Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 3

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.

Porchcrop[edit]

Final: (1/18/5); closed as WP:SNOW at 17:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

Nomination[edit]

Porchcrop (talk · contribs) – This is my third RFA. While my last two RFA's closed per WP:NOTNOW, I would like to see this time. I am very close to having 2000 edits, and I have been on Wikipedia for 1 year and 9 months. I have alot of experience and know alot of policies and guidelines. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (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: I would patrol nearly every administrator's page like WP:RFPP, WP:RFAA, WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFR. And categories like CAT:CSD, Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, and CAT:UNBLOCK.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have alot of tasks like doing vandal fighting, welcoming, adoption, recent changes patrolling, new page patrolling, signing unsigned signatures with the {{unsigned}} and {{unsignedIP}} templates, help page patrolling, reporting to administrators, etc.
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: The stress I have been having is people violating the Etiquette and Assume good faith guidelines. For this reason, I have created the Category:Editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits and used it as a backlog, and Template:Unappreciated.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. Can you explain the COI policy and what it means to admins?
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/Porchcrop before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
Moral Support - as to avoid piling. If your last RfAs closed as NOTNOW, you should probably know that people want around 3000 undeleted contributions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to Oppose.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Support: You need more "constructive edits". (And I hope you have a thick skin.) Study the criticisms below and think of this as a teachable moment, but don't give up on us at Wikipedia - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - You lack maturity and judgment. You have a whole lot of guff on your user and talkpages about civility yet your history shows some fairly glaring lapses in this area on your own part to wit: [1] and [2]. I believe giving you the tools would be to the detriment of yourself and the project. Crafty (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check again, that comment was made 6 months ago. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know when you made the comments. That doesn't change my view of this matter nor my !vote. Crafty (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, would they be a detriment? Why don't you see my good edits first, there is a big load. Hmm, maybe when I am an administrator, you will know whether they are a detriment or not. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Although you do have over 2,000 edits under your name, you barely have 300 in article space and over 800 to user space. That, with the limited action in the areas you plan to work in (less than 20 edits in areas such as WP:RPP and such), lead me to oppose. — ξxplicit 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're right, but I have an empty block log and rollback rights without it being removed. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 05:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given current trends, I would submit that a clean block log is actually a disqualifier for adminship. Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see that, but, so do a lot of people.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Although you have some longevity, I am deeply concerned by [3], which demonstrates a lack of collaboration with respect to writing articles. Also, your project space contributions leave a lot to be desired. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: And seriously? [4], [5] and [6]? Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The third username got blocked. However, I now know which username is appropriate and which is innappropriate. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you expect me to differ? -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 06:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect Wisdom means he doesn't agree with you when you say you now know which kinds of usernames are acceptable and which are not. Crafty (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I do, trust me. Four types of usernames are unacceptable -- Offensive, Misleading, Promotional, and Disruptive. The third one included the word "Bot" which is against the username policy. Maybe he was meaning this one. However, I make mistakes sometimes. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No Porch, the first two usernames you reported (per the diffs provided by Wisdom) as inappropriate clearly were not. Crafty (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All three block requests were horrible ideas. Such a trivial gotcha as the "bot" rule isn't the kind of problem that requires instant blocking, and I hope the administrator who enabled Porchcrop's bad idea recognizes this in hindsight. rspεεr (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience, particularly in article space. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, but I created the Maximum Boy article, and the speedy deletion request got denied by PamD. I know every content and style policy and guideline. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 05:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Of your last ~20 speedy deletion nominations, as much as 8-10 are incorrect. I suggest re-reading the criteria for speedy deletion, in particular criterion G1 and A3. I would expect your taggings to demonstrate a better knowledge of the relevant policy before being comfortable with you having the delete button. decltype (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Your CSDs, per decltype, are not very good and you don't really have the amount of experience I like to see in a candidate. I'm also a bit concerned over the creation of Template:Unappreciated - stinks of attention-seeking...  GARDEN  06:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most worrying is this: "If you add this to your userpage when you already have feedback from your good edits or you haven't done anything helpful to this project, this template will be removed from your userpage, while if you continue to add it to your userpage, you are most likely to get blocked".  GARDEN  06:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Not really a NOTNOW case any more, but the comments from Crafty are concerning (even if they were six months ago), I don't like your idea of 'my article wasn't deleted, so I now know the ups and downs of content creation' response to Cirt, your reply indicates to me quite the opposite, a 50% hit rate on CSDs is very concerning for any prospective administrator, concerned (but not as much) by the comments by Garden above. Any one of the issues mentioned (except for Garden's, and maybe Crafty's since that was six months ago) alone would be enough to make me oppose. Sorry, but I think we all know how this is going to end. Suggest early withdrawal, either by the candidate or a 'crat, would disagree with NOTNOW closure due to the mere statistics. — neuro(talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I dislike your "X hasn't happened, so Y" attitude. — neuro(talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose Normally I would ask questions before deciding, but based upon the diffs provided and the fact that almost half of your edits are to userspace along with having less than 20 edits in each of the admin areas you say you want to work in, leads me to my oppose. ArcAngel (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: This is your 2nd RFA in less than 3 months, plus after 3 tries you have yet to correctly complete a self-nom. I recommend at least 6 months before coming back to RFA, and before then, try another editor review, then admin coaching (in that order), as well as actively contributing to the admin areas you mentioned in A1. ArcAngel (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose - the UAA stuff linked by Wisdom89 is utterly dreadful - impossible-to-redeem levels of dreadfulness. Could easily imagine this candidate loudly lobbying to ban Puss in Boots from a school ibrary - never a good sign. Strongly doubt candidate has clue-capacity required to ever become an admin. Badger Drink (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (addendum: Candidate is also rather young, so fret not - clue capacity does grow with age. Just do your best to keep that tank full!)[reply]
  10. Oppose: Not enough experience or judgement in areas you wish to work, diffs provided above are very worrying. The creation of those templates is also worrying, as it seems to suggest you seek attention. Try coming back in 6-9 months after some work in areas you wish to participate :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose. These diffs show someone who should have his TWINKLE access removed for misusing it, not someone who should ever be an administrator. rspεεr (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Way too many concerns. Suggest close per WP:SNOW. PmlineditorTalk 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, sorry. Even during RfA you require someone to clean up your CSD taggings (Eovaldo_Moniz). --Pgallert (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. One of the things admins need to understand are the unwritten rules of this place, and that includes having gaps of at least three months between RFAs. Also not impressed by this I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake, but as your article edits are very few it does rather stand out. ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Opposers demonstrate that you have a clear lack of judgement that an admin should have. Sorry.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose, clearly sees adminship as a goal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose because this user doesn't have a clue what's going on. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else see this as a personal attack? Tan | 39 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a personal attack, but it's sure unhelpful to the candidate (being negative without providing any pointers/advice/reasons). JamieS93 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep trying to manufacture drama. It's what you do best. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, all I see is you trying to insult the candidate. Your oppose crosses the line. As for the 'it's what you do best' comment, I see that as a personal attack, even if the oppose comment wasn't. — neuro 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose per concerns raised above. Nothing personal, but you are better as an editor of wikipedia, rather than an administrator of it. Adminship is not for everyone. --Taelus (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on, but I agree with all of the concerns above. Suggest WP:SNOW closure. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 11:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid pile on, but please wait at least 6 months before your next RFA, have no civility issues bewteen now and then, and demonstrate understanding of the policies (not just being able to cite them or quote them) in the areas such as AFD, RFPP, UAA etc. before your run again. I also suggest a lot more article work before you try to run again, since many will not support an RFA for someone who doesn't have significant article work. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Porchcrop, your enthusiasm in editing wikipedia and volunteering to take on the admin duties is appreciated. However, as others have pointed out, there are areas of wikipedia that you are yet unfamiliar with and others that you can learn more about and improve. Your current RFA is unlikely to pass as a result, but I hope you will be back someday; however instead of setting an artificial goal of a number of months or edits, I would suggest that you wait till another admin or established user offers to nominate you for adminship (don't worry, it will happen once you are ready!). In the meantime, try to read up on policies and practices, and enjoy your time here. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Porchcrop, you've received quite a bit of beneficial advice and I think it's time to withdraw this. Keep up the good work, come back in six months, involve yourself in various admin areas, and I'll be happy to support. On a side note, the oppose section of this RfA is utterly disappointing. Guys, the candidate is a real person, and doesn't deserve the mud currently being slung. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral to avoid pile on as above. Nice to see you fighting vandalism, but I'd like to see more constructive work too. Please learn more about Wikipedia's policies before applying again. LovesMacs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 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/Porchcrop_3&oldid=1136071969"