Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Immunize 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.

Immunize[edit]

(3/25/8); Scheduled to end 07:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn

Nomination[edit]

Immunize (talk · contribs) – I am a very active user who participates mainly in reverting vandalism. However, In addition to this, I also tag pages for speedy deletion (new page patrol) frequently, as you can see in a review of my deleted contributions, comment at the village pumps, have started a successful deletion review for Template:Expand, have participated in some content work, including some small medical updates, and have created 12 articles. I also routinely comment at RfA's, have nominated pages at AfD and MfD, and also frequently report users to WP:AIAV and (to a lesser extent) WP:UAA. My first RfA was now two months ago, and was closed per WP:NOTNOW, which I feel was a valid reason, as I do not feel I had the experience needed for adminstratorship at that time. However, I feel I have acquired the experience needed in the 2 months since that RfA. Immunize (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: Mainly WP:AIV and speedy deletion initially, as these are the areas I feel most comfortable in at the present time . However, I would plan to move into WP:RPP, WP:UAA, closing articles for deletion discussion, and possibly WP:SPI with time. Immunize (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best contributions to Wikipedia are my reversion of vandalism and my speedy deletion tagging. Immunize (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: No major conflicts with other users in recent times, although I had a conflict with Riffraffselbow (talk · contribs) (editing as an IP) over the removal of ClueBot warnings several months ago. Immunize (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Phantomsteve
4. As you said above, your last RfA was 2 months ago.
a. Can you give examples of what has changed since that was closed which has helped you decide that you are ready to try again?
A: 'Well, firstly, when that RfA was opened, I was unable to transclude it onto the main RfA page, which immediately drew criticism. I have since learned transclusions, which is an obvious example of some change since the RfA. Since then, I have also increased my involvement in speedy deletion tagging, here at WP:RfA, and also have monitored WP:PERM to gain experience on what needs to be seen prior to granting of permissions, such as rollback. Immunize (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b. What contributions since that RfA do you think show that you have an "administrator" attitude, and why?
A:
Additional optional questions from Shimeru
5. What do you consider your best content contributions? What shows your personal involvement in building an encyclopedia?
A:While a admit that I lack major content contributions, I frequently update medical articles, such as

here, here and here. I feel that the large numbers of vandal-reverts make it more difficult to find the content work in my contributions. Immunize (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I have also done some cleanup work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing, as a review of this pages history will show, mainly relating to removing articles listed as unreferenced freom the listing that had been referenced since they were added to list. Immunize (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Looking through your contributions, I don't see much evidence of any experience with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. (Please correct me if I've missed something.) As an administrator, would you feel comfortable acting as a neutral third party in a dispute? How do you feel you should approach a dispute, and would your approach change at all if you were involved in the dispute?
A: I currently am not involved in Dispute Resolution, as I do not feel experienced enough to work in that area. I already stated that I was mainly intending to work in WP:AIV and speedy deletion if I was given the mop. However, as I stated in the nomination statement, I would intend to become involved in additional areas of administrative work, so I would reconsider my decision not to be involved in dispute resolution at a later point. Immunize (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from MC10
7. When should cool-down blocks be used and why?
A:The blocking policy states that in general cool-down blocks should not be used as they may anger a user further, but that an angry user who is also being disruptive may be blocked to prevent additional disruption. Immunize (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:Whereas blocks are often temporary, can be given by any administrator, and and do not single that the user is no longer a member of the Wikipedia community, a site ban can be given only by community consensus, the arbitration committee, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), or the Wikimedia foundation. Also, banned users may have all of there contributions reverted, though there are some exceptions. Also, site-banned users are no longer considered part of the Wikipedia community. I am referring here to site-bans and not to topic bans. In topic bans, the user is still a member of the community and can still edit most pages, but 'may not edit the pages that they have been banned from editing. If they do, they will be reverted and possibly blocked to enforce the ban. Immunize (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
A:


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

I have withdrawn this nomination, but I am not aware of how to mark it as closed-could an admin please do that? Immunize (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Cool! First time I've been first! But really, it seems like you'll do a good job. No problems that I can see. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Morally; I think Immunize is well on his way, he just needs a bit more experience, and should remember to exercise a little more caution at times. There's real potential here, but not quite yet. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. I'm sorry I can't support properly, but 2 months since a previous RfA, which was closed early as 0/7/3, is too soon in my opinion. As Xeno said in your first, your head is definitely in the right place and I believe you have the potential to be a fine administrator in the future, but I don't think you have sufficient at the minute. You've only been here since January and while some would argue that 6 months is long enough, in most cases I prefer to see 9-12 months. It takes considerable time to get to know the real workings of the project and all the stuff happening behind-the scenes. My suggestion would be to throw yourself into some good content work, maybe rack up a few DYKs and GAs and gain more experience in the project space before considering requesting adminship again. Give it 6 months at the very least then drop me a line and I might even consider nominating you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved up, because I want to say I admire your desire to leave this open. I think you would greatly benefit from a few months' more experience and I think you have the potential to be a fine admin, just not yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose As much as it pains me to do this, I would have to say no. Your last RFA was a mere two months ago. On your first RFA, Xeno suggested that you wait at least 6-9 months before running again. You also just ran an editor review and although your only response was positive, you should've waited more time to see what others said. I have seen you around and I do think you will make a great administrator, someday. That being said, you will draw a lot of opposes because you have had a RFA a mere two months ago and in that time there is no way that any editor, even the best ones, could gain so much knowledge and become an effective administrator. I would advise that you wait at least a year before running again and seek a coach in this time. I am saying this because you are in the place where I was two years ago. Look at my RFA history and you will see that you are mirroring me in more than a few ways. I am sorry if this doesn't turn out the way you plan but I am confident that this will help you become a better editor in the next year as we all learn from our past experiences. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - not convinced that 2 months (that was primarily vandalism patrol) has garnered 'more' experience. Also agree with KR. -Regancy42 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Per above. I don't feel much has changed since the last RfA. On top of that, I cannot support per your recent block. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 00:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The block is still too recent, your last RFA too fresh, etc. 6 to 9 months from now would be a good benchmark for coming back. Courcelles (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, but with moral support. The consensus 2 months ago was WP:NOTNOW, with people suggesting spending another 6-9 months gathering broader experience. I think that was a good recommendation, and I don't think the past 2 months has added the experience necessary - I think there's a kind of core approach/attitude that comes with time, and doing lots of vandal reverts, delete taggings etc, in a very short time is not a substitute for that. I really would recommend waiting a genuine 6 months - the difference it will make is not something you can really appreciate until you've tried it. I look forward to supporting a future run -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Reporting TheManThatKnowsEverything and Tonyisnotawesome as inappropriate usernames? — ξxplicit 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's oppose-worthy really. I can certainly see the concern with the second, though I wouldn't block for the name alone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I must say that the usernames seem to imply some less-than-quality behavior, but WP:AGF is important. I personally would have waited until the user edited, then if there was vandalism, reported to WP:AIV. mono 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ HJ Mitchell: Exactly. The usernames were worth keeping an eye on, but there was no blockable offense at the time of those reports (or thereafter, for that matter). As the candidate would work in the area as an admin, I'd have serious concerns over they might block as an offensive, misleading or disruptive username. — ξxplicit 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Mono: I agree, but reporting them to UAA was incorrect, as they did not violate the username policy. — ξxplicit 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have decided that I would not go to WP:UAA if this RfA succeeds, at least not for some time. Immunize (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? "if this RfA succeeds"? As it stands, you'd need to have no further opposes and 67 more supports (excluding the moral supports, which wouldn't be counted). I'm sorry, but this comment just reinforces the fact that my Oppose is correct at this time! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (ec x2) Oppose, but with moral support per Ktr101 and Boing! said Zebedee. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I don't feel 2 months was enough, especially contrary to the consensus. mono 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per explicit. You'll get there eventually, no need to rush it. _Tommy2010[message] 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Im also not thrilled with answer to Q8. Tommy2010 [message] 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Immunize (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose – Agree with Kevin above. Two months is not enough time to gain experience, and the answers to the questions above do not show much depth with policy. I look forward to supporting you in the future. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Five months is too little experience - come back in 6+ months and it may be a different story. Also, too little content writing experience. Of the created articles, most are either very short stubs, have been redirected, are soon to be moved to Wiktionary, or have major cleanup banners. Try doing a bit more intense content work, and see what life is like in that area of Wikipedia, as a well-rounded set of wiki-skills makes for a better administrator. Dana boomer (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose – In addition to the previous RFA and the still lack of experience needed, I also point out his dislike of anything even remotely humorous on Wikipedia, some of the stuff which helps "lighten the mood" a bit especially when tensions and drama flare up from time to time. –MuZemike 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Airplaneman's comment at neutral reminded me that I'd seen this editor's comment at editor review, which was followed up later with this response. That's a bit more foot-stomping "pay attention to me now! than I think we need in adminship at the moment, and continuing to demand a review while not being willing to take the time to perform one doesn't say "team player" to me. This is about temperament for me, not experience.--~TPW 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sorry, I can't support comfortably with the issues raised above. Best of luck. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Back at your first RfA, it was suggested that you gain 6-9 months' experience before trying again. I think that was good advice, and I don't think that 2 months is a suitable substitute. You've done good anti-vandalism work, which in my opinion goes a long way to counteract your problematic editing behaviors of January/February/March 2010. Now I think you just have to keep up this good work, and continue to get involved in other aspects of the encyclopedia. I also recommend working more on the articles you've created. Some of them are stubs and/or need additional sources. If you can create a couple well-sourced articles (using citation templates and not just bare URLs), I think it would also increase your chances of success in a future RfA. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I think you're a net positive for the project and I hope you will keep up the good work; however, I fear you're not experienced enough to become an admin, that's why I'm opposing per WP:NOTNOW, for the moment. I'm sorry. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose per this is way too fast (you've been registered in mid-January only), and disturbing crosswiki behavior. —fetch·comms 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "disturbing crosswiki behavior"? Immunize (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This overly eager RfA (like your first, and oh this one too), and this retirement because you failed an RfA for which you obviously were not prepared for, and retiring on Wikinews because something out of their scope was deleted. —fetch·comms 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to explain this retirement post and the block which you filed for unblock multiple times and all of them declined? That was only a few months ago. —fetch·comms 14:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose I would have gone with a Neutral, but as you requested this to be re-opened despite it being pretty much a foregone conclusion as to what was going to happen, I'm going to Oppose. My reasons? Well, I am not convinced by your answers to the questions; I definitely was put off by your impatience at Editor Review (you should have put your name up there a few months ago, where there was a 3-4 week delay or more before a review would be done); I feel that you are ignoring the advice given on your last RfA about waiting 6-9 months before considering re-running... My gut instinct says that in time, you might make a good admin - but you are not near to being ready yet -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose, following the "if this RfA succeeds" comment above - admins need to be realistic, and to be able to judge consensus, which at the moment this candidate seems not to be able to do with regard to this RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Phantomsteve. I previously avoided comment on this RfA as I wanted to give you the chance to withdraw, however as you requested this to be re-opened after closure I am afraid I have to register my opposition. Take the advice you were given last time, then try again in 6 months. This second RfA is premature. Best of luck, remember there is no rush. --Taelus (Talk) 15:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Applying for a second RfA only 2 months after your first and consequently not heeding the advice of your peers seems to be a serious lapse in judgement. Also, your work at UAA just isn't appropriate at all. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose Whoa. I didn't expect to see this after just 2 months. If you're going to nominate yourself, I suggest you either wait for a few more months, or try admin coaching to see if someone has the confidence to support you. I think it's going to be highly doubtful since you failed to capitalise the block you had back in February. Minimac (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose My own interactions with this user combined with their over eagerness to push forward with this RFA indicate to me that they lack the understanding of policy and the temperament expected of an admin. And the UAA report on "TheManThatKnowsEverything" shows a very poor understanding of what kinds of usernames are blockable and why , and this is an area the candidate says they will work in. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose, moved from neutral. It's obvious my concern won't be addressed, and I hate it when people overrule admins and resurrect DOA stuff like this. Şłџğģő 17:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose As per the reasons behind the block mentioned by FetchComms, candidate persists with the la-la-a-I-Can't-Hear-You and demonstrates a transparent desire for the perceived laurels of adminship rather than the practice it entails. Will need to see a major and sustained transformation in attitude, maturity, content, and knowledge and application of policy. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, concerns at this point in time, would consider reexamination at a later date. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral pending answers to the additional questions. Shimeru 00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose for now, as I'm still evaluating. I'm turned off by this edit especially at editor review. Airplaneman ✈ 00:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You seem like a very active editor and very active vandal fighter. However, as you stated, it has only been 2 months since your last RFA. It seems too short a time for another RFA. Maybe in another few months? Derild4921 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Q3 has two parts, and only the first part has been answered. The second part is possibly the most vital but of information you can provide about your goals. Şłџğģő 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Şłџğģő 17:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Well only 2 months is not enough time between this RFA and your last one. My advice it try again in December and find a place that could use more admin assistance such as DYK or AFD ect and work there. I look forward to supporting you in the future :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm sorry, I don't want to pile on the opposes but I think you're not yet ready for adminship. I would advice you to ask an admin to close this Rfa and try another time, later. BejinhanTalk 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - you can count this as an oppose, with moral support. I think you've come a long way since your last RFA, to the point that I was actually surprised to see this one come up so soon. I would recommend waiting at least another six months before trying again, if not more. Remember, it's not a race. There is much to be done to help Wikipedia without the admin tools, as you have been doing up to now. In fact there are more jobs that don't require the tools than do. Per User:SluggoOne, question 3 could do with a better answer. it would be nice to know what you learnt from that experience and how you would do things differently. You say at your editor review "However, I later learned that the editor was actually blanking out warnings that had been given in error" - this doesn't indicate whether or not you realise that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages, or whether or not you would interact with such users differently in the future, regardless of who is in the wrong. You do great anti-vandalism work, but it would be nice to see some more content work. To avoid this getting any longer, I'll make some more comments at your editor review.--BelovedFreak 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my neutral in the first RFA [1], and also for re-opening this RFA after it had been closed due to inclement weather. [Yes, I understand the closer suggested to you that this was your prerogative, ultimately I think it was a bad idea all the same.] However, I do offer moral support as I do still believe that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Please wait at least another 9 months before standing for adminship again and perhaps float the idea to some RFA regulars before submitting. See also Wikipedia:How to pass an RFA for some excellent advice. –xenotalk 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral A good number of edits within six months, and certainly something to support is how much action has been taken against vandalism, however, there are three things to oppose on, one, a block occured less then four months ago for unsourced content, two, the last RFA only occured two months ago which isn't much time to improve and change and three, the account has only been active for half a year, which isn't the biggest ammount of time to learn all the admin essays. From this I cannot support or oppose. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 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/Immunize_2&oldid=1091463140"