Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cchan199206

Add links
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.

Cchan199206

[edit]

Final: 10/30/7 ended 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cchan199206 (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia just shy of a year, and amassed over 1000 edits. I'm a vandalism reverter, and CSD patroller to see if the pages are really CSD. I'd like to be an admin because it will help my vandal-fighting by enabling me to quickly rollback, speedy delete nonsense, and place blocks on repeat vandals. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, as self nom. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Weak support - no reason not to. NSLE (T+C) at 00:47 UTC (2006-05-24)
  2. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Experienced enough and will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support seems ready for the mop now. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support -- Has clearly demonstrated he knows what's going on. Come on folks, adminship isn't some golden wand; it should be given to almost anyone who asks and has demonstrated a modicum of competence, especially considering how easy it is to take away again if necessary. --Delirium 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion about the candidate but I have to differ with Delerium that adminship should be handed out freely and that it's easy to take away. If Delerium examines any of the actual cases (and there are very few of them) where adminship was taken away from someone, s/he'd see that it's a drawn out and painful process. Also, since admins can view deleted articles, too many admins means that deletion is not really deletion, and thus articles deleted for privacy vio, copyvio, libel etc. are still exposed to a wide audience. So this type of access should not be given out lightly. Phr (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I like that there are admins focused on vandalism, even if nothing else. Could always use one more. In my time in WP:CVU I have many times noted how admin tools could be useful in stopping chronic and rapid vandals. Aguerriero (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Delirium. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Shultz IV 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support Whopper 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support sure, I like the dude. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too concerned with edit counts [1] Naconkantari 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: 1000 edits is a milestone; putting up milestones in your userpage is being overly concerned with edit counts? ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to the candidate: Generally, questioning oppose voters won't help you, but, comment to Naconkantari: it's common. Many people, including admins (including myself upt o a couple of weeks ago), do list major milestones on their userpage. I wouldn't call that obsessing over edit counts. NSLE (T+C) at 00:47 UTC (2006-05-24)
    Even with potatoes? [2]. If there's a problem with my original comment, then I'll expand my reason to include too few edits. Please try again in a few months and I will reconsider. Naconkantari 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Even with potatoes. I myself did feel, and I think most would, a special feeling upon realising you've hit your first 1000 edits at Wikipedia. I don't think there's anything wrong with your oppose, only that some might consider it not a good enough reason to oppose. It's fair in my view, though. NSLE (T+C) at 00:56 UTC (2006-05-24)
  2. Oppose You are a promising editor who could be trusted with admin tools, but more edits in the Wikipedia namespace would be good, and by your answer to question #1 I feel as if you are too focused on vandalism. There are other areas of Wikipedia that sysops can deal with, so you may want to look into those options, such as WP:RFD, WP:AFD and others. Once you achieve more edits and show intention to get involved in other areas needing administrators, I will support. Cowman109Talk 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, to low on the mainspace edits and talk edits. Speaking of vanadal-fighting - every vandal reversion is an article edit. Most of vandal reversions should be accompanied by either User talk or Wikipedia edit. abakharev 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I don't want the candidate to be discouraged, but the edit history doesn't show me nearly the breadth of experience I would expect to see in an admin. When users ask questions, you need to be able to answer them; and, blocking isn't always how vandals should be handled. 4-6 months more-ish, with emphasis on learning policy (and how it's applied), and I'll support. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Constructive criticism/rationale.-- You are doing the right things. Your time with the project is good, but I generally prefer 3,000 - 4,000 edits. You are reverting vandals and taking part in XfD’s and WP:PNT. You need to continue all of this. You also need to do a bit more. Communication is probably the most important function of an admin. I see edit summaries with reverts, but I would like to see warnings and reports to AIV. I would like you to edit more articles in a substantial way. As RadioKirk says, you need more experience to know when blocking is or is not appropriate and more experience in applying policy. These are all things that only more edits/experience will improve. I look forward to your next RfA-- later. :) Dlohcierekim 02:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I did not see your age or figure out your DOB before. You are doing very well indeed. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Judges... buzzzzz! Sorry! But don't be discouraged, with a bit more experience that mop will be yours! Ding Dong 04:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A ding ding ding! Vote not counted! Sorry, thanks for playing. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User has 3 contributions to Wikipedia, all on RfAs (this is only the second unique RfA he has edited). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It's not a revival of User:A_ding_ding_ding_ding..., is it? - Richardcavell 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    DING! Certainly my guess. Indef'ed and tagged {{WoW}} :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah! Great minds think alike. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Showing great promise, but needs some more experience. Kevin 08:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. First off, great edit summary usage (99% and 100%). However, there are several things I have a problem with. For being mainly a vandal-fighter and almost been here a year, 1000 edits isn't enough. More than 10% of your edits is to user pages...your focus should be more on the encyclopedia aspect. While creating a good identity is fun, 10% is a little much. Also this edit and this edit make it seem like you are implementing authority you don't have (WP:MFD would probably be more appropriate). You interacted with the same user here and created this when none of that seems neccessary. Finally, your edit summaries here and here don't seem very appropiate. My advise: Keep editing a lot more, expand beyond vandal-fighting, utilize WP and user talk pages, and try to assume good faith when writing edit summaries and dealing with people's user and usertalk page. Chuck(척뉴넘) 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, those summaries make me look like a smartass. I now use a simple 'rvv' or 'rv blanking'.
    Yeah, maybe, but at least you use them. That's more than some candidates cn say. Cheers, 65.35.168.248 12:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)(re-signing after log-in.) :) Dlohcierekim 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, come back in two to three months time and I will support you. --Terence Ong 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the current application, but strong support to your participation and encouragement for continuing with your work and getting more experience, especially in communicating with other editors, which I see as essential to adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) Whoops. Thanks. Tyrenius 15:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose After getting much more experience here, you will still have a chance to succeed. Please do not feel discouraged.--Jusjih 14:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Jusjih. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per abakharev, every vandal revert should have a matching user talk page edit or wikipedia namespace edit. For help in this area I would look at VandalProof. Eagle talk 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose needs more experience --rogerd 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, inexperienced and weak answers to questions. Royboycrashfan 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - because he didn't answer my questions, and therefore, my concerns over his understanding of certain wikipedia nuances. - Richardcavell 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that he's answered the questions, my vote remains Oppose, for the same reason pointed out by Hugh Parker below. - Richardcavell 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. The answer to question 4 demonstrates an insufficient grasp of policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Hugh. The answers to questions demonstrate lack of knowledge of policy.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose due to lack of experience. Cynical 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose seems solely concerned with vandal fighting. But I take issue with others who criticize inexperience. Anyone with over 1000 edits has enough experience to become an administrator. ShortJason 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Enough experience, however Question 1 makes me think he is to concerned with vandal fighting. ForestH2
  23. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. 1,000 edits isn't enough experience, IMO. --Firsfron 06:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Oppose You certainly have enoguh edits by my standards, and have more mainspace edits that me! It's just a lack of expericence. Oh, and happy 1 year anniversry at Wikipedia! The Gerg 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I would like to see more User Talk and Wikipedia namespace edits. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose – not enough experience yet – Gurch 10:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - sorry but edit count aside answers below show user still has a lot more to learn. Try again in a few months perhaps? - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Nothing personal: in my opinion, time-wise experience is more than sufficient, but perhaps we require editing experience of a more extensive coverage, and more discussion to handle different issues. --Bhadani 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Looks promising, but overall effective time here is shorter than I'd prefer. Limited involvement in XfD, and not much in Wikispace pages that I could see. Don't feel a need to voice an oppose, though. I'd suggest keeping up the great work, going after a little more community involvement (check the Wikipedia:Community Portal for some ideas), and trying back in a couple months. I would likely add my support then. Tijuana BrassE@ 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Tijuana. JoshuaZ 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral answers to questions are both short and light on detail. Overall experience is promising, but there just isn't enough and especially there isn't enough breadth. The fact that you've never been in an edit conflict (answer to question #3) indicates that you haven't been tackling the harder parts of what an admin sadly has to live with and it doesn't allow us to properly judge how you would handle such cases. I'd suggest accelerating your editing and vandal fighting a little and working on the xfDs - WP:AFD is a great place to start. You'll learn a lot of policy and I'm sure become a better admin candidate. I look forward to supporting you next time. Best, Gwernol 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per all above. DakPowers (Talk) 02:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. moral support I think you're still a little too inexperiences to support, but you're definitely on your way, and please do not get discouraged by this or any other vote here. I'm sure that given sufficient time, if you reapply, you will become a great admin. In the mean time, I would like to recommend User:Voice_of_All/RC/monobook.js. It gives any user rollback abilities, and you may find it useful in your vandal fighting. --Bachrach44 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Tijuana as well. This user has potential but needs to flaunt it a little bit more. Don't be discouraged though, I think you can pull it off. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per Tijuana, also. Keep up with the good work and I will support you next time. --Tone 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Neutral. Too fresh for me--needs more experience. Nephron  T|C 05:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Cchan199206
Total edits	1078
Distinct pages edited	747
Average edits/page	1.443
First edit	12:36, May 27, 2005
	
(main)	682
Talk	33
User	114
User talk	67
Image	20
Image talk	3
Template	15
Template talk	1
Category	3
Wikipedia	138
Wikipedia talk	1
Portal	1
 G.He 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate helping with the never-ending task of vandalism reverting, by using rollback and placing temporary blocks on repeat vandals. I also anticipate helping out with XfD: carrying out results, closing debates.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm just pleased with my vandalism reverting and WP:PNT activities.
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: I haven't been in any conflicts related to editing; I anticipate to deal with them by trying to remain calm. Computers and the internet are not IRL.
4. A question from Richard Cavell : Could you look at these two edits that you've made - one and two. I would like you to analyse these edits, from the perspective of an administrator, please.
A: The first one was just creating a stub. The second, imho, is not really a good edit, I was trying to standardise to the British spelling automatedly (find-and-replace) and I was overzealous. ~Chris {tce@} 10:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you discuss the first edit linked above (the stub about Mouser electronics) some more? What would you think of that article if it had been written by soemone else and you came across it? Phr (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created it based on their website. Had I not created it, I'd probably remove the statement about their releasing a new catalog every three months; imho it's somewhat unencyclopedic. I'll go to do so. ~Chris {tce@} 19:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a nice proposal. I did believe that the current protection scheme was a bit black-and-white with no gray area. Also, I'd reverse the level descriptors on the proposal or maybe assign each a colour: green, yellow, orange, red, black.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cchan199206&oldid=1142546194"