Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Staffwaterboy 3

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.

Staffwaterboy[edit]

(7/26/0); Scheduled to end 06:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

staffwaterboy (talk · contribs) – Hello i am Staffwaterboy i have joined the English Wikipedia in 2006 were i started to learn more about Wikipedia the structure and how it works. Throughout the years i have learned many new tricks and trades to reverting vandalism to creating a successful article on Wikipedia. I feel i have grown in part with the other members here on the English Wikipedia.Some of my main goals for this RFA is to be able to help out with backlogs in other projects of Wikipedia such in Wp:aiv. Wp:UAA, WP:AFD and Wp:RFD.After 2 other failed RFA's from 2008 i feel that i am more confident in the work i can help provide Wikipedia as a adminstrator. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 05:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)I withdraw my nomination.[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:As stated above i plan to take part in several projects on English Wikipedia; such as helping with backlogs of WP:Aiv,WP:AFD,WP:AFP and WP:UAA. I have gain much experience throughout the years of being active on Wikipedia in learning new ways to handle difference types of situations correctly. I also feel that i have more confidence to support the discussion that i make here on Wikipedia as well as respect the discussion of other users and sysops even if not in agreement with the other users.i am very stern about my position on vandalism here on Wikipedia however i am willing to take the time to to look at a user or IP users contest for a block.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I feel that my best contributions made here on Wikipedia would be the reverting of vandalism as well as warning users for any possible disruptive edits that are being made.I have also created a few articles such as Shank_(2009_Film),An_Angel_Named_Billy_(Film) and many others that were originally deleted due to a speedy deletion but recreated the article with proper citations and references.I also have experience with tagging articles that meet WP:CSD.Overall i feel that any contribution no matter how big or small can help out the Wikipedia community in one way or another.
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:Yes i have been in in a few conflicts with other users throughout my years here on Wikipedia such with disagreements with information that should or should not be placed on articles. To solve this conflict and prevent a WP:3RR the user and myself try to communicate any issues or disagreements that are in question and if we are unable to come to a consensus on the issue i would typically get a 3rd opinion by a neutral user.
Additional optional question from ArcAngel
4. Could you please explain your lack of activity from September 9th, 2010 to February 3rd, 2011?
Sure, i needed to take a WP:Wikibreak for a while i had a lot of personal concerns to deal with the two main factors were college as well as work.There were a few other issues but there were things in my personal life that i needed to address first.Staffwaterboy Critique Me 06:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question from delirious & lost
5. It is not much of a secret that i will use bold or colours to emphasise things on talk pages but what is your reason for making the answers to all of the questions here bold?
A: Well it is definitely is an attention grab however this was done unintentionally,When responding to the questions i didn't change my cursor position before replying which caused this to happen;as well as a lack of closing symbol ''' for the bold font. I have fixed all the questions they should no longer be bold font.Staffwaterboy Critique Me 09:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Perseus8235
6. Construct a grammatically correct sentence. (I just want to see if you can fix your grammar if you try).
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support User is experienced and will be able to help out in their intended areas. Based on automated edits, user has done thousands of vandalism revisions. Automated edit percentage is still reasonable. Several articles created, 300+ AIV reports, 190 RPP requests, 180 UAA reports, when they're active they are highly active, received multiple barnstars, presumably understands fair use, clean block log etc. etc. etc. More than enough to support. Swarm X 07:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I trust this user - TBloemink (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Yes, the English is poor (put charitably). But they don't want the tools to write articles - they want them to protect the articles. And everything suggests that they are able to do that. Furthermore, according to Jimbo becoming an admin is no big deal... in my view it should be given out like candy to anyone who appears trustworthy. Egg Centric (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Sokac121 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support I think this is a bit of a surprise for me going in the Support column, as the opposes have raised a couple of concerns, including deletion tagging errors as mentioned by WSC, but I think he does has the necessities of an administrator. He has received a couple of barnstars, a clean block log and received four user rights. Minimac (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Adminship is no big deal and you seem like a trustworthy person. Basket of Puppies 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support: Potential, but needs to work on a couple of issues mentioned below. I do hope you will not give up and try again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable here. In your opening statement you said "after two failed RFA's", yet this one indicated your 2nd? Then there's the matter of your transclusion. Someone with over 12k edits should know how to do it properly, which this one wasn't. Then, something very basic here - you didn't take out the nom acceptance line since this is a self-nom. Almost half your edits are to user talk pages, and only about 10% are to Wikispace and because you haven't "opted in", it's hard to judge your WP-related experience without having to do a bit of homework first.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate has opted in now. 28bytes (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, based on that - I still oppose based on the lack of recent activity, plus lack of procedural knowledge.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The format of the RFA is due to the other RFA i did attempt in the past which was still redirecting to it, which was closed and archived. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 06:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per the comments from ArcAngel. As regards to the formatting issues, it seems that even taking into account your comment, it would have been fixed quickly. There is also not enough experience in the mainspace in my opinion. All these factors seem to demonstrate that perhaps there is not quite enough knowledge yet to be given the mop. Sorry. Pax85 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am likely going to get nit-picked on this, but I can not support a candidate whose self-nomination (which, in itself, goes directly against my standards) statement looks as bad in regard to sentence structure, capitalization, etc, as this one does. That is an immediate red flag to me. I respect that candidate's desire to contribute, but can not offer my support. --Strikerforce (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The lack of recent activity bothers me, especially when the candidate is applying for adminship after only about 10 days back. Also, the grammar is worrisome. Logan Talk Contributions 08:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Competence is required, and I don't see signs of the candidate's ability to wield the new powers he seeks. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting oppose. I assume you're basing this on something... do you have any examples of incompetence on the part of this editor? I mean we assume every editor is competent unless there's something to suggest they aren't. Swarm X 09:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Communication issues aside, Wikipedia:Editor review/Staffwaterboy-Review2 where he leaves his statement blank is a question-mark for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If you can't even pay attention to details like capitalization then I don't think you'll pay attention to things like policy. That is what you'll be interpreting or enforcing as an admin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  7. Oppose I need to see more demonstration of continued editing over a long period to support. Right now id only count one month of recent editing. There is good intentions it seems but i feel adminship is premature at this point for you. Grammar is not an issue for me (I and others make alot of those mistakes) tough. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like the clean block log, and I'm not bothered about your recent break, though it does mean I regard edits in September last year as quite recent in your editing history. However I'm not convinced you are quite ready for the deletion button. Your talkpage history has a rather high proportion of threads about speedies that have been declined or deleted under a different reason, and looking through your most recent tags I saw several that seemed overhasty to me or simply wrong, for example an Irish politician who served 8 years on Dublin city Council, I'm not sure if all Dublin City Councillors would have the notability to pass the GNG, but it isn't what I expect to see an {{A7}} tag on. I also saw a couple of A7 tags on articles where I would have thought a G10 tag was more appropriate. Happy to reconsider in three or four months if you improve your deletion tagging. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose – The matter of the poor grammar and technical errors generating the nomination are troubling to me, but based on the supports I decided to still take a look at recent contributions. The first two I looked at weren't pretty. The first converted three bad ELs into refs (one was a domain for sale, one was unreliable with very little information, and one linked to a non-applicable home page.) It was so bad that I stopped and fixed it. The second was an addition of a good ref, but it was just put in as a raw URL. I expect an admin to use a cite template on a new ref, or at the very least to give it a readable title. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose – A higher level of command of the language is necessary; even for a vandal fighter. It is how we communicate, and lack of facility with it impedes a sysop's performance.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Sorry to oppose someone who is clearly well motivated, but I see a number of problems - perhaps none individually would have been enough, but taken together they are. 1) Recent activity - I see nothing at all for months, then a quick burst in the RfA month - and that comes not long after a lengthy Wikibreak. After a couple of breaks, I'd want to see you building up at least several months of regular contributions before running for admin. 2) Those recent incorrect CSDs worry me a little, as they show incorrect understanding of the categories. 3) English grammar and technical errors. OK, people make mistakes, but you consistently don't seem to take care about getting things right, like capitalization, spacing, etc - consistent failure to capitalize "I" is something I find very irritating, for example. I think taking care over communication is very important for admins. Getting technical things right is also important - if you don't transclude your RfA properly, how can we trust you to close AfD's etc? Anyway, spend more time, get at least a few months of regular contributions behind you, and pay attention to details - and I hope I can support a future RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to a lack of consistent editing history. I concur with Boings concern over English grammar. The last thing we need in an administrator is poor communication skills. Regards, Cind.amuse 12:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose The candidate's opening statement kind of says it all.--Hokeman (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Boing! said Zebedee says it best, in particular with regard to your CSD tagging and English grammar and technical errors. I'm sorry but I don't believe you're ready to be an admin just yet. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Salvio giuliano. --Perseus8235 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Regretful Oppose due to the improper grammar and recent CSD mistakes. Sorry. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 17:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Based on Staffwaterboy's nomination, answers to the questions, and general communication elsewhere, I'm afraid that I have to oppose. For me, good communication skills are a mandatory requirement to become an administrator, and that includes using proper grammar and sentence structure. I don't expect anyone to be perfect when it comes to spelling and grammar, but I do want to see a higher level of performance in that department. In addition, more active editing over a consistent period of time would also be a plus. I don't mind an occasional break, and I do understand that life gets in the way. In my opinion, though, admins should be available a bit more than what I'm seeing, mainly because admins should be available should the need to be communicated arise. I'm not a fan of completely going away for several months, popping back in and editing for a month, and then leaving again. As a final point, the incorrect speedy deletion nominations are also a concern. Otherwise, Staffwaterboy has done some great contributing, and if the points that I brought up are addressed over time, then I'd have no problem supporting in the future. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I have reservations about the candidate's judgement and competence with regards to the project. Decent contributor, but not admin material at the moment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Only 2 active months in 2010, and then one in 2011, and then an RFA. No, sorry. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. If one can't be bothered to regularly capitalize his or her I's, why should I assume that one would bother to carefully perform administrative tasks? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Epeefleche, Boing, Fetchcomms, et al. Someone who keeps making elementary grammatical mistakes cannot communicate effectively, and admins absolutely must be able to communicate, period, no matter what types of admin work they plan to do. T. Canens (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (ec) Oppose going through the contributions, there's a bad A7 of a place [1]. The vandalism reverts look fine to me at first glance. However, lack of attention to detail (as seen in this RFA) causes me to lack trust in the candidate's ability to execute admin actions, where details really matter. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, concerns about temperament and experience. -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose The only concern raised above that dosen't bother me is the grammar/capitalization issue (although that won't endear you to me.) More concerning to me is the long absences you've taken. They're fine, but running for adminship right after a four month absence is not something I can support. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I don't expect every administrator to be Cicero, but it's pretty clear this user has very basic communication problems. An editor can get by like that, but being an administrator requires significant communication skills and a great deal of tact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I don't believe it would be too much of a stretch to close this RfA per SNOW with encouragement to the candidate to perhaps try again in the future? --Strikerforce (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather no administrator be like Cicero. The last thing we want is a Pro Caelio by one of the admins (BLP vio much?). T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Concerns with maturity and experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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/Staffwaterboy_3&oldid=1147870762"