Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust

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] Ziggy Sawdust

Closed at (1/9/1) per SNOW by naerii - talk 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (talk page)


Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) - I feel ready for the mop. I've been patrolling Newpages, reading policy, reporting vandals, and doing other minionly things since I joined. It would be much better if I could delete the CSDs myself instead of deferring to a higher authority; or for that matter block the vandals, close the VAfDs, etc. Ziggy Sawdust 23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Ziggy Sawdust 23:35, 3 June 2008 (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: Mostly speedy deletions and blocking of vandals (either ones that I observe directly going over their final warning or the ones reported through the glory of AIV). I don't want to get myself too involved in drama, but I like to think of myself as somewhat unbiased, if an editwar broke out I'm confident I could settle it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Apart from my constant work at Newpages, I'm particularly proud of Tungsten and Lutetium. I'm not done with them yet (library hates me), but I will be soon.
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: Nary a conflict. That I can remember; people are going to be picking through my history anyway so they might as well help jog my memory :P

Optional question from InDeBiz1

4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
I believe in forgiving people for pretty much anything. If someone can show that they've recuperated (by, in my opinion, at least 100 edits and one article significantly improved), then they're back in my book. And if someone's banned for whatever reason and they come back under a different account, editing productively, that's perfectly fine with me. Bans/watching/blocks should be preventative; there's no reason to block someone who's clearly being a productive user. Ziggy Sawdust 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from RyRy5

5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A: Revert the IPs, leave a note on their talk pages, report to WP:RPP, get consensus, if consensus is reached semi-protect, if not leave it be and watch the article.
6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: Block immediately to prevent further damage, start a thread on AN/I, use Special:Emailuser to contact the owner of the account, and wait it out.
7 What are your opinions on WP:DEAL?
A: A+++++++ EXCELLENT IDEOLOGY WOULD SUPPORT AGAIN. No, but seriously, I think that becoming an admin isn't so much about getting the tools these days as it is the "evolved form of the editor", and some demented rite of passage where you get judged on your merit as a person, to become some higher status symbol "GOD-KING" rather than "the guy who can delete pages and block people". Of course that's a bit of an oversimplification, but it reflects my views.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Nothing to indicate that this user wouldn't be a better vandal fighter with the tools. Celarnor Talk to me 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Did you put this in the wrong section? ffm 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't expect administrators to know everything, but this edit on ANI just now, where you state you don't know how to handle the situation (what exactly the problem is you don't make clear, no diffs and all that), is rather telling of a lack of experience. I suggest a few months more editing before applying for adminship.--Atlan (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Too many edits using automated features, not sold on this candidate's abilities at this time. Should this RfA not succeed, I will not rule out reconsidering my vote in any future attempt, but can not support this time around. Best of luck, however! --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Per Atlan, definitely. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. HELL NO. Nick (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Could you perhaps explain your rationale with more detail so that I would know what I need to do to become worthy? Ziggy Sawdust 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Look to my oppose for some things that may give reason for nick to oppose as such. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    You're one of the few people I'm likely never to support for adminship, so there's nothing you can really do to earn a "Support" from me next time round (should their be a next time round). Behaviour on IRC is so bad, it's way beyond exceptionally problematic. Nick (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Uh, civility much? --Rory096 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Not today. AvruchT * ER 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Too soon. naerii - talk 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Atlan's ANI diff shows lack of confidence (which wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me), but I have noticed multiple other things. First comes the notifications on your talk page about recent ANI threads about you (here and here) and multiple other things on your talk page (maturity problems, BITE problems, creating inappropriate pages notification, anda problem with maturity) My interactions with you on IRC (though I recognize that this is not official) have been negative because of spamming of profanity and things such as this. I also don't really care for userboxes such as the ones at the top of your userpage--though I do understand you are just trying to make people laugh--and these added on to other problems I've noticed make a difference. My suggestion to you is just to "sober up" and try again in 5 months. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. I respect fully banned users coming back to reform, and I welcomed Ziggy coming back with a new account and editing constructively and staying out of controversy. I however think it should be made known that this is a new account of Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I hoped he would just stay in the background, but unfortunately he’s decided not to. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good to know. No way will I ever support Flameviper for adminship, reformed or otherwise. Why is he allowed to edit anyway?--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Does not meet my 1 year criteria for editors applying to be admins. Plus I am confused as how he is allowed to edit at all and not indef banned based on his previous community ban. I thought ban meant you're not allowed back unless by consensus of the community. Bstone (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Looking at this users contributions and answers, Ziggy Sawdust can be a good candidate in the future. This user has been here since February, but has a really low edit count, 500+ in mainspace and 1100+ total. Sorry, but try again with more experience in mainspace in a few months. -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. I don't have time to go through your history in detail, but our paths have crossed this evening for the first time and I think that your nominations for CSD could use more experience. At the moment, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with you deleting CSDs. The two instances are: this has clear assertions of notability, and was tagged just 1 minute after creation; United Hospitals Boat Club was a copyright violation of the url mentioned in the article, not "nonsense" as you tagged it. More experience (and less haste?) could be beneficial. BencherliteTalk 23:48, 3 June 2008 (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.