Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deathlibrarian

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Deathlibrarian

Final (0/7/0); WP:NOTNOW v/r - TP 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ; Ended at 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) – I have been on Wikipedia here for 6 years now and really enjoyed it. I use it a lot, to read, and also have used it for work, so I'm quite happy to put effort back in. I work in Information, and web publishing, and my main drive is a love of history. I like to populate areas that have not had much written on them. I also like to provide information for countries that may not have information published on them (eg my own country, Australia) they have been neglected and passed over, while more well known countries information has recieved attention. I have at least 2000 edits - I did have a legitimate sock puppet account, which for safety reasons I was using and created articles with that as well. Anyways, there has been some times where the Admin abilities would have come in handy in the work I do on here, so would be handy if I was considered, I'm very sure I could make a contribtion. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mainly dealing with Australian Military history and politics, dealing with any disputes or formatting corrections. There aren't many Australian Administrators, so I think its good to have someone from Oz, who may be more neutral in these matters.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:Professionally, I work with Information and research, which means I have a lot of electronic databases at hand, which I can use to check facts. I have generated a lot of articles, and where possible, have tried to be a neutral influence on hot situations.

A lot of my work on Wikipedia is creating articles. I have created 55. Largely I like to focus on areas that are niche, and may have been covered in terms of major countries, but not, say Australia. Also good if I can create an article about an important social issue that not many know about..social justice by Wikipedia! Though largely my articles are probably history based. When putting up new content, I try to reference as much as possible. Working in Academia, I know people can use Wikipedia articles sometimes as pointers for serious research, so whacking in references helps to "give a bit of spine" to an article. It also means your article is less likely to be deleted!

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: I have mainly been in conflict in the war of 1812 article which was biased (IMHO). I ended up taking that to mediation and got an aspect of the article re written in a more balanced way, in accordance with WP:Balance. Once the balanced was achieved in the article, mainly by making sure all main viewpoints were covered, there was notably less argument over the articles content and I could go about my business! :-) So overall, sticking to policy, sticking to the facts, and dealing with the situation through mediation rather than continual low level arguing and namecalling is definitely the strategy I will use in the future.

Additional question from Frank

4. Please show two examples of situations in which you would have been able to improve the encyclopedia more or less immediately if you were an admin, where you instead needed to ask for action from an admin, wait for someone else to notice, or just plain left the situation alone because you couldn't do anything about it.

A:

Additional question from Nolelover

5. I'd like to give you a chance to expand on your references to dispute resolution. If this RfA passed, would being an admin cause you to treat disputes any differently? Should admins act differently in disputes then non-admins? And what exactly did you mean by "...who may be more neutral in these matters" (A1). These are just starters, so don't feel the need to give long answers on each question; I'd just like to hear your overall thoughts on the process.

A:

General comments

• Links for Deathlibrarian: Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Deathlibrarian can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Oppose

1. Oppose For being a user on Wikipedia for 6 years and only accumulating <3000 edits, tells me this user is not very active. I can trace back contributions to the 8th of August of 2010 in just 500 edits. Question 1 leaves me concern that the user does not know what the admin tools are for. This isn't part of my oppose but, it would help to know what the alternate account is for and why it was created. Please do not accept this as a put down but as constructive criticism.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions)
2. A mature editor and and excellent contributor of over 50 articles, however many are still tagged mainly for sourcing. While some editors may maintain that content work is not necessary for adminship, any creations should demonstrate a knowledge of the quality that they are going to expect from others, especially when involved in deletions. With only 1,532 edits to mainspace out of a total of 2,504 in 6 years (an average of 32 edits per month), very little vandal fighting or new page patrolling (deleted edits don't show any CSD or PROD activity), only 11 edits to AfD (37.5% matched the result), and 77 21 to his talk page, there is too little to be able to assess how he would perform if accorded the tools. At the moment I cannot see how the tools will help him in his work, but some concentration on meta areas over the next six months or so that clearly demonstrate familiarity with policies and admin related operations may well prove that Deathlibrarian has the qualities to be a fine sysop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
3. I see some good contributions, but would like to see some evidence of understanding of Policy before supporting an RfA. Suggest candidate does a few months' work on NPP and AfD before resubmitting. Also, he/she should opt in to monthly counts on the edit count app and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in the editing tab of "My preferences". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't usually put much stock in Q1, but it looks like you are mainly a gnome-ish content contributor. Now, that isn't a plus or minus against you, but you've given no indication either here or in the past that you need, or really have any use at all for, the bit. In your last 500 edits (going back the better part of a year, I might add) you've made exactly 11 edits to the Wikipedia or WT namespace, and all but one are to this page. I realize that an admin's work isn't all in those two, but I'd like to see at least a little bit of work in the admin-y areas before supporting. Another note of concern: in all three of your opening answers, you reference your work in dispute resolution. Great, but being an admin isn't going to make that job that much easier. In all honesty, I really think you could have worded A1 better...you come off (to me anyway) as implying that being an admin will somehow make you more neutral, or give you extra powers in discussion (which I highly doubt you meant). Kudpung and Catfish Jim have some excellent pointers, and I hope to be able to support next time. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I really should have emphasized this in my first statement, but I want to reiterate that my oppose has nothing to do with you, i.e., I haven't come across any temperament/competence/helpfulness problems. It's only the experience, which is something that can easily be fixed with time (should you want to dedicate even more of that to this project). There's nothing wrong with what you've done, and I hope you continue your good work. As a side note I wonder, based on your activity levels, if your idea of adminship isn't a little 2007-ish. Wikipedia, and the role of the admin corps, has changed alot since then. Regardless, I third Sphilbrick's post on your talk and hope you stick around. :) Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Moral support. You are a very valuable contributor, but, in my opinion, you are not really experienced in admin-related areas. Please do not let this RfA get you down and keep up the good work. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
6. I think everyone appreciates your contributions to the project. However, you're asking for adminship, which is not (just) granted to users whose work is appreciated. They need to demonstrate a need for the tools and the experience and judgment to assure the community they'll use them wisely. If this is really what you want, spend some more time reverting vandalism, participating at AFD, contributing to policy discussions, and other stuff that admins do. If this isn't really what you want, keep on doing what you're doing, as you are doing that very well and benefiting the project. I'd also like to second Sphilbrick's post to your talk. Lagrange613 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose, for now. Per above, good work on content-creation (particularly in an underserved area) but no indication of how the tools would be useful to the applicant. Question 4 might change my mind, but I'd need strongly compelling reasoning. Achowat (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

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.