Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natl1 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.


Natl1[edit]

(13/14/11); Originally cheduled to end 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC), removed at 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC) due to lack of support

Natl1 (talk · contribs) - As a user who has been with Wikipedia for about 5 1/2 months, I believe I would be able to help Wikipedia more if I became an admin. On Wikipedia, I patrol vandalism daily and the ability to block users and delete nonsense pages. I also help write articles on Wikipedia, bringing Coca-Cola to GA status and working on it becoming a GA. I hope the Wikipedia community trusts me to grant me admin tools so I can help Wikipedia even more. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: As mentioned in my nom above, I anticipate helping Wikipedia with admin tools by deleting nonsense pages and other speedy deletion candidates. Also I intend to block troublesome vandals I come across and the ones that are reported at WP:AIV. In addition, I may semi-protect some pages experiencing very heavy vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In the main space, I am proud of my contributions to Coca-Cola, mentioned above in the nom. Also I am very pleased with my creation of WP:IFU, which allows unregistered users to submit photos to Wikipedia.
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: In my time on Wikipedia, I tried and try to stay ou of edit conflicts and other conflicts by assuming good faith. However, one such incident did occur to me when restoring versions on Campeonato Brasileiro Série A which had talk page consensus. The conflict ended when consensus was confirmed through a straw poll.
Optional questions from User:Gwernol
4. Could you explain to me under what circumstances a copyrighted, or otherwise non-GFDL, image can be uploaded to en.wikipedia? In particular I'd like to hear your thoughts about which policies apply and under what circumstances non-free images can be used or not used.
A: A copyrighted non-GFDL can be uploaded to Wikipedia in two ways. First, if licensed under a Creative Commons license which does not have a "non-commercial use only" or "no derivatives" clause, the image can be uploaded to Wikipedia. Secondly, an image can be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. The main criteria for fair use is non-replacability. Wikipedia:Fair use basically explains and "governs" fair use on Wikipedia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support An excellent candidate. I find the oppose vote by Xoloz frankly stupid. He has obviously not bothered to check if the candidate has indeed addressed the issues (almost all the concern was inexperience which Natl1 clearly has not got now). Over-eagerness is great, we need hardworkers and Natl1 is a hardworker. Lollipop Lady 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lollipop Lady, there's no need for such hostility. Please observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Húsönd 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Husond, for the link which I have observed. Lollipop Lady 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Lollipop Lady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has existed as an account only since late Jan., and has a total of only one week editing experience (as a registered user anyway). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear, I think that is irrelevant here, don't you? Lollipop Lady 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is relevant. The more experience you have, the more your support means. And I agree with Husond, there's no need to be hostile, state your support in a polite and constructive manner, please. Thanks, HornandsoccerTalk 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said I read the page didn't I? And it isn't experience that matters, it's the quality of the vote. Next time I vote in an RFA I will try to be nicer. And now, I think I'll go and have a cup of tea and a hot cross bun. Lollipop Lady 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Personally I would like to see more substantive contribtions, however the user has shown admirable dedication to reverting vandalism and similar maintainence. Since admin powers are useless for the former and very useful for the latter, I hope this nomination succeeds. Mark83 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seems good. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Experience is not just time, but also activity. TRhis editor shows, I think, enough meaningful activity to warrant the mop and bucket.--Anthony.bradbury 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per criteria set out on my user page. Edivorce 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I want you be an administrator. Jet123 ~~My talk page~~ 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per last time, and since the candidate addressed my only (very minor) concern. Grandmasterka 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support My oppose last RfA was somewhat frivolous and thus I support you now. Captain panda 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support It appears you have done a good job and that you will continue to. JBEvans 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I checked the records and see no reason to oppose. Excellent editor. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Who cares if his last RfA was two months ago? That's a long time, and the reasons for opposition there, frankly, sucked anyway, and many aren't applicable now. This user has been here for 5 months and edited nearly 3,500 times. Who cares if he doesn't have XFD experience, if he's not going to be an admin who closes XFDs, per his answer to question 1? Who cares if there are suspicious support votes? You might recall that one of our fundamental policies requires us to assume good faith. How do you know that this account is Natl1, and if it's not, why does it affect how well he'd do as an administrator? Who cares if someone else didn't nominate him? That doesn't change his ability to be an admin! --Rory096 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but sysops are expected to have good policy knowledge and with respect to him/her, I dont think this user knows the policy of a high enogh standard to be promoted, the user seems to think all admins do is block people per Q1 answer, I think he needs more experience in a wider range of areas, XFD would help.Tellyaddict 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question 1 does not ask "What do admins do?" It asks what the candidate intends to do. This candidate doesn't intend to close XFDs, he intends to speedy delete things and block vandals. So what? Admins aren't required to use every single power that they have. How do you know he doesn't have enough policy experience to not screw up with the tools? Isn't that all that he needs, to be effective with the mop? --Rory096 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --dario vet (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Insufficient time has elapsed since first RfA for the editor to have addressed the issues raised therein. Editor seems over-eager, often a negative indicator. Especially given concerns raised last time about candidate's judgment, this nomination leaves me uneasy. Xoloz 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Xoloz. I would prefer more experience and a more noticeable attempt at addressing past concerns. Michael 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I can't in good conscience support RfA's for anyone with less than 8K (3K mainspace) edits and a year of at least semi-regular editing, and a lot of evidence of XfD participation, vandal fighting (there's more to it that using VP; where's the AIV involvement?), and/or (preferably and) policy/guideline page participation, and other signs of deep participation (starting successful WikiProjects - WP:IFU is pretty interesting, but of questionable utility for the encyclopedia - or helping with various non-admin backlogs like stub sorting, or helping get more articles to at least GA if not FA status, etc.). At only twelve edits in the "Wikipedia talk:" namespace, I do not believe it is even vaguely possible that this editor could have learned the ropes enough to be a useful admin. Agree with Xoloz's concerns about overeagerness. Adminship isn't a rank or a prize, and I'm skeptical that Natl1 has enough experience with the "guts" of WP processes to make proper use of the tools. Try again considerably later and with some accomplishments under your belt and clear evidence of participation in and understanding of the core metapedian processes, and it will probably go swimmingly. PS: On the plus side I think Natl1's answers to the questions in the first RfA were quite well-reasoned, esp. with regard to dealing with IP vandals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't yet researched this candidate, but have to point out that your criteria are exceptionally rigorous, and would probably exclude the vast majority of RfA candidates, including myself, at the time of my RfA in January and even today. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay by me. >;-) But please note I use "or" a lot. I'm not saying anyone should have done everything I mentioned up there. But just because someone is earnest, uses Vandal Proof a lot (heck, I don't; I patrol manually and look for more subtle, difficult vandalism to fix, but recognize the value of nuking the obvious stuff instantly, of course), and can study and provide good answers to tough questions doesn't mean they'll have a deep enough understanding when things get tricky. My main concern is the near-zero participation in "Wikipedia talk:". It is simply impossible in my view to come to a rounded understanding of WP internals without, um, ever discussing them with anyone. (Update: That said, there are plenty of admins who learn most of it all on-the-fly.) I don't expect an RfA candidate to have the very high Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk:-space relative edit ratio that I have, mind you. Not everyone is that metapedian. But my experiences suggest to me that the more metapedian a candidate is the more likely they are to make a useful admin, just as a matter of statistics. There are exceptions, and this might be one. But Natl1 won't keel over and die, and WP won't fall apart, while Natl1 gains more and broader experience and tries again later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was reacting more to your criteria of 8,000 edits and a full year of editing, which are standards that many extremely well-qualified RfA candidates haven't yet attained. But given your change of !vote, discussion should probably continue elsewhere, if at all; feel free to refactor this subthread to talk. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well I stand by those personal criteria. This is not the Wikipedia of 2004 any longer. Some sockpuppeteers have been around longer than a year at this point. To me, admin candidates need serious and consistent track records, not just evidently ardent good intentions. Consider me a curmudgeon if you like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Not much has changed since his previous self-nomination. For example, there are already suspicious support votes, similarly to last time. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Again, sorry, but not enough time has passed for me to reconsider yet. --After Midnight 0001 04:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This, only six-or-so weeks ago, makes me wonder if you actually know what you're doing on Wikipedia. I hope you now know what the issue is with that comment - the second and third lines - but will it take similar mistakes in judgement at AfD and AN/3RR for you to learn as well? Remembering that administrators can practically destroy other contributor's reputation with one bad-placed block, often causing massive amounts of disruption from Wikidrama and lost contributors, I am not satisfied with your potential knowledge and ability as an administrator to support. Daniel Bryant 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose You could pass in the future but you are way to eager for adminship, yes this is not always a bad thing but you have not had enough time to address the issues raised in your last RfA, it would be good to see some WP:XFD work, your last RfA was only 2 or so months ago, leave it for about four months and do some other work like cleanup etc, their is more to Wikipedia than being a sysop. Your answers to the standard questions especially about how yuo would use the tools are very weak, you seem to think that blocking vandals is all the admins do. Leave it for a few months and get more experience. Also the first sentence of you RfA is written in a format as if another user nominated you (e.g A user who has been around for 5 and a half months).Tellyaddict 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in whole or part with all of that, but the last. Natl1 said (emphasis added), "As a user who has been with Wikipedia for about 5 1/2 months, I [more...]" That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say about oneself even if perhaps not the most important qualification to stress (my curmudgeonliness about the topic notwithstanding). I think maybe you misread it or something. Natl1 is not pulling a Bob Dole and speaking about him/herself in third person or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I was being a little picky there, but I still stand by everything else what I said.Tellyaddict 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per Daniel Bryant and seeming over-eagerness. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Daniel Bryant. KrakatoaKatie 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose When I saw this RfA, I was looking for the diff Daniel Bryant had provided. That sort of attitude gives me the impression that you have a lack of understanding of the idea of adminship. Also, I've always thought you came across as someone too trigger-happy. Not directly really a reason to oppose, but it does make me doubt your judgment. Nishkid64 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide diffs? I don't think I am too trigger happy. Unless t was when I made three errors "in my first days on Wikipedia" when I first used Vandalproof. (I think the errors came from inexpenreince at looking at diffs) Since then I have been very cautious about pulling the trigger.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid64, what does it mean to be "trigger happy"?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this wasn't the best sense to use it in, but I was referring to the over-eagerness. Nishkid64 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry, but your answers to the questions weren't impressive, and your over-eagerness might be a problem... Also, Daniel.Bryant has a good point (and link). · AO Talk 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Still not ready. Tomertalk 07:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose Sorry I do not agree with this over-eager nomination. I also think the comments above in the oppose group are highly relevant and your answers inclusive of their spelling errors do not show a measured contributor ready for adminship.--VS talk 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose I don't see anything tremendously good or bad in the user's history, but sympathy for the eagerness has me leaning between Weak Oppose and Neutral Just H 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per the answers to questions and Daniel Bryant's diff. Mainly, I'm concerned about the potential for blocks to be used as a punishment for instead of a prevention of vandalism. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I think that you're on the right track for acquiring the admin tools but it has been just about seven weeks since your previous RfA closed and I would like to see you a little more rounded as an editor when you receive them. Extensive use of VandalProof demonstrates application to the ever-present task of vandal reversion but there's more to being an admin than that. Persuasion, negotiation, user education and demonstration of your knowledge of the policies and guidelines are all qualities that I would like to see you demonstrate in order to slide me over to support. If you have diffs for these things and others right now then I would love to see them as evidence of your competency for the role. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be interested in an AMA request to which I responded which shows my knowledge of policy, and [1] and [2] for user education.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Pretty much per (aeropagitica), although a 7-week period between RFAs doesn't constitute a problem for me. However, I do feel like more evidence of Natl1's preparedness is needed (e.g. more reports to WP:AIV).--Húsönd 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per above. I'm leaning towards support, but I would've liked to see your nomination after a few more months of contributions. —Anas talk? 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - changing my !vote from Oppose. I remain concerned about the near-total lack of "Wikipedia talk:" participation. While I don't think WP:IFU is revolutionarily useful, it does serve a purpose and candidate obviously put a lot of work into it with the best interests of WP in mind. I think these self-nominations are premature, but re-reading candidate's responses to previous in-depth questions, I'm actually convincing myself that while the Natl1 would make some blunders at first due to lack of in-depth understanding of policy subtleties, (s)he would learn fast. The main thing shifting my position is that I so far, after a fair amount of digging see zero evidence of badfaith actions, editwarring (other than what was copped to), personal attacks, POV pushing or other problem behaviors. Good person, basically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - answers are underwhelming, particularly #3. I must be missing something, because you have never edited Campeonato Brasileiro Série B and that article doesn't have a talk page. Also, as mentioned above, SPA support on both RFAs is suspicious, but barring actual evidence, I won't oppose on those grounds. --BigDT 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the actual article for that incident is Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. –Pomte 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok ... thanks for pointing it out. Natl1 has four career edits to that page and one to the talk page. That isn't a lot either, but does make me curious. --BigDT 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Daniel.Bryant. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, for now, needs more time. Terence 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - As per Terence Anas and Daniel. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Kinda leaning towards oppose. It's just experience. You are a great candidate, overall, but you just need more experience with negotiations. Try again in a few months if you don't get it this time. HornandsoccerTalk 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - not such a good self-nom, adminship is no big deal but also no prize; this would make a better nom by someone else. +sj + 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral Answers to questions a bit skimpy (though not bad). Has enough promise that I would probably support the next time around assuming Nat1 "stays the course." OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:17, 9 April 2007 (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/Natl1_2&oldid=1142574299"