Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor 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.

The Utahraptor 2[edit]

Final (8/28/6); ended 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) - Closed as withdrawn - Minimac (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

The Utahraptor (talk · contribs) – It is with great excitement that I nominate The Utahraptor for adminship! As many of you know, he is one of the top vandal fighters out there. He is excellent at knowing when to press the "big red button" on Huggle, and his AIV reports are spot-on. But that's not all, folks. He is a co-coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors and regularly puts his top-notch work into their backlog elimination drives. In addition to that, he has 4 DYKs to his name along with quite a few thorough, well-sourced articles about towns in Utah. The Utahraptor's previous RfA failed per WP:NOTNOW, but he has since been advancing in huge leaps and bounds. In late August he temporarily retired due to unspecified personal issues, but is now back and good as ever. Good luck and happy editing! Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. The Utahraptor's sock (talk) 19:08, 28 October 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: I plan on continuing my anti-vandalism work here on Wikipedia, and if I am given the tools, I will watch WP:AIV for new reports and, when necessary, block vandals. I will also watch WP:UAA and block those users that have chosen usernames that violate the username policy. I will also patrol Special:NewPages and delete inappropriate or unencyclopedic pages. I think it's important to note that, at first, I will be looking over CSD nominations, then when I become a bit more comfortable, I will move into XFD work. I also plan on watching WP:RPP for any pages that must be protected. I have thoroughly read the protection policy and know that indefinite protection should only be implemented in very extreme cases of vandalism or violation of Wikipedia policy.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my last RfA, I said that vandal fighting was my best contribution to the encyclopedia. Now, however, I feel that I've done much more than play whack-a-mole with the vandals. Since my last RfA, I have written two new articles, both of which were featured on Did you Know. I also copy edited 54 articles with a total of 117,347 words. Also, I have created a WikiProject, WikiProject American Old West, that is fairly active and that I tend to. Also, I am co-coordinating the Guild of Copy Editors' November 2010 Backlog elimination drive. But most of all, I feel my best contributions would probably be my collaboration with other editors. In this discussion, I discussed what articles to include within the scope of WikiProject American Old West. Also, if you visit the July 2010 GOCE backlog elimination drive talk page, I participated in several of those discussions, some of which determined major changes to the Drive.
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 been in many conflicts. The one that should probably be brought up first is this edit I made to Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I felt as if I was being insulted, and looking back, I can see it was very bite-y of me. Thankfully, somebody calmed me down. Several months later, this discussion frustrated me some, but I left before a repeat of what happened at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could occur. Most recently, this discussion left me a bit frustrated, but I was able to handle the situation calmly and maturely.
Additional optional question from Mkativerata
4. Wind back the clock a few hours and assume you are an administrator at the time. A new editor who you have welcomed has asked for your help on your talk page: here. The new editor is complaining about very recent (within the last few minutes) bullying and edit-warring by an administrator, Mkativerata, at this article. (Assume that the article is real and in the mainspace). After reviewing the article history and talk page, please (a) respond to the new editor (doing so on your talk page); and (b) describe below what, if any, action you are going to take in respect of the article and the editors concerned.
A: Well, after I have responded on my talk, I would leave a note on the talk page of the article in question stating that the information regarding the club's former CEO does violate WP:BLP because a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source, as they can, and usually do, contain gossip. If addition of the content by User:Broncos1988 were to continue after they have seen the note, then it would be a violation of policy, and I would temporarily block them. If several users were to begin adding this information to the article, I would temporarily protect the article (the type of protection would depend on what type of user, i.e. autoconfirmed, IP, etc., is adding the content).
Additional optional question from Lambanog
5. Please give a profile of what you believe to be the most pernicious and problematic kind of vandal on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia well prepared to deal with such vandals? As an admin what would you do to deal more effectively with them?
A:


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
Support per my interactions with this user. All good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
indenting; premature Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as nom Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I have no reason to oppose, no blocks, automated edit percentages are reasonable, edit summary usage is good, enough content work. I did not find any civility issues at first glance. Good luck with the rest of your Hell week! Ronk01 talk 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great user, totally ready for tools, plus WP:AIV would stay clean with their help. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Definitely. Fantastic user. Very ready for the tools. Mr. R00t Talk 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. All looks good - I remarked in your first RfA that despite your inexperience you were doing very well and that seems to have continued and I think you're now up for the tools. The answer to Q4 was good, in my view. I'm not so sure about the general "magazines are unreliable" statement, but in this context the sourcing was insufficient and you were right to take the view that the admin was exempt from 3RR because of the BLP issues. I would have pointed out though that the admin's behaviour was far from good: he stopped engaging the new user on the talk page and just kept reverting with arrogant edit summaries while leaving templated warnings on the user's talk page. However you're certainly right that there was nothing actionable about that behaviour. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A hard working, mature user with many skills. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have been just promoted to administrator, I must ask if you agree with his view in Q4 that a, "magazine is not normally considered a reliable source," which is simply wrong. Notable publications such as Newsweek, Time Magazine, and Baseball Digest are all reliable sources that can be cited as references in any Wikipedia article. Vodello (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, even the likes of NME, Q and PSM3 are citable.  f o x  14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Willing to help.--TalkToMecintelati 04:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Friendly, hard working user, great anti-vandalism work. I don't see any reason to oppose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Sorry, you got question 4 totally wrong, IMO. Gigs (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, while vandal fighting is good and necessary, it's not necessary to have the admin tools to do that. This editor does not evidence enough policy or Wiki knowledge to demonstrate he would use the tools effectively, per: excellence in knowing when to "press the big red button on Huggle" does not confer requisite experience for adminship; getting DYKs requires only a few words and one verifiable source and doesn't confer article writing and conflict resolution experience per se (and churning out DYKs just before an RFA doesn't evidence long-term editing experience); no evidence of conflict resolution skills; this conversation; but more importantly, all of this lack of experience is reflected in his statement above on Q4: "a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source, as they can, and usually do, contain gossip". This is quite simply wrong. Time, Newsweek and many others are magazines that are reliable sources and apt for many BLPs. Also does not know what plagiarism is. Further, nominating an ill-prepared article for GA shortly before an RFA run, and then doing nothing to correct the issues could lead to the impression of trying to rack up "prizes" for RFA. Each time an article is nominated for a content review process, another editor invests time in that review, and nominators should be willing and prepared to correct the issues. Further, the level of problems in that article put the GOCE in context; any one can sign up at GOCE. Sorry, adminship isn't a prize; it's a responsibility for which editors must be prepared. And, last RFA was only four months ago. All together, I see a lack of maturity and experience here. Please do some serious article work and you may be better prepared next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, yet another DYK that follows the source much too closely: see Spring Canyon, Utah, the source, Let's get serious about plagiarism, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This is a frequent problem that goes undetected at DYK, but should not be missed when RFA noms put forward their DYKs as evidence of writing ability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets better: I'd like to hear from Utahraptor (and the DYK people) what makes the travel site, Legends of America a reliable source. Admins should understand WP:V policy. Not only does the site give no indicationn of reliability that I can find:[1] it's a commercial site with a store! [2] What is going on at DYK, passing articles that don't even meet a core policy, WP:V and putting them on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be wise of you not to tar all of DYK with the same brush. DYK nominations are stringently reviewed when done right, but just like any other content review process we get the slack reviewers who choose not to be strict. The difference is that DYK simply doesn't have the time to do secondary reviews of reviews, with our turnover rate. You may see DYK as FAC's poorer cousin but it's unfair to characterise this as a problem with DYK. StrPby (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Every one I've seen at RFA contains plagiarism-- and, you might note, that by decreasing the value of the DYK-RFA prize, I may help improve the time you have to spend on "real" article development, not those seeking an RFA prize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to point out that this is the RfA, not the DYK bashing page. Thanks.--TalkToMecintelati 04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to point out WP:SIG; thanks for your invaluable guidance! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see anything wrong with that sig; you should see some of my old ones. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Intelati can explain how he expects most editors with normal vision to detect a username in that tiny colorful mess, and you can explain how newbies are supposed to know that "fatal error" links to a user talk page? Both of you could show more understanding of what should be a serious, professional venture by using sigs that demonstrate clue about the effect your sig would have on newbies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see she's not bashing DYK in itself, more those at DYK who use sources almost verbatim.  f o x  12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is a core policy-- the failure to use reliable sources is as important as the close paraphrasing. The point about DYK is that we need to check these more carefully at RFA when they are put forward as evidence of writing ability, since it is apparent that DYK is not checking them closely enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Appears to be an unseemly rush to climb the greasy pole. At your editors review on 27 September you said "I had an RfA on June 25 that was unsuccessful, and I want to try another RfA sometime next year", but here you are only a few weeks later.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 03:18, October 28, 2010
  4. This candidate does not sufficiently respect other volunteers' opinions. Townlake (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How was I being disrespectful? I was simply explaining my opinion. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Answer to question 4 indicates a misunderstanding of WP:RS: magazines of high editorial quality can meet our standards of reliability (of course, a dubious allegation against a living person supported only by a purported offline source might be temporarily removed pending verification.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Back again? Since the last RfA, you quit, came back again, wasted everyone's time with that, and clicked Huggle's "big red button" (a lot). Mono 03:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Real-life personal issues are a legitimate reason to quit for a while. And no it did not "waste everybody's time". Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. This also indicates immaturity and temperamental problems. Goodvac (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the candidate's defense, that diff is over 6 months old. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 07:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't changed since. Goodvac (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that indicate temperament problems? IMO, I was being completely calm and rational. And yes, I eventually did figure out that I was wrong. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - per SandyGeorgia, and general lack of clue when it comes to how things actually work around here. → ROUX ₪ 9:15 pm, Today (UTC−7)
  9. Oppose per Townlake and close paraphrasing issues. StrPby (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The fact that you set up a proposal to reform RFA by lowering standards and then ran two days later shows a general lack of clue about how things work. From my perspective, it seems as if you knew that this road would be rocky, so you shot out a proposal to make it easier for you and then seeing that it wasn't going well, threw your hat into the ring anyways. Come back later and I might support but you need more experience and clue first. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, in your defense there were complaints above your thread so I guess I might be wrong on the making it easier part. I'm going to keep it though as I'm unsure of what your motive might have been. I do respect you as an editor though so don't feel bashed by my oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm not too terribly fond of his answer to question #4. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Not impressed with maturity in last couple days. Seems like a hat. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Concerns about maturity and experience. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Malleus Fatuorum. I can't support candidates who haven't been much different within their previous RfA. While I'm not concerned by the maturity, I am more concerned about his article building ability. At least 1 Good article expansion would be sufficient to demonstrate the Wikipedia policies. Minimac (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Sandy. Though, I'll also note that there are many others (including those with buttons) who don't know what plagiarism is (and libel, for that matter), but it doesn't seem to deter them from opining. Still, we have non-lawyers construing legal principles, so perhaps it is expected ... but we have to start somewhere in fixing this.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Reluctant Oppose this time. Great vandal work and great work at WP:GOCE, but Q4 (wrong in a couple of ways, as people have already pointed out), the RfA proposal (with no realistic desysop, we shouldn't be making it easier), and the lack of any real difference since last RfA, all suggest that a deeper knowledge of Wikipedia policies is needed. I look forward to being able to Support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Opose. I too think that you have done a lot of good work for the project, and vandal-fighting is important. However, there are a number of concerns that have been mentioned above. I disagree with your adminship analogy, likening it to being a school janitor. I would probably trust you with the "cleaning" part (eg. deleting articles that say "I like pie!!!!!! lulz") and perhaps a bit of "security work (eg. blocking blatant and persistent vandalism-only accounts), but there is more to the role than that. I presume you wouldn't expect your janitor to put students in detention or suspend them, or to decide when they can come back to school, or to fire teachers or to go through students' work and get rid of some of it. To move away from the analogy, adminship is a bit more complicated (blocking and protecting during content disputes for example). Content work is important not just for the sake of it, not just to show that you care about the project, but because it helps to show that you understand policies & guidelines and that you can work effectively with editors you disagree with. That can be demonstrated in other ways, but I'm not seeing any overwhelming evidence here. It also helps you to understand better the context within which content disputes arise. This outburst is from six months ago, but it is still a concern. Also, as this is already long, per the comments from Sandy, Malleus, Peter Karlsen and others. As an editor, you are a net positive to the project so I hope you take these comments as constructive criticism and not let them put you off contributing here.--BelovedFreak 10:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Only four days since you were lecturing me on how the DYK process "demonstrates the ability to provide a reliable source", and here you are claiming something sourced from "A Travel Site for the Nostalgic & Historic Minded" as one of your best contributions? Sorry; I don't trust your judgement in the least. As per many others above, this conversation shows to me that you don't understand either what it is that a Wikipedia admin actually does, nor the broader issues affecting Wikipedia's governance, both of which are unavoidable if you have sysop status. – iridescent 11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" - Uhm, that's completely wrong. I don't think you're quite up to it. Try again in a few months to a year.  f o x  12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wait at least six more months, and learn your policy before coming back. I am seeing some good work and a significant amount of policy misunderstandings, as evidenced by the comments above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Temperament and maturity concerns. Also, "magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" is wrong wrong wrong. Vodello (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose If we unbundled the block button so that good vandalfighters like yourself could block IPs and autoconfirmed accounts I'm confident that you'd use that well. But admins also several other tools including the delete button, and as Fox and SandyGeorgia explained I don't think you are ready for that yet. Happy to see you here again in a few months once you've resolved those issues. ϢereSpielChequers 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Q4. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per your "school janitor" statement on talk page [4]. A very unfortunate statement for someone who applies to be a janitor, a schoolmaster, a censor and an executioner all at once. I'd be more than satisfied to hand you the broom, but not the noose nor the book burning license. East of Borschov 14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Q4. Dear oh dear... Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Q4. I do think though, that bashing of DYK belongs elsewhere. I for one don't think much of it at all and believe it should be replaced with good articles instead, but that's for another place. Aiken (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. The Utahraptor is clearly a committed, conscientious and enthusiastic editor ... but the answer to Q4 completely misunderstands WP:V. I suggest that before any further RFA, this editor takes time to gain both a deeper understanding of policy issues and much more experience of how content disputes are handled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose A Wikipedian for less than a year, and really only in high gear since June, the candidate is on the right path but lacks experience. Get some mentoring help and come back in six to 12 months.--Hokeman (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral – I am split on my vote here. On the one hand, you are an excellent vandal fighter with decent article edits. On the other hand, question 4 was a bit off, and your attitude concerning other users is questionable. For those reasons, I have chosen to be with the neutral lot. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid pile-on. Should have gone with your first instinct on this one. VictorianMutant(Talk) 08:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Frankly, I was surprised to see this here. Airplaneman ✈ 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I'm not in the mood to pile-on, but you probably should have waited a little bit longer since your previous RfA. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I must agree with the above Opposes and Neutrals. Derild4921☼ 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. MC10, above, captures my thoughts well. You've done a lot of good work so far, and I look forward to seeing you have some success at RFA... but recent concerns plus Question 4 mean that I cannot support at this time. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Utahraptor_2&oldid=1148860838"