Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pupster21

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.

Pupster21[edit]

Final (7/20/6); Ended 20:58, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Pupster21 (talk · contribs) - Vandal figter, new page patroller, advice giver, a lot of things except admin. I want to nominate myself for adminship. Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this self-nomination for adminship. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I want to be a new page patroller that can fufill the speedy delete tag and block users to help fight vandalism. Another of my goals is to eliminate backlogs that have to do with admins. I want to help settle disputes also.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contibutions aren't really major, but they help. I started WP:YANKS and we have 8 members. I basically am just proud of my vandal fighting. I also will help out at the village pumps and participate in XFDs of recently. Handing me the mop will help get rid of nonsense pages and put an end to vandalism and disputes.
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 given stress by repetitive vandalism and vandals getting back at me by vandalising my page. I dealt with it by ignoring it and reporting them to WP:AIV ;)Copyright also gives me stress.

Optional question from Nick (talk · contribs)[edit]

4.You are requesting the community grant you extra tools - primarily the ability to block users, the ability to delete material and the ability to protect or un-protect pages. Could you provide some examples of when you found it frustrating or inconvenient not having these tools and how you would have used them ?
A: Earlier today and yesterday there were two vandals that were making 4 edits a minute to an article and I couldn't catch up and revert. I would of blocked for say, 10 minutes and reverted it. I want the ability to delete because the RC patrol and NP patrol can be clogged with nonsence pages that should have been deleted on creation. I don't really need the ability to protect pages, it would be nice though. I think I can make a difference with those tools.


5.What is your position on fair use imagery on Wikipedia, should high quality fair use images be used instead of low quality free images, should episode lists be left to use hundreds of images, should fair use images be hold on Wikimedia Commons ?
Can you explain how fair use images impact of the libre and gratis aspects of Wikipedia. How would you use administrative tools in relation to images ?
A: I think copyright is a pain, but I follow it after some copyright brushes I've had. I would delete copyright violations on sight. I think that images used in articles that are in the Commons, should aslo be here. As for the which image to use, I say just use the best one you can (legally) get. Please define episode lists. Free use images are better suited for the Commons.

.6 Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list?

A:It is at least eight characters has letters, numbers, and symbols and isn't in the weakest passwords list. I have learned the ways of the secure password after losing accounts on various sites. I also think that we should not allow simple passwords such as, '123', '1234' '12345' 'abc', or anything simple like that. Passwords are yours to keep, not for other people to guess right.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pupster21 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Weak Support - A little on the inexperienced side, but seems competent. I do have one concern, though; in Q5, the candidate states that "fair use images are better suited to Commons", which is incorrect (Commons does not accept fair use images). This gives me cause for concern, but it's not a good enough reason to oppose, considering that adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, didn't recall which. --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Will do wonderful things with the mop. --068152 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support A bit unsure of his answers for some questions but I still think he is responsible and knowledgable enough to take on the task. Felix 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good editor, will be a good admin. --Rex the Ruler 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --U.S.A. cubed 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Always could use another admin in speedy deletes. Mawfive 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support You claim you may be an administrator, I want you. Jet123 (Talk) 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I struggled a bit here. I give you very high marks for beginning WP:YANKEES as that will entail considerable collaborative work which I happen to think is helpful for administrators. However, the project is only a week old so your collaboration there is minimal. It will be a great project and I am sure will attract a lot of attention. Your answer to optional #5 above by Nick concerns me some. The question was rather complex and probably needed a fuller answer. I'm just not sure you fully comprehend the depth of the issues there. As an administrator you would be called on to deal with image issues. I also think that your view of adminship is a bit too narrow. Please keep up your work here and continue your Yankees project. A little more exposure to some other areas will make you a home run for your next RfA. JodyB talk 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See below for explanation of Q&A --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I find the answers to the questions a bit weak, and I think that this user needs a few more months of strong activity.--Danaman5 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Just not enough experience for a sysop, but user is definitely on the right track. Try again in a few months when more experience is under your belt. Jmlk17 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Q4. You say you will block someone when you are in an editing dispute, which is a big administrator No-No. Evilclown93 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You need more experience overall and in Wikipedia-space. Also, you added your RfA to your signature. I'm going to assume good faith, but this really looks like you are advertising your RfA to me. These things should be fixed before I vote support. Captain panda 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per light RfA answers, most activity is within past month, and I am concerned by this edit. Friendship should not have an impact when considering blocking. If my best friend were vandalising, I'd block him if necessary. -- LeCourT:C 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately for the majority of all users, it's still permissible to stand up for someone, which is how I interpret this diff. —AldeBaer 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the "he is my best friend and I can't let him get blocked" that I had a problem with. However, you are correct in that it is subject to individual interpretation. -- LeCourT:C 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for now. User needs more experience on Wikipedia in general. Also needs to realize that admins are not just block-and-delete bots. ♠PMC♠ 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I oppose after looking at a sample of his contributions. He rarely uses meaningful edit summaries, making it difficult to tell what he's doing. Here, he rewards a "penis vandal" with a vague warning involving penis metaphors. He doesn't seem to have any experience with dispute resolution, and even his usual interactions with other users can be very terse. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That user is another of my friends, and he asked me a question. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: Lack of experience and I don't really like the answers to the questions. Q4 makes the user seem like they might rush to blocking a user or maybe deleting a page.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose; lack of experience. I'm also a little bothered by the statement about copyright. Heck, it IS a pain, but it's enormously important to the encyclopedia. I haven't seen a demonstration of understanding. Philippe 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Danaman5. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not happy with answers to Q.4 or Q.5. With a little more experience this wil cease to be an impediment.--Anthony.bradbury 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per answers to the questions and lack of edits. Stay with the project and get involved with wikiprojects to improve articles, and you will be successful in 3-6 months. Real96 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, needs a few more months of strong editing. As per above, answers to a few questions were weak. --Phoenix (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Answers to questions do not show enough substance, so I cannot approve. TML 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per the answer to question 5. Sr13 (T|C) 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Answer to question 3 indicates a temperament unsuited to mophood. Vandalism of an administrator's user page is usually a sign of a job well done, if for no other reason than that the kiddies are spending their time there instead of breaking the encyclopedia. —Cryptic 11:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose needs more experience per answer to question 5. — The Future 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Inexperience, sorry. Daniel Bryant 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Not enough experience.--$UIT 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Leaning towards weak support, good edit summary usage and generally a very good user but I think your answers to the questions make it seem like you think all admins do is block and delete, they are expected to help resolve disputes and other tasks, not just blocks. Good luck and kindest regards! The Sunshine Man 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm on a short schedule right now, will go back and fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pupster21 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Sorry, forgot to sign. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never resolve disputes, nor do I intend to. His answer is fine. Majorly (hot!) 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not convinced personally but you have the right to your own opinion, when you post to WP:ANI you are technically resolving disputes there.The Sunshine Man 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted there before. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - A good editor with considerable amount of experience but with just over 1000 edits is still a bit to low to apply and really need to take part in Wikipedia related projects and XfD's ..--Cometstyles 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Friendly neutral. Get some more experience and try again in a few months (and next time you may want to omit the RfA link in your signature). —AldeBaer 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral You have weak answers to your question (especially Q3, Q4, and Q5) and you attempt to advertise your Rfa uding your sig. However, your partially qualified because you do vandal fighting and new page patrolling so there is no active reason oppose. Give it some time and experience and I probably support in the future. Good Luck!--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Basically sound, but maybe not experienced enough yet. Please come back in a few months.--Newport 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral... I almost leant towards support. I like this guy, they're a good editor, but a little on the inexperienced side at the minute. If the nominee came back some months later with more experience, I would most certainly support. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 02:13, 6 May 2007 (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/Pupster21&oldid=1078531078"