Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natl1 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 25 November 2024 (Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Natl1

[edit]

(15/14/3); Scheduled to end 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natl1 (talk · contribs) - I have edited Wikipedia for more than six months so far and I look forward to continue editing in the future. (I took a long break from May to June.) I have fought vandalism, improved existing articles, created a few new short articles, and have been active in adding images (mostly finding free images on the web). Through my contributions I have found need for administrative tools to be able to serve Wikipedia better. Specifically, I believe that I can help Wikipedia better by helping out at WP:AIV, patrolling new pages, and dealing with image copyright problems. However if my fellow Wikipedia editors entrust me with this position, I will continue to create content, not only destroying it. I hope that my contributions provide sufficient proof to trust me with these additional tools and that with the tools I will continue to help Wikipedia to achieve our collective goal: Making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Defending against vandal at WP:AIV, patrolling new pages, and dealing with image copyright problems.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I improved Coca-Cola to a good article (later delisted)and created WP:IFU. Mostly, I only add a couple of sentences to an article making them clear for readers and sometimes adding a few facts.
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: A few here and there, nothing major. Recently I entered conflicts at Talk:Russia (healthcare) and Talk:Thomas Jefferson (Methodist) and they were diffused. I believe the most important thing is not to become too angry and take conflicts personally.
Optional question from Enigma
4. Could you elaborate on your editing history? In your last nom in April 2007, you said you had contributed for 5 and a half months. Have you been inactive since then? More specifically, you were gone for about a year. What were your reasons? Will you stay active if promoted?
A:In my last nom, I counted every month I contributed including my time as an ip editor. To be fair and not misrepresent my break, this time I only counted my major editing months. I came back two months ago and have been editing constantly since then. I was gone for a year because I didn't have a lot of enthusiasm after failing an Rfa and then as I needed more time in real life I was completely dragged away from Wikipedia. I will try to stay active if I am promoted and if real life diversions set in again I will at least try to do a couple of edits a day to keep my account from being dangerously compromised.

Optional question from xenocidic

5. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: The blocked ip pointed to a constructive edit and said they want to add in dental areas which infers somewhat major contributions compared to spell checking, grammar, etc. Therefore, I would ask him to make a proposed contribution on his/her talk page and if the contribution was descent (a paragraph) I would unblock the user keeping him/her under watch.

Optional question from Keepscases:

6. The two candidates that you have nominated here at RfA have failed. What were your thoughts on this? How well do you think the RfA process currently works?
A: Well, I did successfully nominate User:Geniac. See here. My other nominations, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Excirial probably rightly failed because as the user pointed out "lack of accuracy (to many mistakes)." It was decided that Scharks didn't have enough experience and as we are such a widely accessed website maybe we do need admins to have more experience. I think our Rfa process is ok but marginal comments should be counted less as this is not a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex43223 was also unsuccessful. But by no means am I suggesting any of these reflect poorly upon you. Keepscases (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Faithlessthewonderboy:

7. Could you elaborate a bit on exactly why you took such a prolonged break following your previous unsuccessful RfA? I imagine that many would view such behavior as indicative of a lack of maturity - would you agree or disagree with such an assessment?
A: No I don't believe it is a lack of maturity. Not showing up at work is alack of maturity. Not doing volunteer work is a mature reassessment of priorities. When the Wikipedia community didn't display trust in me, I reassessed my priorities. The length of the absence is not necessarily indicative of the level of my disappointment. It's just that when you are away from Wikipedia for a week, a month, half-year the urge to come back reduces.
Also to address some of the comments, your knowledge of how Wikipedia works did not fade away from me. When I came back, I found Wikipedia how I left it. And of the changes in the year, I read Signpost issues when I came back and I believe I have a full grasp of current Wikipedia policy.

Question from User:TaborL

8. In your own words, why do you think your previous RFA's have failed, and what have you leanred from them? Do you plan to submit an RFA until you succeed?
A.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Natl1 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • The supports here are not giving reasons to promote this user. No one has opposed because the user took a break or because the user left the acceptance line in. It would be helpful if there were rationales given for promotion. Enigma message 17:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm opposing strongly, rationale for support has never been a pre-requisite. It is incumbent upon opposes to defend their oppose, not the supporters to validate their support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but people often look at the first few supports. Enigma message 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe what Enigma was getting at was the sarcasm itself, and not the lack of thoughtful rationales. Supports are often bare, taciturn or repitative, but the first few were a little..um..frivolous, and then others went on to vote Per (whomever). Not that I mind personally, just saying. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, Naeri's "Seems like, you know.. a normal person." is brilliant phrasing if I must say. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Failed to follow self nom instructions and took a break. Sounds like good admin material. —Giggy 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm. naerii 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know you felt that way. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
  2. Per Giggy. Seems like, you know.. a normal person. naerii 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreeing with Giggy and Naerii (who also agreed with Giggy). Nothing wrong with not following the self-nomination instructions: the part about removing the acceptance line is a silly rule, and it was silly for it to have been added in the first place. Nothing wrong with a break either: it shows this editor has a real life. Acalamari 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the candidate has stated that they wish to help deal with image copyright violations, and they have edited in image-related areas. We need more admins willing to deal with images. Acalamari 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that he has zero edits ever in Image Talk? And about 15 edits in Images since returning from his hiatus?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I do realize that: edits to the image talk namespace aren't overly important, and are rarely made, even for someone who wishes to work with images. Natl1 has (recent) to image-related areas, which is good enough for me, though if there is evidence to show that his recent work there has had problems, then I may reconsider. Acalamari 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. There's nothing wrong with not following the self-nom instructions. The acceptance line part is rather silly anyway. Also, what was wrong with taking a break? The purpose of RFA is to ensure that users who become administrators can be trusted to use the admin tools correctly. How does taking a break indicate that he won't? It just shows that he has something else to do. The only reason to refuse an adminship request is that one expects said user to misuse the administrator tools. There's no reason to believe that he will. Adminship is not a trophy, and it does not require one to be a "super-editor". Bart133 (t) (c) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, overall I like what I've seen so far having a look through your contributions. Some nice work at Images for upload is what makes me happiest to support - we need more admins that are competent in image policy and it certainly seems to me that you are. Good AIV reports too, and no evidence that i've seen indicates you're some kind of crazy nut or anything! Looks like a good candidate to me. ~ mazca t | c 17:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Very impressive. Though you failed to follow the self nom instructions, you are a very good contributor. Impressive number of edits for 6 months of experience. I see no reason to not give you the tools. Gears of War 2 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good use of IAR, self-aware, for instance. WilyD 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep. –xeno (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — I view self noms as prima facie evidence of admin potential. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per xeno :P ... I do think the user would make a good admin at this point. The year long break has no effect on my opinion, and he/she has a right to take a break. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support. I think it's likely this candidate will make a good administrator, although User:Balloonman brings up some important points in the oppose section that are enough to make me qualify this support. Shereth 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I for one probably need a wiki-break.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Gears of War. Why the hell not? LittleMountain5 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support because, although I do share some of Balloonman's concerns, I feel that this well-selected quote pretty much overrides them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Gave the best possible answer to Q7. Wikipedia, even admin work on wikipedia, is not a job and priorities should not be focused around it. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I am not comfortable with this candidate being given the tools, at this time. The nearly year-long gap in editing concerns me greatly... even having a "real life" should not prevent a prospective administrator from visiting the project on a semi-regular basis to contribute, if only just in the realm of reverting vandalism or participating in a few XfD discussions. I don't see enough user talk edits to make me believe that this candidate has established an ability to successfully communicate with other users, either. I would also like to see some more activity at AIV for someone who states that they would most likely be contributing there, if granted the tools. With all due respect to the candidate and their willingness to contribute to the project, I must oppose at this time. --Winger84 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose Let's get this straight. The user failed a previous RfA and leaves the project in a huf. He takes a year off, during which time new issues and policies have come to light. He returns about 6 weeks ago, makes about 1500 edits during that time---primarily using tools (Huggle) and now wants to run for admin? I'm sorry, I want to see 6 months of continuous commitment from a candidate as a minimum. I can overlook a single month for a good reason, but a whole year because the candidate is upset about failing an RfA? No way! When people mess up, the general guideline is that it takes a year to forget their faux pas. If it takes year to forget the bad, then the same holds for any goodwill---which wasn't enough to pass an RfA then. As far as I am concerned, this RfA has about as much validity as any other RfA of a person with 6 weeks experience and 1500 edits.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note, since he's been back: His edits to the Talk space is less than 20. His edits to wiki-talk space less than 10. His edits to wikipedia space about 150---but couldn't find much that I'd call material. The vast majority of his 1500 edits are automated. In fact 500 are automated edits to User Talk pages wherein he simply issues warnings of various sorts. I see nothing to validate his temperament or understanding of policies/procedures.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This user apparently has insufficient experience, since he only spent around 6 months in WP. I had interaction with him at this occasion. In this particular case he sided with two Russian users who practically own article Russia. He was also telling outrageous things, something like "Russian citizens who live illegally in Russia" (see this diff). I think this is all because of insufficent experience. If he can improve in the future, I will vote for him.Biophys (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that any editor may oppose for any reason, but I do think it's fair to point out the diff provided above is not a comment made by the candidate, even though the candidate was involved in that specific discussion. A wider look at that article's talk page seems to indicate that this oppose is largely based on a content dispute. I take no sides on that discussion, and haven't yet decided on this candidate, but let's keep in mind that the diff points to a talk page where people are supposed to discuss things, including policy and content, which the candidate seemed to be doing in good faith.  Frank  |  talk  19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no. He did not only talk. He joined an edit war by making several reverts in the article:[1], [2]. He said in the last edit summary: "You should phrase your statement differently". But why did not he rephrase this himself and made blind reverts? I am not talking about bad faith. I talk about poor judgment. He probably thinks that a user with anonymous IP is at fault, but he is not. If he acted this way as an administrator, that would be really bad. Hence my oppose vote. Biophys (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Balloonman couldn't have said it any better. I am in complete agreement. The user returns after a lengthy pouting hiatus to make edits of questionable quality and then reapply for adminship? Fails my criteria for contributions and misc - petulance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose. An editor can, indeed, take time off, no problem, this is a volunteer project, after all. However, a year off is a long time, so that means it'd take awhile to get reacquainted with what has changed in that time. You've only been back for a month and a half. In that time a lot of what you have done was via Huggle (which are not edits that help get you back into the swing of things). If you take a look at my RFA criteria, you'll see that I prefer that automated tools aren't used too much, especially immediately before an RFA. However, I use Huggle, too, so I won't discount an editor solely for using it, just for using it a lot. You also haven't done too much work in the Wikipedia namespace either, since your return. That's a lot of talking, what I really want to say is that it'll take a little longer before I'm sure you have a good handle on current policies and procedures. Useight (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per Balloonman. He made several good points that I agree with. America69 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - The first three answers to the questions are very weak, I can't support a candidate that just answered too little in the main questions. doña macy [talk] 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - agree 100% with Balloonman, I see no problem with actually taking the time off, but candidate needs to be a wee bit more established after that long of a break. Dureo (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - I strongly agree with Balloonman.  Asenine  22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - This user stormed off because an RfA didn't go their way. While there's nothing wrong with taking time off, it makes me worry that this candidate can take setbacks too personally. I'd like to see this candidate edit level-headedly for a few months in a row before I'd consider supporting them. Reyk YO! 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - As per Balloonman and Wisdom. --Kaaveh (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose. Nothing has changed since your first RfA. Please, do us all a favour and stop this cycle, which consists of an RfA, a long break, a few quick edits to jack your count up, then re-RfA. When I saw this, I knew it wouldn't pass without even having to look. Get some proper content contributions, remain active and make a little more effort to prove you're here for the right reasons. Then, and only then, will I even conside support a future RfA of yours. Qst (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Balloonman; I also accept Reyk's point; going off in a huff hardly shows the temprament required for adminship. Ironholds 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose - While I'm new here (Over a month now.), I've read this, and I agree almost 100% with Balloonman, While taking some time off, it is obviously an angry, over emotional response because of their previous RfA's decision. If this is denied, I think an assessment of their reaction afterward would point to whether this assessment is accurate. I'd like to say, as a new user, while we do understand Administrators are Janitors we also look up to them for guidance, maturity, and assistance in times of need. I think, their previous reaction is exactly what a new user would be thrown by, and would gain a negative experience of Wikipedia and the Adminship. Neuro√Logic 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Failed to follow self-nom instructions, and a yearlong break isn't something an administrator should be doing. Otherwise good. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger or anything, but I'd be interested to hear why you feel taking a break for a year is a problem, if you don't mind elaborating. ~ mazca t | c 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With a break of that long, greater risk for the account to be compromised. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not necessarily true. Active accounts can be compromised as well, although they'd be noticed more quickly. This is a frequently a subject of discussion with regards to inactive administrator accounts. With CAPTCHA, it's not really that much of an issue anymore. If there's a reason to not take a break, it's not because your account might be compromised. Enigma message 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we are a community of consensus, consensus can change. We evolve/adapt as we grow and new perspectives are introduced. That which is acceptable a year ago may not be today. That which wasn't accepted a year ago, may be accepted today. 6 weeks of using tools is not enough to validate any understanding of how we've grown.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay fine. Keep badgering me. The thing about RFA is people always try to change other people's opinions. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being a little sensitive here... my comment was to answer Mazca's question about why a year matters. It was NOT addressed to you in any size shape or manner! In fact, I agree with you that a year long break is a concern!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, for now. I don't like that you've only been actively editing for a couple months since your year-long gap in contributing. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Per the comments above. I will wait to see the answer to Q4. America69 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Too soon after the year-long break, I'm afraid. Epbr123 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2008 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natl1_3&oldid=1259410183"