Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow 2

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.

PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow

[edit]

Final (0/13/0); Ended 21:40, April 13, 2010 (UTC) (closed per SNOW) (X! · talk)  · @018  ·  23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow (talk · contribs) – PopMusicBuff talk 20:56, 13 April 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 would like to mostly just continue my usually "Wikipedia-ing". I am very much into more pop culture things (as the name might suggest) and focus primarily of music, digital media, fashion, design related articles. I consider myself to be more of a Wikignome so I tend to correct mistakes if I notice them, or correct vandalism or revert good faith edits, but try not to draw attention to myself.
That being said I would be focusing more on reverting vandalism, but also things like conflicts of interest and acting as a neutral third-party; or blocking/deleting inappropriate usernames; and disputing revert wars.
If I am uncertain of what to do, then i will seek guidance and advice from a more experienced admin or look at the administrators reading list.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well as I mentioned I tend not to do huge editing to any particular article, but correct things as I notice them, or try and add references as needed, or correct the formatting (wikifying) sections of articles as needed (ie. charts).
Although I am currently trying to improve Sinéad O'Connor discography. I started this page after I noticed it was a gigantic, unreferenced, unwikified section on the artist's main page.
I have added sections, deleted unneccesary sections, removed unneccessary formating codes, and reorganized the information. I am now currently trying to find references for this article. I am also trying to find information about any music videos she may have done, as there was no information about it.
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: The only real conflict I have been in was when dealing with the article Fashion (Heidi Montag song). At the time there was very little information about this song, and no music video or charting information, and it was proposed to be merged with either Heidi Montag or Lady Gaga (or separated into both articles).
There were 2 other people in the argument, found here. One of them agreed with me that there shouldn't be an article for it, and the other kept wanting it to stay. As it turned out D.C. Blake was a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely; although more information about the song became available since then.
I try and keep calm when there is a dispute and give my reasons and listen to what the other person has to say. I try and talk to the other person to explain why I think I am correct. If things get out of hand as shown in the article, I will ask for another person's opinion on the matter, or ask an admin. I have not had any problems recently, so now I just leave brief edit summaries so users know what I am doing. I plan to do the same in the future, in case of any further disputes.
Additional question from Phantomsteve
4. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. Well given this scenario, no admin tools would be necessary. I would check to see if the removed information is unsourced. If it is sourced, I would revert that edit and explain that there was a reliable source. If the user reverts again, I woudl revert back and leave a message on the user's talk page. If it happened again, I would consider blocking the user for violating the WP:3RR.
If no source was there, then I would either leave the edit alone, or try and find a reliable source to correct the issue.
Additional question from Phantomsteve
5. Have you ever edited under another user name? If so, would you be willing to let us know what it was, and why you are not using it? (If you are worried about privacy issues, would you be willing to reveal it to a 'crat so that they can vouch that there's nothing 'dodgy' about the old account?)
A. No I have not. i have gained some experience from editing via IP addresses before creating an account. I do not own a computer, so I edit using library computers, school computers, and sometimes my blackberry.


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/PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Yes I know it wasn't vandalism. I was too lazy too explain myself as I am very tired. I wanted to answer some of the questions given to me, respond to your malicious comments, and continue to hear opinions and critiques.
    Above copied from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship [1]
In question 3 above, you said I try and keep calm when there is a dispute and give my reasons and listen to what the other person has to say. I try and talk to the other person to explain why I think I am correct. - you actions here seem to belie that, as you didn't communicate with the editor who closed the RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies everyone. I just wanted to hear people's opinions of what I could do to improve. Sadly my actions have backfired. I will take what you all say into consideration.
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I hate to be the first, but unfortunately, I cannot support you at this time. Aside from the low edit count (I generally try to avoid that argument when I can), I see very little experience in the Wikipedia namespace. I can't tell exactly how much because you haven't opted in to the edit counter tool, but I don't see much experience in AFD, little experience with vandal fighting (though you said you do that, could you point this out to me? I may have missed it), and overall little experience in administrative areas as a whole. You do have 130 deleted edits, though I can't see what they're for, but I see no CSD warnings given to editors, so I have to assume either they are edits not relevant to CSD tagging or editors haven't been notified that their page is tagged for deletion, which, in my mind, is a must. With all of these combined together I have to say not now. Get some experience in administrative areas and I will be glad to support you in a future RFA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at them, I see a couple of G7s, but as there are hardly any edit summaries, I can't be certain how many might be CSDs without looking through them - but the few I randomly looked at were not CSDs - and as there are no warnings given to editors for CSD tagging, and hardly any edit summaries, I would be veering towards an oppose just on the lack of communication about deletions, but will not to avoid pile-on -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At this stage you don't have enough experience for me to be confident of you having the tools, I'm afraid. I would need to see more contributions in admin-like areas, such as AfD, AIV and CSD, and about 6 months and 3,000 edits more experience, to have that confidence. Most of the matters you list in Question 1 are things for which you don't need to be an admin (eg reverting vandalism). And for re-opening your own RFA with the edit summary "revert vandalism", well, now I've seen it all. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A good balance of editing in different areas, but just over 1,000 is not enough experience for me to offer you my support at this time. Also, you have very little action in the areas you say you wish to work in. For example, despite showing an interest in WP:UAA in Q1, I cannot see any usernames you have reported on that page. Like Shirik above, I can't see any evidence of vandal fighting (I wouldn't usually bring that up, but it is an area you claimed to be interested in). Come back with some more experience and I'll consider supporting in the future. BigDom 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too nice. I would like to see how well you handle some of the stress and conflict imposed on Admins. At least I'd like to be sure you know what you are getting yourself into. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
    Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 6,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 6,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 6 months and 6,000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 22:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Clueless abuse of the word vandalism. Misguided early close, yes, but not vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If you hadn't insisted on reopening this I wouldn't have piled on, but the stubbornness of keeping this open when it obviously has no chance of passing is IMO a prima facie sign of bad judgement. – iridescent 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose per [2]. Whatever NerdyScienceDude closing your RFA per NOTNOW was, it wasn't vandalism. That you intentionally chose to call it such proves yu aren't ready. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pile on Oppose per Pedro.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, I would recommend that you take on the advice given earlier here rather than struggle against the fact this is unlikely to succeed. --Taelus (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, actions here show you are not ready for adminship, along with saying you would block someone that you are having a conflict with. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose - for calling my closure "vandalism". ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Calling NSD's closure 'vandalism' didn't earn brownie points from me. Neither does the fact that the only real "admin"-type stuff you seem to mention is UAA, but there being no reports from you at UAA, I see no evidence that can show me that you have any understanding of this area. My advice would be to withdraw this RfA, as to have any chance of succeeding, you need a minimum of 31 supports with no further opposes - and as you currently have none, I don't think that's too likely. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) ps: and if you were involved in a dispute as per my question, saying that you would block the other editor for 3RR is not the way to go - I would count that as an abuse of your admin tool -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. [3]. Hmmmm. Explanations of your amazing ability to learn mark up on your first edit (and complex mar up at that) and userboxes about five minutes later would be interesting, but I'm afraid my ABF radar just rang loudly. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now opposing Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 13 April 2010 (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/PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow_2&oldid=1136436400"