Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CyberSkull

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.


CyberSkull[edit]

Final (40/19/8) Ended 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

CyberSkull (talk · contribs) – A long-standing user with a stunning 35K edits, CyberSkull was given two barnstars last week for hard work on articles related to computers and computer gaming. With involvement in template work, categorization as well as several WikiProjects, CS is a versatile and competent editor who would make a good admin as well. >Radiant< 09:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing pithy to say at this point, perhaps I will in answer to a question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:19, 13 October 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 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: The only things I see as my strong points in this are would be tagging images or categorizing articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would like to do is quickly delete images and categories I create with typos in them (there is no automatic spellcheck in the URL bar of any browser). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I can't really think of any. I have a bit of a perfectionist streak in me so I am never quite satisfied with edits to articles. I am happy with many of the templates I have created/worked on. {{Infobox Webcomic}}, {{MusicBrainz album}}, {{cite video game}} are just a few of them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also started WikiProject MusicBrainz as a way to help link data between the two sites (I can't believe I forgot to mention this). It's not a very active project, it's focus is on the tools used to link the pages. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 think that the biggest conflict I was in was over {{user MusicBrainz}}, it was deleted out of process, I took it to DRV, after a fierce debate and no admin coming to close it, I recreated it (to no objection since). I also disagree with the restrictions on fair use galleries and preferences for free images over copyrighted regardless of quality. That is all I can think of for now. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I feel that fair use galleries do have their place and I prefer to use the image of higher quality in an article, whether it be free or fair use. I do abide by the fair use rules though. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from — Ambuj Saxena (talk)
4. How are tagging images and categorizing articles a part of sysop chores per your answer to question 1?
A: Yeah, that wasn't the best answer I could have given. I am interested in participating with the XfD process, moving pages to redirects with histories. There are also a few articles I'd like to export to other wikis, but that requires admin access to get the full history (deleted or not). I wasn't really aware of those tasks I listed in Q1 until I read the admin reading, as I have never paid any attention to the backlog before. I thought that since administrators typically help with this I would too (granted I know I would not be compelled to). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for dealing with mass vandalism, I've only reverted that once by hand, with the help of another editor. It was regarding this article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.
5. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?
5.9 What have you done to further the wiki project other than editing etc...?
Um, well, I thought it was mostly about editing ;). Seriously, I've written/improved a lot of templates. I've made two today (they still need work). Do you mean external promotion or something like that? I've linked to a few articles in forum posts if that is what you mean. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠

72.69.123.136 23:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?
Very good question. I think I'll say I try to do what is right by the policies & procedures and more important, do right by the article in question and/or the community. It's not going to hurt anyone for a divisive userbox to be taken through the deletion process properly, as unannounced outright deletions will piss off more people (I know it has bugged me). I think a user can be categorized as anything they choose to be (honestly, would you want to troll through my 35k edits to figure me out?). I see this as a spectrum, with myself in the middle here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

7. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I would have to say that I would only ignore a rule if the rule hurt writing a good or correct article (so long as the rule being ignored does not create a wide disruption). As for the snowball clause, I can see how speedily keeping or deleting things work in a debate and I think it best to have even the stub of a debate for the records as to why something was deleted. I've seen many terse lines in the deletion logs that offer no good insight as to why the admin took that action. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

CyberSkull's editcount summary stats as of 00:21, October 14 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 00:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • The answers to the questions suggests that user does not have much interest or use for the tools.Voice-of-All 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. >Radiant< 09:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Michael 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --SonicChao 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Yeehaa, sorry wanted to doe that. 35000 edits! Hell i'm trouble getting to 2000, you'll make a great admin. †he Bread 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Merovingian ※ Talk 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support Your answer to question 1 is weak. However, I have taken the number of edits you have made under consideration and feel that you are a very experience user of this project. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. Thus the weak support opinion on my part. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I have seen this user do great template and category work, and I think that he would benefit from the ability to do protected page edits. I don't think this user would abuse the admin tools, but, given his propensity to do tedious work willinngly, I was hoping for a better vision of what he'd like to do with them. At the same time, adminship should be no big deal, so I don't see a reason to hold back my support. — TKD::Talk 02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support I'll support since your a very good editor, but your answer to question 1 is weak. Consider expanding. Hello32020 02:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. OMG ABSOLUTELY!!!! RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I do not have much experience in voting for administrators, but after looking at this user's contributions I trust CyberSkull not to abuse or greatly misuse the tools. I would say that is the most important criteria in voting. KazakhPol 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support.  Grue  07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I'm sure he wouldn't abuse the tools. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 09:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as there's no indication CS would abuse the tools, even if he uses them rarely (for editing protected pages perhaps, as TKD suggested).--Kchase T 10:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, looks okay to me. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Dryman 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ye gods, support. Two years experience, 35K edits, no indication that this editor has ever been responsible for any sort of serious conflict or trouble. We're not electing a president here; the guy doesn't need a policy platform and four-year action plan. Can this editor be trusted not to abuse the tools? Looks like yes. Will he find things to do with them? Oh, probably. Does the guy respond politely and constructively to questions, comment, and criticism on his talk page? Yep. Would it be silly to force him through another RfA in six months if he comes up with some specific uses for the tools? Hell yes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support strong record, I'm not going to fret over undercooked answers.-- danntm T C 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. The fact that he's not planning to go mad with the admin powers is a plus point in my book. Deb 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Wouldn't abuse the tools and certainly wouldn't misuse them from lack of experience, and he might get use for them every once in a while. Giving this user adminship won't hurt anything. and exercising admin powers is voluntary and isn't a reason to oppose. --Rory096 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn per disagreeing with finding alternatives to fair use thing. Fair use doesn't exist if there's no reason to use that image over a free one. --Rory096 23:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support—Just sit down & read through the Wikipedia namespace & you’ll quickly see that in spite of low-key responses here, CyberSkull understands policy well. Sure it might be nice if CyberSkull promised to go out and solve all Wikipedia’s problems, but CyberSkull does understand & will undoubtedly act, but without overzealous application. We won’t regret giving CyberSkull the powers to delete/undelete/block/unblock. Let’s do it - Williamborg (Bill) 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Meets My Standards by a really big margin. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support - been here for almost 2 years and appears to have a full knowledge of image policy --T-rex 04:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support hasn't broken anything in 35,000 edits. Not promising the world in his answers is a good sign too. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC
  25. Support. Answer to question 4 is better, and I was probably being too harsh anyway. BryanG(talk) 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support despite wrong answer to trick question. Kusma (討論) 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support user has satisfied my only concern with answer in q4. Obviously with over 30k edits this user is more than qualified.--Konst.able 03:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. CyberSkull was one of the first users I interacted with when I started editing here, over at WikiProject Computer and video games. He was principally responsible for my deciding to stick around, although I'm sure he doesn't know it. That's what I like about him, though; he's going around editing like mad, and doesn't stop to sniff the politics. Even though his answers to the questions are kind of weak, I have no doubt that he would be a productive admin once he got into it, and no problem trusting him with the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Suppport. --Interiot 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - The first question wasn't exactly answered very well, but I have faith he'll know what to do when the time comes. Repairs to Wikipedia won't be snubbed anyway. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. Your answer to question four removed any concern from my mind. If even a tiny percentage of this user's edits are devoted to admin chores it will a huge benefit to wikipedia. And finally, if this user thought adminship was a trophy, don't you think adminship would have been requested... ummm... 30,000 edits ago? Irongargoyle 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: seems like a good user that won't misuse the tools. TimBentley (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Agree with "support" consensus. User:Ncrown23334
  34. Support. New answer to question one satisfies me enough. Clealy not short on experience, and I don't see any other problems. Grandmasterka 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. --Kbdank71 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. (edit conflict) Support Per Grandmasterka. 0% chance of abuse of admin tools. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, no reason not to do so. —Xezbeth 06:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Ye Olde Support Mike | Talk 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support The objections are not very strong to prevent me from supporting this dedicated wikipedian. SOADLuver 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose doesn't appear to know why they want to be an admin.--Andeh 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentative oppose, remind me to reconsider if/when he adds something to question 1 that actually involves administrator tasks (deletion, protection, blocking). In light of the image issue, I won't be persuaded to support this candidate. —freak(talk) 03:13, Oct. 14, 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per answer to question 1. Admin tools don't help you tag images and categorize articles.--Konst.able 06:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC) changing to support.--Konst.able 03:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Personally, I was troubled by his repeated reverts of the templates in Category:Wrong_title_templates and his apparent refusal to talk about the issue, as he ignored my posts across multiple talk pages. (User_talk:CyberSkull#Hello, or look at my template talk contribs.) While I'm not sure that my own conduct in that incident was exemplary, his definitely left me with a bad impression. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per answer to Question 1, which lists no admin tasks; and Christopher Parham, who cited diff does call into question editor's civility. Xoloz 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:AGF demands that editors be trusted with the tools unless circumstances dictate otherwise. In this case I find the answer to question 1 by the editor suggest that the editor is not aware of what adminship is. Of course I am willing to re-consider my opinion if my judgement is mistaken. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not one for editcountitis, but this editor has been here for 2 years and has over 35,000 edits. I find it hard to believe he doesn't know what adminship is. --Rory096 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even I had never thought that I would be opposing someone with such a long history of contribution for this reason. He may be a fantastic editor, but I am not convinced he understands the work done by sysops. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If he had said something even as simple as "I'd like to be able to move a page on top of a redirect with non-singular edit history" (which non-admins can't do), I would likely have already supported. —freak(talk) 04:48, Oct. 15, 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose you don't seem to need admin tools. T REXspeak 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose since the question answers don't indicate any desire to actually use admin tools, and adminship isn't a badge of honour. Cynical 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as what the candidate wants to do does not seem to require admin status --- Skapur 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I really wanted to support, as I find the "doesn't need admin status" responses off-base sometimes; however, your answer to Question 3 really worries me: "I also disagree with the restrictions on fair use galleries and preferences for free images over copyrighted regardless of quality." Ral315 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with a lot of these restrictions, and I think GFDL is a poor idea in general. And I'm an admin, and I have deleted hundreds of fair use images. People are entitled to have their own opinions! Are we all meant to mould into a generic political stance that FSF and User:Jimbo Wales support and not be worthy if we disagree? --Konst.able 13:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per answers to initial and followup questions. I just don't get the sense that CyberSkull really knows why he wants to be an admin. Having as many edits as he does (and remember, adminship is not a reward) and not being aware of the backlogs is, frankly, disturbing. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Yes, 35k edits is wonderful and shows dedication. However, I don't get the sense that CyberSkull actually wants, much less needs, the extra buttons. As Cholmes says, a lack of knowledge about the backlogs after two years is rather strange. Srose (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The entire point of the Wikipedia project is to make a freely redistributable encyclopedia. We don't need any more people with buttons who don't understand that (see response to question 3). And yes, that was me who was involved in the whole MusicBrainz thing, but that was awhile ago during the whole userbox thing and I don't hold anything against him for that. --Cyde Weys 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per answers to question 1 and 3. Doesn't seem to need the tools with the tasks you are describing. On question 3, you are in suppor to fair use galleries, and you don't like the preference for free over copyright. We can't just have fair use galleries lying around. Fair use images are there to better explain a certain article, and nothing else. There aren't just lying around for people to put in galleries. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Doesn't seem to need admin tools. A good editor, but adminship is not a reward. While experienced, doesn't seem to understand what it means to be an administrator. this comment has me a bit worried, too. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please elaborate on why using admin tools to correct your mistakes has you worried? Is it because the user makes mistakes, or should admin tools purely be used for uses requested by others. Because if you think its the latter, you're absolutely wrong. Any admin who would not speedy delete their own incorrectly titled images is an insecure gutless dork who values process over results, and should never have been trusted with the tools anyway. - Hahnchen 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Have to agree with many above. I have nothing but respect for almost all of the work Cyber has done, but my main criteria for adminship is looking for people who have a talent for discussions that lead to consensus. I, similar to Christopher Parham above, found his conduct off-putting here. Chris and I were trying to solve a problem in good faith. Cyber's response seemed like a one-person attempt to block consensus. There are times when a single person needs to try and block consensus, but if they do, they also need to take on the responsibility for explaining their actions and work to convince others of their errors. -- Samuel Wantman 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose: doesn't seem ready yet. Jonathunder 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. A bit naive IMHO, plus sounds like a big geek to me. --Dangherous 13:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to be civil and not call other editors names. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I would like to support, but I agree with Srose and Cholmes, and also per answer to question 3. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose No clear need for the tools. TigerShark 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral can't see much need for admin tools. Expand your answers and I may change to support. --Alex (Talk) 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Your answer to question 1 doesn't reveal a requirement for admin tools. I don't doubt, with 37k edits, that you are a good and responsible editor and would probably make an equally good admin. I might change my vote if you expand upon your answer to question 1 and demonstrate where and when you would use the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 00:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I could have opposed this if I didn't think you were a good editor, but you are and my only reason to go neutral on you is per your answer to Q1. It seems like there's no real need for you to even have admin tools at the moment based on your reply. I suggest you either expand your answer to Q1, or think again about what admins are to do. Nishkid64 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I can't see any cons, but likewise I can't see why would you need the admin tools.--Húsönd 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. You are a great editor, but as many people already said, your answer to question 1 is very weak and doesn't show an urgent need to use admin tools; I'm about to change my vote to weak oppose only due to that answer. Consider expanding and I'll support you. --Esteban F. (con.) 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral — Sorry, but i cant see a need at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I don't see any obvious reasons to oppose, but without really knowing what you want to do with the tools I can't support. Expand your answer and I'll reconsider. BryanG(talk) 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to support BryanG(talk) 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Excellent user and major contributor to WikiProject CVG, but doesn't appear to need the tools. Adminship isn't a reward, so I don't think it would be appropriate. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I would like to see a better answer for question one. NauticaShades 19:26, 15 October 2006 (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/CyberSkull&oldid=1147969060"