Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit

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.

Contents

[edit] Wikihermit

Final (2/11/1); ENDED EARLY

Please close this rfa, it's headed downhill quickly. And no, I'm not homophobic nor power seeking. Just an editor looking to improve the project.
Wikihermit (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself for adminship. I first created my account as 1312020Wikicop on February 12th. I only made a few edits in February, but began to edit heavy in March, and to date have amassed over 4000 total edits, with over 1000 of those in the main space. I have helped an article reach GA status (Chambersburg), and I do other various work when I see it is need, such as "gnomish" work [1]. I am fairly involved within the community, particularly with WikiProject Christianity, and I am also a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania. I am a vandal fighter. I watch new pages for non sense/vandalism/ect. and I also monitor Recent Changes. I have done some template work, such as creating the WP Christianity welcome template. I run a bot, HermesBot,which does various task, such as delivering newsletters and WikiProject tagging. I believe I have a firm understanding of most of Wikipedia's policies and am fairly well round on Wikipedia. I think I would make a good administrator here. Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:I would take part in two areas specifically. The first is vandal fighting, which I have already done. With the admin tools, this task would be must easier, as it would skip the need after the final warning to report the vandal to AIV. The second part would be the backlog, such as going through the speedy deletion category. Although this would not be an area I would cover heavy since it seems to be taken care of quickly, I also foresee myself at RFPP, protecting the wrong version. :) I would close out various Xfd's (with the exception of CFD) that have clear consensus. I would leave other ones without the clearest consensus to the more experienced users. In all, I would use the admin tools to help contributing editors to the encyclopedia continue to contribute usefully because the main goal here is to create a free encyclopedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I don't really have one area that I contribute the most in. If I had to chose an article, it would be Chambersburg, as it reached GA status. Outside of editing articles, my best contribution would be vandal fighting, which I usually do daily. Really I take part in whatever needs done, and I don't focus too heavily on one area.
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 have never been involved with edit warring or anything that affects the mainspace. I did have a disagreement with a user over archiving user talk pages, and after a day discussion ceased. Besides that, my time on Wikipedia has been smooth.
4. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that Image:Hogzilla.jpg was GFDL (tag has since been changed), how Image:Lockridge.gif is GFDL, how Image:Boysenstatepark.jpg is CC, how Image:WCHS.png is a public domain work of the federal government, why you have not brought Image:The Growth Cover.jpg into compliance with the fair use criteria, and the source of Image:Template elf.png and Image:US_map-East_Coast.png? -N 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
5. What does compliance with Wikipedia:Image use policy mean to you? -N 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Do you still consider this edit to be vandalism fighting, given the fact that the next diff reverted it and the author left you a negative editor review[2]? -N 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Is User:UBX/homophobic, which you wrote, a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#T1? Why or why not? -N 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently that's a bingo! I tagged it and its gone away...Lets see now, can we have User:UBX/gaybasher next? —Gaff ταλκ 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
8. What is the template space for? Does {{Signature/Wikihermit}} belong in it? -N 01:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
9. When you created Image:Template elf.png you cropped another image, which I was eventually able to track down as the PD image Image:Poor little birdie teased by Richard Doyle.jpg. You then released the cropped version under thr GFDL. Do you believe that cropping a public domain is a large enough change to pass the threshold of originality for generating a new copyright? -N 02:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This problematic licensing identification has been resolved. —Gaff ταλκ 03:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikihermit before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support This user is great. I have seen him a lot in my recent changes patrol. He is a bit new but I am sure he will make a good admin.--James, La gloria è a dio 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems to be quite a good editor to me. Has contributed to several articles, passed 1000 mainspace edits, runs a bot of his own, and is constantly reverting vandalism. The tools would really make his job easier... And for those who say he is a bit new, maybe because he joined Wikipedia in this same year, he has already made over 4000 edits. Best of luck, ♠Tom@sBat 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose Strong oppose Somewhat of a new account, most edits appear to be administrative related (vandal reversion, welcoming new users etc) and the fact the user hasn't been in any disagreements is actually viewed by me as a bad thing...it means the user hasn't established much of a presence on Wikipedia. -N 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    You're joking right? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Some disputes have polarized the community in the last few months, to name a few: whether WP:BLP should be speedy deletion reason, whether military insignia are really PD, etc. A good admin candidate would be involved at least tangentially in some disputes... it means they are actually contributing in the face of disagreement and contributing to things that are important to the community. A user who stays out of those things doesn't make his views known, so if most of the edits are technical there isn't much to judge about the user himself. -N 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    I stay out of those discussions. Doesn't make me a bad candidate. I try to avoid getting involved with policy discussion which I don't have a decent amount of knowledge in. I don't know much on PD for military insignia so I wouldn't involve myself in said debate. Maybe this user isn't familiar enough with those areas to have an opinion in the debates. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Changed !vote to strong oppose, I was going to wait for answers to my questions, but I don't think I'm going to like the answers. -N 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, and I'll give my reasons if/when I get a chance. Majorly (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    OK, anti-gay userbox, somewhat odd answer to question 1, power thing, and a generally "doesn't get it" feeling with this editor. Strong oppose. Majorly (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Majorly, why do peoples political views matter in the least bit? They do not.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    That's not a "political view", that's blatant discrimination. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    And you're discriminating against people who are anti-gay. There's nothing wrong with "discrimination" in the abstract--without discriminating between the honorable and the dishonorable, I wouldn't know who to respect. Without discriminating between the attractive and the repulsive, I wouldn't know who to love. Without discriminating between the capable and the incompetent, I wouldn't know who to listen to. If you're opposed to discrimination IN GENERAL, you're simply saying you're opposed to standards, which is quite frankly ridiculous.
    As a point of fact, I don't particularly agree with this individual's anti-gay bias, but I fail to see how it would affect his ability to do his job as an administrator. I oppose his administratorship for other reasons; but this one is totally irrelevant. Grow up. Kurt Weber 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Don't go jumping on my back and give me analogies I care not to read, I didn't even cast a vote nor will I oppose this RFA. Why, however, does the candidate have to parade his viewpoint around Wikipedia and let the whole world know he is anti-gay? It's safe to say it backfired, and this nomination will fail because of it, so maybe he should be the one growing up... -- Phoenix2 (holla) 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Cool down, please. This is not a forum to be trading insults! Evilclown93(talk) 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    None were cast in either direction, maybe you should reread the text. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just because I made a "anti-gay" userbox doesn't mean I'm homophobic. I don't even have the userbox on my userpages because I have no problems with homosexuality. I thought other users would use it. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Strong oppose - You nominate large numbers of articles for deletion, marking the nomination as a minor edit every time ([3], [4], [5], [6] in the last couple of days alone), while undoubtedly minor edits are marked as major; either you're sloppy and not checking your edits before you press the button, or you don't understand a fairly fundamental Wikipedia concept - either way it's not a good trait in an admin. Plus, while it's not a reason to oppose in and of itself there's something faintly iffy about trying to change your username twice [7][8] in three months — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Also, this doesn't square with "never been involved in any conflict"... — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to strong oppose in light of this offering of yours. Someone who thinks this is acceptable is not someone I want as the public face of Wikipedia — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. You say you want to become an admin, then a bureaucrat, then a steward.[9] There is no need for more bureaucrats or stewards, so this would appear to be power for power's sake. I do not think Wikipedia or any organization needs people who seek power, and so I do not feel comfortable with you taking this first step. ··coelacan 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Or he just wants to help the project? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure the two desires are not mutually exclusive. But seeking a rise to power generally disqualifies a person from my trust. Would that attitude tend toward enforcing one's will by admin tools rather than consensus? It's far from unthinkable. Wikihermit is welcome to help the project as a regular editor. Choosing high-powered roles that don't need to be filled, and aiming for them anyway, does not earn my trust. As RFA is a gauge of the community's trust, I have to oppose. ··coelacan 23:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Malevious summed it up clearly. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose I'm very unimpressed by your demonstrated understanding of image licensing. This is my conclusion after reviewing a number of images that you have uploaded claiming GFDL or PD when it is cleearly not. I'm also not impressed by this Image:Antigay.png little creation of yours. —Gaff ταλκ 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose. Vacuous answers to questions, apparent poor understanding of policy, creates extremely divisive userboxes, and I can't find anything remarkable in his last 1000 contributions to offset these strong negatives. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per experience with user and anti-gay userbox, which clearly meets T1. Also because of today's revert, which you called "vandalism," but was not even close vandalism. Another thing is the answer to Q1. CSD backlog usually isn't handled that quickly, and sometimes piles up. Also, the point of admins if to determine consensus, so as an admin, you shouldn't only be closing ones that are obvious (regular users can already close obvious keeps). Lastly, you don't meet one of my only personal requirements: about 6 months on the project. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose - anybody creating divisive and inflammatory userboxes shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. There's evidence to suggest this candidate would not discharge his duty as an administrator in a fair and impartial manner and may discriminate based on sex, sexuality or religion and as such, must not be promoted. As usual, don't bother replying to my comments as I'll not see them. Nick 00:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. I see significant flaws in this editor's understanding of policy in many areas; plus, the whole homophobia thing = not good. Oppose, as per N. DS 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    I am not homophobic. Does creating a christian userbox make you any more a christian? An atheist could have created that userbox. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Poor understanding of policy is a concern here. I'm also concerned that this user would not able to fairly discharge his responsibilities in all cases, per Nick's comments. Carom 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose — Self-noms are prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not in absence of other factors, I would say. Just for the record. But maybe here. ··coelacan 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    There are many excellent admins who went through RfA via self-nom. This is not, in my opinion, a valid reason to oppose and RfA. —Gaff ταλκ 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, there are. But, in my judgment, it's not worth the risk of letting a single megalo through. I'm an economist: it's simply a question of trade-offs. In my judgment, the maximal utility lies on the side of caution, and I act accordingly. Kurt Weber 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    If you handle all self-noms the same way, I suppose that's your prerogative, but the section does indicate to keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikihermit before commenting. I get the feeling that said advice has not been applied in this case, and the candidate may feel that are being opposed for something that is clearly allowed by RfA standards. Leebo T/C 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Good amount of edits and a good edit summary usage but you seem a little too new for me. Not sure how much knowledge of policy and things you have only being here about 4 months, but that isn't enough for me to oppose. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:19, 9 June 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.