different account name, doing the same things. What about sockpuppetry? What about blocking/warnings? Would you go straight to 'first and final warning' or start from square one ('did you know we don't like vandalism on Wikipedia') type warning? Auroranorth (!) 09:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Since the attack is directed at me in your scenario, because of 'conflict of interest', as an admin, I would not do anything directly. I would behave much like a regular editor and do what I do now. I would revert the vandalism and place a level one warning tag on the user's talk page. Repeat as necessary. The third time I'd post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If I thought it was a sockpuppet attack, I'd post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and see what the community thought. The two Wiki policies at issue are Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the potential abuse of the admin's 'extra tools' to protect myself. I've demonstrated my honour at GA where I won't review articles associated with any projects I am involved with. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from SorryGuy

5. I was wondering if you could clarify as to what specific tasks you plan to use the tools for. I understand you want to help out everywhere, but what specific areas do you plan to work in? SorryGuy 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A: I'm not seeking admin status because of any need to do any specific task. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that a few people do an awful lot of work. Over and over again, I come across the same editors and the same admins in different parts of Wikipedia. Since this is an all voluntary project, I can't help thinking that I'd be useful in easing the work load. I certainly don't have any grand plan. I suppose like my regular editing, my Wikipedia admin work would change month by month; backlogs and crisis come and go. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A. ... No, I have always edited as Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs). When I first edited on Wikipedia, I thought that registeration was mandatory. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wassupwestcoast before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Wassupwestcoast, I personally think you did an excellent job in answering the questions the way you did but I think you missed out on one essential part of your education... you should watch a few successful RfAs so that you will know what people expect. Then you can deliver all the right answers. Conformity is the mantra here; the more your answers look like everyone else's, the more people like you. And sometime, somehow, "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wassupwestcoast before commenting" has come to mean "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review edit count and answers only before commenting". Sad but true. On the other hand, there is one possible reason for people wanting to know what you want to do as an admin (though I don't think anyone below has come around to saying it below) - if you say you are going to work at AIV, we can go through your vandal-reverting edits and AIV reports to see if you can be trusted... If you are more specific, it makes our jobs as reviewers easy. I understand your wish to not commit to anything specific which is totally in agreement with the voluntary nature of WP, but by the same logic I guess you are expected to try to make things easier for your RfA commentators as well by giving specific areas to review. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps I seem coy about question 1 but admin is mostly maintenance and I find odd to say I 'want' to do this or 'desire' do that when mostly it involves cleaning up unpleasant messes with tact and honour. To use the ever popular 'mop & bucket' metaphor, I would find it very odd indeed if someone expressed an interest in cleaning out the men's room urinals; one would do it as part of the 'janitorial' job but surely no one ever expresses such an odd desire during a job interview. If anyone wants to check out my ability to handle bizarre situations, please check out the following which happened today. I received a message on my talk page from a stressed out new editor who wanted to know why I was accusing them of vandalism: see User talk:Wassupwestcoast#Katherine Patterson. I checked it out and the event was from March 2007 - I kid you not - and involved this event - see [[2]. The issue at the time was an IP user deleting material without any explanation on the edit summary. It looked odd. I left a level one warning in March 2007. Today, after the IP user contacted me, I replied on the IP users talk page - see [3] - and the IP user seemed satisfied. So I went from stressed out IP editor to happy IP editor. No trouble. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Support
  1. Support. I've never heard of you but that's probably a good thing considering the circles I travel. I went through a lot of your contributions and I see solid contributions across the project and civil interactions with other editors. I don't see a ton of Wiki-policy experience but I'm not concerned. You present no reason to believe you'd abuse the tools. Just promise to read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list carefully before taking admin actions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. No problems with this nom but please note that, when only one IP address is vandalizing an article, you should always block. If a shared IP address has been vandalizing frequently, escalate the warnings and then block. Protection should be left until multiple IP addresses have vandalized the article recently. --DarkFalls talk 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I have seen this editor around & he is always courteous to others & generally helpful. I suspect that, as his statements above suggest, his policy knowledge is not yet all it might be, but that does not worry me in his case because his personality is very laid-back & unaggressive & I don't see him getting involved in areas that are very contentious. Plus I think he knows what he doesn't know, & will avoid many areas until he is equipped. As author of peer-reviewed papers, he is well capable of understanding policy when he wants to expand his areas. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. You don't look like you'd abuse the tool and you look like someone who would genuinely help the wiki community. Harland1 t/c 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I am not bothered by any of the concerns of the opposers. I don't even have any questions to ask. Keepscases (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I don't like the slightly low edit count on the Projectspace, but your answers (which I'm guessing you newly revised based on the opposition) show that you understand that adminship is no big deal, and are going to use adminship as a tool, and not a trophy or status. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support nothing wrong from what I saw. "I don't have any sado-masochistic tendencies" - good for you :) There are two good ways to deal with conflicts and stressful situations: 1) Recognize a stressful situation as such and stay away from it 2) Recognize a stressful situation as such and diving into the matter with the intention of solving it. While no.2 is the ideal way, I myself prefer no.1 because what we do here is completely voluntary and we don't have to do anything. - TwoOars (Rev) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Seems like a good editor with the right idea of what adminship is about. No reason to expect he would knowingly or accidentally abuse the tools and no reason to question his judgement beyond what any admin is expected to have. AvruchTalk 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, can't see any reason that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  10. Support I reviewed the candidate at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wassupwestcoast and I didn't see any red flags. I think he's mainly an article writer type, but I don't see the harm in letting him do admin stuff. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Apart from the oppose reason which I had given prior to the clarification of his answers, I don't see why I should oppose this request. All the best, — Rudget speak.work 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - I'm comfortable that he understands COI and AGF, from his answers above about not assuming socks in IP's, and not acting when involved. We have too many admins who do not follow these golden rules, and these are perhaps the most important policies for an admin to keep in mind. - Crockspot (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Per Nom--eskimospy (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Has been excellent and diplomatic in finding ways for the Edmund the Martyr article to move forward. - Galloglass 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Excellent answers to my somewhat misleading question - has an excellent knowledge of policies and guidelines and won't be tripped up with simple questions. I believe he will use the admin tools appropriately. Auroranorth (!) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support. On the one hand, I can sympathise with some of Spawn Man's concerns below; in particular, with regards to Q1, although I understand what the candidate is trying to say, it would be better for him to list specific admin areas in which he would work, just so we can be certain that he understands the role of an administrator and would be capable of working effectively in the areas in which he plans to be active. However, I don't think this is a sufficient reason to oppose. Looking through recent contribs, he is an experienced vandal-fighter and is also active in article-writing, and is able to work collaboratively with other users. This request is unlikely to pass, but I urge him to run again in 3-4 months. WaltonOne 14:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support; question answers are usually irrelevant, and I see no problem with the answers. They are better than most I have seen so far. Redrocketboy 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Better understand some sticking points that had me on the fence. Not likely to abuse the tools. Seems articulate and thoughtful enough to not block Mr Wales or delete FA's speedily. Adminship is no big deal. Dlohcierekim 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Suppport. Disregarding his username, I trust this editor not to abuse the tools. He has made excellent contributions to Anglicanism WP and many other areas. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Trust is all that matters. He'll be careful with the tools, and he's a quick learner. That's a good combination. He'll make an excellent admin. The Transhumanist 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support. This user has made outstanding contributions to a range of articles from Anglicanism to Harry and the Potters. I have recently worked alongside this user in reaching FA status to the Harry and the Potters, which once was up for deletion. If an administrator, I believe he will not abuse the tools and with use them for good, in many ways than one. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Enthusiastic Support I've seen him around quite a bit, and know that he is a quality contributor to the project. I like the answers he gave to the questions, personally. Furthermore, one of the knocks against him seems to be his vague responses when asked what he would do with the tools - maybe I'm alone here, but I like a prospective admin who isn't eager to dive right in and involve him or herself in blocking, protecting, deleting, etc. I'd be much more worried if he seemed over-anxious to get the tools. I can't see westcoast abusing the buttons. faithless (speak) 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Changed to suppport. Has given a reasonable example of one way of using the buttons (see talk page here) and responded calmly and constructively to 'oppose' comments. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. I'm fine with trusting him with the goods. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support (from Neutral) Enough to like on balance, and per review of this RfA's talk page, to convince me there will be a net gain here. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support - No reason to distrust editor with the tools, and editor has answered questions and to my knowledge demonstrated qualities which lead me to think that the likelihood of misusing the tools is basically nil. Editor becoming an admin seems to be very likely to be a pronounced net gain for the project. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. After a review of their user talk page, a random sample of their article and article talk page contribs, and the oppose votes below, I don't find anything serious enough to consider an oppose. Seems wise enough to not start acting rashly in unfamiliar areas. Not really concerned that it took a while to flesh out the answers to the questions, and I liked the section on the talk page too. In general, meets my personal criteria --barneca (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support: I think his answers above perfectly reasonable, his responsiveness not melting into badgering, his experience seems to surpass any point that would concern me and I see no reason not to let him figure out what he can be helpful with as he goes along. My only concern is his response to Kurt Weber, below... don't bang your head against a wall, it ain't moving and it'll cause a mess. Epthorn (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strongest Support Possible: This user has made many outstanding contributions to a range of articles and projects. I have worked alongside this user in the Anglicanism project and he is one of the finest editors on Wikipedia. He has corrected me when I was wrong and supported me when I was correct. If he is made an administrator, I believe he will not abuse the tools and will use them for the good of everyone. -- SECisek (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I have reviewed the candidate and the comments of the opposes and I must say: I see nothing of any concern at all. Wassupwestcoast has done good article work, is communicative and intelligent, and his comment that he's happy when his edits stick seems more like modesty than anything bothersome. It's evident from his talk page that he's not getting reverted all the time. I also agree with much of what TwoOars has said in the discussion section. He's getting opposed for the IP/FA thing, but it's a situation he handled quite correctly. I hope more people give this whole RfA a second glance. We seem to be missing out on a pretty good candidate. --JayHenry (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Mature, thoughtful editor when I've run across him, which we do pretty often. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Gets it. Geometry guy 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per the mostly trivial reasons given to oppose. "Namespace balance" opposes don't hold a lot of weight with me. --B (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Looks like a good user. No convincing reasons to oppose. Acalamari 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support I see zero evidence in the oppose section to make me doubt my gut on this one. Wassupwestcoast is an incontrovertibly good candidate for adminship. Best of luck! VanTucky talk 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. + Keegantalk 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support, will make a fine admin. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 04:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - I see no problems and the fact that the answers are vague means he can't be criticized if he doesn't something he said he would. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I can understand some of the opposes earlier concerns but with rather impressive expansive clarifications by the candidate's answers above, this editor shows a very thoughtful attitude to what being an administrator is all about. I also believe you could benefit contributing in project spaces but I believe you can do this at you own leisure as an admin, as I do not see anything that indicative of someone who would abuse the tools or editors. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 07:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Rigadoun (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Strong support -- most of the oppose concerns seem the product of Wassup's initial politically incorrect approach to this RfA based on his genial naivety of wiki-politics -- not a sin and possibly even a weak plus for me. My bottom line is that this editor seems a cautious, civil editor with a well-developed sense of how to collegially build good encyclopedic content: six good articles including at least one on a contentious topic, Gene Robinson. There are more than enough admin tasks to go around and I suggest any overloaded admins cheerfully and civilly pick on him ("Wassup, cleanup on aisle XfD -- bring your mop") until he figures out the store. Just my kind of admin. Get your bucket ready and hop in the Batmobile, Wassup -- we have work to do. --13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Had some concerns over the answers to the questions above but can't see anything to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. I am sometimes concerned by a lack of project space edits, but this editor seems intelligent and neutral. I doubt he would take on any (hobby) duties he is unprepared to fulfill. Dekimasuよ! 03:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Uninspiring answer to Q1. In Q2, "...I'm happy when I make edits that 'stick'...", gives me concern. Why is he happy when his edits stick? Do they not normally stick and/or are deleted? I really don't like his attitude in Q3; the last thing we need is an admin who doesn't sort out issues and who gives others stress knowingly (Whilst bragging about it). And finally for Q4, he clearly has no clue about the policies in regard to this question at all. Questions aside - although the candidate has great contributions, he has far fewer contributions to the wikipedia namespace than I'd like, especially if he's going to be an admin. And anyone who reads RfAs knows answering all the support votes is not good. I just have reservations in giving him the tools. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The concerns raised by Spawn Man seems to be valid as far as I am concerned. The lack of content in answering Q1 is also a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose - I've been looking at this for a good few hours now, but I feel it would be wrong of me to support at this time. I'm not sure your answers to the questions are really good enough to show the (!)voters here whether or not you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Currently, I don't see an accurate representation of what an admin should do. The answer to the first question is rather small, and doesn't show whether you want or need to help, but then again as this is a self-nomination, it's already conveyed in the opening statement. I know from previous experience here at RFA that answering (!)votes immediately, is something you shouldn't do. It only shows that you may be over-eager and you may be distracted from other edits, which you may usually do. However, I do appreciate you great contributions to WikiProjects and Articles, but make sure that if you do become an administrator, you take it easy to begin with. All the best, — Rudget speak.work 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, as to answering (!)votes/comments immediately, I noticed previous RfA candidates being criticized for not doing so. The arguement in that case being that the candidate is not sufficiently attentive. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    As said, I was speaking from my experience. — Rudget speak.work 13:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) - Changed to support.
  3. Oppose - I also have the same reservations that Spawn Man has. Sorry, buddy. ScarianTalk 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. My only concern here are the sparce edits in project space. I do see many to the GA pages and to some Wikiproject pages which I really like, but AIV is scant and the policy pages are pretty much non-existent. I'm not worried that you would deliberately abuse the tools but could create issues because of your unfamiliarity with the processes that go on here. I would suggest taking a few months, probably three, and immerse yourself in the admin related areas so we can see a more complete understanding of your work. Thanks for your attitude and your boldness in self-nominating. -JodyB talk 13:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per question 3. We don't want admins to have type of attitude where if there are problems, one would just run away. Plus, it appears to me that you might not be able to articulate your reasoning sufficiently based on how you handled the anon and the FA article example you provided in the same answer. Icestorm815 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Genuinely sorry to do so, but answers to questions, specifically number 3 and 1, seem uninspired and vaguely uninterested. I'd advise you to contribute some more and learn the Wikipolicies. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Per general attitude as apparent in his answers; see above. Sandstein (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Agree with Icestorm815. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanenawhitney (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Im sorry, i really like your attitude, you have a clean block log, and you dont appear to have any serious issues. But my concerns are primarily, that you havent really gotten to understand the policies that make wikipedia. My suggestion to you is that you read up on all of the policies, re-apply in 6 months time, improve your answers to the questions and you should be sweet. Good luck. Twenty Years 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. Sorry, but three attempts to answer question 1 and still no specifics. There will be no 'cleanup on aisle 1' calls: AFAIK admins have to go and find the work rather than waiting for it to be allocated them. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Kim. What on earth does AFAIK mean? Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    AFAIK = "As far as I know". Took me some time to figure that out. Dlae│here 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Quite right, that's what it means and apologies for abbreviating. I usually don't, and this is the reason why! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    No Worries, just like to clarify things .... thank you both. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary effort: no one tells anyone what to do. So, why do you want to know what specifically I'm going to do? As a regular editor I have no trouble at all in finding things to do ... and I do them. I think I would be motivated enough to find things to do as an admin. Seriously, I am applying to help the project in the capacity of an admin just as I help the project as a regular contributing editor. During my time as a regular editor, to repeat myself, I have found lots to do; I can not see why I would suddenly become a passive naval gazer once I had the 'tools'. What makes you think I would? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was picking up on the 'clean up in aisle 2' comment, which implies a person awaiting an instruction to go and complete a task. But that's not really important, it's just a figure of speech. What was crucial is that you didn't anywhere specify what you might want to do as an admin. For example, you could have said "I'll help with the backlog of articles for speedy deletion or intervention against vandalism or closing articles for deletion discussions." Any one of these would have indicated that you had some idea of what admins do. But the absence of any specifics mean that we can't be sure you have any idea what the new buttons might be for. I realise that may sound a bit harsh, particularly if you actually do know what functions admins perform: but if you do, you haven't given clear evidence of that in this discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    A bit late in theday, but for a string of desperate "clean-up aisle 1 calls" on WP:DYK updates, see User talk:Andrew c and many other admin talk pages. Heavens knows, there are plenty of backlogged pages. But I'm shutting the stable door after the horse has closed it himself here :) Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please, you've made the exact same comment since at least July 2007 - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/carlossuarez46. Kurt Weber, you descibe yourself as a libertarian on your user page...well, a libertarian would always self-nominate themselves and sure enough you did: seeWikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber. A libertarian believes in the principle that people should have complete freedom of thought and action: thus a libertarian does not wait around for someone to tell him/her what to do. My political philosophy leans to social libertarianism as my user page shows, so it is natural that I too would self-nom. Please investigate a candidate before ascribing motivations: please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I've made the same comment then, and I still make it because I still believe it. As for my own self-nom, note that that was two years ago and people can indeed change their minds over time. As for the argument that my opposing this is un-Libertarian, well, if you say that then you just don't get it. This is Wikipedia, not national politics. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is seriously getting old. Can we strike this vote and block Kurt please? I mean, honestly, this is getting old. It would be different if he were to vote in other Rfa's but he is only voting on self-nom's and it is always oppose. Good Grief!!! Dustihowe (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    We do not need to strike his votes, I believe any closing bureaucrat understands how Kurt Weber votes and will factor them into the discussion accordingly. Remember, RfA is a discussion, not a vote. As for supporting a block, I would agree his behavior is disruptive, but that does not really belong here. SorryGuy 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    RfA is a discussion, not a vote? Since when? I haven't seen any 'crat to date wave away a 60% vote and claim the Opposes were specious, have you? That being said, Kurt's POV that self-nomination automatically unfits someone for adminship isn't any sillier or knee-jerk than the people who claim that failure to punch a certain percentage of edit summaries (AfD edits, AN/I activity, user space edits ...) does the same.  RGTraynor  11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I must say that Kurt at least has the tact of speaking of his views in the first person. Húsönd 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    This issue has been discussed quite a bit- in fact there is an RfC open on it now. Here is the first RfC, here is the subsequent ArbCom request and finally here is the second RfC. You may find it useful to see the different viewpoints there or move this to a talk page.Epthorn (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I have concerns with the way he responded above, the three attempts to answer question 1 and I agree the first oppose. You wouldn't abuse the tools, but I just cannot support while having these concerns. Jack?! 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. My experience with this user is that he may revert or remove others' work without the courtesy of a discussion. He seems to feel he knows best. See here ("I agree that it is better to improve rather than delete. But sometimes forcing round pegs into square holes is too much of a bother.") InkQuill (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. The entire comment by me was: I agree that it is better to improve rather than delete. But sometimes forcing round pegs into square holes is too much of a bother. And the nuances in this case are not trivial but contentious enough that they'd end up spawning an edit war. Really I do try to add content to Wikipedia and not take it away. And to suggest that I didn't discuss on the Talk page about this is strange indeed 'cause I and other editors did indeed talk about it: see Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America/Archive 3#Denomination Info Box. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think the entire quote (and the remarks that follow) only add to my concerns. And yes you discussed it, but you also unilaterally removed the info box in the midst of the discussion. One of the responses was: "I also think that Wikipedia works better if you try improving the edits that people make instead of simply reverting them. If there were better ways to do an Info Box, you should make the changes, not just get rid of it." The need to respond to everyone's remarks is another attribute I wouldn't want in an admin. InkQuill (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. InkQuill (talk · contribs), you forgot to attribute your quote to Adam sk (talk · contribs) who at the time was spamming that info box across all sorts of denominations. For example, here diff at the Southern Baptist Convention page and note that Adam sk left the edit summary blank. He then turned up at the ECUSA site, and Secisek (talk · contribs) removed it and asked Adam sk to discuss it on the talk page. diff. Notice that the edit summary was blank and that Secisek said in his edit summary 'removed info box see talk page'. Then Adam sk reverted and again left no edit summary. Then I - finally - come along and revert back - see diff where I left an edit summary of "remove info box per Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America#Denomination Info Box". Yes, Inkquill, I do feel the need to respond to an unsubstantiated criticism. And, to top it all off, there is a good info box at the Episcopal Church in the United States of America article now. We did work through it. Just like a collaborative project should do. I will as a regular editor do now as I did then, stop a spamming editor who unilaterally plunks down formatting changes without the consent of the community, and without explanation. If, InkQuill, you do not understand this then you do not understand the spirit of Wikipedia which is collaboration through consensus derived by transparent discussion. If you think that is what we do not want in an admin, well...what can I say? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    (to InkQuill) What's wrong in the candidate explaining his side of things? This is a discussion and the candidate has responded to 3 opposers (explaining his views) and two supporters (agreeing with their suggestions). Why would you not want that? I would think a responsive admin is what we all wanted... - TwoOars (Rev) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. If you don't want people questioning your vote, InkQuill, just say so. Wassupwestcoast is clarifying something that he feels you pointed out incorrectly. Going "Well, he's talking back" is rather bad form, and it comes across to a reader as snooty. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 12:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I take back what I said about responding. It's more the defensive tone of the response than the response itself that I find worrisome in an admin. And "transparent discussion" is what I want and what I did not find in a unilateral removal of an infobox. You can spin it any way you want to, and maybe I'm wrong, but thankfully anyone can look at the edit history and judge for themselves. In any case, I'm not the one who's campaigning here. InkQuill (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was involved in the edits in question and Wassupwestcoast version of the events were correct. An infobox that was a poor fit for some pages was spammed across many articles. We removed it, explained why it was a poor fit, designed a better box, and added to the page. It was exactly how the process was supposed to work. As I recall, you did not contribute to the discussion of the box redesign, InkQuill, I know for a fact Wassupwestcoast did. -- SECisek (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I was not aware at the time that the infoxbox was "spammed across many articles." It was not vandalism, even if you disagreed with it, so I think calling it "spam" is not assuming good faith. And yes, I was involved in the discussion of the infobox, as the edit history shows. If there was another discussion about the new infobox, I was not aware of it. I'm "unwatching" this now. InkQuill (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weakly per JodyB who puts it well. Daniel 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose reluctantly. I am sure that the nominee comes with good intentions and will do his best, but he doesn't seem ready quite yet. I am confident that WUWC can learn enough about policy and protocol in a few months to qualify better on that account. I am more concerned about his ability to express himself clearly the first time around; I'd suggest that he find some other experienced editor who can help him with that. Matchups (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose The combination of low project-space participation (home of so much admin-related work), and aggressive responses on this RfA leave me a little unsettled regarding temperament and competence. Xoloz (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral for now, until question 1 and or 5 is answered, demonstrating a need for the tools, but I do like the statement "I - personally - don't consider different IP accounts sockpuppeting because there are so many legit reasons to appear with different IP addresses." - Crockspot (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Crockspot (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I can not support a canidate that is so unable to muster an explanation as to their specific need for the tools. At the same time, I am not swayed by the opposes and do not feel this user will abuse the tools. SorryGuy 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate the answer as to specific need of tools, but still do not feel knowledge of admin-related tasks has been displayed to the level at which I am willing to support. I do see particular interest in helping the community and improving the encyclopedia and as such hope I can support in the future. Best of luck and best wishes. SorryGuy 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral Lots to like here, and I believe that you are only seeking adminship to help further. But the "tone" in your responses to opposers, particularly the opposes of Kim and Kurt, are very concerning to me. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    There is some good reasoning from the candidate on the talk page where I think his tone is reasoned and he makes good arguments. I've been sufficiently convinced to change my vote (of course it's a vote, who are we kidding...) to support. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Excellent detail worker at WP, but not experienced enough in the relevant areas. Maybe in a few months. DGG (talk) 04:33, 14 December 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.