Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Retiono Virginian

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.


Retiono Virginian[edit]

Ended (6/26/8); 00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Retiono Virginian (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself for adminship as I have had 3 months experience on Wikipedia and made around 2500 edits. I always contribute daily, fight vandalism, welcome new users, sort stubs, follow the rules and keep out of conflict. I often build templates and I am a regular at AFD and Here, RFA. Retiono Virginian 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - Retiono Virginian 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A:I always take part in helping vandal fighting and tagging pages for speedy deletion, whilst filing in reports at Requests for protection. I also help tag backlogs a lot too
Please describe your tagging of backlogs. The Transhumanist 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:My best contributions to wikipedia are perhaps my vandal fighting and often being the first to update articles when a major event in the news or such arises, correcting typos in articles is something I do a bit, whilst running AFDS on some articles; sorting stubs and doing research on geograghical locations. I am also very pleased with some of my past contributions to Wyoming
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 mostly kept myself out of conflict and tried to engage in edit wars, but I have often been the target of sockpuppets of various banned users, and if I were to gain the admin tools, I would block them and keep them Denied and Ignored, whilst I was also involved a incident by a disruptive user called Lucpol
4. Question from Real96: What types of wikipedia projects have you been involved with? Have you ever contributed greatly to improving an article?
Answer. I am heavily involved uploading images for Wikiproject Doctor who and other science related projects, I often go through articles correcting typos and basic grammar faults. I often try and run articles in the various projects through peer review to help improve them. Retiono Virginian 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Question from Lankybugger: Under what circumstances would you decide to ignore all rules, and how do you feel this should be applied?
Answer- I would always try and stick to the rules down to the most serious circumstances, and I would rather "bend" them, than break them, in the terms of blocks, and deletions and such. Retiono Virginian 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't answer the question.  :-) Are there any circumstances under which you would ignore all rules, and if so, what are they?  ;-) The Transhumanist 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Retiono Virginian before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. User has enough experience with WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and WP:SSP, and no obvious problems. The overall level of experience and maturity could be better, but even admins can improve. YechielMan 19:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Answers are refreshing, and his interpretation of IAR as "bend all rules" rather than "ignore them" entirely is fine by me. --kingboyk 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see that this nomination will not be successful, but that won't stop me from supporting this user and giving some advice in the meantime. With the concern about taking personal attacks seriously, I believe that Retiono Virginian will get over that very quickly after this RfA; and I know from personal experience. I had a similar problem raised on my own RfA back in March, and before my RfA ended, I knew I had to immediately learn to not get bothered by personal attacks; as the attacks are nonsense. As for policy, read up on the policies the opposition thinks you may not be familiar with. If you follow all this advice, I am sure your next RfA will be far more successful than this one. Just keep positive, and consider this RfA to be a large-scale editor review; that is the best attitude to take. Acalamari 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Ordinarily I would vote Neutral, as I'm not convinced this user has enough experience, and I was unimpressed with the answer to Q1. However, I need to cancel out Kelly Martin's oppose vote, which (once again) had nothing to do with adminship. Walton Need some help? 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — experience to dates demonstrates an ability to handle the physical Wiki functions associated with the Mop, and a requirement for the +sysop flag - Anthony cfc, now known as ~ AGK 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — I like the answers to the questions, especially the IAR question, and I see no reason why this user does not deserve the sysop bit. Three months is usually enough time to determine if someone can be trusted or not. *** Crotalus *** 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Experience is an issue, as I would like to see at least another month (maybe a little more) before supporting. But the bigger issue for me is that I see little evidence, in the contributions or in the answers to questions, of any interest whatsoever in article building. Consider participating in a wikiproject or finding some other way to do some more content-driven editing. -- Pastordavid 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - You are a great editor in my opinion, however i think you take personal vndalism a little to seriosuly, and tend to make it a little bigger than it really is. It has nothing to do with you as an editor, but as an admin i get attacked almost daily and have to take it in stride, ignore it, or be able to handle it and explain why I did it. I think you need a little more WP experience before you could handle it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Firm Oppose per the answer to question five. WP:Ignore all rules is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia for an admin to understand, not just in knowing when to consciously break the rules and why. Without understanding a core policy like this, I can't support the nomination. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have read it wrong, I explained that I meant the rule Revert, block, ignore. Please notice. Retiono Virginian 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Therein lies the problem. I'm sorry, but please see WP:Ignore all rules. It's one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. The rules are not cast in iron and immutable. The rules can be changed, or may need to be ignored entirely if they get in the way. I can't support an admin candidate who doesn't understand that. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But I do understand it, and I never said I could change the rules. What makes you think I don't understand it? Retiono Virginian 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm sorry but I can't support you. Even still you don't seem to understand the principal behind the WP:Ignore all rules policy, which leaves me wondering how well you understand other key policies. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I absolutely trust the good-faith of this user; he's on the right track. The brevity of the answers, though, shows he's not quite ready for the mop yet. Xoloz 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose User needs much more experience. I prefer to see admins with several months-plus of experience, as well as several thousand more edits. On the right track however. Jmlk17 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per those citing a lack of experience and also the fact that the answer to Q5 is problematic (there is, as of this post, no mention of WP:RBI in that question or the answer). A good faith candidate, though, and very probably one I'll support some way down the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should he mention WP:RBI? It's not policy; furthermore, I'd like to think I'm a pretty experienced admin now and I don't recall ever seeing that page before. It actually has less than 50 incoming links. --kingboyk 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I mis-spoke. The question he was asked (Q5) deals with ignoring rules. When Lankybugger opposed his candidacy based on his answer to that question, the response was given that "I explained that I meant the rule Revert, block, ignore", which he in fact did not do there at all. It's a less serious problem than the general lack of experience on the part of the user, but I'd like to think that an admin is at least able not to get confused over matters of record at his/her own RFA. And for the record, this was only the first or second time I'd seen that page as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I don't usually get involved in RFA but I've interacted with Retiono Virginian at WP:FPC and had cause to question his judgement - he nominated a (now deleted) image for FP, claiming it to be his own work when in fact it was a copyright violation of a photography website. A quick look over his image contributions shows that he still has very limited understanding of Wikipedia's licensing policies - he's tagged a number of images with licenses which bear no relation to the details given on the pages he took them from. An admin needs a thorough knowledge of all Wikipedia policies, not just a quick vandal-fighting trigger. A bit more resilience when irked by nuisance users would also come in very handy - not everyone who comes here is going to be polite or friendly and an admin needs the maturity to know when not to get wound up. --YFB ¿ 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Change to Reluctant OpposeNow Strongest Oppose per YFB above. Owch! - Alison ☺ 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. As with Xoloz, I can see Retiono Virginian is generally acting in good faith. However, his understanding of the various policies which admins deal with daily leaves much to be desired. Due to this apparent lack of understanding, I will have to oppose for now. I would likely support at some point in the future if Retiono Virginian shows a greater understanding of these policies. Adminship is no big deal, but a decent understanding of these policies needs to be shown in order for me to trust him with the mop. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Candidate has polarizing, political userboxes; no need to look further to find a reason to oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say such a steretpical and generalistic opinion about users, judging them just because of their political beliefs, yes it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia but I see no reason to oppose just for this, frankly with respect to you its quite outrageous to say this, I dont think you see problems with the user as you dont say any, I think you just dis-agree with his political opinions.Tellyaddict 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, the userbox in question has been removed anyway. I find this inapropriate to oppose in a vote. I request this oppose removed now. Retiono Virginian 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The worst of the polarizing userboxes has been removed, yes. However, I still cannot withdraw my opposition; not only are there still other problematic (albeit less so) userboxes, but this edit in particular leaves an ill taste in my mouth. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Inexperienced and has committed too many mistakes, something I would not like to see in an admin. —Anas talk? 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, lacks of experience, poor understanding of policies. An admin should have a good grasp of policies. The answers says it all. Terence 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Chris Kreider. Perhaps in another few months' time. – Riana ऋ 12:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, for now, though I'm confident you will be ready for adminship soon, such as after you deal with the issue / personal approach YFB mentioned above. My advice to you is to seek an admin coach, and read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Transhumanist 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No, and Hell no - check this charming diff for his reaction to "oppose" votes. Anyone who can say something like that should not be let near the tools in the foreseeable future - David Gerard 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, sorry, but you've just run to a 'crat and asked that Kelly's oppose is struck out. I don't peronally agree with Kelly, but she is entitled to her opinion. To me it shows you can't take a bit of flack, which admins certainly must do. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Oppose (edit conflict x2) per this user's reaction to Kelly Martin's oppose, both on this page and off. I don't agree with Kelly's personal opinion on userboxes, but things like this, this (threat to bring a "case" to WP:ANI?), and this show that this person isn't admin material. Sean William 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose based on Retiono Virginian's response to Kelly Martin's oppose. Kelly Martin opposed with a valid concern, and Retiono Virginian's response was to suggest administrative action be taken. Not only is it far too harsh of an action to suggest (relating to Retiono Virginian's ability to resolve a dispute with a cool head), but it's not something administrators should be involved with. It lends the impression Retiono Virginian misunderstands the role of an administrator if it was thought that admins would handle this. Not only that, but Retiono canvassed other users' talk pages to plead that something be done about it. Leebo T/C 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely not or ever because of this. John Reaves (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose: Answers to questions not long enough and specific enough. Also per diff provided by John Reaves.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose' While I don't agree with Kelly's reason for opposing, the candidate's reaction seems way out of proportion, and does not incline me to trust him to deal with new and/or troublesome users in a properly civil, calm, and helpful way, and that is IMO a major part of being an admin. DES (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nay, and thrice nay: candidate condemns themself off their own keyboard. Maybe if they showed some idea of just how think their grasp of policy actually is, one might feel some sympathy: protesting like a small child is unedifying and unconvincing. Ther should be some considerable change in attitude before any renomination is contemplated. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No thanks per YFB (what on Earth were you thinking?), David Gerard (assuming bad faith of opposers) and general aggressive attitude on this page. We do not want this sort of user with sysop privileges. Blutacker 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose This sort of reaction to a run of the mill oppose from Kelly Martin tells me that this editor hasn't been following current events in the community, which are something that I think is important for an administrator to be aware of.--Xnuala (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Suggest withdrawal per snow. Please consider an editor's review and consultation with an administrator (hint: Bish, Phaedriel, et. al) to be coached upon the duties of administration. Retiono, you have the capability of being a good editor. Yet, due to the lack of considerable content with your answers, I must change my vote from neutral to oppose. Real96 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I'm no fan of Kelly's userbox stance but if your reply to her is indicative of how you respond to users who criticize you then I can't trust you with admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now - The content and the concise short answers concerns me. Adminship is not all about vandal fighting, but rather, to apply policies in specific contexts (i.e. WP:3RR, WP:BLP, etc.). Real96 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - Keep doing a good job, participate in community discussions, and re-apply in 3 months. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Sorry, I know this user very well and he is always polite and kind but I think its a little to early for adminship. Good luck though! Tellyaddict 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You're on the right track, but greater & broader contributions will provide further experience. You're a good vandal fighter, but more encyclpedia building can only help future candidacy and the project in general. — Scientizzle 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Great editor and dedicated vandal fighter but needs a bit more policy experience and ... *sigh* ... developing a thicker skin. Getting there, though - Alison ☺ 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I have to go with Alison on this..He is a very dedicated editor and one heck of a vandal fighter but doesn't have the knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies but maybe he need more time to mature and understand some of the policies..--Cometstyles 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have the knowledge of policies. Who said I didn't? Retiono Virginian 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody needed to, you demonstrated that fine all by yourself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral You seem to be doing great, but I would prefer you spend a couple more months getting used to the community.-- danntm T C 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral There are many reasons to support and many reasons to oppose. I cannot decide so I will be neutral. Captain panda 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Friendly neutral, for now. —AldeBaer 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralmay be in a few month, I wold say in German WIkipedia, so I do it here as well. __ ABF __ 15:12, 27 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/Retiono_Virginian&oldid=1142573607"