Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiFan04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WikiFan04

Vote here (2/12/4) ending 23:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC) withdrawn WikiFan04 (talk · contribs) - I've been around since January 2004, a lot longer than a considerable amount of people here, and have amassed near 1,000 edits, counting my edits as an anon IP. I have been active on VfD, and have taken process in making categories, templates and articles, as well as being a WikiGnome.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self-nomination. :-) -- WikiFan04 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. DOWN WITH EDITCOUNTITIS!!! -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support - I don't see why not. Adminship should not be solely based on edit counts, which happen to be a very poor indicator of activity. Adminship is simply removing some security restrictions because we know the guy is not an idiot. --Phroziac (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. As I write, only 665 edits, and only 130 or so of those to Wikipedia: space, with very few indeed to the various Talk: spaces. Not enough 'stuff' to judge interaction on, which is important for admins. Article work appears ok, but at least several of those on the user page are single-sentence stubs. Some of the others have never been edited by this username, so presumably as an anon. Not really able to consider the edits as anon, unfortunately, since no means of attributing them. Also doesn't use edit summaries nearly enough, and the answer to Question 3 "small-time users or IPs who like to futz around", leaves me feeling very unsure. Do you mean vandals, or just editors whose edits you think are "incorrect"? In any case, come back in a well-distributed thousand edit summaries' time or two, and I'll consider afresh. -Splash 23:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Good editor, but too few edits. ral315 23:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. A bit new short on edits; was told to wait by some but decided to self-nom anyway. Voted to keep Coq Roq and then nominated The Subservient Chicken for deletion citing Coq Roq: WP:POINT, confusion, or just pandering? Either way, oppose for now. Try again soon. Andre (talk) 23:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose you cannot become an administrator until you have made 1,000 edits. freestylefrappe 03:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    ...since when? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose —700 edits in 19 months is just too few. Also, needs to use edit summaries more often.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  6. Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the editor's grasp of Wikipedia policy based on the relatively low number of edits in the WP namespace (most of which are VfD edits). Also, the lack of edit summaries is discouraging. --Alan Au 08:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Needs more experience. More edit summaries would also be helpful. Carbonite | Talk 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose now. Needs more experience. utcursch | talk 12:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, hyperbolic confrontational style demonstrated below is not productive, seemingly belies his statement that he is "not one to burst out at other users." Christopher Parham (talk) 17:00, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  10. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not only is this nomination in the wrong section, but he has harassed me on Wikipedia and on IRC about things I didn't even do. He blanked my talk page, then told me he'd only stop if I talked to him on IRC. (The topic he is discussing is related to when he was repeatedly quieted, kicked, and banned, by at least 3 different ops in IRC. The specific incident he is referring to I had nothing to do with.) CryptoDerk 22:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    As an aside, there is no longer a self-nom section, per a brief discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. All noms are just made in one place now. -Splash 23:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    Ah, I go away for a couple of weeks and look what happens. My bad. CryptoDerk 01:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  11. SupportOppose. WikiFan, I'm sorry to do this to you but those links that CryptoDerk posted are rather damning. I think you need to have some more time editing and learning how to deal with stress a little better before you run for admin again. You're a good editor, but you apparently need to work on getting along with others more. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per CryptoDerk's comments. More experience is needed. Jaxl | talk 23:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - meets most of my criteria, but I haven't interacted with him a lot, save for today. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - The user is obviously a productive Wikipeidian, but more experince might serve him. I think he would be found useful though if given Adminship. --CoolFox 05:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. WikiFan04 is on the right path, but could benefit from more experience in terms of interacting with the community. This is not something easily quantified in terms of time or raw edit counts. --MarkSweep✍ 06:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, needs more community interaction and edit summaries. Alphax τεχ 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Andre, I'm not new. I mean vandals, and "incorrect" editors, like the IP who kept rving the infobox on GNAA. Also, I felt that if Coq Roq was not notable, neither was The Subservient Chicken. --WikiFan04Talk 18:40, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)
    • But didn't you a) create Coq Roq and b) vote to keep Coq Roq? Andre (talk) 00:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • It makes sense to me. An editor who disagrees with Wikipedia community standards could nonetheless have a legitimate desire to see those standards enforced consistantly. Aquillion 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose you cannot become an administrator until you have made 1,000 edits. freestylefrappe 03:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon?!? When did THAT become policy? (answer: it's not.) Kate was right: Editcountitis can be fatal. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It became policy at 2am. --Phroziac (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alan Au, you're saying that since I have a low number of edits, I can't POSSIBLY know Wikipedia policy? Wow. Kate said editcountitis was fatal, just like Fennec mentioned. Having only 700 edits does not make me an utter idiot. --WikiFan04Talk 4:43, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
    • I apologize if you misinterpreted my comment; I merely indicated that I was personally uncomfortable with your limited scope of interaction in the WP namespace based on a review of your edit history. Technically, I can oppose for any reason, but I was hoping that my feedback might help you earn a support vote from me during a later nomination. I'm sorry, but your escalated reaction to my comment makes me wary of endorsing you for adminship at this time. --Alan Au 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm told that I don't have enough Wikipedia: edits and user talk page edits (don't talk with the community much). According to the edit tool and a calculator, one out of every five edits I make is a Wikipedia: edit, and one out of every ten is a User talk edit. --WikiFan04Talk 9:30, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
    It's true that you do edit in the Wikipedia namespace. However, the vast majority of these edits are deletion or RfA pages. There are only two edits to Wikipedia talk, which is where policy is usually discussed. I also noticed that you voted on two proposed ArbCom decisions earlier this summer: [1], [2]. I'm sure they were just a mistake, but this shows that more experience wouldn't hurt. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Christopher, how do I belie my statement of not bursting out at other users? An explanation would be appreciated. Oh, and please explain how I am hyperbolic. --WikiFan04Talk 12:17, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
    • That was in reference to your outburst in response to Alan Au above, particularly the fact that you seemed to interpret his mild opposition as an egregious personal affront. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I often nominate pages for deletion, vote on VfD, create templates and categories, or carry out Requested Articles tasks. If I were to be given the mop and bucket, I would delete pages, patrol RC, and help regulate bots.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, if you look at my user page, you will see a list of 17 articles I have created, and I also created scientology-stub, which is a template.
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 conflicts over edits I was about to do. And, small-time users or IPs who like to futz around on Wikipedia putting incorrect edits in (such as numerous people on Gay Nigger Association of America) and have caused me Level 2 WikiStress. I can get very agitated (for a short time the "run for cover" graphic was on my user page) but am not one to burst out at other users. I calmly find a way to solve a situation.

--WikiFan04 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)