Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EnglishEfternamn

EnglishEfternamn

Voice your opinion (2/3/1); Scheduled to end 03:21, 10 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)

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)

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

1. 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. Frise 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. 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. :-) Grandmasterka 09:44, 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)
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)

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)