Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skater 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.248.154.200 (talk) at 14:41, 29 March 2010 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skater

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (5/14/5); Scheduled to end 2:13, April 5 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Skater (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm Skater and this is my second self-nomination for Adminship. On my last RFA, I was told I needed more experience and to reconsider my "goals" on Wikipedia, which I believe I have. Being an admin is not something one should work for, their efforts are better put in creating and improving articles, and building the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world. As of right now, I have a total of 4,446 edits with most of my deleted being the work of my work in CSD nominations.I honestly try to assist anywhere I'm needed, but I'm simply not a big article writer, though I do have a few stubs created under my belt and a few deleted for various reasons (Mainly non-notable). I've been a vandal hunter for as long as I can remember, using Huggle, Twinkle, and Lupin's anti-vandal tool.

I believe that one of the main reasons someone might oppose me might of been my recent "retirement", in which I did not edit for 2 months and I certainly owe an explanation if I'm to be trusted with the tools. During the time, my eyes were opened to a darker side of the community, one where the Wikimedia foundation did not listen to it's own users on the "Wikipedia Forever" campaign, and one of the users I admire very much was indef blocked for sockpuppetry (Though he has since been given a second chance).I have since found my love of Wikipedia once more and look forward to hearing what the community thinks of me, whether support, Oppose, or neutral. Warm regards,SKATER Speak. 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination--SKATER Speak. 20:47, 28 March 2010 (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: Mainly I intend to take part in WP:CSD, and WP:AIV, but I will most likely also dabble in WP:UAA, and where ever assistance is needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's very hard to say for me to be honest, I'm quite fond of the articles I've created and expanded, but they are all simply stubs, some maybe Start-class worthy. However,my CSD and Anti-vandal work is also close to my heart.
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: It is inevitable that a user will come into a conflict with another User. I myself have been in several situations of the sort. Most I have resolved by simply taking it too WP:WQA, where I am an avid mediator, but the most serious was a genre warrior who has since been indef blocked that went to WP:ANI. I try to understand the views of those who I have the conflict with and always attempt to Assume Good Faith until proven otherwise. I will most likely continue this in the future as well.
Additional optional question from Mike Cline
4. Which of the following do you believe should take precedence for a Wikipedia admin and Why?
a. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are deleted
b. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are, when at all possible, improved until they do.
c. Mentoring new and established editors by helping them understand policies and guidelines in a way that allows them to write better articles and improve the encyclopedia
d. Fighting vandalism by blocking persistent vandals and IP addresses.
A:Hi, and thank you for your questions! After thinking on it, All of those are very important tasks for a sysop to do. In my opinion, option C is the most important. Wikipedia is nothing without it's editors, and all editors should help each improve one another. I would be nothing if it weren't for all the people that have mentored me and informed me of the mistakes I've made and what I've done well. D would most likely take second place, as vandals jeopardize the integrity of the project.--SKATER Speak. 03:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Mkativerata
5. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion tags? [1] and [2]. Note I'm more interested in the reasoning than the actual answer.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Well, both of those appear to be about notable subjects assuming the facts are real. Yet number one clearly doesn't meet Wp:ATH in it's current status. I would most likely Userfy both of those and leave a message explaining the problems I had with them.
Additional optional question from DustFormsWords
6. Given that you are intending to work in CSD, could you please explain your understanding of the A7 Speedy Deletion criterion and why it doesn't apply to computer software?
A:
7. Expanding on question 3 above, could you link to examples of significant disputes you have had with other Wikipedians (whether good faith editors or vandals) and explain why you resolved them the way you did?
A:


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. I've looked at your recent edits and see that you do a lot of good work here and I believe you would be a good administrator. —Soap— 02:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This user would definitely be trusted with the mop. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Probably won't pass, and the experience is definitely on the low side, but I've seen this user around for a while and I don't have any reason to think that they would misuse the tools, or otherwise question their judgment. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - It saddens me to see this RFA isn't going better. With our past dealings, I'd trust you implicitly with the mop. --King Öomie 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This user is well trustworthy and experienced enough to obtain the mop. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Regretful Oppose Appears to be under 18. Keepscases (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I miss somewhere that, that is a reason to oppose? CTJF83 chat 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually yes it is; it's called Ageism. With all due respect, this is a valid !vote. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if you consider essays valid for anything.... CTJF83 chat 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't read that essay, but I don't believe minors being Wikipedia administrators is a good thing. Keepscases (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to vote oppose based on age, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A classical example of ageism. Since when was it a problem for people that are < 18 to become admins? That puzzles me. The Toxic Mite t | c 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like everything else in this section, it's an opinion. Leave him to it.  f o x  11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no age requirement to become an administrator, it depends on the quality of your edits. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm sorry, I really am, because you were pleasant to deal with in our one encounter, but someone who wants to work in speedy deletion with only 300 deleted edits worries me. I also find 80 edits to AIV to be somewhat on the low side. I know you were told in your last RFA to come back around February, but with three months of minimal activity, I think you should have waited a while longer. In my view, this is the ultimate not now case- in a few more months I would seriously consider supporting. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'll admit that I have not had much interaction with Skater, but all of it has been of a fairly volatile and rash nature. (My major interaction involved Skater nominating a page I had created for deletion because a wikipedia user he knew pointed out the page to him. That page got almost all Keep votes at AfD[3]. Another concern is that Skater did not endeavor to list the page in the music-related discussions, which I think is important for someone to do - I did not even know about those discussions at that point). There has been a general tendency to get dragged into arguments and have quick-fire responses when they weren't all that helpful[4]. Also, Skater seems to quickly establish views on a user, and these seem to be hard to change, and in my opinion are somewhat rash. My strongest reason for the oppose, though, is that Skater decided to retire in what I can only call a rash decision based on a single user being caught for sockpuppting (see the details here[5]. When that user was eventually unblocked with the promise of not doing it again, Skater came back to wikipedia. I don't know what kind of administrative decisions to expect from someone who operates so rashly. Also, I wonder why Skater keeps requesting administratorship - I feel like he thinks it's either a badge of honor, or he wants to do things differently from the existing administrators - but that's a personal feeling. Skater, I hope when you read this you don't automatically get angry at me, and instead try to see where I'm coming from. Luminifer (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not THAT hard to change his views on people. My first encounter with him was him bringing me to ANI (or WQA or whatever it was) for incivility, and now he's one of the editors I trust the most. --King Öomie 12:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Concerns about temperament. Also, lack of experience. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the answer to question 5, the second one is a definite deletion under WP:CSD#G10. -- BigDom 06:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Q5 answer is troubling, this kind of material should be deleted on sight, and most definitely not be userfied. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for a combination of factors that would not, on their own, sway me to oppose, but taken together, do. Those factors are: a limited record of content contribution; a limited number of manual edits (automated edits aren't bad, its just that manual edits are a better gauge of experience); and Q5 (per BigDom above, overlooking the BLP concern). As I said on my talk page, you are a very good editor. I think you should continue being a very good editor for a while. Adminship is a thorny crown and I do wonder why you want it at this stage: the number of admins who retire or voluntarily desysop show that it is obviously a title that many consider not to be worth the effort. I'd suggest enjoying the freedom of not being an administrator and broaden your engagement in the project and you'll probably come back here soon enough and sail through.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I don’t know if I can trust this editor with the mop for the simple reason that he has insufficient experience in what WP is all about—creating and contributing to articles. Article clean-up, reverting vandalism and nominating stuff for deletion is important, we all do it, but if you are going to mentor new editors in the ways of WP (answer 6 above), you really need strong article space experience—creating, improving and sourcing articles. This candidate has done very, very little of that. Put the mop away for a while and write some WP articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Lacks temperament. Hipocrite (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose regretfully, but with moral support. I was going to go for a neutral with a view to reconsidering as things progress (largely based on narrow experience), but the answers to Q5 both seem wrong to me (the first one asserts notability, so it's not an A7, and the second one makes unsourced allegations of criminality against named individuals, so it's a G10). And as CSD is where the nominator plans to work, that's not something I can overlook. I think more experience is needed in CSD - watch new CSD noms, decide how you'd deal with them yourself, and see what the closing admins do (and think on which ones get it wrong - they sometimes do) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm not bothered about your age, or that you took a wiki break; I would prefer to see a bit more content building, but my real concern is that you haven't yet got it quite right at CSD. Missing the G10 in the question was concerning - the information itself could have been correct and I'd be happy with either a G10, or an attempt to source the article or deleting it as G10 with a friendly note to the editor explaining that articles of that nature absolutely need reliable sources and offering to restore it if they supply a source. Your other tagging seems a tad hasty at times, this A7 was after just three minutes; so we'll likely never know what that editor would have expanded it to if they hadn't been tagged so quickly. I would suggest you try working at the back of the unpatrolled queue and maybe help some newbies get their articles through DYK or install wp:hotcat and categorise that which isn't obviously speediable. I hope you treat this as a learning opportunity, and if we are both still around in three months feel free to email me for advice as to whether I think you are ready to run again. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't think you're experienced enough to hold the role.  f o x  11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Answer to question 5 very poor. Coupled with a generally low level of experience I think this is a case of please come back later. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Concerns with sporadic editing, the wikibreak (the wikimedia foundation office is free to do whatever it wants, regardless of the userbase's opinions), high ratio of automated to manual edits, (37%; 1652 of 4470 are automated), and a lack of personalized interaction with other users. On top of that, you state you wish to work in CSD and UAA, but I see little evidence of extensive experience in either field (300 deleted edits and <6 edits at UAA simply isn't going to cut it). I know this is a long list, but please don't be discouraged. You're a fantastic user, and definitely on the right track; I'm positive you'll make an excellent sysop someday. But for now, I think you'd benefit from more experience first before becoming an admin. Sorry mate. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your criticism is always welcome Fastily, I am honored by your advice.--SKATER Speak. 03:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Sorry. With only 2,000 over non-automated edits, I can't support this RFA. I would like to see more participation in not only CSD-related areas but also other areas an admin should be familiar in, like WP:AN/I and WP:RS/N. BejinhanTalk 03:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the number of automated edits a reason? Are you suggesting people not use TW and HG and do everything the old fashion manual way? CTJF83 chat 03:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not saying that everything should be done in the old-fashion way, it's quite convenient to do everything automatically. But at the end of the day, I believe that more experience can be garnered from non-automated edits. While I appreciate Skater's anti-vandalism, I want to see a 'balance' in his editing. He should be knowledgeable in the areas I mentioned previously than only in CSD-related areas. Tagging articles for CSD, PROD, or categorizing them are part of cleanup but Skater has also got to learn the ropes of all the other parts in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not only about fighting vandalism. It involves many other aspects as well. BejinhanTalk 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if this is not the right place to ask, but how do you see how many of a user's edits are manual and how many auto? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Soxred shows 1653 automated and over 3,000 manual. So I'm surprised that anyone would oppose for this candidates use of Huggle. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, a very handy tool, thanks - I agree that's a low percentage of automated edits, and it wouldn't trouble me. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WereSpielChequers, I'm wondering how you got 3,000 over manual edits. Is my method of calculation wrong? How I counted....the approx. total of automated edits is 1,653. Skater's total edits is 4,481. 4,481-1,653=2,828. Personally, I find it hard to support a candidate with only 2,828 non-automated edits. BejinhanTalk 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What strikes me in general about automated edits is that while some processes (huggle, etc) will generate multiple edits from one user decision, all of those edits are judgement calls by the editor- they're not truly automated. I've never understood people completely discounting automated edits. It would seem to make more sense (to me at least) to take the Automated number and divide it by 3 (in the case of Huggle, the three being Revert, Warn, AIV- or automation penalty). --King Öomie 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Also, this is not an oppose. I would love to support Skater, but due to my concerns above, I can't. Maybe I'll leave a note on Skater's talk page later to explain things further. BejinhanTalk 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral close to support 304 Deleted Contributions looks pretty good (which would cause me to vote support), but only 80 AIV edits (neutral) and six UAA edits (oppose). Altogether, it balances out to neutral. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm really not sure what to say on this one, I don't think I should go for either Support or Oppose, there's just not enough postives and not enough negatives to tip the scale to make me vote on one side. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning Support, solid editor, plenty of experience, good faith contributor. Unfortunately, the answer to Q5 is flat out wrong, and I can't bring myself to support because of it. I'd encourage you to have another try in a couple of months. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Skater_2&oldid=352743219"