Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaelen S. 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.

Gaelen S.

[edit]

Closed at (5/23/4) per candidate request.  Frank  |  talk  18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Gaelen S. (talk · contribs)  – I am rollback user here on english wikipedia and I do most of my edits through Huggle. Now, everyone might say that I am new to the process since most of my edits have been in the last 2 months and it is true that I am not a old hat with the process. However, I had a wakeup call recently when I reported someone on the Wikipedia:AIV who had not had the appropriate number of recent warnings. Since then I have been reading up on all of the policy guidelines related to administrator intervention against vandalism and those related to the modification of the edit filter. In any case, it might be nice to have new blood in the pool of administrators. My main goal as an administrator would be to revert and prevent vandalism by taking the appropriate and necessary steps as defined by WP:GAIAV. I hope that you will all at least give me a fair hearing and not reject me straight out of the gate because I feel that I could really make a good impact as an administrator. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 07:07, 26 September 2009 (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: I intend to take part in the removal of vandalism and if the situation calls for it, take the appropriate steps to block the user, either temporarily or permanently depending on the severity of the situation. I also intend to take part in modifying the edit filter in order to prevent these problems from every becoming serious in the first place
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Though I have reverted many obvious cases of vandalism, my best edits have been to remove factual errors that might have actually mislead readers of wikipedia. Those are the times that I actually felt like I was really doing my part to make the encyclopedia a better place.
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 been in one very minor edit dispute when I was much newer to the system and had a limited knowledge of policy and guidelines. Since then however, I have made the utmost effort to be as polite, considerate, and helpful as possible to all the users I had contact with. If ever in the future I am involved in an edit dispute, I will be polite and courteous in all my behavior towards the editor, despite how they behave towards me. Then I will try to find some middle ground or compromise that we could both live with and if that does not work than I would bring the dispute to a impartial moderator or the WP:AC if the dispute has reached that level of severity.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. Can you write me a regular expression that would match various different ways of writing "free beer"? (account for some synonyms and different amounts of it)
A: I am sorry but I don't quite see the relevance of this question. If you can clarify, please do.
You mentioned that you wanted to work on edit filters, and edit filters use regular expressions to match text that needs the attention in some way. Unless someone know what they are doing with this syntax it is best to leave it to some one who does. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you were referring to the edit filter, you have to admit that it is a relatively obscure question to ask. Now, in answer to your question, when creating the filter you would have to account for various possible mispellings such as "free beir", or rearrangement of the words like so: "beer free" or the addition of other words: "Beer for free" or "follow this for free beer". Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 22:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please explain what page move vandalism is, and what can be done by administrators to counteract it?
A: Page move vandalism is where a vandal will move a page to a new name that has little or no relevance to the actual content of the article. Administrators would investigate the situation if they had come upon it on their own or it had been reported at Wikipedia:AIV. If they found that the page move was vandalism or just a badly-placed good faith edit then they would revert the page back to its orginal state and issue a page move warning. If the editor continued to vandalize the page and the appropriate number of warnings were given, a temporary block could be considered. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 07:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Bwrs
6. I notice that the #3 oppose from your first RFA pertained to a copyright-related policy. Would you care to discuss this?
A: Ah that. I do not believe there was a copyright issue there, it was just someone saying that it was not enough for me to be considered for administrator. I did provide the copyright information for the photo which when I uploaded it to commons. I had found the info on the site I downloaded it from. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
7. What kind of copyright licenses are permitted on Wikipedia?
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/Gaelen S. before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

I am wondering whether some kind of compromise can be reached in this matter. I am willing to commit to any kind oversight or probation for any length of time if my rfa goes through. Frankly, I am sure that there many editors that would have made excellent admins if they had not been turned down for some reason. Even if this does not work in my case I think it wouldn't be such a bad thing for a system somewhat like I am suggesting to be designed for it could bring out the best of both worlds: new blood and responsible editors and admins. Is there any comment on this? - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how RfA works, I'm afraid. There have been proposals for such a scheme, and one very promising one almost took off recently but ultimately withered. To be frank, having two RfAs in thirty days, followed by an attempt to make a deal or compromise... well, it kind of looks like you want to be an admin too much. Some would call it power-hunger; I would call it a deep misunderstanding of what admins actually do. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very good understanding of what admins do and I see the use for the tools that come with the job and the ways in which they could be abused. I know that they would make my job easier and I believe I would be more effective as a vandal fighter in that capacity. If you look at the ratio of admins to actual users you can see that there are way to few admins to be a truly effective force in the encyclopedia. I understand there needs to be a level of trust established for a user to become an admin and I think this is a very good way to go about it. What better way to determine a user's level of trustworthiness and capability than to actually see what they would do with the tools that would be given to them if they actually were made admins. I am not just speaking for myself, I am speaking for all editors who would like a chance to be admins but do not have huge amounts of experience. After all, if you are ever in doubt about policy, you can always go to the pages that explain it. I do somewhat resent that implication that I am cutting a deal, as I am offering up an idea that can be used in many other circumstances than just my own. Just because it has never been done before does not mean that it will not work. Please honestly discuss the option because as far as I am concerned, I really feel that it is a good way to really find good, trustworthy administrators. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 05:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the consensus on RfA standards is not going to change. Precedent will not be set with your RfA. It is quite apparent that you are becoming somewhat desperate to have the tools for whatever reason, and that does not go well in your favor. Please take the advice of the others and learn from this RfA and re-apply in a few more months when you have the experience others are looking for under this account. There are plenty of editors here who are willing to help you with the ins and outs of editing, but this is one situation that you cannot change. ArcAngel (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I need to say this before the discussion escalates further. I am not obsessed with power or adminship. I saw the compromise listed above as a way for editors to truly judge my capabilities. I did not only suggest it for that reason, however. It seems to me that a new system of choosing admins more efficiently and quickly is necessary and I believe that this truly is a good idea and should be utilized in the picking of other good editors as well. Now, I am quickly growing disillusioned with the job of administrator as I have no desire to join a crowd that from what I have seen so far, have been closeminded and unwilling to even take my suggestion of using this as a possible option in the future. It almost seems that some administrators, though they may be good administrators, have a heightened sense of their importance and they dislike the notion of others coming into the group because it means that they are not quite as special as they were before so they make the standards so ridicously high that to actually become an administrator you have to have been around for years and made thousands upon thousands of edits because that was what they went through and to have it any other way would be blasphemy. I am not speaking of all administrators, many of whom I have found to be responsible, helpful, and humble. Now, what I am about to say may sound harsh, but it needs to said. Administrators, your job does not make you better than everyone else and your numbers in many ways make you ineffective as a real driving force and I do not need years of experience to see that. You need more people doing the job that you do and if you truly value the security and prosperity of the encyclopedia than you will get off the high horse on which you seem to sitting on and consider new possibilities (like the one I have proposed) of gaining new administrators that are good and responsible but not necessarily so experienced that it makes a newbie feel cowed. Now, I am withdrawing my Rfa and I am seriously thinking of quiting wikipedia all together. I can be persuaded to stay but I need to see more action from the rfa division for me to considering doing so. Remember what I said because my proposed plan is a workable one which is being unfairly dismissed for no real legitimate reason. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 18:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral Support, please do not be discouraged. Many of our best administrators failed at their early RfAs. Try to find an adopter or an admin coach who is willing to show you the ropes, and return full of knowledge in 4-9 months time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Cool3 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I don't see what harm it can do. Crafty (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support - as to avoid piling on. Get some more contributions and come back later. You can do it!--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Conditional support – pending your thoughtful and well-reasoned response to my question #6, above. Bwrs (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Not enough mainspace edits and very few edits to WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, and WP:RfPP. Simply put - you don't have the experience others are looking for. Plus, it's only been a month since your last RFA. ArcAngel (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Let me say that while I admire your work fighting vandals, there is much much more to being an Wikipedia admin than being a vandal cop. The process of writing well-sourced articles, especially on hot-button topics, gives one a good idea of what is involved in being an admin. The position requires a complex combination of patience, knowledge, and wisdom that comes from long hours of dealing with Wikipedians who have strong and often opposing views, which sometimes lead to edit wars. Add to your inexperience the fact that, as noted above, you have only waited a month since your last RfA. There are other areas of participation lacking as well. Please look at some of the recent candidates that have been approved, and why people voted for them. Strongly suggest you withdraw, continue your existing good work and expand the areas you are weak in, and then try again next year. My best wishes to you! Jusdafax 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Little interaction with other users beyond vandalism reversion. Minimal content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Very few article talk edits. This is a very important part of community interaction. Also a bit green, six months with relatively few mainspace edits, and little interaction, does not instill trust, for me at least. Self nominations for RfA are also a red flag for me. - Crockspot (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Super-Absolutely Strong Oppose" Lack of interaction with administrators. Not much of a use to the Huggle tool.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're overdoing it. ƒ(Δ)² 10:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not meaning to badger or anything, but "not much of a use to the Huggle tool" seems to me like belittling the candidate's efforts here on Wikipedia. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to inform, this edit just had his RFA closed via SNOW a little while ago. Some helpfully advice to Rule of the 9th, if you do re-apply in RFA, so editors may not support if these !votes continue. America69 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL.--Giants27(c|s) 15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per Axl. Someday though, just not now.Abce2|This isnot a test 13:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose too soon, you need to work on article writing skills and develop these skills further. all that aside you have very good intentions here. and i think in do time youll past quickly through one of these. Consider admin coaching if you can. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I see more time is needed. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose This probably comes across as a bit harsh, but I'm honestly a bit surprised that you have rollbacker rights. You have only been editing under this account for a month. Were you editing under a different account, or an IP prior to August that would have led you to receive rollbacker rights? I do not mean this dismissively... if you have a greater body of contributions that would demonstrate your qualifications for the mop, I would like to see them. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC). I also find it a bit strange that this page was actually deleted earlier this week on your request, and that you received specific, and helpful advice on pursuing admin tools at that time here. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above, and your last RfA was a month ago. Something smells fishy. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per above, please wait 6-12 months until you reapply.--Giants27(c|s) 15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose You have very little experience in admin-related topics, and limited experience in article work. Automated edits are of only minor significance IMHO. I urge you to withdraw, and to try again after making one or two thousand manual edits across the whole range of the encyclopedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose with Moral Support Per above. You should also let one process run its course before you move on. You applied at Editor Review, but did not give it time to complete. Come back in a few months. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience, and in some well-rounded areas. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The kerfuffle with the rollback tool was too recent for me.  GARDEN  18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell is a "kerfuffle"? Is that a new sniglet? ArcAngel (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not.  Frank  |  talk  21:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just love it when you Americans trip over our words. :3 — neuro(talk) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. You're way too hasty to report users prematurely, and even after some people communicate that to you, you still persist. -- Mentifisto 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that that has happened in the past but as I said in my statement, I have been reading up on Wikipedia:AIV policy since then and have gained a better understanding of the policy pertaining to AIV incidents. As for the reports themselves, I was simply saying that there had been repeat offenses by a user who had been warned and blocked in the past though I do know now that AIV was not the place to bring it up. I do recognize that blocking someone really should be a last resort and if I am ever an administrator I will not take such things lightly at any point. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. User wants to work with edit filters, but totally drops the ball on the regex question. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How precisely did I drop the ball? When someone asks you how to spell free beer in several different ways without giving you any idea about why he is asking you the question, it tends to confuse someone. Just because I did not understand the reasoning behind the question does not mean that I cannot understand the edit filter. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 02:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He wanted you to produce a regex, and you're merely describing what that regex needs to do. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like \bfr[3e]{2} +b[ie3][3e]r\b perhaps. Shadowjams (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if Shadowjams is on the right track, anyway a pointer to Gaelen S. to study up on this to learn this topic if they desire. I admit I myslef have not altered an edit filter yet, but sometimes have a look to understand why someone is being stopped by it and whether they should be blocked or warned or both or neither. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely. This stuff is tricky; I find it a minor obsession and I find errors in my own all the time. It's maddening at times, and Abuse Filter is pure reg ex. I've got no formal opinion on your RfA, but if you come back in a few months I might be quite interested. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above comments, not ready yet. (Aside - Shadowjams, where do I claim my b33r‽)  Chzz  ►  04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Only a month of editing means that I simply can't judge how you would be as an administrator. Two RfAs within such a period (I would only support such things in certain circumstances (saying this to cover my ass, yes)) also suggests desperation for adminship, which is something I don't really want to see in an administrator. As I say though, everything you've done in the last month holds a huge weight because there is so little to go on because of the length of time that you have been contributing. — neuro(talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see compromise above, this once again affirms my suspicions of power hunger. — neuro(talk) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Oppose Weak because you have a clean block log and I appreciate editors who can do this, but Oppose because I don't think you are ready yet. Admins don't need to be writers let alone have featured content, but they should have varied contributions to show they understand the pedia and the community that they want to help administer, so far you seem to be almost exclusively a vandal fighter, and while that is useful and shows a need for the tools I like to see activity in at least one other area - photography, adding alt text to images, GA or FA reviewing or indeed article writing - there are loads of things that need doing. In my opinion admins should also understand the unwritten rules here such as waiting at least 3 months between RFAs, as well as the written policies. I'm also intrigued as to why an account created two months ago has a userbox proclaiming they've been a wikipedian for 2.5 years. ϢereSpielChequers 10:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The account seems to have been created 2.5 years ago, although he began editing a month ago. -- Mentifisto 11:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Oppose concerned about the keenness to get tools demonstrated in some of those answers. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Just had an RFA a month ago. Per WP:NOTNOW.--LAAFansign review 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I just think that one month of editing is not enough. Please do not be discouraged, keep on editing and soon you will be an admin. warrior4321 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral to avoid pileon. Come back with more experience especially in areas such as AIV and AFD, in a few months time :) You look like a good editor with solid contributions. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid the pile-on. Per above. Please don't be discouraged! Happy editing, Airplaneman talk 02:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning Support, all indications are that the candidate is a good-faith user who wants the tools for the right reasons. Q4 gave me a little pause, but not enough to oppose. I highly encourage you to come back in a few months, with a bit more experience under your belt, because I see the makings of a fine admin in your contribs. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Not piling on the oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:57, 27 September 2009 (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/Gaelen_S._2&oldid=1142504181"