Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terrasidius

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.

Terrasidius[edit]

Final (11/24/13); Withdrawn per candidate's request at 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC). Regards SoWhy 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Terrasidius (talk · contribs) – Hi; I've been on here for a while now and after hearing about a lack of Admins on a recent Signpost article[1] I thought I would have a go. I enjoy being on here, adding to the work in my own way (Music related articles mostly) and helping out with other things like reverting vandalism, correcting random spelling and grammar mistakes as I come across them and as my new semester starts soon, I will be on alot more from now on. PS:I don't know whether I'll get this or not, probably not because of edit count maybe. But I'll keep this up till the end out of curiosity and to see what users say, any tips you may have etc. I would say that I know I may not have vast policy knowledge but the first thing I would (will) do is consult the New admin school and all the other policy pages before making any big Admin desicions and to fully immerse myself in it as I am serious about it, for the good of the project as a whole. I have 5000 odd edits but because I don't make loads of small edits to pages and try to consolidate I think thats why my edit count isn't as vast it it could (should?) be. (ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who has voted (either way), I will indeed be spending alot more time here; continuing with music related articles and I am going to start improving historical pages, Roman pages and in particular the Romans in Scotland related pages (so if anyone wants to help me with those...:)). I hereby request that this vote be closed and I will try again after 4 - 6 months maybe. I have found all your comments useful and helpful and I will indeed spend more time on policy related happenings and lending my voice to AFD and MEDCAB, etc. Again thanks to everyone!:) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly with helping others with disputes, being a calm, level-headed influence, I reckon I'm a pretty good listener and understanding; fixing problems as I come across them which is pretty much what I do now. Also checking the Recent Changes and AFD pages to help out there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of articles / templates created and added to I have so far been working on music related articles alot. Working mainly on the Elliot Goldenthal and Future Sound of London related pages, among others.
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've never really had any conflicts with anyone, if I have it was sorted out fairly quickly. Like I mentioned before I am pretty laid back about being able to compromise and listen.
Optional question from Townlake
4. Forgive me, but I'm not seeing this addressed in the above... why do you want to be an administrator? What could you do as an administrator that you can't do now?
A: Do my best to improve the project and help others out in any way I can aswell. Basically I want to have a deeper involvement here.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- Well, if I was indeed watching what was going on and about to do something I would talk to the other Admin about it and make sure the editors involved were satisfied that the dispute was over. I wouldn't pursue a case once its been sorted out reasonably.
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A- This may be a bit controversial but I would not allow any random IP editor to edit articles, or at least give a non-user account editor a finite amount of edits before they either can't edit anymore or create a user account. As most of the vandalism is by random IPs.
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- I would never arbitrarily block a user in that way without consulting both them and another, more experienced Admin.
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- Find out for certain that they are indeed puppets and go from there for both cases.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A- Around, maybe 20 to 30.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A- I reckon I thrive under pressure, just one of those types of people I guess. I pride myself on being an understanding person and a good listener. One of the things I would like to be here (as an Admin especially) is a good helper / mediator.
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A See above.
12. In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A- I would give any article a chance to be a good article. Unless it something obviously silly / vandalism.
Optional question from Amatulic
13. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, etc.
a. Would you require escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
b.Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
A:
Additional optional question from Groomtech
14. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A:


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders but would definitely benefit from additional experience in admin-related areas. Terrasidius, please accept my moral support and sincere thanks for your offer to serve as administrator. –xenotalk 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why not. Per Xeno. Diego Grez (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support been here long enough to know whats OK and what's not. If this is successful I would caution the candidate to start slow. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Xeno, while the candidate may be slightly inexperienced, they're a good faith user and I'm sure would contribute positively to the project and be willing to learn. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 07:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support candidate is a longterm clueful user with a clean block log and diverse contributions. Experience is nicely diverse and more than adequate, if rather more spread out than is fashionable at RFA, however I'm not convinced that that is a problem. Answers to questions imply that the candidate might make an overcautious admin, but I don't see a particular problem in that, and I'm not convinced of the value of that question. When I became an admin I'd probably have said that all vandals merit multiple warnings, that hasn't stopped me doing the occasional block with zero warnings; I think its difficult to judge that sort of behaviour until someone has actually been in the appropriate situation. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Terrasidius appears to be well-meaning and willing to learn, and that's a good combination. The edit count is not too low in my opinion, although perhaps he could perhaps use a bit more experience in some admin-related areas. Can't foresee any problems if the user became an admin. BigDom 12:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support: Not quite there yet, but don't give up! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per WereSpielChequers. Katerenka [talk] 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral support, per Xeno. Tommy! 02:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral support, also per Xeno. Airplaneman ✈ 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Sorry to be the first one to oppose. You seem like a good faith editor but the answers to the questions shows lack of experience, also your last 50 edits go back to March. WP:NOTNOW applies here I recommend withdraw and try again in several months, sorry. Secret account 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Adminship is a permanent appointment, and you don't have enough of a track record or apparent familiarity with adminship for me to determine how you'd do with the tools. I'd certainly encourage you to try again in the future. Townlake (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose None of the reasons cited for being an admin actually require the tools. Very very low activity levels recently; not sure how well you've kept up with the slew of policy changes that accompanied the winter and summer months. You also have only about 100 edits to projectspace and projecttalkspace combined. The last AfD you participated in was in mid-2008. You have 125 user talk edits, which also seems low if you wish to be patrolling recent changes (in which case you should warn all vandals). Everything else you listed can be done without the tools (they shouldn't be used much in dispute resolution anyway). —fetch·comms 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and lack of recent activity. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You are clearly interested in helping the project, and I think you have a good personality for adminship. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. A candidate for RFA must be conversant in the related policies and guidelines. One should read and understand thoroughly--
    Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 6,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to gain enough community trust to attempt adminship. Also, candidates returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 6,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. Candidates need to have contributed a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. At the minimum, candidates will do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things. One may also need experience in WP:RFPP and WP:UAA as well.
    • A clear understanding of WP:BLP is essential and of growing importance. Certainly, one must be especially careful to see to the removal of negative, unsourced material. WP:CSDG#10 should be taken as an opportunity to do so when it applies.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution.
    • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    • Should an RFA be unsuccessful the candidate should wait at least another 6 months and 6000 edits before trying again. They should review the unsuccessful RFA comments and show that they have remedied any deficiencies identified there. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd have to say not now, maybe later. I congratulate the candidate for stepping up to volunteer. I like the fact that most of the 3000+ edits have been to main article space. However, from the somewhat vague unqualified answers to questions (particularly 9 and 12), I am not seeing a demonstration of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or experience working in the areas that admins tend to be involved in (article protection, blocking, dispute resolution, deletion discussions, prods and CSD, etc). That may be the fault of the questions; most aren't really specific. In any case, I don't see activity that requires the use of administrative tools. I recommend some actual experience in dispute resolution (like Wikipedia:Third opinion) and try again in six months or so. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, concerns about breadth of experience, and answers to the questions. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not enough experience. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm concerned about the lack of detail on Q12. Also not enough experience or activity. I know you've been on Wikipedia for quite a while now, as fetchcomms mentioned that you last AfD was back in 2008. Minimac (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sorry, the answers to the questions confirm the lack of experience necessary to be confident of giving the candidate to the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Though candidate has been around a long time, there is little or no evidence of sufficient knowledge or experience of policies, guidelines, the community and the general ethos of Wikipedia. The nomination and answers to questions are very thin, and the nomination is mainly asking the community for feedback. Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, and Wikipedia:Admin coaching would be useful for the candidate, along with some time spent becoming familiar with various areas that admins might get involved with - WP:AfD, WP:Dispute resolution and Category:Wikipedia backlog for example. A period, say 6 months, of useful and committed engagement with the project as a whole, with evidence of consensus building, good judgement and a basic grasp of ethos and guidelines would mean the next RfA should be more likely to succeed. Not everyone passes first time (I didn't). Good luck. SilkTork *YES! 08:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I'm sorry, but your answers to the above questions are enough to convince me that you do not have sufficient knowledge of the various policies and guidelines to justify giving you the admin tools at this time. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - A long-time Wikipedian, but relatively dormant for the last 2 years. Not enough experience in the administrative areas.--Hokeman (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW and because I think you lack experience in admin-related areas. I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Extra buttons don't seem to be required in order to do what this editor enjoys doing here? As far as I can tell, closing AfDs is the one specific administration activity this editor is interested in doing, and per q9 I'd rather not see this editor working on AfD backlogs. Usually, but not always, the outcome of an AfD is very clear long before 20 !votes. ErikHaugen (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - per ErikHaugen. Yeah, the answer to Q9 jumped out at me. Suggest a WP:SNOW close, with all due respect to the candidate. Let's not drag this out. Jusdafax 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Q7 & Q9 show some fundamental misunderstandings. Content work is also a bit iffy - Goldenthel article isn't sourced too well and has "not in source" tags. Come back in a few months when you're more experienced and know policy better. Claritas § 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Doesn't appear to need the tools, or know what he would do with them if he had them. If this user had as much experience in AfD's as he/she claims, then he/she would know that having 20 or 30 !votes is not typical. Needs more experience with policy-related matters. SnottyWong confer 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Overall the candidate seems willing to help and has made a positive impact on the project, but the answers to the questions above indicate that the candidate doesn't really know what being an admin is about. I would recommend spending several months at AfD, AIV, NPP, etc and gain more experience. Also, it can be helpful to hang out around RfA and see who's succeeding and who's not. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I am sure that you are ready and willing to help, but your answers to the questions, especially 7 8 and 9, indicate a significant lack of knowledge of policy. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose simply too soon :) I look forward to a future nomination though :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - I really hate to pile on but I have to agree that there is a serious lack of experience. Just one example, suggesting that 20-30 comments would be a good minimum amount of participation before determining that an AfD has had enough participation for a consensus shows that you must not have been in many AfDs (personally, I think that if 3 people agree that an article should be kept or deleted and they have good arguments that it would be enough to close it). This is a big problem if you want to close AfDs as an administrator. You did mention above that you're "a pretty good listener and understanding"... Have you considered MEDCAB? You don't have to be an admin to participate there and they could always use help. It's also a good place to get experience in solving disputes, if you still have a desire to be an administrator in the future, it's a good place to get experience in handling problems between editors. -- Atama頭 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose – You are a great editor, no doubt about it. I, however, find a lack of experience in admin-related areas, given your answers to your questions. You do not need to be an admin to participate in many areas of Wikipedia; being a sysop just gives you a few extra tools (although powerful) that you can use. I suggest getting some more experience in admin-related areas and have a future nomination in about 4-6 months. I look forward to supporting you in the future. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose A good attitutde and a willingness to learn but more evidence of policy knowledge in admin areas is needed to be trusted with the admin tools. Please help out around the place e.g. give opinions at WP:AfD, help out with new page patrolling or any number of other things and come back here in a few months if you get on well with it. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Long term contributor with plenty of article contributions, but less than 40 edits every month since October of last year. Haven't decided which way to side. ceranthor 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input, on that point I've been very busy 'irl' the last few years. That means I've not had much time for being on the net. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ)
  2. Moral support. We deeply appreciate your offer of help, but you're not quite ready. Yet. A few months and a bit more experience and I look forward to your long and productive future as an administrator, but I can't fully support right now. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not really active, but in my situation now, I'm not the one to be talking. Lots of article edits, that's a good, but very few Wikipedia-space edits. Those are the ones involved in most admin work. I again, am at around the same edit count as you (by a long stretch of fancy on my part), so take this as a grain of salt. Good luck in the future. Buggie111 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support - I admire your courage and your article contributions, but low activity lately plus shaky answers to questions prevent me from supporting at this time. Give it a few months of increased activity, and I'd be happy to support.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, it would seem that you also need to gain a bit more policy knowledge as well before your second RfA... Especially regarding Q7 (See WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings) and Q9.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Due to relative recent inactivity. I would like to see a future nomination as I believe this editor would be an asset with a bit more activity. Tiderolls 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support per HJ and Unionhawk. I'd be happy to support when you've gained some more experience. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support. It's great to have an offer to help in the admin department, but I don't think you have enough experience of admin-related things or enough knowledge of related policies just yet. I'd suggest doing some work at AfD, watch some CSDs, do some anti-vandalism work, etc - and I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
  8. Neutral: Four and a half years may be enough, but your activity has recently been dormant. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support I see no indication that the user would abuse the tools; however, I would happily fully support the candidate after they obtain broader experience. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No objections in principle but lack of activity and relevant experience makes me say "not yet". Do please reapply in future, however, because your mindset seems to be in the right place. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'd advise applying again in a few months when you can satisfy voters that you have more recent activity, and some additional experience in the areas where you wish to work as an admin. You seem like a fine editor, and I'm sure I'd have no difficulty supporting in those circumstances.  Begoon•talk 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Impressive contributions, certainly, and I expect I will support at some point in the future... but you need more experience in admin-related areas before you can become one. 64 edits to project space just isn't enough, and you need more evidence of sustained activity rather than sporadic periods. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral Support Good temperament, great contributions, and i respect the interest in making a Wikipedia a better place. My only concern is a admin-related/project-related experience, and I hope you will look at a few areas, participate and come back, so that I can give you my full support in the future. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:26, 1 September 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/Terrasidius&oldid=1091462018"