Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47 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.

ST47[edit]

Final: (17/15/2) ended 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)'

ST47 (talk · contribs) – I am applying for adminship after 4 months and over 8000 edits, not because this means I am entitled to the role, or because the wiki needs me, but because I think I can expand my contributions to the wiki. My service is not necessary to the wiki; I am only online when there are several other editors active. But with admin tools I could help improve Wikipedia, and would not harm it. WP:CSD has an infamous backlog - over the past month I've spent a great dead of time on newpage patrol and may have finally memorized the important criteria. Vandalism is also...bad...and I can fix that. Requests for unblock and AIV are areas without a long backlog, but that are much more critical than CSD, as they directly affect users. Requested moves and protected edit requests are feared areas, it seems, and RFI and the various ANs are also in need. I currently and active at WP:ABUSE, and that wouldn't stop. I'll use Special:Unwatchedpages to add a few thousand pages to my watchlist to prevent vandalism. I can help, I want to help, and I have the experience now to back it up: with over 750 project edits and almost 3000 user talk edits I've seen what has to be done. I run a bot, User:STBot, who is a really cool guy once you get to know him. ;) The biggest concerns last time were that I didn't know policy, which now I'd say I do(c'mon, quiz me :P), experience, which I'd say has been addressed, and lazy of article writing, which I said further down that I just suck at. As for the editor review, stress, major/minor edit usage(for reverts(which I fixed)), automated reversions of good-faith edits(also fixed to my knowledge), and time since the last RfA(2 months then, now it's almost 3). Ask away, I'll answer whatever you ask. ST47Talk 21:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First RfA can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47
Editor Review can be found at Wikipedia:Editor review/ST47
Quick Stats:
Edits 8000
Time 4 Months
Email Yes
IRC Yes
User Page Of course
Blocked Never
RC Patrol Yes, with WP:VPRF
Newpage Patrol Yes, WP:CSD experience
Newuser Patrol Yes
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdraw/resign/quit/frak you all. since when are people punished for a single accident 2 weeks after the fact. been nice knowing you all.
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I can help in many of the backlogged and needed areas:
  • Protected edit requests seems backlogged, and also seems like something I could help to fix
  • WP:CSD is another area that tends to have a backlog and is a more obvious area of the wiki, as deletions are in the public's sight
  • Unblock Requests I think I understand how to do this, and it seems to be one of the most important areas of the wiki, as we don't want to have people banned who shouldn't be
  • Requested moves I could keep an eye on this and fix anything that cannot be fixed through the conventional pagemove
  • WP:RFI is another area I could help in
  • WP:AIV is sometimes backlogged while I am online
  • WP:AN and resolving the issues that appear there
  • WP:ABUSE where I already live
  • I run a CFD bot that also does some specialized tasks
  • Newpage patrol, welcoming committee, username watcher
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am of course pleased with the edits I make, but TBH...I can't write. They say writer's block, I have writer's concrete wall. I've tried to sit down and contribute to FAs and such, and I just don't know what to write, so that's really it, the everyday stuff that I can do.
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: Not really, once I tried to speedy a page that I shouldn't have and made some people mad, but I apologized to the user and no harm done - I try not to hit save unless I'm sure that I'm doing what I want to, and I don't really get stressed over what happens here, I like Wikipedia as a way to relax and chat with some people while helping out - I enjoy volunteering - it gives you a sense of accomplishment.
Addendum: I was asked how I would handle conflict as an administrator - I can think of a few situations:
  • Edit wars - protect the page(if it is severe), watch for 3RR, and I'd try not to get involved, if I did, I'd seek a second opinion.
  • Unblocks of people that I blocked - nothing - I'd want another administrator
  • Wheel wars - third opinion
  • People angry over deletions, blocks, reverts - I'd respond calmly and explain what I did/why

Optional question (in four parts) from Joe

4. I am profoundly troubled by the diffs Crzrussian adduces, the first two of which evidence what is, to my mind, a plain misunderstanding of that which A1 means to reference; whilst a consensus may not exist for my very narrow construction of A1, I don't imagine one to exist for your (ostensibly) broad construction, and I think it well settled that, as regards speedy deletion, one ought to err on the side of caution. I've four (somewhat-)related queries, then:
a. Do you think you were correct to have tagged Raw and So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12) as {{db-a1}} and would you, qua admin, delete either page should you encounter it as it was when you tagged it? If you've concluded that your tagging was inappropriate in either instance, I wonder whether you might think speedy nevertheless to have been appropriate and, if so, under what criterion or criteria?
correctness: first one is no, second i believe was correct. as for would I delete, first no, second, possibly, but I'm not sure about those(with only a track list - is that A1?) and as for the third part, I wouldn't retag the Raw article, i think that's a mistake.
b. A discussion arose recently at WP:AN as to whether an admin undertaking new page patrol ought straightaway to delete an article he/she finds to be speediable or ought instead, as any editor, to tag the page and await the review of another admin in order that no page should be deleted prior to its being deemed worthy of speedy by two editors. The former practice, FWIW, appears quite common and almost surely is not disfavored by the community, but some think that, insofar as we ought to be exceedingly careful when undertaking speedy deletions, a page should probably not be deleted where it has not previously been tagged for speedy by another editor and surely should not be deleted where the criterion under which deletion is contemplated is one that tends toward the subjective (e.g., {{db-nonsense}}, as against, for example, {{db-attack}}). Do you think there to be a consensus for either of the two views here and, in the absence of such a consensus, how would you, qua admin, deal with pages that you think, upon your encountering them, to be eminently speediable, the absence of a tag applied by another editor notwithstanding?
I can't be sure on consensus, I haven't researched those situations, but I would certainly tag anything that hasn't been tagged yet and if it was tagged, wait atleast 2-3 minutes to give the creator time to {{hangon}}
c. Your personal views apropos of G1 aside—I am confident that, as an admin, you'd act consistent with the wishes of the community, even where you may think the community-favored practice to be other-than-ideal—how stringently would you impose its constraints on deletion were you to encounter an article tagged as {{db-nonsense}}? Consider, for instance, an article of the sort mentioned here by Prodego, one that explains why the sky is green, backed up with pseudo science, such as that "reflections from lettuce cause it to be green" [and] is 7 sentences long and well written. Such an article would almost surely be {{db-nonsense}}d by a new page patroller, and I wonder whether you might, having encountered the page tagged as nonsense, delete or not and what thinking might underlie your decision.
I'd probably think delete, TBH, but if it's that close I'd be afraid to click it - I'd ask an admin if I wasn't sure on policy and if I was unsure, I'd let it stay
d. Your personal views apropos of A1 aside, how stringently would you impose its constraints on deletion were you to encounter an article tagged as {{db-nocontext}}. Consider, for instance, an article as follows: The SK Telecom Open is a golf tournament contested annually in South Korea and sponsored by SK Telecom (this is based loosely on this DRV, which focused more on the nature of a similar article as G11able). Do you think such an article would merit deletion under A1? Joe 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a stub more that an A1 - though A1 seems to be good for extreme cases but doesn't draw a line anywhere, G11 I personally interpret as based on WP:CORP in bnorderline cases, if it's kinda advertising then my decision would be based on notability. Also, as the "final guy" who actually deletes, I'd want to have a lot more research/proof than my first opinion, especially in G11/WP:CORP cases
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support; first support on an RfA at last! JDtalk 16:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats ;) ST47Talk 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support at long last. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support per nom, but answer to question 3 is not as good as I expected - you will come into conflicts when you use sysop tools - it is just a matter of time. And we need to know whether you've a strategy ready to cope with these conflicts when they arise. Kimchi.sg 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input - I've put some more stuff up there, any other situations you can think of? ST47Talk 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: mais bien sur! Dedicated vandal fighter, will not abuse the tools. haz (talk) e 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I see only dedication. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. This is a dedicated editor who has done great work in vandalfighting, *fD and other processes where administrators are needed. I'm confident that the candidate will make a great admin. --Rory096 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Ixfd64 20:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Another great user who can make full use of the tools to improve Wikipedia. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A very dedicated user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Well reasoned answers, good record, appears ready. Agent 86 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - a good Wikipedian with lots of experience on Wikipedia. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 20:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. supportHe has devoted alot of his time to wikipedia. Cocoaguy 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - Slay vandal, win vote. Admins should be doing the things that only admins can do. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you, that's my point in responce to the 1FA people, though, you put it in a more - lighthearted? - manner :P ST47Talk 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support what a candidate †he Bread 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I think you would be a good administrator.Kpps 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm against being loved, i want to note that this user has 9 edits. ST47Talk 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. very strong support I think ST47 would make a very good user. NINJA 5
    still not complaining about the love, but noting that this user is User:Mr. ? and has a whole 13 edits ST47Talk 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — "Stats for the lazy:" frankly that seems rude; I don't see any contributions from you, I'd be willing to consider changing from oppose should you provide some contributions you have made; Remember: We are building an encyclopaedia not trying to fight a war with vandals. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment! While I agree that we are building an encyclopedia, the people who do the encyclopedia-building don't need adminship, those tasks are usually given to vandal-fighters - some people say that candidates must show a need for the tools. However, I'll respect that you thing that vandal-fighting isn't the center of the wiki, and how about some(not as many as some people) comments at WP:AFD and I do a lot at WP:CFD and the newpages log. ST47Talk 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't trust him/her per CrazyRussian's below comments - Switched back to oppose! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. In addition to concerns below, I think you're inexperienced with process. I'd say over 3/4 of your edits are welcoming users or doing re-cat. While this is not a bad thing, I'd like for an admin to have more substantial experience in the processes within Wikipedia. I'd say give it another three or four months with process and article contributions. --Wafulz 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't think I do any re-cat on this account, though if you count my bot that's probably true. As for the welcoming - there's certainly not THAT much of that either, but I agree that welcoming isn't necessary for adminship. ST47Talk 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are recats (in userspace) on your main account. --ais523 08:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely-Not Oppose Notorious WP:BITEr! Tags newbies' contribs within seconds of creation, repeat declined-CSD offender. I have no confidence whatsoever in his reading with deletion policy, and I find his behavior with newbies strongly reprehensible. Finally, and unnecessarily, "sign your posts if you enjoy life" is not exactly confidence-inspiring. This user is immature. I cannot entrust the tools. - crz crztalk 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I will certainly be challenged, here are some diffs (picked among many others):
    Gross failure to under stand deletion policy: [1][2][][]
    BITing: #2 above, [3][4]
    - crz crztalk 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Crzrussian. The particular incident regarding Raw only occurred two weeks ago. I have my doubts regarding this user, as he is just one of many Wikipedians who only are here for vandal-fighting. His "average edits per article" is a lowly 1.20, which suggests this user does not have much article-building experience. The diff provided by Moreschi also worries me. Don't take this the wrong way, but failing to see the mistake in your reversion gives me the notion that you are not entirely careful with your editing and you may be a bit too "trigger happy". These are all faults that can be fixed by a few months of hard work on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not sure that throwing around statistics like "average edits per article" is a good idea. It's very reminiscent of editcountitis (users are more than numbers), and besides, one can get one's average edits per article very low simply by doing, say, RC patrol. :-) theProject 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Crzrussian. Sorry but the Raw incident shows a misunderstanding of the deletion process. Canadian-Bacon t c 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose ST47 is certainly a valuable warrior in the fight against vandalism but his contributions in other aspects of Wikipedia are limited. Concerned about points raised by crz and familiarity with Wikipedia policies & guidelines. A few more months of great work and some broadening of wikihorizons and I will probably support Lostkiwi 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm sorry, by Crzrussian's evidence indicate that the nominee needs to futher understand the intricacies of the speedy deletion criteria. Further, nominee does not meet my guideline of at least six months of experience.-- danntm T C 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Other things set aside, let's stick to the basics. This user has only been here 4 months, & despite the 8,000 edits, it's not enough to learn the ins & outs of Wikipedia & gain valuable experience. Anyone can rack up edits, but experience is vital for an admin, experience which ST47 doesn't have frankly. Now delving further, as per the above opposers, his comments & biting (grrr) are worrysome. Although yes, vandal fighters do need the tools, I feel an admin should be all rounded in the field. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose on this one... Spawn Man 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Definitely doing good work, but links given by crz suggest the possibility for making incorrect calls in the use of the delete button. -- SCZenz 07:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not admin material. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Czrussian. Nominating Raw for speedy deletion is...well, wrong. We all mess up but that betrays complete lack of understanding of policy. Moreschi 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm afraid that the diffs Crzrussian provided shows that you still lack expertise regarding the deletion policy. The WP:BITE issues are also quite siginficant. I don't think you are ready for the mop & bucket yet. CharonX/talk 10:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, we all make mistakes when it comes to deletionism but crz gave us some good links. A good candidate in my opinion is a civil nice one.__Seadog ♪ 13:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per the Russian. That's some serious biting and failure to understand deletions, especially the first diff. -- Kicking222 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose as per the Russian. The user doesn't display an understanding of the deletion process. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral:A bit iffy per MatthewFenton - and this diff [5] gives me pause for thought. Not the most intelligent revert I've ever seen, to say the least. Moreschi 19:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. Moreschi 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh - what's wrong with that revert? ST47Talk 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted from one vandalized version to another vandalized version. Moreschi 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean - I was using VP at the time nad didn't see the vandalism - sorry :( ST47Talk 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That diff is a limitation of the software and not a reflection on the actual user. ST47 would have been almost totally unaware of the earlier vandalism. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I scoured your edits and didn't find much communication (aside from assorted warning templates) or much in the ways of actual article contributions. Not enough to merit an oppose, but not enough to convince me of a support either. I'd say give it a few months. --Wafulz 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a vandalized page to another vandalized page is a mistake I think any vandal fighter has made a few times. However communication with vandals is paramount for two reasons. First, you may convince them to stop, second it is important to warn someone before blocking them, if you don't talk to them then they have not been warned. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that warnings can convince people to stop, I've actually seen that. I try to warn whenever I can, starting with a T1 or T2 and going up to a T4 before reporting, except in obvious cases who've been warned i might skip t2 or t3. I hate {{bv}} though, it's too harsh for a first warning. ST47Talk 23:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral leaning to support Although I share some concerns raised by those opposing, I've witnessed a lot of good work from this user. ST47 might have had a few missteps while tagging articles for speedy deletion, but if promoted I do not expect him to delete pages without being certain that they fall under strict CSD. Anyway, perhaps another month or two could dissipate any doubts.--Húsönd 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Húsönd. Recommend a few more months in the trenches. All the best, riana_dzasta 06:17, 24 November 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/ST47_2&oldid=1144416460"