Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EnglishEfternamn

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

EnglishEfternamn

(1/16/6); Ended 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) - Self-nominated candidate for adminship. Wishes to step up his contribution to Wikipedia by taking on the full responsibilities that comes with SYSOP attainment. EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I am EnglishEfternamn, proud Wikipedian since May 2006, and nominating myself for administrator. My primary concerns in editing, as could be seen on my userpage is diversity of information, and just as importantly, diversity of perspective to ensure that Wikipedia remains an objective institution. After a considerable amount of edit work, I believe I am now ready for the duties of adminship and shall strive to ensure that the highest standards of knowledge are available to those who seek it. I ask that my fellow editors may consider me a good candidate for this endeavour, and I offer my utmost assurance that if accepted, I will perform to the best of my ability. Thank you.EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 04:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Intervention against vandalism, for the reason that after being added to Vandal Proof, I came to realise that everyday vandalism is a much bigger problem here than I had previously assumed, and not to major pages either, but articles pertaining to less notable, but still important subjects as well. I realise that adminship is not necessary to participate in this area, but it is still my observation that Wikipedia needs all the help it can get in that there are never enough people to deal with AIV reports and determine what sort of blocks, etc., are necessary in preventing further disruption. Other areas of interest to me are mediating content disputes, and dealing with new articles.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Many of my contributions consist of reverting vandalism, via Vandal Proof, welcoming new users, correction linguistically questionable phrases in articles (particularly to ensure political neutrality), requesting citations where needed, uploading images, and creating new pages and/or expanding stubs. The latter area, I am particularly proud of because I deal primarily with the adding of information that could be viwed as obscure. There are others like me who wish to find information on older video games and TV shows, and since these subjects are often overshadowed by things such as the PS3 or American Idol, it just shows there's always room for improvement, especially in an encyclopedia that seeks to be virtually limitless.

Some specific articles which I credit myself with starting/expanding are: Super Strike Eagle, Test Drive II, Sex & The City's Charlotte York article ,Blasterball Wild, Sonic the Hedgehog's "Emerald Hill Zone", Full summary of "The Medicine Wagon", Teddy Ruxpin episode, and the adding of citations to the Euro, and Swedish krona articles. Other contributions include rewording/rearranging in the Olof Palme, Sweden, Anti-Nationalism, and Socialism articles as well.

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: The answer is yes, though I am ashamed to say it. Ashamed, because the conflict was primarily my fault. These conflicts took place on the Socialism, and Michael Savage articles, where I fell into a dispute and edit war with a couple of other users over our own differences in what constitutues neutrality. These disputes resulted in me becoming blocked, briefly, by the admins, Guinnog, and later, Lar. Despite my knowing that I did not handle these disputes properly, I can only add that I only insisted on my own edits because I was compelled they were the most objective. However, I now understand the importance of consensus. I must also note, I have since apologised to these administrators, and in fact, we are on good terms at this point, in fact, Guinnog helped me out just days ago when an autoblock from another user got in the way of my editing abilities.

Conflicts can be difficult, they are a part of human nature, and thus, it is only human nature that we can at times be agitated by them, but one thing I have learned through all this is that the solution most often lies in talking, talking, and talking again. There's not one legitimate editor that does not have disagreements on content for a valid reason, and it is often the case that both sides can understand, even respect, other's perspectives. This I think is what this encyclopedia is all about. Thus we can forget who is liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, and concentrate on our roles as Wikipedians. This is the type of reasoning I strive to apply in future conflicts, a method I have found to be quite effective.

4. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Doc^g 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:By warning the user around three times, first assuming good faith, then assuming that such is not taking place. Blocks should be the last resort, accept in extreme cases of disruption, but if necessary, I would begin with a 24 hour block and go from there. EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

5. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject has requested deletion, what weight would you give this information?--Doc^g 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::It all depends. Consensus needs to be established on the matter of whether it is indeed "non-notable", part of determining this could be searching for the subject matter online and elsewhere, getting a better idea of its prominance. Because I have had my own trouble with keeping new articles up and running, usually due to notability arguments, I believe it is paramount that the creator of the article be consulted on the issue, new articles can be hard work and their deletion can be quite frustrating to those who started them, but it is not necessarily the case that the creator have much say in the matter as the most well written articles must be deleted if they have no notability; this should go on a case-by-case basis.EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See EnglishEfternamn's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for EnglishEfternamn: EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

---

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

Discussion

Support

Support I don't see how we can say "No need for the tools" over here when posts appear almost daily on AN/I about huge admin backlogs. We should be grateful for any admin help one can provide, and since I see nothing that leads me to believe he will abuse the tools I must support. Striking in light of new info.Frise 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

#Support. I, for one, will take all the (productive) help I can get. I guess, technically, this user doesn't "need" the tools... But he has a use for the tools, and that's what I wish people would focus on more at RfA. The candidate's contributions are interesting; he's quite good at vandal fighting and makes good fixes to articles, but seems to run into some trouble when creating articles of his own. :-) Me too. Grandmasterka 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Support. Seems quite new to wikipedia and has a mind of his own, would make good material for an administrator. Voice of Britain 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   Incidentally, you yourself seem quite new to WP. Or are you? —AldeBaer 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. So you say that your main work at the moment is edits? Sure, you say you want to fight vandals, but I'd like to see proof of your capability to do that, and you don't say there is any. You don't need the mop and bucket to write articles. ~ G1ggy! _Reply 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think you need the admin tools at this point in time. From your count, I notice that you're not very actively editing, which is important as an admin. Sr13 (T|C) 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose 1214 edits (at last count) is far too few for an admin to have, and while I respect your enthusiasm, much more experience is needed. Add some Wikiprojects, get an admin coach perhaps, and then try again in a few months. Jmlk17 05:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   1214 edits is not too few at all. Majorly (hot!) 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   I agree for the most part, but for an admin, I would personally prefer more. Jmlk17 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose The candidate recently created Special Zone (Super Mario World). The article is unsourced and uncategorized, contains personal analysis and is at best of borderline notability. He even admits it has notability issues on the article talk page, but makes an argument that there are other similar articles, so this one should stay; this is not an acceptable argument to keep an article. This seems to indicate a lack of understanding of our basic content policies, or a lack of willingness to follow them. Worse, the image he uploaded of Charlotte York, which he claims to have taken with his own digital camera, is in fact an obvious copyright violation from this Salon article and is incorrectly tagged as a fair use screenshot. I cannot support a candidate who misrepresents image sources and abuses fair use in this way. Gwernol 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   Note: I have deleted the uploaded image of Charlotte York as a copyright violation and removed it from the Charlotte York article. Gwernol 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

5. User has neither the temperament nor the civility that I would require from an administrator. User's block log is similarly appalling. The copyright violation images discovered by Gwernol are reason for blocking rather than promoting. The blanking of the user's talk page whenever the user disagrees with a message [1] bodes ill.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, I don't trust you with the tools. While your blocks were at the beginning of your most recent bout of activity, the image problems Gwernol pointed out are distressing. Articles like Special Zone (Super Mario World) further illustrate a lack of understanding about basic Wikipedia policies. Get some more experience and try again... though unfortunately those blocks will probably haunt future RfAs as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose There are a couple of new posts at the talk page regarding image uploads that are not proper. I do not attach any deliberate misconduct but think it may simply be a need for a little more maturing. JodyB 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This user has been blocked three times in the past six months, for varying violations. It was more than disputes over articles such as Michael Savage (commentator)‎[2], the user refused to yield in inserting false or questionable material in contradiction of WP:BLP, this lead to the opening of a case at WP:BLPN. The user engaged in a near month long edit war by insisting that patent nonsense be inserted into the Soviet Union[3] article without any evidence or sourcing. Nearly all interactions with this user have been uncivil, and giving him the sysop tools would be a horrible mistake.--RWR8189 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the block log, striking comments from their Talk page and general participation in admin-related tasks. (aeropagitica) 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per block log, Charlotte York image, lack of experience. -- LeCour^T:C 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per concerns raised by other oppose voters. Captain panda 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose Per BREAKING NEWS found by Gwernol. On a more mature note, we do take copyright infringement very seriously on Wikipedia. Part of administrative duty is clearing out image backlogs, and when copyrighted images manufactured by another person/corporation without previous consent are uploaded to Wikipedia, this is considered to be a copyright violation. These types images need to be deleted immediately. Real96 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose due to block log (although it wasn't recent) and image copyright problems (which are quite recent). Also, I can't search through the talk page archives, because they've been deleted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per all of the above. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 22:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. You're self-nomination is full of grammatical errors. Given time, I believe your editing skill and wiki-expertise will improve. You should wait until others are so impressed with your performance that they nominate you for adminship. That way, you'll know you are ready. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per above, image issues, and civility issues. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral no need for the tools and perhaps not quite enough experience but at least a thoughtful and positive application. The Rambling Man 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral, lack of edits (< 3000), needs more experience and should need to be more active. You seem not to really need the tools now, wait a while maybe six months and I will be glad to support. Terence 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Not so concerned about edit countitis, but I can't see any reason why the demotion to admin would be needed. Some justification for the mop would be nice and I just can't see any at present. Pedro |  Chat  11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I'm going to assume good faith here, your vandalism fighting and warning users is exemplery, your dedication to this project is excellent but I'd say experienceactivity is my main concern, apart from that you are on the right track. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral While I was one of the admins that blocked EE... I think he's improved his approach somewhat since then. I would also like to point out that EE put himself up for a review shortly thereafter: Wikipedia:Editor review/EnglishEfternamn which both Redvers and I commented on, and which was a gutsy move. I do not think that EE's edit count is too low to be a viable candidate. But I do think that getting more overall experience with conflict resolution, with working within policy (see for example [4] and note that Socialism is a topic that has gotten EE mired in controversy in the past) and with getting along with folks would be helpful before standing for admin. Neutral for now because I cannot fault EE for trying but I cannot in good conscience support... ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I donut think you need the tools..--Cometstyles 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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.