Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarret 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.

Tarret[edit]

(17/23/8); Originally scheduled to end 13:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarret (talk · contribs) - Ever since I've joined Wikipedia I have made contributions in many areas. I believe that my experience and abilites show that I have what is needed to be a sucessful administrator. I believe that the best encyclopedia is one which has many dedicated users who work together to accomplish a common goal. Tarret 13:02, 14 August 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: In the past I have and will continue to counter vandalism. I have done this in the past by using the various tools such as vandalproof and other tools as well as the recnt changes page. I have also tagged new pages which meet the speedy delete criteria and I have always noticed that there is a backlog most of the time. I hope to help clear out this category as well as assist in clearing out other admin related backlogs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are the many articles which I reviewed through the GA process. I believe that one of the best ways to improve Wikipedia is through criticizing our own work and learning through how we each write articles. Also by doing this we recognize the many quality article which may not be of main page quality.
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 haven't been in any editing conflicts in the past. I think that many conflicts make the quality of the Wikipedia decline and can at most times be avoided. In time when conflicts can't be avoided I think that users should still make every effort to make peace instead of a never ending edit conflict.

Optional question from T Rex | talk

4. If you were ever involved in a edit war with another editor who kept re-instating content that you felt shouldn't belong in the article, what would you do?
A: My first action would be to try to understand why the editor kept re-instating the content and then I would also explain to the editor why I think that the content doesn't belong. I would also explain the policy which lead me to my choice to remove the added content and I would also offer to assist the user with any other questions they have. By doing this I would hope that another person would discover that Wikipedia is not only about editing articles, but about a community working together to accomplish a single goal through teamwork.

Optional question from SilkTork on WP:SPEEDY

5 Can you think of any situation(s) where an admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article?
A: An admin shoudn't be allowed to delete an article until an article has had a delete tag for a few minutes and the author of the article has been notified. This would allow the author of the article a chance to defend or improve the article to an encyclopedic form. The only few exceptions for this rule would be if the page is an obvious attack-page or vandalism.

Optional question from Bushcarrot

6 At what point should a user ignore a rule?
A:A user should ignore a rule when a rule goes against the concept of builing a better encyclopedia or when it would be common sense to do so. "Ignoring all rules" also means that one should not follow the rules to a point where a person is confused about what the rules mean or when a person feels that the rules overrule the good of the community. Finally "Ignore all rules" is a reminder that if a person does not fully understand a rule they should ask others to get a proper explaination of the rules.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support seems like a trustworthy user. Don't see any potential for abuse. I really like the work you have done with GA articles. T Rex | talk 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. STRONG SUPPORT - I've worked with Tarret in the GA project for a while and have noticed his work. In looking through his count and contribs, I'm further impressed with this user. He is a very constructive editor. I'm inclined to think he's never been in any conflict because he's so polite. His edits show his experience in a variety of areas, although AIV may be absent, he has reverted and warned many times through the years he's been editing. His edit count per month may be low, however, they are quality edits and he consistently contributes from month to month. Lara♥Love 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Even the opposers say that he won't mess up, so that must be good :) Seems to be a good article writer. Majorly (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I see no reason not to trust you. Everything seems fine. It's true that you probably have little experience with vandal-fighting (less than four edits to AIV), but still, your overall dedication to the project is pretty good. Melsaran 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I have not interacted with Tarret thus far. Yet from what I've read just now of his edits over a long time, and his past and current RfAs, he looks good. This editor has improved vastly since his last year's RfA - more edits, more consistent use of edit summaries, no edit conflicts, and a good answer to Question # 4. All of those point to trustworthiness. Not every admin needs experience across WP. Bearian 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support seems fine. Acalamari 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tentative Support On taking a quick glance at Tarret's contribs, I do not find anything alarming. Also, no objection in this or the previous RfA is significant enough for me to oppose. And I like his/her answer to Q4 in the previous RfA (What primary qualities make an effective administrator?). Good luck. :) - TwoOars 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I really can see no problem here, and cannot understand many of the comments in the oppose section. Tarret will be a good admin, given the chance. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mediocre support, I have no idea what these opposers mean by needing more experience... since when is 2 years, 3841 edits and 941 Wikipedia space edits not enough? Having said that though, I just have issues with how he answered the questions, but not big enough of a concern for me not to support him. Best of luck. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A great user, and no big issues that require attention. I agree with Anthony above. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support None of the reasons given by the opposition concern me. I am perfectly fine with this user having the tools. Captain panda 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral Support - Clearly a good editor with plenty of content contributions, and good work with GAs. I also dislike the opposes based on alleged inconsistency of editing; it's perfectly possible to be a good contributor without making 1000 edits a month, and people can't be expected to eat, sleep and breathe Wikipedia in order to become admins. However, the opposers do raise a couple of legitimate concerns; in particular, I agree with Pedro that when tagging an article for speedy deletion, you should always notify the author. I suggest withdrawing this RfA and trying again in 2-3 months, after getting some more experience with XfDs and other community-related tasks. WaltonOne 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Edit count is reasonable. If you fail, try making your presence more known on WP:AIV, WP:XFD and WP:UAA. After a few months, you should be more than ready for adminship. Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Track is okay.Good Editor.Harlowraman 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No big deal. A.Z. 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose In your answer to question 1, you said you would like to fight vandalism. However, you have made few if any (4 or less) edits to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. New England Review Me! 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose- your work with GA's is excellent, but your answers to the questions are poor, you haven't participated at AIV much, you are only making a few edits per month, and you apparently have not been in any conflicts, so we have no idea how you work under pressure and when in conflicts. --Boricuaeddie 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose with a good dash of Moral Support 1) Even today you nominated an article for speedy [1] and did not advise the articles creator [2] and I can see no other warnings / advice for Speedy Deletions which is a pet peeve of mine. More importantly 2) Low interaction on user talk, and article talk pages seems to be a lot of routine tagging, so I have very little idea how you will react to other editors with the additional admin buttons. 3) Your answers to the questions are very weak and I think you really should have spent more time on formatting them, preparing the responses, and generally reviewing the quality of the English used - this infers a level of haste I'd prefer not to see in an admin. 4) Very few reports to WP:AIV when you state that vandal fighting is important to you. However you GA work is great and in general things looks okay. I'm not fussed about the consistency of editing as it's quality not quantity or regularity that count. Regretfully despite this good work my other arguments prevent me from supporting this request, however I trust that should this RFA not pass you will continue your valued work here. Very Best.Pedro |  Chat  14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Technically, leaving comments isn't required, especially now that there is a bot that does the work automagically. --Lucid 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I know, but the templates all state that one should consider advising the article's creator. I think it's courteous for a human being to advise another editor that they have tagged an article, particularly as many new articles are the very first edits by these editors. I personally think that the spirit of WP:BITE should also include real human editors coming to the talk pages of newbies in situations like this to provide guidance and futher information if asked. I do however agree it's minor and hopefully made it clear that points 2,3 and 4 above were my main reasons to oppose at this time. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. Pedro |  Chat  14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No - per the others. Experience needed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll expand on that - I relaise I sounded quite blunt. What i meant to say is that your heart is in teh right place, ie. you know what you want to do as an admin, but you need to keep doing what you are doing and get a little bit more experience. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per Boriceddie, and Pedro. Need more experience! Politics rule 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt provides no evidence to support his stance; indeed I don't believe that there is any. However, according to the rules of RfA, he doesn't actually need a valid reason to oppose the candidate. Although in my opinion, his viewpoint is no better than opposition on the basis of the candidate being black, or gay, or Canadian, or left-handed etc. Axl 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do have to agree with Kurt, Axl does make a strong point. As Axl said, he provides no evidence to suppor his stance. When you say something as Kurt said, you should always BACK IT UP!! Politics rule 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt probably isn't going to change his mind, so I suggest people let him oppose, without wasting time bothering him. Majorly (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only problem is that these opposes only further the misconception that being and admin gives you more power than other editors. T Rex | talk 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Misconception"? Admins are more powerful: notably blocking/unblocking & deletion. Axl 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that while admins may have more technical power, they are not more powerful in the sense that they are immune to punishment/criticism or to be treated as gods, which some people mostly newcomers do. Admins are not above other editors is what I meant to say. T Rex | talk 11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never challenged that; in fact, I agree with it--but it's irrelevant. The practical ability for abuse is still there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I agree. Axl 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt slipped in his comment after I replied to T Rex (Dinosaur puppy). I agree with TR, not Kurt. Axl 09:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. OpposeAlright, you have the edit count. You make good edits. But it seems like you want to just block block block. All admins fight vandalism, but it looks like you kind of just want to protect every page, block every IP that is just trying to help, and give warnings to users who disagree with you. Another thing that bothers me is that you say you have never been under any stress. Probably everyone has felt some stress because of small edit conflicts, or because their edits were reverted. If you try for adminship again, think out your answers better. •Malinaccier• T/C 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Both your answers here and your contrib history are far too slim to give me confidence that you have the experience and understanding of policy to be given the sysop tools. I'd say try again in six months or a year after you've done some solid work and weathered disputes. As a GA reviewer myself, it is often a task that does not require a great deal of actual content contribution or debate with other users on an equal playing field. Thus it does not demonstrate to me the qualities required of an admin sufficiently. VanTucky (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not convinced as to whether this user has had enough experience. Perhaps hasn't addressed the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Two poorly considered self-noms concern me, there is no excuse for a poor self nom; you can take as long as you want to prepare it and study the archive of past RfAs to understand likely issues which will come up. Adambro 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Tarret provides a valuable service to Wikipedia. However he is somewhat overenthusiastic with blocking reversion without edit summary. For someone with such a profile, I am very surprised that he has not come into conflict. Axl 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarret does not at present have blocking privileges. Could you please clarify your comment? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, excuse me. Corrected above. Axl 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per Boricuaeddie. Some more experience and try again in a few months. --Hirohisat Talk 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose There is a slightly disturbing lack of engagement and warmth with other users. Comments are few and terse. Answers to questions above are too brief and unsatisfying. There is an overall lack of evidence of rounded experience despite the length of time as an editor. Difficult to really know what Tarret is like, especially under pressure. SilkTork 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per SilkTork. Generally speaking, the lower the amount of public experience, the more that the answers to questions matter to me. In my own RfA, I knew that many editors had not met or interacted with me, and I tried to write enough in the answers to questions to make my personality known. I have reviewed this user's contribs and read carefully the answers and there's not enough information there for me to feel comfortable with granting the tools at this time. - Philippe | Talk 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. OpposeYour answers are weak, and although you fight vandalism you have made a few AIV reports. It shows you are probably unfamiliar with such tools you will have to handle. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose You revert vandalism but don't report users? SLSB talk • contrib 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what are you opposing for? Before I became an administrator, I didn't report every user I reverted for vandalism. Most had only vandalized once or twice, so a report wasn't necessary. Can you please clarify your oppose a bit more? Acalamari 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I feel that you just don't have enough experiance and your answers aren't very strong in my opinion.--Kkrouni/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose GA is not training for adminship; it encourages the qualities which admins should not have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering what you mean by this? I've never seen anyone ever oppose on these ground. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PMAnderson is a troll. He opposes the RfAs of GA project participants because he had been embittered by the GA/R process when an article for which he was a main contributor to was nominated at GA/R for delisted. Rather than make recommended changes to improve the article, he began altering our project pages including removing boilerplates and altering instructions. He tried to require that we make necessary changes during our reviews of articles, made !votes with baseless arguments in our discussions that contradicted consensus, and proved himself to be an overall disrespectful user with civility issues. A look as his talk page can be very revealing as well. Lara♥Love 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Needs lots more experience. Also applicant should review Wiki policies, because I don't the applicant has a thorough understanding. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. As a regular in the GA arena, I'm surprised to see fewer "I saw you at GA and I certainly can't trust you" opposition. In essence, that's what mine is. Anyway, the issue that springs to mind when I think of Tarret (there were several issues, but this is the first I could find) is here, where he "stole" a GA review and passed although it didn't get close to criteria. More info here and here. While we're here, it's also interesting to note that Tarret ignores fair use disclaimers when performing GA reviews - so I'm not sure if he even understands our image policy. Giggy Talk 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an add one, I also found his responses [3] to be slightly rude...just a bit more to chew on. Giggy Talk 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose but offer moral support for a future application - your answers are a bit weak (especially to question 3) and some more experience in article-writing would also be a good thing. Admins inevitably face conflicts with other editors, and an important part of this process is to demonstrate that candidates have the civility and understanding of policy to address those conflicts. Too little information is available here to make that judgement. Euryalus 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Some (but not all) of the above people show legitimate concerns. As a suggestion for the future, as this is your second self-nom that looks like it is going to fail, I wouldn't do another editor nominates you.--SefringleTalk 04:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Q1 and lack of edits to admin-related pages in Wikipedia-space concern me. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Firstly, your answers are just incredibly weak. Your answer to Q1 doesn't show that you would use the tools much, but your answer to Q3 makes me unable to support- an admin that hasn't had a conflict has no way of showing they can deal with it in a reasonable manner. Secondly, your edits, while being good overall, are very low on a monthly basis, and are rather inconsistent. Making three edits a day in most months, and a lot of them in your contribs history showing they're very small ones doesn't make me think you'll be of much help to the backlogs. Really, I don't see that you will do anything meaningful with the mop, but at the same time I don't see that you will do anything harmful, so I won't oppose. Good luck, I think it's just not there with you. --Lucid 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The comments that I made a year ago still obtain. You need more experience with admin-related tasks, as mentioned above. Try again when you can demonstrate this. Providing diffs in your answers is a very good way of cutting straight to the evidence. (aeropagitica) 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I would like to say support, but then I read the oppose comments and lean to oppose, but then to support ect. Do another RFA in a couple months and follow the comments/suggestions that everyone gives you. -Lemonflash(chat) 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I think you have made some good contributions to Wikipedia and I do not think you would abuse the tools. However, I would like to see more evidence of experience in admin related work and a more wider overview on what you would do with the tools. Camaron1 | Chris 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As with the other opposers and neutral'ers, you don't seem to have much experience in admin areas. Being an admin is not something that you get because you are a great Wikipedian. It looks like you are a good article writer, and that's where you're needed. :-) Feel free to re-apply when you get some more work in admin-areas under your belt, but keep in mind that you don't need to become an admin. Your plain editing is good enough. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral A bit more experience in admin related areas of the project space would be good. There is nothing really that stand out as bad though. -Icewedge 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral—I'd support, but I'd like to see a bit more admin-related tasks to ensure that the feet are at least wet. — Deckiller 02:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I don't see any problems with this user being an admin in the near future, but I'd like to see more "admin-esque" and a higher monthly edit count. I don't feel this editor is really all that active. Useight 06:55, 20 August 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/Tarret_2&oldid=1142506369"