Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Froth: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Part Deux (talk | contribs)
2,808 edits
Dryman (talk | contribs)
975 edits
Line 59: Line 59:
#'''Support''' [[User:Reedy Boy|Reedy Boy]] 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Reedy Boy|Reedy Boy]] 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I support him because he will not abuse tools. I do not understand that if he will get tools and will not use them 100% then what harm that will cause? Hence I find no reason to oppose. --- '''[[User:SciAndTech|<span style="background:#008;color:#7FFF00">S</span><span style="background:blue;color:#FFFFFF">And</span><span style="background:Red;color:navy blue">T</span>]][[User talk:SciAndTech|<small><sup>Lets Talk</sup></small>]]''' 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I support him because he will not abuse tools. I do not understand that if he will get tools and will not use them 100% then what harm that will cause? Hence I find no reason to oppose. --- '''[[User:SciAndTech|<span style="background:#008;color:#7FFF00">S</span><span style="background:blue;color:#FFFFFF">And</span><span style="background:Red;color:navy blue">T</span>]][[User talk:SciAndTech|<small><sup>Lets Talk</sup></small>]]''' 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No reason to believe he/she would abuse the tools. [[User:Dryman|Dryman]] 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''
#'''Oppose''' - Answer to Q1 seems far from impressive. [[User:TML.zh|TML]] 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Answer to Q1 seems far from impressive. [[User:TML.zh|TML]] 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:03, 10 March 2007

Froth

Voice your opinion (23/19/15); Scheduled to end 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Froth (talk · contribs) - I am a prolific Wikipedian (nearly 5000 edits since July 2005) interested in gaining access to the sysop tools. I am a behind-the-scenes editor, mostly performing maintenance, doing technical work, adjusting formatting, and writing template code. I'm primarily interested in adminship to make my maintenance work easier- moving a page to a page that already exists, deleting template subpages that no longer hold content, tweaking layout of protected pages, and other things like that. My wiki-philosophy is highly metapedian- although I definitely know my way around the mainspace, I'm mostly interested in internal work. When I do deal with content changes on the mainspace, my philosophy lines up directly with the policy Trifecta. I'm very interested in Wikipedia legislation and I like reading through Arbitration Committee precedent and heated topics (Giano!) and the big xfd's like Esperanza. In conclusion, I definately wouldn't abuse the tools and they'd just be a big help to my work. --frothT 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom.


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Probably none. Like I've said, the reason I want the tools is to make my life easier doing formatting and template work. Now that being said, though I don't anticipate helping with any sysop chores, I'll definately help out in each of those areas, however I'm not particularly interested in committing to any of those admin responsibilities.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, I've made more than a thousand contributions to the Reference Desk, including an overhaul of the layout. I was heavily involved for months with the debates at WT:RD until they tapered off. I'm also an active participant in WP:FPC. I overhauled the Valve navigation templates. I also participate in xfd's, particularly in AfD. Until January I was a VandalProof moderator. I still have vandal-fighting access and I contribute there occasionally. I've never personally shepherded an article through GA or FA but I'm very familiar with the process.
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 don't deal much with content, so this isn't really a problem for me. But as I've said previously, I was involved with the WT:RD policy debates- this is the closest thing to a conflict I've had on Wikipedia. I believe I dealt with it level headedly. The issue was never resolved but I don't feel that there's anything else to be done because consensus has proven impossible to find. If something else comes up, I plan to continue remaining civil and remaining loyal to consensus.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. I find it incredibly funny that people are willing to support people who don't know how to use the tools but intend to use them, but not people who do know how to use the tools but don't intend to use them. If we get some occasional help with his tools, that's better than no help at all... -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. per Amarkov. Completely unconvincing opposes. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Needs the tools, and will not abuse them. Rettetast 08:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Even an admin who rarely uses the tools still helps out when he/she does use them. I see no evidence at all that there will be abuse from this editor. auburnpilot talk 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Obviously will not abuse the tools, so why not? StayinAnon 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I do understand the opposers' reasoning: why hand out tools with which technical and sociological damage can be caused to someone who doesn't reason particularly strongly for having them? However, he does reason quite strongly in his nomination statement. Froth is clearly running into protected things and other barriers during the course of his usual work, and could simply sweep those things to one side if he had the button to do it with. I suspect they are in areas, specifically WP:RD where there is relatively little visibility for his requests, although they do eventually get seen to. He says he reads policy and ArbCom stuff a lot, and whilst that's not concretely provable, I do believe him (see predictable bluelink, but the candidate makes a good couple of references and gets the terminology right). The editor is clearly committed to the project, has stuck around and appears to know his stuff. He doesn't do much mainspace work, and an oppose on that basis can sometimes be reasonable: someone out of touch with that risks losing their way. But Froth does interact with the wider Wikipedia via the various work he does at WP:RD, and it's not like his mainspace edits are zero or anything. I also do not think there is a great deal of value in the asking of Q1 any longer: all it ever produces is a list of blah blah that survives, prehaps, a month into adminship after which point all us current admins tend to spend most of our efforts in what ever nook or cranny we feel most comfortable in. Thus, his well-targetted request for adminship seems ok to me. In sum, a committed editor, a knowledgeable editor, a helpful editor, an editor with a clear and precise rational for admin tools. Splash - tk 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to candidate: You'll get more than you bargain for. Once you have the admin buttons, you'll eventually be drawn into doing things you hadn't expected. Do so carefully and you'll be fine. This being the case for all new admins, it's not something to worry excessively about given the other good points of the candidate. Splash - tk 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support --dario vet (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I thought You were an Admin..Good Editor..--Cometstyles 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seems a good user, being here since 2005 shows he/she is interested in Wikipedia and cares about what goes on here. and would benefit the tools greatly! Good luck - Aquasplash 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good editor, and tenaciously productive when he's made up his mind. I don't understand the "no-need-for-tools" argument, when froth explained why he thinks they might help him improve the project. These tools aren't a limited good, only to be handed out to those who vow and commit to spending most of their time dealing with the most pressing backlagging chores. There are plenty of excellent admins here who hardly ever use the mop and bucket, but are skilled in using the pin chuck or the micropipette, and require access to tools for this reason. This user sometimes speaks his mind and doesn't always mince words, but I can't picture him abusing the buttons. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - there is no reason not to give the tools to this user. I hope that Froth doesn't become dejected at the inevitable failure of this RfA, and interpret it as disapproval of his good work. - Richardcavell 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks like the users who oppose based on Q1 have never tried to fix a protected template before. No reason not to trust froth, proposed use is narrow but well-defined, adminship isn't all about closing AfD's and whacking vandals. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - per amarkov, sluzzelin, trials. Any opposers haven't done WP:DEAD either - tons of copyvios, nn material. Besides, if user decides to start using the tools, we've already decided he's capable. Let's not stand around and oppose just becuase the user didn't answer the question in exactly X and Y proper way, even if the user is a good editor. This is just too much process-wonkery. Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Adminship is no big deal, right? If we're confident that someone's not going to abuse them, why not give them the tools? S/He's definitely not going to help with the backlogs if we don't grant the tools. If they help with his/her work, and the work helps the encyclopedia, obviously it's going to be an overall benefit; s/he won't have to ask an admin to do something, it'll get done quicker, and the other admin can be off doing something else. And if there's an emergency or request, they can help out. Besides, s/he mentioned doing some vandal fighting, which the tools are definitely useful for. Anyway, is there a minimum amount that someone should use the tools before it's worthwhile for them to have them? Lastly, I appreciate the user's frankness and honesty in their responses. delldot talk 04:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great user who has demonstrated need for the tools, is trustworthy and wouldn't abuse them, and if he gets bored, he can jump into the backlogs :) We do need admins who want to do the sort of thing he's talking about. – riana_dzasta 07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And to those who think his answer to Q1 means he won't help - he hasn't said that. He has said he doesn't anticipate helping out with standard admin backlogs, but he will pitch in if he is needed. Come on, guys, we're gagging for admins, and you're turning down a great user who will use the tools well, just because he isn't parroting out the same answer everyone else does? – riana_dzasta 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Amarkov, Riana Dzasta, and others. Seriously, guys. Grandmasterka 08:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — You appear trustable, you show a requirement for the extra buttons, adminship is "no big deal", so if you want it, then let's let you have it. Matthew 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support, despite the poor answer to Q1, I can't find a reason why this user can't be trusted with the tools. Insanephantom 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Admins are needed to help with a wide variety of tasks. Some may choose to concentrate on some tasks and some on others. Just because somebody indicates there are some areas they don't anticipate helping in isn't a reason to oppose, if there are other areas where they clearly could make good use of the tools. Dragomiloff 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per Splash. Suspect you'll get sucked into using the tools more if you have them! Coricus 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support for answer to Q1. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Reedy Boy 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I support him because he will not abuse tools. I do not understand that if he will get tools and will not use them 100% then what harm that will cause? Hence I find no reason to oppose. --- SAndTLets Talk 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No reason to believe he/she would abuse the tools. Dryman 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Answer to Q1 seems far from impressive. TML 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I really hate to oppose, but when you stated you do not anticipate helping with any sysop chores I really do not see why you should then be granted the sysop status. While I am glad you help out vigorously in many "Wikignome" activities, bestowing sysop capabilities to someone who is only going to use them for their needs is not something I am comfortable with. Perhaps my view of administrators is a little askew, but someone applying for administrative status should be prepared to help out with sysop chores beyond the scope of what they normally prefer to focus on. --Ozgod 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am opposing for a number of reasons. As stated above, you haven't shown that you'd make use of the tools in a way that would justify you having them. You do not need administrator tools for formatting and template work. You've also stated on your user page that if I can ever get my mainspace count up I may try to RfA. It seems that you find your edit count to be a a mark of your value to the Wikipedia community and I find this a little concerning. Your edit summary usage recently is too low for my liking (32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits (more usage for minor than major?!?)). Overall, I believe you do not understand the role of an administrator and this would be extremely worrying if you were promoted. Harryboyles 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that sysop tools should be given out to anyone who isn't going to abuse them and can make some use of them. That comment about edit count is on my userpage because I think that vision has been skewed or lost- adminship is given based on pedantry like edit count and (dare I say?) edit summary usage. And the admin tools are useful for general wiki improvery, including and especially "wikignome" work. --frothT 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The greater threat, I feel, Froth, is the abuse of administrative tools. While it is wonderful you do want to do much wikignome work, the role of sysop does require some "community service" and to help out beyond the scope of personal projects. --Ozgod 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Q1; no apparent need for the tools. Sandstein 12:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose While I am sure that you would not abuse the tools, if you have a declared intention of not undertaking any sysop activities, then there seems no reason why you should have them. I do not really think that making your life easier is a valid qualification for sysop status.--Anthony.bradbury 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Ozgod and Harryboyles. Dorange 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, obviously. Per the user's own addmission he has no actual need for the tools in order to continue to do the work he is doing now. His apathy towards helping other administators with the urgent backlog of their work and non-participation in many important elements of wikipedia process is a huge red flag for me. NeoFreak 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. When I go more or less randomly looking for an administrator, a task I prefer to spread around, I don't want to stumble across one with this attitude. I don't anticipate helping with any sysop chores. Carptrash
    Fair point, but he doesn't say "I won't help with admin requests", he simply doesn't intend to go trawling CAT:CSD, etc, most of which are pretty mind-numbing tasks for much of the time. Froth wouldn't turn you down if you said on his talk page "could you fix this cut-and-paste move for me", (right, Froth?), he just wouldn't go looking for cnp moves to fix, having things he finds more interesting to work on and which sometimes require admin rights he would find useful. Splash - tk 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly what I'm saying --frothT 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Ozgod and Harryboyles. --Masterpedia 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. User may have his first edit in 2005, but he had around 250 edits for all of his first year here. More than half his edits come from the last 60 days. A few more months needed, IMO. - grubber 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Give someone the tools when they probably wouldn't use them. Just one question. Why ? -- Nick t 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm primarily interested in adminship to ... moving a page to a page that already exists, deleting template subpages that no longer hold content, tweaking layout of protected pages, and other things like that". He's a well-identified set of purposes and indicates above he'd drop by other areas when he's bored. We're getting too hung up on this question 1 business. Splash - tk 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose No need for the tools. -Mschel 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Anthony.bradbury. TomTheHand 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose concerns cited cause my vote. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose don't need tools. --Joe Wells 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Answer to Question 1 is really silly - besides demonstrating no desire to help, it calls into question candidate's communication skills. Xoloz 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Per answer to Question 1. User doesn't need the tools and we don't need an admin who won't be doing many sysop chores. --Folantin 10:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose answer to Q1 shows that the user doesn't need the tools.--Jersey Devil 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose As mentioned by many - the answer to Q1 is the killer question. They need to read up a bit on some roles of Admin before given a change at adminship Munta 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, not against you having the tools, but Q1 doesn't push my support button either... Deiz talk 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral as Deiz, admins ought to be active within the community in my opinion. The Rambling Man 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral nothing worth opposing for, you're a good user, but the fact that you aren't willing to help in sysop chores means you're not going to need those tools, which are given to help the community. - Anas Talk? 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I don't see a reason to oppose your nomination, but I also don't feel comfortable supporting someone who essentially doesn't want to do anything an admin is expected to do. Trustworthiness is certainly a factor, and you're not untrustworthy, but a need for the tools is another, and I'm not convinced that you need them. On a side note, edit summary usage is not "pedantry". 32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits is extremely low. It doesn't have to be 100%, but good edit summaries are essential for collaboration. Leebo T/C 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I don't violently oppose, and I certainly don't think you'll implode Wikipedia if you get the Big Red Buttons, but I do think that an admin should at least vaguely care about admin chores - at least be willing to wander by CAT:CSD once in a blue moon and hit delete. ♠PMC♠ 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but that's exactly what I said! That while I probably won't really help out with any particular admin project, I'm more than happy to drop in more than once every blue moon and clean things up --frothT 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. An experienced editor and there are some similarities to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella, but the rationale offered by Froth is much less convincing than Art's. We don't give admin buttons for your convenience, as Anthony Bradbury notes, but for the benefit of the community. How would we benefit here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, currently, but I will come back and assess again before close. Main concerns are poor use of edit summary, and general need for tools low. Cheers Lethaniol 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, Froth has done some excellent work on the Reference Desk templates and layout, and admin tools would probably make that work much easier. However, based on his contributions to the ref desk debates, and some of his contributions on the desks themselves, i think that Froth either does not understand some of the core Wikipedia policies, or chooses at times to simply ignore them. His opinion that policies such as WP:V,WP:NOR and WP:NOT do not really apply to reference desk is not much of a problem—there are many others who share that opinion—but is there any evidence he understands how these policies should apply to article space? Reluctantly neutral as this editor is doing good work and has a good reason for requesting admin tools.—eric 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your reluctance to support- I knew this would be a problem. I really do know my way around the article space policies very well, but I realize there's unfortunately very little evidence for that.. I just don't do very much work with article content. But please consider that since I don't deal with mainspace content then you don't need to worry about me messing up the mainspace :) --frothT 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per eric. Froth has done a sterling job with templates and formatting at the RD. That said, I too have concerns about his interpretation of core policies with regards to the RD and how that reflects on his understanding in article space. I have also seen some unseemly bickering with other editors at the RD, this being an example of how his comments contributed to a needless personal dispute, rather than diffusing it. Not ideal. Nevertheless, I'm aware that admins are human too and it would be unfair to oppose on the basis of a single exchange. So will sit of the fence at the moment and consider if anything is said in support or opposition that can convince me either way. Rockpocket 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Sorry, but when you yourself state that you have no need for, and no intentions of using, the sysop tools, then I have no choice but to remain neutral. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. bibliomaniac15 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral You shot yourself in the foot with Q1. You're a good editor, but why do you need the tools if you don't need them. Neutral, per above. The Evil Clown 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral-Any help we can get is great, but Q1 just makes me think that you being an admin won't help that us that much. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - was originally support, but diff provided by rockpuppet is troubling. People mis-accusing others of "personal attacks" in a dispute really pushes my buttons. Part Deux 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC) changed to support, Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand what was going on. Here's the whole section. --frothT 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think you have misinterpreted my diff, Part Deux. Froth didn't remove the comment, he had written the comment that was removed. I (personally) don't believe it was a personal attack either, but it was among a number of comments from Froth that inflamed a needless and personal dispute and I believe our admins should be setting a better example. Sorry if my diff was confusing Rockpocket (with an 'ocket)
    Fair enough. We all make mistakes, and I won't oppose based on one mistake. Heaven knows I have a few. Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral I trust Froth, and have found him to be intelligent. However, I believe he still needs some refinement in policy and etiquette. I want to make certain that he gains this knowledge before he enters into any admin fields. I would ask that he study policy, to become more familiar with it. Once he does that, I am certain that he will not harm the project, will not abuse the tools, and that sysophood will, in however small a way, help him, and the project. Read up Froth, and come back soon.* Prodego talk 02:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral Looking at this user's edits, I've seen that he sometimes lacks in the proper policy and etiquette that I think Wikipedia administrators need. I agree with Prodego in most of what he thinks about this canidate, and also I question his "need" for the tools. It seems that froth would not really benefit from having these additional tools. Just my opinion. (Are non-admins allowed to vote?) Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 02:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, non-admins may comment. It's not exacly a ballot. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA -- Yellowdesk 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Froth&oldid=114164317"