Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/asams10

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] asams10

Final (6/22/7); Scheduled to end 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

asams10 (talk · contribs) – Editor and watchdog for firearms, ammunition, and military history articles.Asams10 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This is a self-nomination.

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Editing firearms and ammunition articles for accuracy and format. Expanding oversight of such articles for vandalism, disagreements, and a general lack of standards. Making up for what I percieve as a lack of attention paid to this section of Wikipedia by current admins. Resolving POV conflicts and unsourced edits as well as references as noted in the Wikipedia Backlog. Ensuring images are properly sourced, articles are POV and Trivia free per Wikipedia standards, and articles are properly referenced and supported.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The following articles have had the bulk of my attention:
  • AK-47 and M1 Garand are the focus of significant vandalism. Due to their popularity, they are a lightning rod for vandals of all sorts as well as notepads for every person who's ever seen a movie that featured an AK-47 or Garand despite the facts. These articles take time and attention away from other editors to keep vandal free. I believe having the ability to block flagrant attacks and vandalism is essential and no current admin has taken up the task.
  • Remington 51, John Browning, John Pedersen, Julian Hatcher, and Trigger (firearms) are all articles I either researched and wrote entirely or rewrote based on necessity. They are the heart of my interest in firearms as objects and mechanisms that are physical in nature but have a mystique all they own. I am a longtime firearms enthusiast and have been in the business of buying, selling, collecting, researching, and smithing firearms. An admin with an intimate knowledge of the mechanisms, their history, and their inventors provides Wikipedia with a strong tool for growing the quality of these articles.
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've had issues and conflicts, most of the time it's people who have little to no knowledge of the subject matter trying to interject. My least favorite confrontation involved a revert war fought against me by an individual who felt that mentioning the marketing of firearms to women constituted sexism. I handled it by filing a complaint for the personal attacks lodged against me and letting the admins decide how to solve the problem. Stress? No, I'm too old and have other things to stress over. I would like deal with conflicts in the future by limiting the damage caused by vandals and fostering a teamwork attitude towards building articles.
General comments

Discussion

I would like to say that what I have seen of Asams10, has been very positive. He researches his facts well, and I have observed that he is perfectly willing to accept logic and make compromises based on reliable information. He is very vigilant about reverting vandalism and correcting errors made by others while being polite to those who are making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. His presence on Wikipedia has been very positive due to his great knowledge of firearms and his vigilant patrolling of Wikipedia to keep it accurate and encyclopedic.

In conclusion, giving Asams10 a position as Administrator on Wikipedia will be highly beneficial to the articles on weapons and firearms, areas that frequently seem to go unnoticed by current administrators.--LWF 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions about firearms and related topics can be potentially volatile, not only because of the political issues involved, but also because of the holy war issues that are involved, such as 1911 vs. Glock, single action vs. double action, .45 vs. 9mm, Mossberg vs. Remington, .223 vs. .308, AK vs. AR. I agree that it would be good to have an admin with domain knowledge in the firearms area available to work out these disputes. scot 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Asams10 for becoming an Administrator on Wikipedia as his calm approach and vast knowledge will be a true benefit for editing firearms and weapons articles. He also shows considerable wisdom in resolving conflicts. There are very few admins at present who take an active role in assisting in editing articles involving these topics, and Asams10 is a good choice. Yaf 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements and support Asams10's request for adminship. His position as an administrator will benefit firearms-related articles, which currently appear to be forgotten by other administrators. —Squalla 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of firearms-related and weapons-related articles is currently not monitored by many (if any) admins with knowledge of firearms. This makes it inordinately difficult to control vandalism using normal editor-level contributor tools. Having an admin with admin powers to monitor these topics would greatly assist in improving the quality of firearms articles on WP, by injecting knowledge into the anti-vandalism process, and by providing a more powerful set of tools to keep down juvenile disruption of the writing process for articles. The current admins show almost no interest in these topics, despite some vandals preferring to vandalize just firearms and weapons topics. Yaf 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I've gone through some of the users who oppose adminship and not noted a SINGLE firearms or ammunition related article on their contribution list. Which admin is watching those articles and dealing with those issues? If not me, who? I don't write HTML and I'm slowly learing the language of Wikipedia, however I sincerely hope you don't expect me to know everything now or at any time in the future. What I do know is the subject matter I would like to watch. It cannot be that one has to be a wizzard at computer skills AND deeply knowledgeable about the subject matter at the same time before one is granted adminship.--Asams10 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Watching subject matter is fine, and nobody intends to discourage you from that. But you don't need administrator tools for that, and if people have no need for administrator tools, they don't get them. It's like AutoWikiBrowser. It's used for specific purposes, and if you never do the things for which its purpose is intended, why should you get the tool? I don't see you doing vandal fighting in contributions. -Amarkov blahedits 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps asking for adminship was ill advised. You expect me to have an advanced working knowledge of tools you use every day. This seems a quandry as I don't devote hours on end to computer things, again that's not my passion and, again, therein lies the reason I asked for adminship. I'd like to know who will do it if I don't though? This Cabal of admins against me might be correct in keeping me out of the crypt, but nobody else is in there that I have seen doing the work that still needs done.--Asams10 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, I'm not an admin. What is it that makes everyone assume I am? Second, this is not about you personally. The mindset that an RfA is about the character of the person nominated leads invariably to trouble. Whether or not the decision is unfair to you, or anyone else, simply does not matter. What matters is if the encyclopedia benefits, and you've shown no reason that your having admin tools would be a benefit. Someone can be the best contributor to articles and policies ever, but if they do nothing that would be helped with admin tools, I won't support them being given them. Adminship isn't a reward for good editing. -Amarkov blahedits 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Being an expert in your field, while admirable, is not enough for an admin. Admin tools, similar to firearms, can do a great deal of damage, even if it's inadvertent. Would you hand over a firearm to someone who said, "I'm an expert in Wikipedia's admin tools and policies, so I should be qualified to handle firearms, even though I have no particular knowledge or training in them"? Or without being sure that they were responsible and levelheaded? Knowledge of policies and demeanor are more important qualities in an admin than expertise in a particular field. Also, you seem to want admin powers mostly in order to better watchdog articles you're working on. You seem to be unaware that it's actually considered a conflict of interest to use admin powers on a page you edit. If you have major problems with axe-grinders or people who don't know what they're talking about who won't listen to reason, you're supposed to recuse your adminship (not editorship) and ask for a disinterested admin to deal with it. So you'd be in the same boat you're in now! It is not just lack of knowledge about policy, but misconceptions about policy, that is sinking your nomination (with non-admins as well as admins, I might add). --Groggy Dice T|C 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I do find it interesting that there appears to be a cultural dichotomy here. Of the 4 positive votes, all are recognized editors in the gun culture arena on WP, editing firearms and weapons articles regularly, and who witness the need for preventing non-registered users from vandalizing some articles repeatedly in this topic area. Crusty old pharts is the general term used in the gun culture for describing the "elder" statesmen and "elder" experts in the real world community regarding weapons and firearms with real knowledge. Some are still in their 20's :-) Also, at one time, see P-32 discussion, I wasn't sure about Asams10, either. But that was nearly a year ago. Since then, I have grown to see him as a real expert on firearms, with all the characteristics of the really good gunsmiths at the local gun shop with many decades of experience. Experts in the gun culture tend to be curmudgeonly, and they don't usually have computer experience. (I don't know of any that do.) It almost seems to be a cultural difference that has arisen. Yaf 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I focus more on military history than firearms-related articles (although I did write a number of articles on bayonets and added a photo of my M1A to that article) but the point isn't whether or not he's an expert in his field, but whether or not he needs the tools of an administrator. We have quite a large number of Pokemon and Star Wars experts on Wikipedia, too, but they don't all get to be admins just because of that. My opposition isn't a matter of cultural differences (for me, at least) but of understanding the uses of the admin tools. Kafziel Talk 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I consider myself an expert in the firearms and military arenas. Yet I choose to vote oppose, due to Asam's lack of apparent need for the tools and other issues.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support because someone could finally protect heavily vandalized articles from vandalism.--LWF 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    That was about the worst thing you could have said. He should be an admin so he can do things against admin policy? -Amarkov blahedits 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. scot 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Yaf 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I believe that he would be a good admin for a largely neglected area on WP, especially with regards to providing WP:SPP tagging for newly-created firearms articles that, for some reason, draw considerable vandalism from unregistered accounts, and which largely become vandalized repeatedly currently. Not every admin must by necessity use all the tools of adminship from day one. Yaf 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Squalla 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Moral Support I see no reason why somebody whose contributions are largely in a specific subject area shouldn't be an admin. In fact in many ways they make the best admins. I also see a lot of good activity against vandals. Apparent lack of use of things like edit summaries and warnings on vandals' talk pages is an issue and should be corrected before running for adminship again, but I don't see a reason to oppose otherwise. Dragomiloff 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Moral Support I empathise with the problems user deals with. However, he needs to differentiate between vandalism and edits he disagrees with. He needs to report problems to WP:AN/I and vandals to WP:AIV. He needs to warn the spammers and vandals instead of just reverting. If user will take part in RCPatrol, warn and report vandals, take part in *fD, and demonstrate better policy understanding, I will look forward to supporting the next time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose "Editing firearms and ammunition articles for accuracy and format" does not require admin tools --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above and per generally insufficient answers to the questions. Heimstern Läufer 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    OK, answers have been expanded, but they still don't properly demonstrate an understanding of the tools. You don't need adminship to resolve POV disputes and source images. As for vandalism: there adminship is useful, but I don't see that you have enough experience to be ready to deal with it a an admin. I can't find any evidence you use the warning templates on users, and you've never added a vandal to WP:AIV. Also next to no Xfd discussion or other Wikipedia namespace edits. Heimstern Läufer 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose; doesn't need the tools. I'm also not thrilled about him rounding up all his buddies to come here to !vote for him.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm not opposing just because of that, but it's not a very cool move. There are some other technical issues, too, like forgetting to sign the above difs and not properly transcluding this nomination for 3 days. Again, not my primary reason for opposing, but not a good sign. Kafziel Talk 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Strong oppose Stronger oppose. I don't know how far I can trust someone who doesn't seem to know what the admin tools do with them. Nothing you say you intend to do, or have ever done, would be helped by admin tools. And looking through your contributions... dear God, no. You can't just bulldoze over objections with "No, I will not reconsider, for I am right". There are other questionable discussion edits, but that's by far the worst. And I've changed once again to a stronger oppose, per almost no participation in projectspace. -Amarkov blahedits 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per question one. Administrative powers are not required to do what you have specified. -- Selmo (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose due to lack of edit summary usage in general (averaging about 52% between the two), and lack of experience in general outside of a very narrow focus. I think a little more experience, especially with areas outside the main article space, would be good. As others others have indicated, nothing you've indicated requires admin tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per the above. No indication for the need for admin tools or - with e.g. ten Wikipedia: namespace edits - an inclination to use them. Sandstein 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Statement leaves the impression that he wants admin powers partly in order to gain the upper hand in POV disputes, though I understand his frustration with people who don't know much about the subject editing articles. --Groggy Dice T|C 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Answer to question one reveals no requirement for admin tools. Withdraw this RfA and get an editor review instead. You can also try Esperanza for some admin coaching. There is no admin cabal, is there? (aeropagitica) 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, there is an admin Cabal. Points taken. I'd like to let this play out rather than withdrawing if for no other reason than constructive criticism. Some of the criticism seems tinged with an air of character judgement. In my line of work, I'm used to that. One question I'd like to pose again is this: Who is out there as an admin watchdog for these types of articles? I've skimmed thousands of contributions from some of the assembled opposition and it seems none of them have stepped up to the plate as of yet.--Asams10 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    No, there isn't a cabal. If there are problems with firearms articles, like with vandalism, warn them appropriately and report them to WP:AIV. If there is a lot, then request protection at WP:RFPP. Admins will only know about vandalism and such if it's reported, especially in a perhaps less watched area. --Majorly 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose per the canvassing as indicated by Kafziel, lack of indication of necessary need for tools in question #1, condescending remarks contrary to WP:AGF in answer to question #3, seeming ignorance for general Wikipedia policy, blanket dismissal of oppose votes as ignorant in his comment in the discussion section of this RfA, and now the belligerence and arrogance shown in user's response to above oppose. Adminship is not for the narrow-minded. Expand your horizons, please. --210physicq (c) 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Addendum I also find strange that there is quite an advertising service in support of this RfA. Although hardly a rationale for opposing, such drenching in advocacy for support (or oppose, for the matter) is considered bad form. --210physicq (c) 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Adminship is not a trophy. Adminship is not immunity. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose 10 WP space edits, 6 of them to this RfA. I don't feel sure this user would block in the right situations especially because of the answer to Q1. If you want to block users see the blocking policy also rememeber the warnings ({{test1}} through {{test4}}) and to assume good faith. James086Talk | Contribs 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Seems like a good editor but he no real reason has been put forth how wikipeida will be improved by giving admin status. His goals can be accomplished with a regular user's tools. NeoFreak 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Appearently you don't know what kinds of tools admins need. Also, weak answers that dosen't require admin position. Try to come back again in a few months with more experience.--PrestonH 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Does not seem to need admin tools based on the answers given. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose- Reading instructions correctly and dealing with unforeseen results is a critical skill for administrators, in my opinion, and munging this self-nomination and not getting that fixed for three days isn't a good sign at all. Neither is the lack of experience with discussions on deleting articles, wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc. Three to six months more experience, with a focus on that (and a better understanding of admin tools), and I might be okay supporting. John Broughton | Talk 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Lack of experience in XfD. I'm not satisfied with the candidate's answers to the generic questions. Dionyseus 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Good editor. Do not need admin status Rettetast 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Asams10 is one of my favorite editors, and works tirelessly to hold firearms articles to high encyclopedic standards. However, I see an admin as someone who helps resolve controversy--so I would first like to see him work on communicating better with other editors. He sometimes doesn't explain his actions or listen to reason--for example, he is very quick to revert even helpful edits (such as those meant to improve grammar)[6]. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I don't like the confrontational tone you use in a lot of firearms edits, specifically on the AR15 page. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Does not require adminship to do the things he says he wishes to do, so what's the point here? teh tennisman 13:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I believe asams10 can be a good admin, I just do not have confidence in him yet. It's a bit of a false dichotomy to say we require admins to be experts on subject matter and on Wikipedia process & policy; subject matter experts are much more valuable, and correspondingly can do much more across the 'pedia constructively. Admins are given a few extra tools/responsibilities that are generally applicable regardless of their experience with a given subject matter. I expect I'll be happy to support you sometime in the future if you wish to run again, but right now per your own admission you're still learning new things every day. Don't get discouraged, many first RFAs go down in electronic flames only to have the nominee pass with flying colors later (or just decide to retain their editor privileges instead of get caught up in wiki-drama). Everything you mentioned in Q1 is possible as an editor, short of becoming a POV-warring admin, something I don't believe you want. -- nae'blis 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Nae'blis. User doesn't really demonstrate a need for the tools. bibliomaniac15 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Mailer Diablo; there's no reason why you can't continue your great contributions without admin tools. riana_dzasta 07:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. It doesn't seem like you really have a need for admin tools at this moment. Nishkid64 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. There's really nothing technical about being admin, but rather it's a janitorial role where you may handle tasks such as AFD's, speedy deletions, as well as enforcing policies, protecting pages, and dealing with vandals. It requires a high standard of civility and trust that you understand the policies and know how to apply them. I've run into Yaf, but aside from that, I'm not familiar with you and your contributions. I normally only support or oppose when I'm familiar enough with the candidate to make a judgment based on my interactions with the user, and abstain otherwise. I am concerned with points raised by Kafziel, Physicq210, and Amarkov. I may support at a future time, once I get to know you better and you get more familiar with the procedural aspects of Wikipedia that admin tools are used for. For what it's worth, I do have some other firearms articles on my watchlist and have added AK-47, M1 Garand, and M16 rifle on my watchlist. I am willing to watchlist others. Please don't be discouraged. Take the discussions here as constructive feedback. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I have also added the above-mentioned frequently vandalized gun articles to my watch list. Expert knowledge about a subject is not usually required to revert vandalism to articles about that subject, as blatant vandalism, is well, blatant. I expect this user can quite soon be a great admin, and continue to work on the subjects dear to him or her, but some more experience in the areas related to the tools is necessary. Dina 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral While the candidate is certainly a good editor, I am not sure he fully appreciates what the admin role entails.-- danntm T C 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral seems to me that he doesn't really need the tools he's asking for. Sharkface217 22:22, 9 December 2006 (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.