Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crotalus horridus 2

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.


Crotalus horridus[edit]

Final (4/25/3); Closed per WP:SNOW at 03:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Nomination[edit]

Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs) – I hadn't planned to do this for some time yet, but recent discussions have expressed concerns over the low number of RFA candidates, so I decided to throw my hat in the ring. I have been a Wikipedia editor for nearly five years, and based on our traditional principles that adminship is no big deal, I think I can be trusted with the tools. I promise not to wheel war, delete the main page, or do anything else that is in clear violation of our community's norms. Actually, I don't plan to use the tools that much, though I may do some WP:IFD work due to the backlogs there. I am a strong supporter of WP:BLP and will delete unsourced negative information about living people. One of the main reasons I want the tools is to be able to view deleted content, since both the community and the Foundation have refused to extend that privilege to non-admins. *** Crotalus *** 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: See above.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have one good article (Silver center cent), a DYK (Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend), and a wide variety of other contributions. I think that, overall, my numismatic contributions are probably my best.
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: Attempt to garner consensus, if not, try to change consensus, if that doesn't work, then move on to something else. If things get too stressful, I take a wikibreak.

Optional Question from Iridescent

Q: In your own words, what happened here?
A: I encouraged the community of the English Wikipedia to protest against high-handed Foundation tactics in the only manner available to us — a community ban of the instigator from our local project. This proposal was rejected, and I did not pursue it further.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Do you believe that Wikipedia will exist 50 years from now? If so, how many articles do you believe the English version will have?
A: It is hard to say whether Wikipedia per se will exist 50 years from now, but I think much of the content definitely will. That is one of the advantages of free culture — it's not tied to a particular domain name or foundation. Long after the squabbles are forgotten, the content will endure. If English Wikipedia exists half a century from now, it will obviously have more articles, but probably not exponentially more. I'd estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million. I also think BLP standards will become stricter over time, as has already started to happen.

Additional question from ϢereSpielChequers

6. For what purpose or purposes do you want to view deleted content?
A:

Additional question from  fetchcomms☛

7. What is your opinion of the current BLP policy? In what ways is it lacking, and how could it be improved?
A:


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support It strikes me that the only reason to oppose this guy right now is that you disagree with his view of Wikipedia, rather than have any real issue with policy violations that would de-bit an actual admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies, and could certainly lead to an administrator losing their bit. Crotalus's blocks in the past were the result of violations of WP:3RR and WP:POINT, but there have been multiple incivility complaints about this editor (5 on their current talk page, 2 in their 3rd archive). So I don't think that your statement is completely accurate. -- Atama頭 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin would lose the bit for blocks that are over a year old. More importantly, very few admins lose the bit for doing far worse. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support: Needs to mellow a bit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could be a bit less direct with edit summaries and so on, but people also need to grow a thicker skin 'round here. Admins who do a tough job shouldn't be expected to walk on eggshells all the time. Shereth 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per IFD work and BLP. However, I'm not sure what one would hope to gain digging through the deletion bin. Also, it is my hope that you learn to take a somewhat more polite tone with others. Courtesy is expected of all members of the community. Admins must strive to be even more circumspect and courteous on the words and actions. 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    Forgot about the block log. Those blocks were more than a year ago. Given the complaints of contentiousness here, you'll need to work hard to convince the community that you are temperamentally suited. The lack of recent blocks is some progress in that regard. Dlohcierekim 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support although this looks exceedingly unlikely to pass. Keepscases (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)  Bureaucrat note: Note: As this !vote was expressed before the block was placed, it should not be removed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. oppose This looks like a decidedly pointed nomination. You say you present yourself because there are not enough candidates, but you don't actually plan to do much admin work, so that is not particularly helpful. I appreciate that you were honest enough to say that the main reason you want the tools is so you can view deleted content, but frankly that is just about the least compelling reason I have ever heard for granting adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointed? It is not really fair to start the opposes with this sort of non-argument. Polargeo (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's a fair criticism. What I meant was that it looks like he is running to make some sort of point, rather than the more conventional reasons like knowledge of policies and a demonstrated ability to competently interpret and/or enforce those policies, but there's is not any "disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point" in the nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about that. I'm clearly objecting to adminship here, but I think that the self-nom here was in good faith. It's true that there's quite a bit of talk at WT:RFA about a shortage (when isn't there?) and any editor seeing that discussion who feels that they could use at least some of the admin tools (in this case, reviewing deleted content) could reasonably assume that a request for the use of those tools won't hurt. -- Atama頭 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what your getting at since I have already endeavored to make it clear that I do not view the nom as disruptive. The reasoning behind the nom, while not indicative of bad faith, seems not to be based on ability to properly use the admin toolset but rather a desire to be able to see deleted pages. Since many admins, myself included, are willing to grant any reasonable request for copies of deleted pages it's a pretty shaky foundation for an RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose - Crotalus is certainly a name I've seen around, and your experience and contributions in general are sufficient for what I'd support, though your contribution history is spotty (a number of absences for up to a year at a time). But I don't see the demeanor I'd want in an admin, honestly. The link in Iridescent's question above is very troubling, and I'm not convinced you won't abuse the tools in violation of WP:POINT. Also, a look through your talk pages shows a number of complaints about incivility and personal attacks. -- Atama頭 17:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I see less than 1000 edits since your last block and not a sufficient reason to give you the tools. More of a risk than a benefit. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Doesn't meet my minimum participation criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The candidate's block history, recent Talk page incivility issues, and that badly misjudged attempt to get the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation banned, all suggest an attitude that just isn't appropriate for an admin - I wouldn't risk it for a candidate who planned to do lots of good admin work, but this candidate isn't even planning to do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Would increase drama. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I have no problem per se with promoting editors with strong or controversial views to be admins. But I do have problems with admins causing unnecessary drama. The candidate's history suggests to me that he/she will fall in the latter category. Sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per block log, insufficient recent experience, and attempting to community ban an employee of the WMF (Which shows questionable judgement). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is more than recent enough to give me serious doubts as to your attitude and potential disruption with the tools.  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Significant concerns about WP:POINT and lack of experience, as well as agree with issues raised above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - With all due respect, trying to ban a WMF employee shows a basic lack of common sense. Add in the other concerns and I'd say this RfC should be closed asap per WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - as noted by Iridescent. Distressing lack of clue about the bigger picture. Hate the foundation or love the foundation it doesn't really matter - If you can't understand fundamentals of the way stuff works on the foundation sites you are clearly not ready to be granted the technical ability to block whole IP ranges for example. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Poor judgment overall, no real need for the tools.  fetchcomms☛ 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Too many blocks to pass (4 blocks) in my opinion. Agree with Atama on this one. You do have lots of experience, but the exceeding number of personal attacks really spoil the chance. Minimac (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: No RFA Votes, possible inactivity note, failed my afd/csd/prod requirements, multiple previous blocks. I need not go on. (See User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Concerns with judgment, maturity, experience, policy knowledge, and breadth of exposure. The lack of recent activity isn't a plus either. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (edit conflict) Oppose. I don't like the way the block log looks. Sorry. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per the candidate's incivility towards other editors, block log, lack of recent experience, immaturity, lack of policy knowledge, and poorly-judged attempt to community ban a WMF deputy director. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. This candidate lacks the judgment or temperament that I would expect from an admin candidate. I am concerned about the candidate's civility and the suggested community ban of Erik Moeller. Yes, some people might be thin-skinned, but I feel that edit summaries such as this one - which was made barely 100 edits ago - show little of the cool-headedness I would expect from an admin. Rje (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose As others, I see too many traits that would worry me.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Block log is concerning. Normally I'm willing to overlook a block older than a year, but in this case not even 1000 edits have been made since that block. I don't feel that's sufficient time to demonstrate to the community that judgement can be trusted. With more demonstrated positive experience, I would not hold this outdated block against the candidate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Basically wants to access all those juicy intra-project spat pages he thinks he's missing out on. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I have some major concerns about your judgement, mainly when you wanted to community ban a WMF deputy director. The lack of activity recently doesn't help, either. Sorry. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose This Candidate has traits that are really worrisome. When he has difference of opinion with another user he takes it personal. He almost got an innocent user banned out of wikipedia (With whom he was edit-warring at that time) on the context that person's username had similarities to another banned user. Finally that user managed to come back when CheckUser proved his innocence. I would n't recommend this candidate for adminship. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose There is nothing here that makes me want to support this candidate, but sadly much to oppose with. Aiken ♫ 02:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Not piling on. Blocks and limited editing after last one have me not supporting. There are some other things that Im worried over but these have been mentioned before by other editors. Most paticular though i have a worry over the main reason that you say you want to run for admin in your nomination statement, to see deleted content without a direct reason (at the time of this post). I dont undertsand why and how this will help and the motivation behind this. The case for needing the tools just doesnt come accross for me. This could still be clarified but theres just too many other issues present. All this aside I am pleased that youve had continued activity in the project for 5 years. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm Neutral with a moral support, if only to distance myself from your detractors. I have issues with your overall temperament and recent editing experience. That being said, I strongly support the idea that the community can stand up to our overlords, the foundation; so bravo on pointing out the foundation's hypocrisy. I would never personally support a ban on Eloquence but I would gladly support some sort of wrist-slapping censure due to the reinsertion of the spam banner against consensus. ThemFromSpace 00:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral not ready for the mop but am unwilling to pile on. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I again call for closure per WP:SNOW. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crotalus_horridus_2&oldid=1149834416"