mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Useight 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Useight

[edit]

(21/14/6) Final Andre (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useight (talk · contribs) - I joined Wikipedia last December to fix a grammatical mistake I found, but thought nothing of it and didn't edit again for months; beginning to actively editing in March. I started as a WikiGnome and then started reverting vandalism, commenting in AfD, and monitoring the New Pages, tagging hundreds for deletion. I have gained experience in many different realms of Wikipedia and would like to be able to help further, using the tools that come with the "mop". Useight 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: While I would certainly help out wherever I could, I would focus on keeping CAT:CSD clear since I don't like to see frivolous articles creep into Wikipedia, along with closing AFDs. I have spent quite some time dealing with those two areas, so I believe I'd do a great job there. I'd ease myself into other areas in which I have less experience, such as WP:RFPP and the Administrator's Backlog, but I'd mostly deal with XFD and CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've contributed a lot in WikiProject Video games and movie articles that often need some grammatical work and are also vandalized and POV'd quite a bit. I do what I can to keep these articles credible and neutral, since I consider video games to be my "expertise". I've also created several articles, my favorite of which is List of living supercentenarians
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 pinnacle of stress was when I was accidentally blocked for 48 hours. It was due to a mistake in which all editors of a specific article were blocked, including myself, when I had only added the {{db-attack}} tag to the article. After e-mailing the admin that had blocked me, I was able to get everything sorted out in a few minutes and was unblocked. More can be read about that here. Stress/conflicts over editing isn't nearly as prominent because I remain calm and level-headed, keeping rules and policies in mind. In the future, I will be dealing with conflicts in the same manner.

Optional question from Hiberniantears

4. Do you feel that just over a month since your last RfA is enough time, considering that many of the oppose votes then were in relation to the length of your active experience here? Why?
A:.Sorry it took so long to respond, I've had an extraordinarily busy day. True, many of the oppose votes did point to my length of time as an active editor. I had only been actively editing for six or seven weeks. It has been about six weeks since I last applied for adminship and I have been consistenly editing since then (not to get caught up in editcountitis, but I have added more than 1000 more edits). After observing more carefully the activity of other RfA candidates (both those successful and those unsuccessful), I realized that six weeks as a Wikipedia editor wasn't enough to gain the trust of the general community. Now that I have doubled my time here, contributing in many different ways, I feel my experience/activity can now allow other editors to better judge my character and dedication.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Useight before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support First to the !polls on your first RFA as a support and back again. Ladies and Gents please see [1] and the opening comments there by this editor. Admiting errors, chucking WP:OWN out the window, honesty and civility. The edit count may be a tad low for some, but I think we've done that debate before. This is just down to trust and I can't see any reason not to. Very best, and I hope you get the buttons to help out. Pedro |  Chat  18:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the_undertow talk 19:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I don't see why not to trust him. --Hirohisat Kiwi 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Darn good editor, and I can't wait for him to get the mop!!!! Politics rule 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I supported last time. Good user. Acalamari 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support An excellent editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you say for everyone. --Bentalk 08:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    not everyone! Pedro |  Chat  09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as last time. He's done enough vandal fighting that I'm happy he'd know when to block people. Contributions to XfDs are OK and from his deleted edits I can see that he has correctly tagged over 1000 pages for speedy deletion so understands of deletion policy. Useight appears calm and reasonable in discussions with others. Seems fine. WjBscribe 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support based on improvements since the last RFA and responses. Yes, we've had disageements, and WP is filled with such diversity. Bearian 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - anyone can make a couple of errors with CSD; forgetting to check the history before tagging seems more like a casual error than a sign of inexperience, IMO. Not a sufficient reason to oppose. WaltonOne 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support – looks excellent, and the concerns raised by the opposers do not convince me at all. Contributions to XfD and related pages show thought[2][3][[4], sufficient vandal fighting experience, no reason at all to believe this user would abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks OK, good luck! Majorly (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support TigerShark's diffs when seen in proper context show that Useight is being helpful in one instance and adding a useful note in another (which led to a solution). Therefore I do not see them as evidence of lack of policy knowledge. In addition to this, Useight has demonstrated that they can admit mistakes, which is a highly desirable trait in an admin. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Nothing to indicate that they will abuse the mop, and so soon after the last RfA suggests keeness. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Daniel 07:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Edmund the King of the Woods! 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The so far mostly regular (or at least oft-time-)opposers have not convinced me not to support. —AldeBaer 10:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support A real no-brainer... I'd trust this user. SQL(Query Me!) 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support User has just about enough experience where it's needed, the opposers do not bring up any issue which is hugely concerning to me. GDonato (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. On the users own merits, they are more than trustworthy enough to deserve the mop. The answers are solid and I often see him contributing to AIV. Meanwhile, the opposers make no particularly disturbing arguments. ck lostsword•T•C 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, saying "3000 edits in 4 months isn't enough experience" sounds flat out wrong. Wizardman 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Please. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Needs more experience. Was a bit hasty tagging an article for speedy deletion without checking the history. needs better understanding of what Wikipedia is not before getting the extra buttons. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to comment on very many editor's comments, however I believe these first two warrant an explanation. A link was included above to my talk page where I was informed that an article I created was up for AfD. I had created that article months ago as a new editor and thought it was already deleted. More can be read on the topic here. Useight 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing up the NOT matter. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. As for that hasty speedy delete tag, I just made a mistake there and I'll admit it. But please consider that I've speedy delete tagged around 1000 articles and only made a mistake on a couple of them. However, many commentator's in my first RfA opposed for the same reason, and I respect your opinion on the matter. Useight 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's fair to oppose the candidate based on a couple of misplaced speedy tags, compared to hundreds of correct ones. Everyone makes mistakes. WaltonOne 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, a simple misjudgement like that could have resulted in an inappropriate deletion. Inappropriate deletions waste time and discourage constructive editors from contributing. Those of us who've had articles deleted know it can sting a bit. They are misuse of admin tools. They are bad for Wikipedia. After this editor has a bit more experience, he will be less likely to make harmful mitakes. I read below this RfA came sortly after another. My advice would be to wait at least another 3 months and another 3000 edits before trying again. I would also suggest hooking up with an expereinced admin for guidance and to nominate this user the next time because self noms are viewed askance by some RfA !voters. 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose For the same reason that I opposed the candidate's first RFA [5]. Two very recents edits seem to show that the candidate is still not able to correctly interpret the Speedy Deletion criteria, claiming that external sources are required to avoid an A7 deletion [6] and that the existence of the same information in another article is somehow relevant to a speedy deletion [7]. As the candidate still mentions clearing CSD as his primary admin goal, I am not confident with him having the tools at the moment. Two self noms in the space of six weeks also concerns me. TigerShark 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to external link number 3 above, I assumed good faith and wanted to give the article's author an opportunity to assert the notability of the topic. I don't want to become a deletionist and my objective in my comment was to inform the original writer how to assert that notability if it existed. External link 4 was a comment on a Contested Candidate for Speedy Deletion, which I did not tag for speedy (if I recall correctly). I posted my opinion that there already was an article with the same information, but better organized. That article now redirects to the other article I mentioned. I believe both of those edits helped improve Wikipedia, but if you want to oppose, I respect your opinion. Useight 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The external links are not required to assert the notability, they are there to provide verification. This is important because the lack of assertion is grounds for a deletion but a lack of verification is not. At the moment, I am still not convinced that you fully understand these criteria and, again, there is the concern about the two self noms in six weeks. TigerShark 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose As my Question 4 suggests, I do not believe enough time has passed since the last RfA, and I have not seen enough signs of growth. The difs pointed out by the other opposes further reinforce my current position. I do not want to discourage you from this project, and urge you to simply spend a lengthy (several months or more) period of time continuing your work, and taking to heart the points of opposition from this and your last RfA. Hiberniantears 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Too little experience as above, and too many bot edits (they're good for expanding your edit counts) like "added a period" "comma". & then your favorite article, "List of living supercentenarians" isn't featured or anything & you've done only 20 edits to it & you should have a real article that's your favorite & which you've developed it by a lot. (Wikimachine 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    That is only my favorite among the articles I have created. My favorite article to edit is 2007 and my favorite to read is History of video game consoles (seventh generation). Useight 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Still just not enough overall experience. Jmlk17 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose 9 months and so few edits in the required places concern me. Just remember - you don't need the tools to be a good editor, they are not in any way a reward for good work, and just bring with them dull button-clicking and backlog clearing. Try going on editor review for a better summing up of your contributions, which may be what you're after --Bentalk 08:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My edit count might not be really impressive when considered over 9 months, but I only joined to make a single edit and wasn't really "joining in on the project." If you discount the first three months, when I was one of those accounts that get created and forgotten about, I've averaged 500+ edits per month since then. Can you please expound upon "the required places" so I can continue to improve my editing? Useight 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to wannabe kate: your edits in Wikipedia namespace: 492. Your edits in Wikipedia talk namespace: 17. I really think that says it all - take a look at the amount of project space edits of other rfa's (successful and not). Not enough considering that's where the "gnoming", collaboration, and behind the scenes work goes on, which is much of where a sysop will be operating. --Bentalk 06:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I think its important that admins have experience of wikipedia over time, enough to see how the project changes, goes through phases etc. As a result, although you've been with the project for 9-10 months, you didn't really edit for the first 3 effectively, combined with some errors/incidents noted above makes me unable to trust you with the admin tools. I support the conclusion of other editors in saying that in 3-4 months time you'll be in a far stronger position. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per TigerShark. Only one month since the last RfA, and evidence that the problems highlighted in that RfA continue to persist. Xoloz 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Candidate has not demonstrated sufficient improvement since last RFA. VanTucky (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - One month between two RfAs is too little. On top of that; they are both self-noms. It smells of power seeking. I think you should give yourself some time to really get something out of the failed RfAs. Otherwise, the experience is just bad because you are simply taking on criticism RfA after RfA. Laters, Brusegadi 19:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Too little time has passed since the last RfA. I think you should wait three months before trying again. Captain panda 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, there is some good stuff here but also a few problematic recent edits as shown above. Please come back in about three months so that we have a longer track record to evaluate. Johntex\talk 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose: Insufficient experience. Xdenizen 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above comments. Marlith T/C 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say that your edit was the funniest thing I've seen all day. Useight 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Unfortunately, in my opinion, you do not have enough talk edits, or my amount of required total edits. Your ratio of mainspace to total is still quite excellent, about 1/3. And it appears that you actively participate in adminship and admin intervention. I just cannot support right now. Dreamy \*/!$! 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Great contributor, but I don't feel confident supporting this request. Sorry... Sebi [talk] 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good editor and all, but the opposers have some good points. Will be an admins ome day, but a little more experiance needed. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Good editor but why the rush? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Recommend waiting perhaps 3 months until next RfA, and explain more clearly what you've learned from your experience and from the advice you received in past efforts. --Shirahadasha 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I would wait two more months. --Banana 04:52, 10 September 2007 (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.