Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:10, 14 December 2018

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

Cyclonebiskit

Final (6/17/3); Ended 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by Candidate

Nomination

Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) – This is the first time I have ever nominated someone for the mop, so bear with me. :) Cyclonebiskit is an active member of the Tropical cyclones WikiProject, which has greatly benefited from his work. At this time of writing, CB has some 38 Good Articles (one of which I reviewed myself), 1 A-Class article, 2 Featured Articles, 5 Featured Lists, and 10 Did You Know? hooks. Even if he isn't going to use the tools in classic admin areas such as WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, etc., I still feel that Cyclonebiskit could use the tools to aid him in the field of content writing. Heck, there's one editor who uses his admin tools to do that. So, without further ado, I hereby nominate Cyclonebiskit for adminship. Let's hope this works! --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: See User:Cyclonebiskit/Articles for more information. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Not much to say here other than "here goes nothing" :) Cyclone biskit 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm officially withdrawing the nomination, thanks for the reviews everyone :) Cyclone biskit 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'll mainly be taking part in page protection and user blocking as those two pages tend to easily become backlogged (from what I've seen) but, only when necessary. Cyclone biskit 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Hm, probably my edits regarding the updates of current weather articles, specifically Tornadoes of 2009, 2008-09 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, etc... As for why these are my best, it's because people view those articles more than older ones and want up-to-date information, not day old information. Cyclone biskit 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Indeed I have, but only twice (that stand out). Both involved a dispute between the members of the Tropical Cyclone Project and the Australian Project. It was about date formatting and that it was suddenly changed for all Australian Tropical Cyclone articles without discussion. Several members were stressed out, myself being one of them, during the multi-month debate. For me, I took the night off to calm down or reframed from editing Australian Tropical Cyclone articles for a short while. In the future, I probably wont do much different for dealing with this kind of stress as it seems to have worked but hopefully I wont have to do so. Cyclone biskit 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Juliancolton

4. As an admin, would you block editors who you are in a dispute with?

A: In general, definitely not, a dispute is not a good reason to block them. That does depend on who the dispute is with. If it's with a vandalizing IP editor or just a vandal in general, I might consider it if the actions of the person require a block. However, if it is a content dispute, talking it over via the other editors talk page would be the best solution. If that fails to resolve the dispute, asking other admins for their input would probably do it. Cyclone biskit 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Links for Cyclonebiskit: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Cyclonebiskit can be found here.
Promote Cyclonebiskit (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cyclonebiskit before commenting.

Discussion

Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those that prefer them:

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong support as nominator. Good luck, CB! --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cyclonebiskit is a good editor who is always so enthusatic about Tropical cyclones. Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support because I feel you're not going to run wild immediately, and you will use your tools to your advantage as an editor, not simply as an administrator blocking people. I must caution you to take things very slowly as you've shown very, very little experience, but this in itself is not always a killer thing. Read up on the role of being an administrator, and take each case at a time requesting the advice of others, and I think you'll be fine. I'm worried that some of the opposers are verging on WP:NONEED, which in my opinion is a bad reason to oppose someone, because I feel you can pick up on things slowly. That said, I don't believe that this will pass, so consider this a form of moral support for next time. I encourage you to get some more experience if this doesn't pass, and come back in a few months! Cheers. —Cyclonenim | Chat 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although he hasn't done much work in admin-related areas, it is clear that he is well-qualified. -down load | sign! 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support a clean block log and over 10,000 edits is enough to get you my support, but weakly for reasons in the oppose section. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, but has in fact contributed to many Good, Featured, and DYK articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Cyclonebiskit, you've done excellent work for the tropical cyclones WikiProject, and I've had plenty of positive encounters with you. However, I don't feel you're ready for adminship. As far as I know, you've never made a report to UAA or AIV, and you've never participated in deletion discussions. While I usually don't mind lack of experience in admin-related areas, you have a habit of edit warring, as evidenced here. As well, this is inappropriate use of rollback. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the lack of experience in conventinal admin areas. Also, per what Juliancolton said. Sorry. America69 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm slightly inclined to believe you'd be in a little over your head with the admin tools, per Juliancolton's comment. You also have almost no experience in admin-related areas. Your content building is really good and I applaud you for it, but you need at least a little experience in admin-related areas such as AIV, ANI, RPP, AFD, etc. Tim meh ! 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but you have little to no experience in admin related areas. A quick skim of edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces shows that almost every edit there relates to Wikiprojects, or stuff like FAs and GAs. The only exceptions I see are a couple reports to AIV/RFPP at a couple points, a request for rollback, and your edits to this very page. FunPika 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while reviewing your few edits to the admin-related areas, you reported an IP you were in a content dispute with on AIV, which makes me wonder how you may use the tools (particularly blocking) in a future content dispute. FunPika 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'd need to see more evidence that you know your stuff in the areas you have asserted that you would like to work in before supporting, sorry. Obviously a well intentioned user, though, and I would not hesitate to support a future request if there was more evidence of relevant policy knowledge. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the above. I don't feel you have enough experience yet. Sorry! iMatthew : Chat 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seem's to have lack of experience in admin-related areas also as per all above Wikipedia:NOTYET ${\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}$ ^{Critique Me} 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking through this user's recent contributions, there is not one edit to an admin related area. Even if they were not going to use the tools in the 'classic admin areas' regularly, I'd still like to see some evidence that this user has experience in those areas. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 17:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. While I do believe Cyclonebiskit has made some excellent contributions to the project, a lack of experience in admim-related areas is enough for me to vote oppose. Get a more experience in the areas mentioned above and I will be happy to support next time. - Fastily (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian, needs a little (not a lot) more experience in adminy areas.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – needs more experience in those relevant fields the candidate intends to work in. I suggest going over to WP:RFPP as well as WP:AN3 to get a good feel on how page-protection is implemented. Contributing at WP:XFD will also give you good experience on the deletion side, as well – something I didn't see much participation in. Otherwise, an excellent mainspace contributor, but watch on the edit warring a little. Back off sometimes and negotiate. MuZemike 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose You are too young. Come back when you are 18. Keepscases (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to why my being 16 has much to do with this. In my opinion, it should be how the person matches up against what an admin should be, not how old. Age can be a fickle thing as some people can act older than they are and visa-versa. Cyclone biskit 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons why some don't think minors should serve as admins have been discussed several times. I'm sure you can find them if you're interested. Keepscases (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - hasn't shown a need or desire for the tools. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hink, not to badger, but he does show a desire for the tools; he's in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls by means of a userbox on his userpage. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that when I opposed, but I stand by the lack of experience and maturity to become an administrator, as suggested elsewhere. Sorry CB. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Juliancolton, lack of admin related experience. Plus, Cyclonebiskit is a minor, and I unfortuntely think that admins should be at least 18 years of age. WackoJackO 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - His area of interests are areas which need the most experienced admin who understands policies fully or will lead to many, many problems. Blocking and protections are not things that can experience accidents or mistakes without having major ramifications. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on jumping right into the work an experienced admin does. It's not like I'm not going to read the policies thoroughly and just attempt to block and protect, I'm going to read over the steps and what the policy is in its entirety. If I still have any concerns on how to do it correctly, rather than learning from my mistakes and, as you said above, cause many problems, I'll consult another admin who knows what to do and can take me step by step on what to do and where I went wrong. Cyclone biskit 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it if you had about 4-6 months minimum of experience at dispute resolution or something like that if you were going to pursue these areas. That way, people can see how you handle yourself in such situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I was hoping that this wouldn't go live; unfortunately, to see both the nominator and nominee both passing over the advice given by Dlohcierekim here is a bad idea. GlassCobra 19:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. Specifically per Julian and Ottava. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Leaning oppose. I haven't researched you yet, and to be honest won't bother unless the supports pick up and this looks like it could go either way, but if the best your nominator can find to say about you is "will be able to use the tools to his own advantage", something is seriously wrong somewhere. – iridescent 17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that CB could use his tools to aid him in content writing, whenever I said something like that. Sorry for the confusion. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 17:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, what use do you think admin tools are to content writing? – iridescent 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know plenty of administrators who use their tools to their advantage when contributing to articles. If a user is disrupting the process by vandalism, blocks can be administered, page protection can be applied, move over redirect and so on. I believe this is what Dylan is referring to, but feel free to correct me. —Cyclonenim | Chat 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually CN, I just meant moving over redirects and deleting to make way for moves, but thanks for commenting! --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It seems unlikely that he will abuse the tools, but the edit warring is concerning. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral editor does not seem to have enough experience in admin related areas, although I totally disagree with the ageist opposers. If he spends some time working in admin related areas and reading up on policy, he will have a much greater chance of success next time around. King of the North East 20:17, 10 April 2009 (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.

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 #'''Oppose''' Per the above. I don't feel you have enough experience yet. Sorry! <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:iMatthew|<b>iMatthew</b>]] : [[User_talk:iMatthew|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:#960018;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' Seem's to have lack of experience in admin-related areas also as per all above [[Wikipedia:NOTYET]] [[user:staffwaterboy|<math>\mathfrak{S}\mathfrak{t}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{f}\mathfrak{f}\mathfrak{w}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{t}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{r}\mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{y}</math>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
-#'''Oppose''' Looking through this user's recent contributions, there is not one edit to an admin related area. Even if they were not going to use the tools in the 'classic admin areas' regularly, I'd still like to see some evidence that this user has experience in those areas. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''[[User:OllieFury|<font color="000000">Oliver Fury]], Esq.'''</font></font face color><font face="Script MT Bold"> [[User talk:OllieFury|<font color="00008B">message]]{{•}}[[Special:Contributions/OllieFury|<font color="00008B">contributions]]</font></font face color> 17:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
+#'''Oppose''' Looking through this user's recent contributions, there is not one edit to an admin related area. Even if they were not going to use the tools in the 'classic admin areas' regularly, I'd still like to see some evidence that this user has experience in those areas. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''[[User:OllieFury|<font color="000000">Oliver Fury</font>]], Esq.'''</font face color><font face="Script MT Bold"> [[User talk:OllieFury|<font color="00008B">message</font>]]{{•}}[[Special:Contributions/OllieFury|<font color="00008B">contributions</font>]]</font face color> 17:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' per Juliancolton. While I do believe Cyclonebiskit has made some excellent contributions to the project, a lack of experience in admim-related areas is enough for me to vote oppose.  Get a more experience in the areas mentioned above and I will be happy to support next time. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS"> [[User:Fastily|Fastily]] </span> <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Fastily|(talk)]] </span> 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' Per Julian, needs a little (not a lot) more experience in adminy areas.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">T</font>]]</sup>/<small>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="#FFC12D">C</font>]]</small> 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)