Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drumguy8800 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.


Drumguy8800[edit]

Final (4/14/2) ending 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawal - drumguy8800 - speak 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drumguy8800 (talk · contribs) – This is a second request for adminship. The first can be viewed here

Anyway, last time I said I would wait until I had 4,000 edits to request adminship again, but I've gotten tired of waiting. I have something like 3,600 edits.. so I'm close.. anyway. By the way edit summary usage will return 10% for major edits because I have the all-edits-are-minor-edits setting turned on and the last major edits were from quite a long time ago when I didn't care much about edit summaries.. you'll note that at least the last 1000 edits have edit summaries...

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination (I accept) drumguy8800 - speak 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. You are clearly a good user. Although you have shown only a limited amount of experience in process, you meet my criteria. You will benefit from having admin abilities like rollback. Make sure you understand deletion policy (CSD, etc) however before you start deleting things without going through AfD etc. DarthVader 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Morale Support - from the looks of it your RfA isn't likely to pass, I suggest withdrawl and waiting 3 months or so -- Tawker 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - none of JoshuaZ's reasons are fatal. This is not necessary though. Please be careful. - Richardcavell 06:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sympathy support It looks like you will fail in your RfA again. Please do not be discouraged about this and keep on contributing to Wikipedia. If I were you, I would wait for at least 2 to 3 months before applying for adminship again. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry to be your first vote, but I need to oppose for a variety of reasons. First, you say in your answer to question one that you want to do deletion related work, yet I see almost no deletion related work in your Wikipedia edits. Second, your inability to wait another 400 edits does not speak well of your level of patience. Third, I see no sign of major vandalism work or of much in the way of warnng users so I don't see a strong need to give you roll back and am leery of giving you blocking ability. Fourth, your overall low number of talk edits makes it hard to judge how you interact with the community. Fifth (and related to concern four) your answer to question 3 is highly lacking and is almost uncivil to SPUI. Sixth, almost all your Wikipedia edits have been to featured picture image discussions, which while important as one of the most public parts of Wikipedia, is simply not relevant for gaining much in the way of policy knowledge that admins need to know, not substantially assisted by admin abilities, and not something you mentioned as something you intended to use your admin abilities anyways. Incidentally, a lack of diversity in Wikipedia edits was brought up in your last RfA, so not responding to it does not look good. Seventh, your use of the mark- all-edit-summaries-minor option leads to a dillema: if many of those edits were major, then they should have been marked as such and if they were all minor, then they aren't important for editcount(ugh) and similar measures of experience and interaction. You seem to be more impaled on the first horn of the dilemma, judging by your contribs list; I see many edits marked as minor that should be major edits by most standards. Eighth, your article space edits seem to be in a narrow range. Some of these reasons would not be enough to merit an oppose by themselves, but the totality leaves me with little choice. JoshuaZ 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, its difficult to delete things without admin status, you have to go through the AfD process powerless and that's difficult to do. Second, me going ahead and re-requesting adminship before I reached 4,000 edits was because I decided waiting until I had 4,000 was childish and not beneficial to the community as I could not do admin chores in that time, so it isn't exactly relevant to my performance as administrator. Third, again, it's too much of a process to go through and type everything out, I typically just fix vandalism on pages on my watch list. If I had a rollback feature, I would be much more adamant, which is why I'm requesting adminship. Fourth, I discuss things when there's something relevant to discuss. Is there something else I should be doing? Fifth, the question asked for "any times" so I said something specific. At least I'm being honest and I'm not sugar coating things. Sixth, what else should I edit? Should I change wikipedia policies around? I primarily add content to the encyclopedia portion of the Wikipedia; just because I'm not terribly interested in the bureaucracy doesn't mean I would make a bad administrator. Seventh, I made the mark-all-edits-minor change a long time ago and I simply haven't turned it off. The most fruitful way of seeing how big an edit was is to press the diff button. At least all of the edits I make are well detialed in edit summaries. Eighth, I contribute to areas that I'm knowledgable of. I live in the Dallas area and happen to know way more about Dallas than I do about anything else, and well, I haven't finishied imparting my own knowledge and the wealth of knowledge available in resources to the Wikipedia to be quite done.
    I hope you don't view any of that as sarcastic or cynical, I was by no means trying to be hostile in response. I understand the legitimacy of your concerns, but I'm not sure how me changing these things would improve my ability as an administrator. I'm trying to get a hold of the tools to do something, and I'm criticized for not having the tools. I'll just give up on the entire elitist bureaucracy of this thing and be a worthless contributor of prose. drumguy8800 - speak 04:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out that it's often even harder to delete things with administrator status, since there's a constant stream of people hounding every move you make to ensure you don't abuse your buttons. Admins can't operate too far outside of consensus, just like any other user. Rob Church (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per JoshuaZ. I'm sorry Drumguy, but you should have waited a few months. Please be more positive. Rama's Arrow 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Also, your answer to #1 makes me think you would be a deletionist. I think you are a little too eager, let's wait a little while longer.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose you should wait a bit more 'til your next RFA. Also, incorrect RFA creation (copied from Snoutwood's but didn't change all the links). _-M o P-_ 04:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Borderline personal attack in your answer to question #3 and other concerns raised above. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 04:15 UTC
  6. Oppose per above, but will support in a few months. In the meantime, you may be interested in this. --Rory096(block) 04:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Cuivienen & must wait for a few months. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  8. Rob Church (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm a bit concerned with some of the reasoning behind requesting admin powers. Also, Josh raises a good point: no one really knows how Drumguy8800 interacts with other editors (does he work and play well with others?) because of the paucity of talk page edits. •Jim62sch• 09:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has more than 200 talk page edits. If his frequency of poor interactions were 0.5% or higher, it probably would have been evident. - Richardcavell 12:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the 50 in regular talk is the most important as that is where any discussions, consensus-making and disputes (if any), occur. •Jim62sch• 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, per Master of Puppets --Andy123(talk) 11:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits leads me to believe that you do not have sufficient policy knowledge to be an admin. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, lacks article Talk and Wikipedia space edits as well as knowledge of an admin. --Terence Ong 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. It appears that half, if not more, of his edits are related to Dallas, Texas[1]. I say this without prejudice, as I myself live relatively close to Dallas, and have a fondness for it, especially in the area of professional sports. But please, I beg you, go explore the rest of the encyclopedia already. Secondly, I'm not impressed by the abusive response to question 3 below. SPUI is a valuable and unique editor who has made thousands of well-researched contributions relating to roads in the United States. His recent edits primarily persue one goal, consistency. His perceived "popular[ity] amongst user complaints", as you've put it, has quite a bit to do with encountering article/topic WP:OWNers around every corner, who simply take the attitude of "oh, it's SPUI. revert.". Spare the ad hominem attacks, listen to his reasoning once and a while, and you might learn something. Finally, I'd like to see a lot more edits in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces before supporting an aspiring administrator, that I might have some assurance that the candidate is interested in administrative tasks, which should include helping out in a wide array of areas as needed. According, once again, to Interiot's tool, you have not once visited AfD, CfD, RfD, MfD, IfD, DRV, or, for the most part, anything else in project space besides "featured picture candidates". I need some indication that the candidate's shiny new buttons would be used for something other than extra firepower with regards to articles which he himself is already actively editing. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination, and think about what others and I have said, and take a bit of advice. — Apr. 28, '06 [18:28] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  14. Oppose, self-noms should jump off the page in terms of knowledge of policy, great plans for the tools and all-round readiness... too many concerns about patience, discussion, policy matters, project contribs, XfD's. Give it a few months now, and remember that admins don't just get more power to deal with their own areas of interest and articles they personally want to delete, they serve editors by using the tools for the benefit of all. The last comment about SPUI in #3 isn't attractive either. Deizio 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Moral support Neutral tending to oppose. The way you mention SPUI in question 3 sounds a little uncivil and makes me uncomfortable about giving support. Not wanting to pile on, so it's neutral for me. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Better with more experience.--Jusjih 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 


Total edits	3671
Distinct pages edited	1168
Average edits/page	3.143
First edit	06:24, 23 April 2005
	
(main)	2532
Talk	50
User	250
User talk	88
Image	163
Image talk	1
Template	290
Template talk	5
Category	1
Wikipedia	223
Wikipedia talk	68

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 watch the new articles list and see all kinds of pointless information flooding the wikipedia. It's a hassle to have to nominate the article for deletion. Also I try to revert vandalism and without a quick rollback feature, it's very annoying to have to do all the formatting with the edit summary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I wrote most of the wikiprose for History of Dallas, Texas.. which is part of a huge project to make sub-articles (some, like history, with sub-sub-articles) for the Dallas, Texas article. Also, a look at the edit history of Dallas, Texas you'll see that I'm a major contributor/editor there.. I don't know where the tool is, but last time I checked I had over half the counted edits to the Dallas page. I've also created tens of neighborhood articles, a mapping system at Downtown Dallas and related pages, templates for DFW/Dallas, etc. I'm also a significant image contributor. I worked with the Main Page redesign team and am pretty active at WP:FPC.. I'm also pretty into minor fixes.. I'll click 'random article' when I'm doing nothing else and fix up articles, sourcing them, adding image, adding info, etc.
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. Well, somewhat. SPUI is currently sort of bothering me, though it isn't much of an edit war, yet. I've declined to revert some of the edits he feels should be made.. and I've contacted him rather peacably, but we're (as we speak) getting into a bit of a tussle. I'd assume some people here have already dealt with SPUI.. he seems to be popular amongst user complaints. drumguy8800 - speak 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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/Drumguy8800_2&oldid=1142576383"