Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WWEYANKS52

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K50 Dude (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 20 February 2009 (→‎Oppose: strong oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WWEYANKS52

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/20/6); Scheduled to end 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WWEYANKS52 (talk · contribs) – Well, I have been on the English Wikipedia for over a year now, and I have decided to try to become an admin. This is my second try at this, but I have learned so much since my first try. Adam Penale (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will probably block vandals and delete pages at new pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions are the 600+ pages that I have started here on Wikipedia. Most of them are, MLB, NFL players and disambiguations.
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: No, not really. I really haven't been in any conflicts and I think thats a good thing.
Optional questions from Aitias
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Yes, If I believe that the page is completely Idiotic or If the tag has been placed and no reason is given
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. It may be used to illustrate the subject in question or when no free image is available or could be created I frankly don't quite no, I tried my best to find the answer. I don't even upload any living person files
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A.I would probably block the user myself
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A.I would if I feel that the user has been warned enough times and shows no signs of stopping his/her bad behavior
Optional question from Tan
9. You say you want to block vandals and delete pages. As far as I can see, you have virtually no experience in vandal fighting, vandal reporting, page deletion nomination, or any related administrator arenas. Can you explain how we should know whether or not to trust you with the delete and block button, having no way to see how you perform in those areas?
A.I believe that I would use this power for the right purposes, and I do think that I will start to get involved in vandal fighting and reporting soon
Optional question from Giants27
10. I'll ask the old RfA favorite, what is the difference between a block and a ban?
A.

Q's from flaminglawyer

11... Your edit count to the WP namespace is relatively low. This is (generally) a telltale sign of lack of policy knowledge. Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable/experienced in the field of WP policy? How could you improve your experience/knowledge in the areas in which you lack it?
A.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WWEYANKS52 before commenting.

Discussion

Question 6 is completely wrong. Unfortunately, this RfA is doomed, now. iMatthew // talk // 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, yes. Which I feel is actually unfortunate, because I don't count full understanding of the image fair-use policy as a prerequisite to becoming an administrator unless they intend to work in the area. A general understanding of policies on Wikipedia is a necessary requirement; full knowledge shouldn't be. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that full understanding of the image fair need not be a prerequisite for adminship, the policy itself is fairly clearly laid out and it doesn't take a lot of reading to figure out the right answer. A minimal effort to read up the policy and write up the answer doesn't seem an outlandish requirement. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - it is common sense to do research when unsure, or to ask for help. That, coupled with their answer to question 9, leaves me convinced that they are not quite ready (yet since I took so much time writing the neutral section, and still stand by what I said there, I am reluctant to move to oppose). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since 3 or more people are feeling frustrated that they can't get their questions in without burdening the candidate, is it time to consider adding this to the candidate instructions? "Voters can ask as many questions as they like, but we recommend you pick only one or two questions from each voter to answer for the first couple of days. That will probably mean more voters will feel comfortable asking you questions, which will help your chances. You may wish to answer some of the extra questions after a couple of days." - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt someone will oppose because of slow answers to questions, though. — neuro(talk) 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to post a reminder in the discussion sections of RFAs for a month, so that the voters would know the candidate is only doing what we're asking. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support - You seem like a good faith-ed editor. It's very likely this RfA will not pass, as I noticed your lack of experience in administrative areas. You have good intentions, and I suggest that once/if a fair amount of oppose !votes build up, you withdraw and try again at another time. Also, if you really plan on working this RfA, you need to write a better self-nomination statement. Simply signing it will get you opposed. iMatthew // talk // 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA standards as an article builder who should be able to figure out how not to delete the main page or block Mr. Wales. Dlohcierekim 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost forgot. I saw a lot of deleted article contribs. The few I looked at had been tagged for speedy deletion, so seems to know WP:CSD well enough. I saw no notices of incorrect CSD tagging on talk page. While WP:AFD and WP:AIV are weak, I saw no clear indication of not readiness. I did not complete my review before this went live. Dlohcierekim 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Solid editor who, from what I can see, will use the tools with circumspection. Enough edits, some CSD work, can't think of any reason why not. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support - seems like a good, constructive user who would probably make good use of the tools. Not much experience in article deletion, though; I can't see his deleted contributions, so I don't know what his CSD nominations were like (but if the articles were deleted, that's probably a good sign). And answering the questions would be a good idea. Ultimately, I'm supporting because I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools, but WWEYANKS will need to put more work into this RFA if he wants it to pass. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Switched to Neutral pending answers to questions. Robofish (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I doubt this will pass, and I would really like to see more experience in admin-related areas, but we have to ask ourselves: can we trust this user not to abuse the tools? The answer is clearly "yes". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support, great user. If he hasn't talked at ANI or anywhere like that, I could care less. Wizardman 23:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support While I'd like to see a bit more experience in the areas you'd like to work in, your record shows me that you are a productive and dedicated editor that we can trust to learn the areas you would be working in. FlyingToaster 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has no blocks and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Correct answers to questions shows he knows what he's doing.--Giants27 TC 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Will this user abuse the tools? No. Will this user learn from any mistakes they may make? Yes. Simple. — neuro(talk) 02:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstaining. — neuro(talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support - Per neuro. -download | sign! 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Dloh and Neuro. →Dyl@n620 12:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, you show good faith in all your interactions with editors that I have reviewed. I think that is far more important that extensive knowledge of policy. You deserve a chance! Charles Edward (Talk) 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support per Net Positive. The admins who say that he has good CSD work are enough to bring me from neutral to support. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose You're a great article builder, but aside from edits to Wikipedia:Requested articles and WikiProjects, you have 2 substantial edits to the Wikipedia namespace. I suggest working in more administrative areas. Sam Blab 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose I agree with Sam. You are a good editor, but I never saw you in admin areas. Moral Support. SimonKSK 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral support would belong in the support section. Are you morally supporting, or weak opposing? iMatthew // talk // 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really the same thing anyway. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose The article-building experience is good, but adminship requires interaction with other users to a degree that I don't see much evidence of here. And while you're right that conflict avoidance can be a good thing, the fact is that admins exist in large part to settle disputes in one way or another. So some significant evidence that you're up to that task is really necessary for the community to fairly evaluate you. Hope this is helpful. Townlake (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit also raises concerns. Best practice is to strike through, not erase, such contributions to discussion pages; your Q6 answer has been responded to by others here, and late-comers won't see your answer when they arrive, so they won't immediately see what the previous editors were talking about. Townlake (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Little work in the admin-type areas and interactions as above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Weak answers to questions, little to no experience in areas where editor plans to work with admin tools. Tan | 39 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Virtually no experience, and the answers to the questions demonstrate this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose — While the editor is clearly constructive judging by the contribs, I see a lack of experience and knowledge in areas where good policy/guideline knowledge and and making related judgments come into play, such as participating in XFD discussions. Also per poor responses in questions 4 through 9, especially 6. MuZemike 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Though I think you have made good contributions, in your intended specialty of fighting vandals you have admittedly relatively little experience. I think that you should start using Twinkle or some other anti-vandal script(s) as well as doing things by hand to show your knowledge of reversions, what applies as CSD, Prod, or XfD, as well as other related policies. After you gain significant experience and knowledge in this field I think you'll make a fine RfA candidate. Valley2city‽ 03:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Shockingly unprepared for RfA. Keepscases (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I find the answers not convincing, sometimes plain wrong, and although I don't doubt the good faith of this editor I'd feel uncomfortable if he had the bit. I think more experience is needed.    SIS  17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Lack of experience in areas where the user wants to participate. Due to the fast pace nature of WP:AVI is important to have strong knowledge of policy. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Although the usually faceless, online environment works surprisingly well at Wikipedia, one thing I've noticed doesn't work is to count on people to get involved in some new project when they say they're going to. I'm really not comfortable taking the candidate's word that, some day, he'll start making a significant time-investment in admin-y things. (It's too easy to screw up without putting in significant time.) But this was obviously the right time for him to come to RFA, partly because he might just pass (fine by me, I trust the supporters), and mostly because even if he doesn't, he's getting great support and advice, above and on his talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. WWEYANKS52 doesn't have a good enough knowledge of the policies yet. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Answers to the questions aren't convincing. Also lack of activity in areas the user expressed to work in. Sorry.America69 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Unsatisfactory answers to the questions, lack of policy knowledge and little to no experience in areas the user plans to work in. If the candidate continues to contribute, expand their policy knowledge and work in admin-related areas, I'm sure next time around will bring better results. DiverseMentality 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Lack of experience in admin areas, and some bad answers to the questions, specifically 8 and 9. LittleMountain5 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I don't see a real need for the mop, nor do I see a wealth of experience in policy or actually even a good understanding of said policy; I also expect much more in the way of edit summaries. Sorry, but whilst I don't see a trust issue here, I also don't see the point of you getting the bit. You may one day have what it takes, but the preceding and the answer to question 6 tells me WP:NOTNOW fr33kman -s- 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I seldom leave my "neutral" section, but this is one case where I feel I must oppose. I'm going to give the following advice: Work in admin-ish areas (XFD, ANI, AIV, etc.), get some policy knowledge, and keep up the good work in the articlespace! So for now, not now. Remember that "not now" ≠ WP:NOTNOW. flaminglawyer 02:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose (edit conflict) - agh, I feel bad about doing this, since I initially supported (in a hasty rush to judgement). On further inspection, I don't feel confident that I can trust this user with the admin tools. There's no evidence that he'll abuse them, but his knowledge of Wikipedia policies is poor, and he lacks experience in areas like AFD. I advise him to go and learn more about our policies and structures, and hopefully by the next time he runs for adminship, I'll be able to Support (and stay there). Robofish (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. The candidate needs greater familiarity with policy and admin areas. You may very well make a good admin at some point, but you need additional experience. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose... Just because you work creating new pages about MLB players (great work with that!) you don't get to delete new pages. Deleters who work with new pages MUST know WP:PROD, WP:AFD, and, most importantly BY FAR, WP:CSD. I didn't see any of that in your last 1500 contributions. I also didn't see any manual edit summaries. That is crucial if you are an admin. You need a ton of work in the "adminy" areas. Try again in a few months. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

You do great work in the mainspace, and I was close to supporting, but the lack of experience in admin-related areas is hard to overlook. For example, you've only participated in two deletion discussions. I'll be happy to support once you have a few months of experience in the project space. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Like many stated above, you are a good faith editor, but you lack experience in many Wikipedia areas. I recommend before nominating another RfA, improve your work on Wikipedia such as in WP:XFD and WP:ANI.--TRUCO 21:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Couldn't possibly oppose, but couldn't support with your lack of activity in admin areas. Please come back in a few months with some experience and I'd be happy to support pending no issues. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per Juliancolton. LittleMountain5 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    (The striked Neutral) LittleMountain5 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Oppose. LittleMountain5 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I agree with iMatthew here, but really such a scarce nomination and the fact you say you haven't experienced any conflicts doesn't bring up a good gut feeling about this RfA. You do have quite a good potential, but it seems you have yet to work on using it. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Would like to see questions answered at which point I'll decide.--Giants27 TC 00:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support.--Giants27 TC 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I was supporting, but on second thoughts, I can't in good faith support this nomination without seeing some of the questions (particularly Q9) answered first. If they are, then hopefully I'll like the results enough to move me back to support. Robofish (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This, to me, is a very interesting RfA. Basically, we have a candidate who comes here with a great deal of experience in writing articles and decent experience with administrative work (albeit not to the extent of your typical successful RfA candidate). I am particularly impressed with him contributing over 600 articles to Wikipedia, and do not feel he will abuse or misuse the tools. That said, his answers to the standard RfA questions seriously turned me off at first glance. Those are the sort of answers one would generally expect from somebody who is new and has never encountered RfA beforehand, and thus would unlikely know how to use the tools. My opinions on each are as follows:
    • The answer to question one gives us a rough idea of what to expect from an editor if given sysop tools. A detailed, thorough answer that outlines every intended area the editor wishes to work is preferred, but by no means does it assure that the candidate will stick to those areas and perform flawlessly in them. A short, concise answer such as the one the candidate provides generally gives a negative impression upon reading; it suggests the editor is unfamiliar with the processes and basic policies that an administrator should ideally be fluent in. The candidate flatly stated an intention to block vandals and delete pages on new page patrol - there is no reason to assume the candidate will not do these things, and furthermore, there is no reason to assume that they will not do them properly. However, not mentioning things like AIV gives a pretence that it is possible they might not be familiar with things like how many warnings a vandal needs to receive before being blocked, or how long to block an IP address for, etc. It would seem this contributor has experience in new page patrol and appears to be fairly competent in the area (very few speedies declined) - another reassuring plus to working in that area is that they are article creators, so the deletionist stereotype that NPP's often receive is refuted in this instance. AfD work is... minimal. As is work in other adminly areas. They do not address an intent to work in those areas in their answer to Q1, yet we cannot assume they will not eventually branch off into other areas at some point or another. My gut feeling is that the candidate will not jump into areas they are inexperienced in right off the bat, and will ease in before becoming more and more active in the area; it does remain a concern that they have little activity in other admin areas, particularly AfD (their contributions there thus far are not inspiring).
    • I like the answer to question 2. It was honest, succint, and straight-forward. It illustrates the picture of a strong content contributor - and a look at their userpage and contributions verifies this for me. This is a good sign; content contributors are (on average) less likely to needlessly excalate ANI drama or "boldly block where no admin has blocked before". They are also more likely to understand how to empathize with article contributors whose new page they deleted. A content perspective is something that at least some of our admins should have.
    • Being in a conflict can have several different interpretations to various people, and can be either a positive or a negative in my book: on the one hand, an administrator should be familiar with the dispute resolution process, and not being involved in some sort of dispute (even as a third party) shows that the candidate might be lacking in this area. What are they to do if somebody came to them asking them to resolve a dispute, or intervene? But on the other hand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a theatre (though policy wonks might see it differently), and I would much prefer our administrators to be people who avoid causing conflict and provoking drama when they are in an off mood. And while we are on the subject, how does one define a "conflict on Wikipedia" anyways? Should an admin have taken part in some sort of edit war; do we want our administrative population to be comprised of grizzled edit warriors - which the tools could potentially turn into wheel warriors? Or perhaps one would define a conflict as a heated discussion; maybe it would be better if we had admins who are reasonable and easy to talk with.
    The basic point is, it's hard to simply assess a candidate based on the answers to their questions - they could be indicative of various things. That said, the quality and thought that which they represent is telling, and leads me to believe that this candidate has sub-standard understanding of certain processes that an administrator absolutely must know. I cannot possibly allow myself to oppose this good-faith editor whom I trust would not abuse the tools; nor can I fully support, based on the notion that they might not be ready for the responsibility at this time. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded Keegantalk 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Commendable editorial input, but inadequate admin-related experience and unsatisfactory answers to the RfA questions. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, I've not run into any red-flags that suggest you'll be a bad admin, but to be honest your vague answers to the questions combined with your lack of WP-space discussion means I can't really say you'll be a good admin either. I'm happy to support those that steer clear of the project-space parts of Wikipedia, but in their case I do ask for some reasonably enlightening question answers to demonstrate that you know our policies, you just choose not to get involved. ~ mazca t|c 10:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WWEYANKS52&oldid=272006321"