Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E2eamon

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E2eamon (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 5 July 2011 (→Questions for the candidate: answer to q6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

E2eamon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

E2eamon (talk · contribs) – I do a fair amount of NPP, and lately I have noticed that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion frequently shows a backlog. Even for the most blatantly obvious CSD candidates (i.e. “This is a test page...test...test...ajkl;” (G2) or “Joe is a cool boy” (A7)), it can take well over an hour before an admin has a chance to delete it. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable. We need more admins working on this. Thus, I decided to run for adminship in hopes that I could help with this (and other areas too). For those who want the numbers: I have over 10,000 edits, including over 500 deleted edits. I have numerous DYK’s (both nominations and creations) as well as one GA (Disi Water Conveyance Project). I also was an early member at the begining of the WP:Wiki Guides project. I do have rollback, autopatrolled and reviewer permissions. E♴(talk) 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As stated above, I intend to help with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I have also noticed an occasional backlog at WP:AIV, and would like to help out there as well. A good number of my edits have been anti-vandalism and CSD tagging, and so I feel confident that, with caution, I would be able to work at AIV and CSD successfully. I also contribute a lot at WP:MfD, and might perform the occasional close there. I have done a fair amount of T:DYK work- mostly reviews and nominations (although I have filled up the prep areas a few times) and would be willing to help if there was ever a need for more administrators there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of my work on the article Disi Water Conveyance Project, which I created, got on the main page in a DYK, and, with the help of other users, made it a GA. I knew nothing about the subject when I started (got it off the requested articles list), and so it was a real learning experience for me. That said, my best contributions are probably my anti-vandalism work, which does account for a large portion of my edits. There is nothing more satisfying than knowing that I have prevented the insertion of vandalism across thousands of Wikipedia pages.
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 above, I do contribute a lot to MfD. This, of course, means that I often find myself in disagreements with other users in the discussion. However, I always remain calm and focus on the issue at hand (should the page be deleted) and do not let disagreements with a user in one discussion prevent me from fully supporting their viewpoint in another. Working to remove vandalism has resulted in my userpage being vandalised many times, as well as personal attacks from vandals. Those, however, I do not take seriously and they cause me no stress.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the editor(s) reported)?
A: Well, there is the obvious misuse of the AIV board (for example, someone reports a user who has not vandalized at all, perhaps because of a conflict or other tension between users, or simply to disrupt the process). Other than that, in the majority of cases vandals need to be warned (four times is best), and so if a vandal was reported but there were no warnings or an insufficient number of warnings, I would not block them. (That is not to say that accounts can never be blocked without warnings). --E♴(talk) 19:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Quoting from the blocking policy: "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."
In other words, if a user is upset about something and would perhaps be better off not editing for a few days, that is not enough to justify a block. (Unless it is a self-requested block). However, if that editor is being disruptive (i.e. continuing to edit war against consensus, posting personal attacks, etc.), then a block may be appropriate. --E♴(talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
6. Give a few examples of how CSD A7 is often improperly applied. What do you think is the most misunderstood part to A7? What is the key to correctly applying A7?
A: A7 is often improperly applied to articles where there does exist a credible claim of significance or importance. I have also seen it applied in situations where G10 or G3 might be more appropriate. The "key" to correctly applying A7 is making sure that the article does not make a credible claim of significance or importance. As the claim must be credible, it must be something that is not vandalism (Joe is famous for being evil!) or impossible (Joe is famous for being the man who can teleport!). It also may not be a statement of opinion (Joe is famous because I think he is good looking). Then, it must claim to be significant or important. This does not mean that it must be significant, but it must claim to be. It does not need to be referenced. If such a claim is present, A7 cannot be applied. --E♴(talk) 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Identify a strength and a weakness of our current BLP policy.
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - Seems to be a clueful article contributor and a good anti-vandal patroller. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I had a look at contribs; it's hard wading through a large pile of automated stuff (maybe somebody wiser than me can analyse the stats of NPP and CSD and so on) but I found nothing bad, but there were random little bits of helpfulness like this. Random sample of talkpage history looked like reasonable communication without snarkiness. The graph shows lots of user talk edits but that goes with the antivandal work, it's not a sign of myspace-iness. I think E2eamon is competent, hardworking, and would put the tools to good use. bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked back through February and only found two actually inappropriate speedy tags: one was a mistaken G3 tagging of a page that had been vandalized and the other was this overly-hasty A1 tag [1]. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember that G3. There is no excuse for it, and I accept complete responsibility. That said, I was using Igloo at the time. Igloo shows and allows you to revert vandalism, and it also shows questionable new pages. That page showed up as a new page in Igloo (or at least I thought it did) and so I nominated if for CSD. That was overly hasty, and I now make an effort to double-check the edit history and make sure that the article doesn't have any real history that it could be reverted too. As for the A1 (I don't remember it), I again accept responsibility. I have lately tried to wait at least 10 minutes after creation (with no edits) before considering A1 or A3. --E♴(talk) 19:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, we all make mistakes. Out of a couple hundred CSDs, that's not bad. I have no doubt that somebody could scan my contributions and pick up a dozen plus declined/inappropriate speedy tags out of my 2000+ tags. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. CSD work requires particular care. E2eamon's work is as good as anyone can reasonably expect. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per users above, good luck - TBloemink (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - user is very competent. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seems experienced with the relevant admin areas, and they could certainly use more attention. Good luck! Monty845 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/E2eamon&oldid=437940776"