Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shark96z

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.

Shark96z[edit]

Closed per WP:NOTNOW at (10/28/3) by  Frank  |  talk  13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Shark96z (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I started editing Wikipedia in August 2007, and I've come a long way. In early 2009, I came across the article for Columbus, Georgia (my hometown and current city), and I have significantly expanded it. Also, I have created many Lutheranism-related articles. Sure, I, probably like many users, have uploaded a few images with the wrong licenses and did a little bit of vandalism when I was just starting out, but I am willing to put all of that behind me. With that being said, I, Shark96z, announce my nomination for adminship on the English Wikipedia. Shark96z (talk) 05:00, 20 September 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 say probably blocking vandals and semi-protecting articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As I said above, many Columbus, Georgia and Lutheranism-related articles, because I was born in Columbus, and am currently practicing High Church Lutheranism.
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 did get into a small conflict over the population of the Columbus Georgia metro area, but that was resolved by Mason.Jones. Next time, I'll be sure to check the United States Census Bureau references just to make sure. There is also one conflict happening right now on an image that I've uploaded (File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg). I think those are the only two conflicts I can recall.


Additional questions from ArcAngel

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: I would assume (without cheating) that a block is used to block users from editing any articles, and a ban is used to block users from editing a single article.
5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A: I really don't know... I think it depends on what type of vandalism has occurred.
6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: I don't think they should be used at all because it could resort in further vandalism by just making the editor angry.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
7. Describe what fair use means to Wikipedia and what an admin might have to do about it.
A: I have read that fair use is the right to upload copyrighted files to Wikipedia without requiring permission from the copyright holders. I would assume an admin can remove a fair use image (if it doesn't follow the criteria).


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Shark96z before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats posted at the talk page. Regards, Javért ☆ 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Moral support - Good faith self nomination without any glaring red flags. Would need to familiarize themselves with policies, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good record improving the encyclopaedia with gnomish edits. Enough content building to show an understanding ,and the admittedly sparse talk page contributions always seem civil. In short, no reason to think theyd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support sure, why not? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. I think this nom might have been a little too early, but if you can keep your current level of activity up (and involve yourself a little more in admin work), I see you becoming a fine administrator in the not too distant future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Support - Self nomination is a brave move. Doesn't look like this user will be abusive. Good luck. --A3RO (mailbox) 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support: I think you will make a great Admin if you focus on Constructive Edits. Also consider Admin Coaching or Vetting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate is an article creator with rollback and awards who has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Let's not kid ourselves - this is not going to pass. But if it did, I think it would be for the better. — neuro(talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Wikipedia isn't rocket science. Smart and pleasant chap with a reasonable concept of basic policy but also an obvious understanding of good and bad Wikibehavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support This RFA is unlikely to succeed, but I can see that you want to do good here and I respect that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I'm sorry but I usually look for a bit more experience in candidates.. and I most certainly did not do any vandalism when I was starting out btw, but that's just me. -- Ϫ 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not an admin who votes at RFA, but seeing your edit count and some of the tool servers we have, I don't think this RFA will succeed, most likely per WP:NOTNOW and lack of experience. I know you have been registered for more than 2 years now, but there's low activity going on in several areas fundamental for adminship. You mentioned in your answer to question number 1 that you want to work with article protection and vandal blocks. However, you've never made a report to WP:AIV and you've only made 2 protection requests which were declined[1]. . Also, you lack community interaction as shown on one of our tool servers, so we aren't able to easily evaluate your communication skills when it comes to conflicts and dispute. I don't think you really need the tools as much as others who do more admin-related tasks, but again, I'm not a regular voter here so I won't make any promises. ZooFari 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Shark96z, I strongly encourage you to continue what you're doing now and gain more experience even if this rfa doesn't succeed. Your edit summaries are almost 100 percent and you have good intention towards vandal-fighting. If this rfa doesn't pass, you're still on the good road to adminship. Keep it up! ZooFari 05:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. The very fact that you have nominated yourself for adminship without apparently doing the due diligence research to know you have no chance of succeeding given your manifest lack of experience with Wikipedia in general (you've really only been editing for seven months; you're reverting vandalism without warning the vandals, have made 8 edits total to user talk pages; etc.) and administration related areas in particular (no edits to AfDs no CSD nominations, no reports to WP:AIV, etc.), is itself a reason to question your fitness for adminship. Possibly with incredible answers you could attempt to overcome the deficit, but your answers to the questions show little reflection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the above has comments that are rather cruel and inappropriate. "No chance of succeeding" is hyperbole at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a simple statement of fact which you can't possibly dispute. You and anyone half familiar with standards looked for in candidates knows this, as would any prospective candidate who studied the process in which they were involving themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming someone didn't research enough to see themselves as a failure is highly inappropriate. There is no way to say that. Not only did you violate Civil, you are treating this like some kind of game. How would you like it if someone reveals some fault of yours and said "you are an idiot for bothering to do something because you should have known about it". It isn't proper in any kind of regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about twisting what I said into something completely different. Your words are not mine and you're totally off the mark. I never said the subject is "a failure", would never, and do not imply it. What I said, in essence, and continue to believe, is that it behooves someone when they stand for a process like this to engage in a minimum level of review before launching into it, and that a cursory review here would have revealed to the candidate that he had no chance of succeeding (which is not hyperbole but simple fact). Not doing so makes me question a person's suitability to handle the considered issues that an admin may face, separate and apart from the inexperience obstacle itself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Two years tenure is a big plus, but as of the 1st of February this year your account had only made 16 edits, so I'm inclined to treat you as only really being actively part of our community for 7 months. Though in the past I've supported candidates with similar tenure and number of edits to you, those candidates have tended to be types who learn by reading the policies rather than by making mistakes and being corrected. I like the idea of a reformed vandal becoming an admin, and since you have a clean block record I suspect your your vandalism may not have been that bad. But this was less than 6 months ago, which is a bit too recent for me. Also your deleted contributions include a number of non-free images which implies to me a lack of policy understanding in area in which you have been working. I'd be happy to support in a few months if you continue on your current path, but also show that you can move into new areas in a way that implies you've read the policies first. ϢereSpielChequers 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not enough experience across Wikipedia. I think the answers to the questions above (especially 4 and 5) demonstrate a lack of reading around admin-relevant issues before the nomination. Also I am concerned about the ongoing image conflict as I think this shows a lack of readiness. And finally, I'm not at all happy about "little bit of vandalism when I was just starting out". I cannot accept that this was "like many users", and wonder how this would affect any actions taken against vandals if this user was given the tools. Davidelit (Talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, but don't feel bad; some of our best administrators started out with RfA's like these. Also, for what it's worth, I can't find any vandalism by your account. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A small number in 2007, mostly long-since deleted. But nothing offensive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per werespielchequers. Take some more time to familiarise yourself with the community and move on from any "bad" edits, then apply again in 3-4 months. Ironholds (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While we do need more sysops, I'm afraid that you're a little light on experience right now. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm sorry, I just don't think you're ready yet. However, do not become discouraged! Keep on trying, keep on improving the encyclopedia, and one day you will be ready. warrior4321 12:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not yet (although this does not qualify for WP:NOTNOW early closure). I agree with WereSpielChequers and Davidelit. Don't be discouraged, start reading up on some policy pages and become active in maintenance-related areas. That way you can gain experience and get a better feel for who an admin should be. As I see it, you actually don't have big red flags, although I cannot support at this point due to several issues and a lack of general experience. In this section you've received some good feedback, so I believe those issues can be resolved over time. Consider running for adminship after another few months, or perhaps contact another experienced editor and ask if they think you're ready at that point. :) Best, JamieS93 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per the answers to the questions. I would defiantly suggest Admin coaching. Sorry.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. You're definitely on your way, that's for sure, but you're inexperienced as of yet. As per Q1, you want to work with blocking and protections, so I recommend you involve yourself at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Also, I'd like to recommend looking over the List of Policies. I look forward to supporting in the future. Useight (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Not ready yet. I notice you have never participated in an RfA, which I think is an excellent way to find out what is expected.--SPhilbrickT 14:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Sorry, but there's very little user talk to go with your reversions, nor mainspace talk showing evidence of cooperation with other editors. There are also virtually no edits until Feb 2009 (the last 8 months). Don't be disheartened, though. Work on it and try again later. Esowteric+Talk 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I respectfully disagree with User:Fuhghettaboutit; although it can be helpful to study other RFAs if you want to pass RFA, there's no "due diligence" requirement to do so, and I think most of the voters feel the same way. I don't want a candidate who's familiar with RFA, I want a candidate who's familiar with Wikipedia, or at least more familiar than you are currently. Btw, sometimes (U.S.) Southerners and religious people get discouraged around here; don't be. We have plenty of Southerners (including me) and religious people (not including me). - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, would like to see more experience. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Sorry, your answers to the questions show a lack of understanding policy (ex: ban and block). With additional experience you may be ready for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose as the answers to most of the questions show a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to the policies involved with carrying out admin duties. I suggest participating in those areas regularly for several months, then trying again. I would likely support in the future should a better understanding of those policies be shown. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose and Early Close: You don't have enough experience and there is no way that this RFA will succeed. Joe Chill (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Your experience is a little less than ideal, although that in itself would not lead to an oppose comment. But your answers to questions 4 and 5 are wrong, and the answers to questions 6 and 7 are quite woolly. These are policies which you must know as an admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Not enough experience, and your answers above are either incorrect and/or severely lacking in detail. Should you run again in the future (please do), look over the admin's reading list first, and go ahead and look up answers you're not sure about. You'll be able to refer to policies while an admin, we don't penalize you for doing so here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. You don't quite have the level of experience I would usually associate with administrators. However, a few months of showing that you have developed your knowledge will likely lead me to support a second RfA.  GARDEN  19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I'm sorry, and dont take this the wrong way, but I don't see a need for the mop. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I don't think you're ready yet. Your answers will become more solid as you gain experience and understanding of policies and the general ethics involved. I'd like to echo America69 as well. Hope to see you around in the future, though. Hopefully in a year or two you'll be ready to come back and try this again. :) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. not at this point - you are going to have to be able to explain yourself better with a bit more knowlege. For my question you are thinking form the point of view of some one uploading a fair use image, but I was asking what does it mean for Wikipedia - is there a benefit, if so what is it? You are right with admins may have to delete them, but what value do admins add to this and what does Wikipedia get out of it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 'Oppose - Not right now, but please don't get disheartened. I agree with the opposers above. I do not see many edits out of the article mainspace to places such as talk pages, which means that your experienced in those areas, for example AfD, may not be as strong as one would like for an administrator. That does not mean you are not an asset to the encyclopedia — you definitely are — but I think you need some more experience. Airplaneman talk 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - Not enough experience. Please come back and reapply when you are more experienced. Razorflame 04:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I don't get the feeling that you understand enough of policy to become an admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I won't jump on the oppose wagon, but you don't have what's needed, yet. Consider Admin Coaching or Vetting. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seconded. I greatly appreciate the candidate's candidness w/r/t the block-ban distinction; however, I'm unable to support at this time per the concerns raised by the opposes. I'm looking forward to supporting in the future, once better policy knowledge is demonstrated. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think some time answering some queries on the help page, would beef up/reinforce your knowledge of policies. Consider this a moral support though, happy editing and good luck! Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shark96z&oldid=1144596912"