Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden

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.

WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden[edit]

(11/22/6); ENDED 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate. Mønobi 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden (talk · contribs) - I am submitting myself for RfA. I have been editing Wikipedia under three different usernames, since July 2006. I spend my time here as an under-cover editor, mostly saving articles from AfD and suchlike. I have spent the most time on Aberdeen Grammar School, which is currently a good article nominee. I am already an administrator on the small Scots Wikipedia, and I know when to block and ban. I always assume good faith, and regularly help new users at the helpdesk, and contribute to DYK and AfD. I am knowledgeable of the policies of Wikipedia and honestly think I could be a great administrator. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to withdraw my nomination. RfA is full at the minute and my chances are slim to nil as it is. I will take all comments on board and hopefully try again after some admin coaching or policy reviewing. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to monitor Did you know and refresh that if others forget. I will also check regularly for speedy deletion candidates and delete/keep, whichever suits the occasion. I will also assist with backlogs at Good article nominations, requested moves, copyright problems and other administrator areas. I shall also protect pages that need be, and respond to requests to edit such pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of Aberdeen Grammar School, because I have spent most of my time here editing it. Furthermore, I have edited a vast array of articles about pretty much anything, but relating to television and Scotland in particular. I have also prevented blatant advertising from spewing into the website along with 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 have been fortunate enough not to have been involved with any edit wars or similar, but if I were to find myself in such a predicament I would revert any unverifiable facts or nonsense, and assuming there is another revert, I would question the user. If they edit the page and continue to insert said facts, then I would report the user to administrators. Unfortunately, my attempts at being bold have occasionally been deleted, but I have always respected these decisions and always assumed good faith.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A block is a technical movement in order to encourage the user to participate more helpfully, and to deter and/or prevent the user from vandalism or other unhelpful contributions. A ban is more severe and is to prevent constant vandalism from a user and can enforced by admins, ArbCom or Jimbo Wales. It is, at it's most basic, the removal of the editing tools.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

Well, firstly I would ask the admin in question why he deleted the information. (S)he should point me in the direction of the right section of WP:BLP.
  • Original research - Bin it, without a proper citation.
  • Verifiability - If there is no citation, give editors time to find one, and then delete.
  • NPOV - Delete it. I really dislike POV-pushers.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

It is a great idea, and one I will consider. Every admin could grow out of Wikipedia, find there is nothing interesting or whatever, and abuse their rights. If this happens, they should be stripped of their adminship. I do not believe such action should be necessary for myself.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

7. You come across the following articles tagged as A7 candidates. How do you handle each one?
  • "Horatio Algorithm is a Scottish politician and has been a city councillor in Aberdeen since 1995." with a source to the Abderdeen city council home page.
Ah, the memories. An article I created suffered this treatment once. It too was about an Aberdeen councillor (reference to my past, there?). I know now that councillors are not notable themselves unless they have achieved something above all others.
  • "The Horse Rectums are a band from Hartford, Connecticut and are widely considered New England's best up-and-coming goth band." with a source to an online music zine.
This is blatant POV pushing. "Widely considered" lends itself to multiple sources and only one is provided. Unless they have a catalogue of albums to achieve notablity, this should go.
  • "Dick Dixon High School is a high school in Mobile, Alabama with a three hundred students." with a source to the school's home page.
This is notable and should stay as long as secondary sources are provided with time.
  • "Bootstrap Corp. is a notable company that makes boots for American soldiers in Iraq. In 2007 it registered sales of thirty million dollars." with no sources.
Unremarkable company/organisation, should go, especially with no sources.
Followup: So, just to be clear, you'd delete all of them except the school?
Yes, as long as secondary sources are supplied for that school.
Another followup: How, if at all, would your answer to the city councillor question change if he was a city councillor in New York City?
No, that would be a blatant case of location bias.
And yet another: Ho, if at all, would your answer to the band question change if the music zine cited asserted that the band was widely considered one of New England's best up-and-coming Goth bands?
No. More than one citation would be required to verify the fact.
Optional question from Keeper
8: Today, you nominated Battle of the Seasons 2 for speedy deletion exactly one minute after it's creation. While it is possibly a speedy candidate (I have no idea), did you do a search for any related articles, (presumably Battle of the Seasons) to see if it was a viable article? This isn't meant as accusational, and I am far from being an inclusionist myself, but the creator of the article has only been here 5 days. What are your thoughts about WP:AGF AND WP:BITE?
A. I will admit now that that was a mistake. I am trying to get into the habit of checking if users are new and welcoming them to Wikipedia. I should have told that user about userspaces, subpages, etc. I have just apologised to that user.


Questions from Malinaccier

9. When should you notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee after blocking an IP address?
A. If the IP is a shared one, i.e. a school or business, or if the IP is actually an open proxy.
10. What is your opinion on Userbox content?
A. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is not censored, and users can have whatever they like as long as it is in their own userspace. However, users should display common courtesy, and remove userboxes that may offend if they are asked to by another Wikipedian.
11. (You may have accidentally removed this) You state that you would use your tools to help at WP:GAN. How? In what way will adminship help you review articles?
A. I was indicating GAN as a general example, not deliberately as a particular case, and I admit that the tools wouldn't help in that particular case. In other cases, like copyright problems, where deletion tools are required, admin tools will definitely come in handy.

Optional Question from Glacier Wolf

12. During a vandalism investigation, you find evidence that a well-known admin has been using sockpuppets abusively. How would you handle that situation?
A. Abusive sockpuppet use is unacceptable, even if the puppetmaster is a well known admin. I would warn him/her and check if he was on the recall list. I would then, if he persisted, block him/her.

Question from Carnildo

13. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
A. I think this rule is very useful to users, however ignoring policies/guidelines could be the key in for vandals. The rule should be thoroughly explained to any new user, to avoid this case.
14. Since floods of questoins are cool, here's a fun one. Does your name come from the Bloc Party song? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes, I love Bloc Party :)

Questions from Keeper

15. Last question with the hope that you will take this all in stride (if it turns out unsuccessful) and continue to be a good great Wikipedian and try again in a few months after seeking an admin coach or some such...
15. Red or yellow?
A. Red. I have never liked the colour yellow. Thanks for the wellwishes for the future.

Question from Orderinchaos

16. A simple one with several correct answers - User:Tearaway88 signed up two days ago and made some edits to a couple of New Zealand articles. If their edits had have popped up on your watchlist, how would you have handled them? Would it be safe to assume good faith of this user based on their edits? Orderinchaos 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well that depends entirely on what their edits are. If they were blatant vandalism, warn them and/or block them. If they were mistakes, revert them and welcome him, and if they are constructive, thank him. Looking at this particular user's edits, they are very good edits, but it's a shame about the edit summaries. He is being a little uncivil and a small warning should be applied.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support While this user hasn't many edits under his/her current username, I'm sure he/she would make a great admin. He/she has demonstrated a good knowledge of policy during his/her time here, and is already trusted with the tools on another wikimedia wiki.--Phoenix-wiki 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mønobi 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. what the hell !! :) ..--Cometstyles 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Weak Support. This user is one of those cases where we should throw editcountitis out the window, stomp on it a bit, and observe the candidate for what the candidate is, which is a great user. Wizardman 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to weak support after reading the latest questions. My interactions have been very positive, but more experience would certainly help. Wizardman 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good user. - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support More experience would help but he has the aptitude to be an admin. Epbr123 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Seems trustworthy and reliable. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - good editor, should get the mop.   jj137 ♠ 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No reason to oppose - meets my criteria, has the people skills necessary to do the job, and anything else can be learned. However, I would ask that you carefully read WP:ADMINGUIDE so that you know what is an admin's purview and what is outside it. Good answers to 7 - you seem to understand WP:N better than some current admins :) Orderinchaos 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Moral Support - I know this is likely to fail due to editcountitis, I see little wrong with your contributions and will again support when you have gained enough edits to please the masses. I'm sick of editcountitis. --tennisman 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose Not regarding your rather long user name, of your sub 2,000 edits around 300 are to your own user space. Experience on other wikis, whilst admirable, is not necessarily a guide to aptitude here, and your referencing of them makes me move to oppose rather than neutral. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, while I appreciate your comments, I have only made 176 edits to my own userpage. Also, I have 2300 edits over three accounts, as explained on my user page, and I don't think username length is a good reason to oppose. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro isn't necessarily basing his oppose on that [username]. He's merely mentioning the lack of general inexperience in areas and some other minor things, not pointing at anything particular. Rudget. 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that and respect his opinion. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely-Weak Oppose because I am unsure of whether or not this user has done enough in admin related tasks, but weak because this user has done a lot that is good for this project, so I suggest continuing on your current path. Dreamy § 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And per Sarcasticidealist's question. Dreamy § 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Recent mistakes referred to above, a misunderstanding that participation in GAN does not require admin privileges, convinces me that this candidate is not yet ready. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. You don't need the tools for WP:GAN, and you should notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee after blocking an IP address listed here. Not enough policy experience. Malinaccier (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Per the answers to my questions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm a little concerned about his knowledge of speedy deletions,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. As a follow-up, POV-pushing is not a reason for deletion by CSD. A general lack of experience is present in the answers. — DarkFalls talk 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Just not ready yet for the tools. I suggest gathering some more experience and trying again in the future. Jmlk17 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The answers to SI's questions and the diffs offered by Jmlk raise significant concerns about the candidate's understanding of the our criteria for speedy deletion and of the narrow fashion in which speedy deletion is to be applied, and so even as I do not imagine that, qua admin, WBOSITG should misuse deliberately or abuse the tools, I am not at all certain that he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, such that I cannot conclude with any confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmlk17's diffs? — DarkFalls talk 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Must have meant DarkFalls. :) Jmlk17 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I did; thanks for catching that. Joe 01:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Q9 Nakon 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose mostly per Q7 and Q9. In Q7, IMHO, all the entries but the school (and maybe even the school, depending on your definition of assertion) include at least an assertion of notability, so they are not eligible for an A7 speedy. An A7 speedy would be something like "The Horse Rectums are a band from Hartford CT". Q9 is worrying per Malinaccier - tens of school IPs get blocked every day and open proxies are blocked for large amounts of time without a second thought. NF24(radio me!) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, too deletionist. Everyking (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Does not understand speedy deletion policy; dangerous answer to Q9. east.718 at 04:20, January 19, 2008
  12. Oppose - response to Q7 indicates too liberal use of speedy deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose you seem to have a lack of knowledge dealing with policy, your answer to Q9 shows that, the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee should be notified for Sensitive IP addresses, not schools, or open proxies, cause those are usually blocked every day and WP:GAN does not require admin tools. I suggest you study policy more and try again in a couple months. Oysterguitarist 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose with a strong dash of moral support. This candidate is clearly a likeable, enthusiastic editor who is a valuable addition to the community, but I'm very worried about the answer to Q7, which demonstrates an over-liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria. Usually I don't expect a rigorous and detailed knowledge of the intricacies of policy from every candidate; however, in the area of CSD, admins have the potential to do massive damage. An incorrect speedy, while reversible in a matter of seconds, can often discourage and drive away new editors; furthermore, there's a matter of principle involved, in that where there is a genuine question as to notability the matter should be discussed at AfD, rather than decided through unilateral admin action. I can predict with 95% certainty that I will strongly support this candidate the next time round, but I can't this time. WaltonOne 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Answers to question are bothersome, along with all the concerns raised above, just cant support right now. Tiptoety talk 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Very troubling answers to the questions per above. You seem to lack knowledge of Wikipedia policy and how it is applied. I'm particuarly concerned about your answer to question 13. If your greatest concern with undue use of WP:IAR is how vandals could abuse it I think you need to hang around a bit longer. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I think I could support you with some more experience under your belt. You just don't seem familiar enough with en-wiki to be an administrator right now.--Toffile (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I really hate to do this, but I feel like with your answers, you might not truly be up to the task as admin. I feel like that (in reference to the question I asked, Q12) the time would have been past for warnings, and that an admin that uses abusive sockpuppets should immediately be desysoped by the Stewards, and at that point, it wouldn't matter if the admin is on recall or not. I feel like you could have gone the distance, but your answers are very troubling for me to judge you to be a competent admin. I'm sorry. Glacier Wolf 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per unsatisfactory answers to the questions (Q7 & follow-ups, Q9, Q13) Snowolf How can I help? 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Q12 as well, regretfully. Snowolf How can I help? 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - regretfully; you seem like a good contributor, but per answers to Q7, Q9 & Q12, I don't think you're ready yet.--BelovedFreak 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. Needs to have better answers to questions. NHRHS2010 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral awaiting answers to more questions above (and not just my own). I'm truly undecided. I've seen <longusername> WeBuried...Garden </longusername> around and think xe is a fine editor with a lot to offer that will likely not abuse or misuse the tools. I'd just like to see some more! Keeper | 76 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    and a completely "tangential sidenote" (redundant for the sake of repetitiveness, I know - it's awful). I would be very interested in buying an album by the Horse Rectums (see question 7). Is that available on Amazon, sarcasticidealist? Keeper | 76 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This literally made me laugh. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Pending answer to Q12. Glacier Wolf 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Seems to have opposed. Rudget. 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I don't know if he's ready yet. --Sharkface217 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I have concerns about the answer to question #7. IMHO some of those hypothetical articles deserve their day at afd.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - What if they really did bury something (or someone) in the garden?  :) The Transhumanist 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not likely. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think NF24 puts it best. Good luck otherwise. Rudget. 11:41, 19 January 2008 (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/WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden&oldid=1222164670"