Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pepperpiggle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Pepperpiggle

[edit]

(3/9/3); Withdrawn by candidate at 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

Pepperpiggle (talk · contribs) – Hello, I am Pepperpiggle, and I have been editing Wikipedia for just over 1 year (my first edit was on March 1, 2009), and took [a what I now know is called] a Wikibreak, and resumed editing on May 12th. I feel that I am ready to become an administrator because I have learned from my mistakes, and have experience in quite a few of the Admin areas, (mainly AIV, but also RPP, AFD, and UAA). My edits started out small, such as linking pages, but I have grown, to create my own pages (I have created 30 pages, and 105 redirects), work against vandals, do some New Page and Random Page patrolling, and working in the admin areas mentioned above. With the admin tools, I would be able to delete pages, rather than having to request them for Speedy Deletion, and other such tasks, which would downsize the work of other admins. I will answer any additional questions you have when I have time. Pepper∙piggle 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Pepper∙piggle 22:55, 14 March 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work mostly in the RPP and AIV areas, as those are the area that I feel I have the most experience. I also plan to work in the area of deleting the candidates for Speedy Deletion, as that would be a step up from adding Speedy Deletion templates to pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribs are either my new page patrolling, or my anti-vandalism work. Those have been my primary focuses, previously vandalism fighting with Rollback and Huggle, but now a lot more new page patrolling. Also, I find that the pages on roads I have created are some of my best contribs, because if there is a navbox on a particular topic, and the navbox has red links in it, it is good to start those pages, as the topic is at least notable enough to be placed on a Navbox.
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: No, I have not really be majorly stressed by other editors at this point, some minor examples being when a user went to any random page and added, or replaced the picture with “NSDAP Reichsadler.svg”‎ in which the user had made so many edits that the only way to stop him/her was to block, and when an IP made particularly unsettling remarks (if you really must know) on my userpage.

Additional question from iridescent

4. (Note that there's no right answer to this one) Hog's Back Road (a very early article of yours) has been tagged {{Notability}} for some time now, and there are a lot of very short road-stubs among your contribs. As WP:50k and WP:Notability (highways) never reached consensus, we currently have no policy on roads other than the WP:N core. As almost every road in the world has been mentioned in local newspapers on at least two occasions, they almost all technically meet the "multiple, independent, non trivial coverage" criteria; however, it's obviously not possible for us to have a separate article on every road in the world. Do you think that (in general, not just for roads) we should strive to have an article on anything that's been mentioned in multiple independent sources, or do you think there's a "natural limit" of significance below which we shouldn't be covering topics? If the latter, do you think different standards should apply to biographical and non-biographical topics?
A: I think that there definitely is a natural limit, because, even if the "multiple, independent, non trivial coverage" criteria are met, sometimes the topic is still not notable enough, it just happened to be brought up in a local newspaper a few times. This does not make it notable enough to have an article. However, I do believe that Hog's Back Road should not be deleted because it is on a list of Roads in Ottawa, so, as I said above in the answer to question 2, if there is a list on a particular topic, and the list has red links in it, it is good to start those pages, as the topic is at least notable enough to be placed on a list.

[Entirely] optional question from fox

5. and took [a what I now know is called] a Wikibreak - how long did it take to realise what these were called? (this is a serious question, by the way, but I will not look down on you for choosing to ignore it.)
A. I don't know exactly when I learned about Wikibreaks - it was probably around August 2009. I only put that in to say that at the time that I had the Wikibreak, I didn't know it had a name.
Additional optional question from Mike Cline
6. Which of the following do you believe is the most important role of 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, are 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: Of the choices given, if I had to choose one, it would be "c." That is because admins are the experienced editors, so, in life in general, the experienced help the new, the new grow into the experienced of their time, and, once again, help he new. Although admins should also help fight vandalism, and delete pages that don't comply with the policies, I feel that "a", "b", and "d" are subcategories of "c."


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support - I really like the experience level of this candidate. He would do no harm with the mop. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Net positive. Meets my "standards." And the CSD experience is fine. I don't think the CSD criteria are that forgettable. Creation experience is fine and of course he has a lot of automated edits- he reverts vandalism. Assuming he werereverting vandals the old fashioned way, and had 1500 non-automated reverts plus 1500 non automated builder edits, then he'd still meet my 3,000 edit threshold. 10 months experience is more than enough. Dlohcierekim 16:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support-I'm not one to judge a candidate on their ratio of semi-automated to non-automated edits like some of those below do. Seems to have good experience in admin areas and will make a fine admin overall.--SKATER Speak. 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Sadly, oppose because candidate does not have a great deal of experience in adminey areas and has only about 1.5k not automated edits. Sorry, insufficient experience for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Awesome vandal fighter but not yet ready for the mop, I would suggest more experience in Admin related areas. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I don't like the deleted edit numbers. Sorry. smithers - talk 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about his ~350 deleted contribs, nearly all of them were successful CSD tags. Of the remaining handful, none of them were pages he created, or otherwise problematic from what I saw. Best, JamieS93❤ 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have gone a little further in the rationale, sorry. I also don't understand that gap between the one deletion in February and the several in December. There also hasn't been any deletions since February, to my understanding... Three months can make someone easily forget some of the weird criteria. smithers - talk 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's deleted contributions (sorry, admins only) contain entries for each month since September 2009. There is no gap between December and February.  Frank  |  talk  16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no notifications to author then, and that isn't right on its own either. smithers - talk 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Would like to see a bit more experience, in multiple capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: solid editor, but I'd like to see some more experience in many areas. With 60% automated edits, this makes the non-auto edit count low, at around 1700. Maybe with a few more months of experience (I'm not concerned about percentage of automated edits, just the number of non-auto edits and therefore experience) I'll be motivated to support. Regards, Airplaneman talk 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with judgement, experience, breadth of exposure, policy knowledge, and high proportion of automated to non-automated edits. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose: It looks like your edits in the mainspace and talkpages are primarily related to reverting. Autoedit count is high. Unsure on knowledge of policy & lack of evidence to support this user. (See User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Not because of any weakness in anything the candidate has done; vandal-fighting and page patrolling are essential contributions to the project. But I do feel that an administrator needs a wider range of experience to get a full understanding of the project and its policies. That experience would, for example, include some (but not all) of XfD, DRV and content work. I'd suggest coming back in a few months with a broader range of experience. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - per experience in admin-related areas and lots of automated contributions. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. OK on the cooling aspect, User not being admin coached makes me wonder why I shouldn't support, yet the experience on Wikipedia is long enough to be worth the wait so that I can't really oppose on this vote either. Neutral as it stands for me. Minimac (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CommentThe two show case articles with the most edits of Pepperpiggle 1 and 2need both wikfy-ing and the references and links are both not up to the standard, this makes me feel that the experinece in the mainspace is not enough.--Stone (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Just concerned about breadth of experience. They're a dedicated vandal fighter, which I truly appreciate, but that alone isn't enough to make me support, and I'm not seeing much else to go on. I would like to see either more admin-related work or more (non-reverting) article work. Neutral for now; I want to lean support, but I haven't seen any convincing reason to do so. Swarm(Talk) 21:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pepperpiggle&oldid=1149834383"