Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trampikey

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.

Trampikey[edit]

Final (9/30/4) ended 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Trampikey (talk · contribs) – I'm a dedicated user, who spends a lot of time expanding, creating and editing articles. I do a lot of minor editing, correcting grammar mistakes and removing vandalism, and I am a very active contributor in WP:WPEE. Trampikey 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept
Support
  1. Merovingian {T C @} 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support always adding to TV related articles great contributor been here for quite a while too. Weak support because of the low user talk. Admins need a lot of interaction with other users. The lack of edit summary usage doesn't really bother me though.--Andeh 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support you can improve yourself whether or not this RfA succeeds/fails. I like your work and attitudes, so cheers! Rama's Arrow 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Can be trusted with admin tools. Great user. DarthVader 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support it's not that big a deal and even stronger after reading the oppose aruments below. The editors/admins who put up a set of "their criteria" for adminship and post them on their userpages are just too proud for being the ones who can decide on something, and the whole thing resembles the familiar ego-masturbation far too much. Anyway is there any prevention for this tendency-to-egomasturbate effect in communities that are based on rules of being civil, kind to the others, and doing some voluntary work for the whole community? ackoz 07:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has the right to their own personal standards and criteria that administrators must hold to in order to earn their trust. Is it really "ego-masturbation" to require that an administrator meet an individual's standards to win their vote? Personally, I appreciate knowing that certain users hold FAs and other criteria as particularly important, because it's a helpful guide (both for my own voting practices, and for becoming a better user). RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support Am concerned by the seeming focus on the "political" rather than "janitorial" aspects of adminship, also low edit summary usage, but see no evidence that he would actively misuse tools so overall a support. Eluchil404 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support good user. Polonium 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SushiGeek 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support cool guy and hard worker! 100% SUPPORT Abdelkweli 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Fails my edit summary criteria, no real project-space edits except occassionally to AFD - not sure about policies? Given how long user's been here, this is just a weak oppose. NSLE 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Strong Oppose answer to question one doesn't express a complete need for the tools or complete knowledge of policy. Yanksox 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed to a strong oppose after reading, "what I find (to be the most) important (aspect of being an admin) is the political position, being looked up to as a authority figure by other members of the community!" Yanksox 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose fails WP: and Talk/User talk: experience criterion by a mile. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Yanksox. Roy A.A. 02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose A distinct lack of talk edits is a major concern for me. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Although a fantastic editor, I really don't that see you need admin powers to help with the tasks you currently set yourself. I can see no evidence of RC patrol and your answer to the first question (I have asked for a clarification - which you don't have to supply considering I am now voting, but which may help other users.) doesn't indicate a specific need for the extra powers. I would also suggest using edit sumaries to help other editors when reviewing the history/changes. ViridaeTalk 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Current edit summary usage: 6% for major edits and 59% for minor edits, too low for me. Also, talk page count and Wikipedia namespace edits are also low. Work on these and try again in 2-3 months. --WinHunter (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - fails my standards with not enough Wikipedia space edits and not enough combined talk edits. —Mets501 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Samir धर्म 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. OpposeAgain, too narrow in his edits and needs to supply edit summaries. --WillMak050389 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reluctantly per above[reply]
  12. Oppose: please make more use of Talk and User Talk pages in the future - RC Patrolling can be a good way of getting into the habit, since it's a good idea to place a Test Template on vandals' talk pages. This is an important part of warning users, and keeping track of their activities. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per the above. Low talk edits, low edit summary usage, very little (if any) RC patrol, no real need for tools. -- Steel 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above. Come back when there is a convincing answer to the question of where admin tools would be useful. Just zis Guy you know? 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above and the fact the self-nom was in the third person. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose doesn't pass my RFA criteria. (Doesn't seem to have any vandalism reverts) Anonymous__Anonymous 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above, needs more experience. Silensor 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose (was neutral) - I don't like the answer to the questions - You're a great editor, but I think you misunderstand what being an admin means. -- 9cds(talk) 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Moral Support per Yanksox. GChriss 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Fails on my criteria related to edit summaries, and wikipedia project space edits are too low a proportion of total edits in my opinion. Needs to get more invovled with the policy side of Wikipedia. --Wisden17 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose awful edit summary usage, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Sad oppose. Could use some more experience. Also, remember to use edit summaries more (only 6% for major & 59% for minor), and use the preview button more (averaging 3.475 edits per page is a bit too much). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Per above. *~Daniel~* 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, would like to see some more talk page edits, project edits, and use of edit summaries--TBCTaLk?!? 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, mainly per TBC. Have a look at my RfA criteria. Grandmasterka 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Yanksox. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per above concerns.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per very low edit count usage. --Guinnog 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Admins are not "authority figures", they are trusted users. In AfD, an admin should use their adminship to carry out community consensus, not help form it. (This is not to say that an admin may not help form community consensus, but not with any more privelege than a regular editor.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Yanksox and Armedblowfish. In my opinion, administrators need to view themselves not as authority figures but as public servants. -- Avi
Neutral
Weak neutral going on to suppport Tricky one... a good editor, I've got nothing bad to say, at all. I'm just not sure if you have enough experience. Please don't take it badly, you have nothing that needs improving - come back in a few months after you've experienced more of the sharp edges of Wikipedia (and remind me, of course), and I'd have no reason to not support. -- 9cds(talk) 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. You are a great editor with a lot of edits, more than twice my number. However, low talk edit counts and low edit summary usage, and other minor problems don't fit you right into the admin position perfectly yet. Morally, I support you all the way, but practically, I have to weakly oppose. Best of luck though, and continue with your great work! -zappa.jake (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, I can't see any reason to oppose. Great editor, but needs more experience, try admin coaching and come back in a few months time. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, no reason to oppose other than that you don't have enough experience yet.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Because I can't oppose. — The King of Kings 11:07 July 01 '06
Comments
Username	Trampikey
Total edits	5417
Distinct pages edited	1559
Average edits/page	3.475
First edit	09:10, 30 October 2005

(main)	4731
Talk	115
User	45
User talk	76
Image	94
Image talk	1
Template	7
Category	31
Category talk	3
Wikipedia	215
Wikipedia talk	99
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would keep a watchful eye over AfD, and continue the battle to prevent vandalism, but my main concern will be helping new users to flourish into experienced contributors. I'd like to be an approachable admin, and someone new users may ask their questions, however trivial. As a new user I found it hard to find an approachable figure of authority (I'm not saying there wasn't one, I'm just saying I didn't find one!)
I won't be upset if my RfA isn't successful, though I would like some constructive criticism if I am unsuccessful, to help with my next RfA!
helping new users to flourish into experienced contributors doesn't need admin powers. Anyone can help the new users/those having trouble by watching CAT:HELP, replying to questions at WP:HD, welcoming new signups and replying to requests for assistance at WP:VP. How do you propose that an admins powers will facilitate helping new users? ViridaeTalk 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, but it does help new users to have an authority figure to look up to, who can be seen as someone approachable.
What do you feel having admin tools will do with this? -- 9cds(talk) 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't think it's neccessarily the tools, just the overall authority of being an admin, being seen as an authority figure in the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: All of my contributions to various articles in Wikipedia: WikiProject EastEnders, especially maintaining the List of characters from EastEnders article. I am also proud of my work on separate character articles, including Nana Moon, which is my favourite! I also like the main EastEnders article, which now has GA status... Also, I enjoy contributing to Big Brother articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only conflict that stands out is one early in the year where another user was constantly adding Little Mo Mitchell to the "Soon to depart" section on List of characters from EastEnders, with no sources to confirm this. I eventually created a sub-section; "Departure unconfirmed", which ended the conflict.

Optional question by 9cds:

4. When did you realise you wanted the admin broom, and why? What tool do you find yourself lacking the most?
A: Funnily enough, it was your RfA that got me thinking, I feel that I've been here long enough now and I wanted something new, something different... it wasn't really a case of tools that I found myself lacking, because you can't miss what you've never had, but I suppose deletion of vandalism articles is one of my top priorities, which I'm not permitted to do at the moment!
What do you mean 'deletion of vandalism articles'? -- 9cds(talk) 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Articles made by vandals. I didn't make that very clear did I? For example, there was an article created a few weeks ago which was only used to state the date that Grant Mitchell left EastEnders. I would've deleted that straight away! That's what I meant!
Sorry to be a bother... which speedy delete criteria would you have used on it? -- 9cds(talk) 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: The criteria I would use would be "little or no context", as the article contained "Grant mitchell left on this day" (or something of the sort).
4.1 (Question stolen from other RfAs) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
A: I think it's a bit of both... but what I find more important is the political position, being looked up to as a authority figure by other members of the community!

Optional (two-part) Question by RandyWang

5. You mention in your answer to question one, above, that you would like to take part in AfDs as an admin, but I notice (as others have, as well) that you made a very low proportion of your edits on Talk and User Talk pages. There are of course certain jobs that require less use of Talk pages than others, so: What part would you like to play in deleting articles, specifically? What part have you played in the past?
A: Well, I don't like it when articles are nominated for AfD when there is no REAL reason to, if the article has potential. I would like to oversee that articles with potential are not deleted, but expanded instead. In the past I have joined AfD debates to stop good, valid articles being deleted.
What do you feel, as an admin, you can do to ensure articles nominated for deletion aren't deleted, what you can't do as a user? -- 9cds(talk) 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: The backing of an admin is always good in a debate, and I would like to 'throw my weight' behind any AfD debate, when I feel it is neccessary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampikey (talk • contribs)
Why would sysop status make one's opinion more valid in an AfD discussion than a non-sysop editor? I can't be because they can quote policy and guidelines to support their decision, as any editor can do that - the policies are there for all to read. Is is because sysops are seen somehow as having more power or influence on WP than non-sysops? The powers granted to an admin don't suddenly give their opinions an extra 10% more validity. The above answer seems to be a non-sequitur.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:22, 2 July 2006 (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/Trampikey&oldid=1144951793"