Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SorryGuy 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Master of Puppets (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 16 February 2008 (Tally, vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SorryGuy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (54/1/1); Scheduled to end 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SorryGuy (talk · contribs) - I'm shocked for several reasons to be writing this nom. The most obvious is because SorryGuy is one of the most competent non-admins around, in my opinion. He had an unsuccessful RfA 2 and a bit months ago, which was mainly opposed for activity. I supported. Now I'm nominating.

SorryGuy's primary work around here is in the AfD here. The backlog is huge at the moment, and he does a lot of good work to help out; relisting close debates, voting in some too, and closing some obvious ones. He's got experience, and we need that.

SorryGuy has also done heaps of article work; check out Template:GAicon Preuss School (also failed FAC, but it's a big effort to get there in the first place) and Template:FA The Lord of the Rings (which he took to a successful FAC). There aren't many candidates with experience in both areas like this guy. Why isn't this guy an admin yet? I dunno, but it's time to change that. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination while also thanking Dihydrogen Monoxide for the flattering nomination. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 10 February 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, it would be my goal to help in as many areas as possible. As said in the nomination, my primary work with the administrative tools would likely be in regards to WP:AFD. I have been closing clear keep cases for about a month now and in the last week, with the backlog as it is, have taken part in the process of relisting old nominations for further discussion. With the tools, I would be able to close those which are clear delete consensuses and hopefully further fight the backlog. Additionally, I am experienced enough in the field of vandal fighting to put blocking to good use. As an administrator, I would keep WP:AIV on my watchlist and help out there whenever it was unnecessary. To date, I do not believe I have any rejected reports to AIV. I would also like to help out in two areas which are currently watchlisted but which I can not really help out on without the tools. Firstly, I would like to help with WP:RFPP, which I feel as though I am capable of helping with although it doesn't seem to ever backlog, really. Secondly, while I have participated there before, I would actually be able to take action in situations which called for it on WP:AN and WP:AN/I.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Again, as stated in the nomination, by best work is probably The Lord of the Rings and Preuss School. Another article I have significantly contributed to is Friday Night Lights, which is currently waiting for review in GA nominations. I believe my next project will be Neon Bible, although if other editors would like to collaborate I may attempt to get Magic: The Gathering to FA from its current GA status. Besides this, I recently helped manage Assassination of Benazir Bhutto as information on it flowed in as a current event.
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: As I said during my last nomination, I do not view Wikipedia as a stressful experience, I edit it as an escape from the stress of real life. As such, I must say that I still feel as though I have never had a serious dispute or stressful experience here. The talk page of Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is probably a pretty good place to see how I deal with situations that could become serious, though.
  1. follow up question from DGG: If you become an active administrator, you will inevitably have to deal with more stress than you seem to have been accustomed to. There is a very great difference between sending cases to AIV, and deciding on blocking. There will be a great difference also when you start closing the less obvious AfDs. We need to know how you would expect to manage yourselves when things get difficult and people start accusing you of bias, incompetence and everything in the spectrum beyond that. If a SPA posted on your page that your speedy deletion of his article showed a prejudice against his company, how would you respond? and what would you do if he then insulted you about it? What if it were an established editor? 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, between this nomination and my last I have decided that speedy deletions is not something which I am interested in attending to. However, understanding the gist, I would respond by explaining the deletion rationale to the user and pointing them to the criteria for the given speedy criteria under which I deleted the article. If they continued to feel that I was incorrect and cited specific reasoning, I would likely point them to deletion review. In the case of an established editor, I would react in the same manner. If insults were entered into the situation, it depends on what sort of remarks they were. If they were simply to the degree of "you were wrong" I would take it in stride and take the actions described above. If they were to make more personal attacks, I would link them to the relevant policy and likely issue a personal attack warning. SorryGuy  Talk  03:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Malleus Fatuarum

4. If selected, would you add yourself to the Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If not, then why not, and if you would, then what would your criteria be?
A: No, I would not add myself to the category. I do not like the category and think that a new process needs to be developed, although I realize the difficulties there. This is not to say that I would not resign the tools if a situation where I misused them arose. If the community, with community being defined in my terms in accordance with the situation, were to say I had done so, I would resign them. But to set arbitrary standards with no knowledge as to what the actual situation might be is not something I am willing to do. SorryGuy  Talk  03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

5. What are you so sorry about? Have you done bad things?
A: Nice question. Yeah, to be honest, I am not particularly fond of my username as it sort of suggests that I am a sorrowful person, which really could not be further from the truth. At any rate, the name dates to mid-2004. I was not the most internet savvy, and after being banned from an internet forum, I created a new account hoping that the username would make it clear that I did not want to be banned again and instead apologize for my earlier actions. As it turns out, no one even realized I had ever been a member of the site in the past, and I became a respected and well-known member of the site. Then, in September 2005 I was asked by a member of the site to join Wikipedia and did so under this name. A number of my other web usernames are this as well as I first learned about them from members of this web forum, and as such I am sort of stuck with it for clarity purposes. And so ends an answer which I suspect was far longer than you expected. SorryGuy  Talk  04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't fond of it, you should change it. The Transhumanist 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me that much and I rather not confuse people. Identity is identity, as I said, if I were to change it is one place, I would need to change it in many. SorryGuy  Talk  06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are now sorry you selected that username. Ironic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus question from Dlohcierekim Deleted?.

6. Is the Encyclopedia half empty or half full?
A: I would definitely say it is half full. ;) SorryGuy  Talk  04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems a very constructive editor, reviewing his contribs. Darn, didn't beat nom support. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Elaboration - While he seemed to edit Wikipedia extremely sporadically in the past, it seems to me that more recently he has become regularly active. While his edits per month are lower than what some users would like, edits per month is an argument to avoid. All that matters is that he's a solid, experienced contributor who won't abuse the tools. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I see nothing to suggest that my support three months ago was misplaced. Joe 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - a very good editor, knows everything he needs to know to become a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've been impressed, and I thought the last RfA (which was right on the edge if I remember, with 69%, I even commented to Deskana asking if maybe it shouldn't have passed anyway...) should've passed. Avruchtalk 04:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support based on a strong recommendation from H2O. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Pleased to be able to do so, as I remember regretting my oppose last time. Jmlk17 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support User seems to do great work - good balance between admin and general editorial activities. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support per nom and per my standards. FA editors have strong article building skills and generally have shown they know how to work well with others. The talk pages support the notion that nominee will not abuse the tools out of ill-temperedness or because of being too quick to anger. In fact, the Barnstars and smiles suggest that the user is helpful, friendly and courteous. When an oversight is called to the nominee's attention, he thanks the editor for bringing it to his attention and seeks to improve with the experience. He is clearly the sort of person it will be a pleasure to have as an admin. Since the last RfA, he has broadened his experience beyond article building to include AfD as well. I trust DMHO's knowledge of AfD sufficiently to feel confident in his judgement as nominator. Certainly his time and experience are satisfactory. His answer to question 4 is irrelevant to his readiness for adminship because the question, regarding a controversial matter lacking in community consensus, is lirrelevant. In fact, the continual appearance of this "rationale" on RfA after RfA, without regard for the nominee's abilities, is both troubling and distracting. It lacks any merit at all. In short, the nominee is more than ready for the mop-- let's give it to him. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Dlohcierekim. User:Dorftrottel 10:52, February 10, 2008
  12. Nothing unreasonable has occured since my last support. SorryGuy maintains a strict code of conduct at AfD and his manner in other areas is superb. A person dedicated to rooting towards a common goal with excellent contributions that reflect what is needed in an administrator, make this a support. Rudget. 11:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No reason to oppose. Epbr123 (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - — Rlevse • Talk • 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support As Dlohcierekim and as per track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per answer to Q4. Snowolf How can I help? 15:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Looks like a great candidate, and basically the primary concern voiced at his prior RfA - lack of experience - has been addressed four months later! krimpet✽ 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - the project will definitely benefit from SorryGuy having the tools. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per the answer to question 4... additionally, I was considering nominating him myself soon. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The candidate has substantial mainspace contributions, has done a fine job at AFD and seems to understand policy. He's trustworthy. Let's give him the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support: Easily passes Level 3. Good luck! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I really like the answer to Q4. It shows a good understanding of the true working of Wikipedia (consensus, not polls of arbitrarily picked users). He indicates that he will respect community consensus. Maxim(talk) 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good grasp of policy. Good experience of article editing. Recall is voluntary; it is possible to construct criteria and process to make oneself virtually fireproof- conversely, it is also possible to do so in a manner that leaves one open to frivolous attacks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Looks good.ChetblongT C 04:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - no problems, meets my criteria even if his sig looks suspiciously like Pedro's! Also, appreciate the courage of the answer to Q4: I think recall is a good idea but declining to join the list (when the popular move would be to just say yes) demonstrates strength of character. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Per previous positive interaction, and despite the blatant theft of my signature...... :) Pedro :  Chat  14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support First ran into him at FAC, and had a positive interaction with him there, although the Preuss School still didn't pass. Didn't realize he spent a lot of time on AFD, and though I should be concerned that giving him the tools could take him away from article writing, I'm not. Ameriquedialectics 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good choice. MBisanz talk 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Excellent editor with an impressive list supporters. —Travistalk 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Very competent contributor.--Hu12 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I supported this candidate the first time, and things are still the same. Definitely trustworthy. VanTucky 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. There is no evidence that you will abuse the tools. (Actually I thought you had the tools already). As an admin myself that is not in the CAT:AOR and stating as much at my own RfA, I salute you for your stance in Q4. Personally, until that particular "category" is made more specific, non-optional, and less arbitrary, (meaning every candidate gets to choose his/her own recall criteria) I don't see how any optional category could or should hold up your request for adminship. In my opinion, this thereby renders the opposes based on said category a moot point. It's optional. Full stop. You are a good editor, you don't vandalize Wikipedia. You contribute to wiki space and main space. That's enough for me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support good editor overall. Regarding your answer to Q4: I strongly feel that those admins who allow a few editors drag them into wikidrama by acting decisively have decided to refrain from acting decisively when there are factions rather than 1 editor on each side. This editor has widely chosen not to corner himself or herself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support this is a good editor and meets everything that an admin should stand for. No evidence they would misuse tools!Canyouhearmenow 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Seen this editor around. Knows policy. Won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: No hesitation here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Spencer Will use tools very competently. Good job, and happy editing! SpencerT♦C 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak support I opposed his last RfA, but he have improved in the past. NHRHS2010 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support — Zerida 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. The Transhumanist 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Looks good to me. :) GlassCobra 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support and no I'm not sorry about it, nor will I be, I think--Pewwer42  Talk  10:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as per all of the above comments. Seems to really want to help out the community. Razorflame (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. He's got what it takes. Axl (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Yes. --BozMo talk 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I trust this user with rollback, and I trust him with all the tools. Acalamari 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I believe in forgiveness, and this editor seems genuinely sorry for what he's done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I think he'll do well as an administrator. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Especially per Q4. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Awesome editor, been spotted everywhere I go. Well, not really, but still. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, because of the answer to Q4. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you clarify what it is about my answer to question four that you object to? SorryGuy  Talk  03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally find that answer to be superb. It's a good case against RFAR. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a voluntary cat and an honest answer, would you prefer he lied about it? I personally feel recall has been abused by users quite a bit lately. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's quite reasonable to submit that, inasmuch as there exists at present no mechanism by which the community might desysop an admin in whom it no longer feels comfortable reposing trust, one will not support a candidate who does not commit himself to concrete recall standards; in fact, as someone who believes that just as the community has absolute discretion to confer the tools, so must it have absolute discretion to remove the tools, I would withhold support for certain candidates for whom I would, were it not for their disinclination to join AOR, !vote, but I don't see any need to withhold support where I see nothing to suggest that even that there might arise a time when I would support a recall, and Sorry seems to be a candidate about whom one need not worry. As to a candidate's lying in response to the question, a candidate, under our present system (in which it is much easier to get than to lose the tools), does well to mislead the community with respect to certain issues that may arise, but on this question, were one, having promised to join AOR, to fail to do so, or to implement standards different from those to which he committed himself, the anger and distrust of the community would be such that desysopping would, by some mechanism, be undertaken straightaway. Joe 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind repeating that? <<grin>> Dlohcierekim Deleted? 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He gave an honest answer. Seems to me that Q4 puts a candidate on the spot, in other words "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Anyone that has a gripe with an admin could ask for a recall whether it's warranted or not.Paloma Walker (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "damned if you do and damned if you don't" - Precisely. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every question puts a candidate on the spot, that's their purpose. I am completely unconcerned who agrees or disagrees with me on this issue, so please do not waste any more time in trying to pressure me to change my mind. Until there is a corresponding process to this one in place, for the removal of administrator rights, then I want to know the conditions under which a candidate would voluntarily relinquish the bit. In this case the answer appeared at worst to be "none", and at best to be unnecessarily evasive, which I do not find acceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. My question was meant as friendly kidding. I thought I agreed with Joe, but at 2amm, it was hard to tell with all the convolutions and my eyes half closed. I know I agree w/ Pasloma and Rlevse. Excellent. Could not have said it better. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I encourage you to rethink your position on listing yourself for recall. There's been a fair amount of discussion on criteria and process. Each admin sets his/her own criteria at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and you can peruse what others have done. I agree that you definitely don't want to add yourself to the category without laying down some criteria. --A. B. (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SorryGuy, what are you sorry about? Or what's sorry about you? Just curious. The Transhumanist 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See answer to question 5.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Why did you never come back? Just curious.  :) The Transhumanist 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I come back plenty. But online I play a character who never came back.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SorryGuy_2&oldid=191799309"