Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slgrandson 2

Slgrandson

Voice your opinion (talk page) (25/8/2); Scheduled to end 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Slgrandson (talk · contribs) - It has been more or less a year since Yanksox (talk · contribs · count) first took me to the challenge. Well, guess what? My misunderstanding of WP:IAR, along with improper answer readjustment, made this attempt quickly done for.

At this moment, I am now learning some good lessons and examples as I progress in my Wikipedia work. Sorry if I took the blocking/deleting desire too hard last time, but now I know better.

I may have 7,650+ permanent contributions and counting—amazing for someone who claims to be the only real user out of Dominica—but as they say, like age and the box-office, it's only another number.

My goal was to come back after my total number of created articles reached 300, but, what on earth? I hope that's "Ignore all rules" for you. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: «J'accepte,» dit Romarin Passiflore. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: First thing first: AIV. On and off, I've submitted several suspicious users there for vandalism, and nearly all of these got blocked. Then there are the CSD and Prod departments, where I'll have a look at pages so marked (especially for five-day deadlines at Prodsum). And last, Even I'll try to help out some more in new page and RC patrolling.

I could also be of some help at XFD, too; I'll try to help out in the backlogs for every sector.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Right now, it's List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I'm working hard to bring to featured status anytime this month. Otherwise, I've got three GAs (in Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw, The Care Bears Movie and Nelvana) and three DYKs (Family Moving Day, The Princess and the Goblin (1992) and Tubby the Tuba (1975)) that will make for a triple crown when my episode list successfully gets through FLC.

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: Occasionally, apart from the bots that tell me about images and deleted links, I'm all right in my endeavours.

Yet something bad always happens to every established editor, and honestly I haven't escaped that reality. For instance, there was this moment back in September 2006 when JebetheFaithful (talk · contribs) made what I thought was a defamatory edit to Martha Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Upon my removal of "convicted criminal," some chaos erupted over whose version was legitimate. It was only settled when I finally acknowledged the fact that she was still a criminal.

And of course, I felt so upset when Brainyshane640 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised my page—the only time this has happened to me so far. From then on, I've often taken a little risk when warning IPs, because they might do the same thing.

Question from [[

:User:EJF|EJF]] ([[::User talk:EJF|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/EJF|contribs]])

4. Are you of the opinion that non-admins should not close AfDs? I ask this because of your comment here.

A. Not quite, although I now realise MFC closed it a little bit too early. This may apply when a debate is still running, and the page in question has already been deleted via CSD or otherwise. See, for instance, my recent closure for Zebtron (under G11).

5. I notice in your answer to question 3 that you say you were upset when your user page was vandalised. As a admin working in AIV, it is likely that your userpage will be vandalised very regularly, with vandals posting profanity and obscene edits on your userspace; do you feel you will cope with this?

A. Again, I'm risking every report and warning because they might do it at any time. If it persists, protection on my page may ensue, and I will still warn them against such vandalism.

Question from Majorly

6. Are you aware of the RfA cheatsheet? You may like to look at it to help you answer the stock questions above (additionally, have a look at some of the other requests on this page for useful answers.)

A: Till now, not yet. But this is a useful thing to have around.

Comment: Even I'm wasn't aware of that! I have removed the questions now. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jon513

7. On January 28, 2008 [[::User:Kumarasenpvl1611|Kumarasenpvl1611]] ([[::User talk:Kumarasenpvl1611|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kumarasenpvl1611|contribs]]) expanded the article on Puduvayal India (diff). I think that is wonderful; editors from that area of the world are a great resource to the project, and help counter systematic bias. Around the same time, he created an article about a football club in that area (New Land Football Club). The article was speedied as an A7 with a templated message left on his page. When he recreated it again you (deleted diff) marked it as a G4 (incorrectly?), left a message on his page and it was speedied again as an A7. On February 12, 2008 he attempted under a different username (User:Kumarasen1611) to create the page for a third time. It was cleaned up by a different user, and then speedied a day later. No communication took place at all the third time.

I strongly suspect that because of the speedy deletion of this page we have lost a valuable contributor. I don't think that your incorrect labeling as G4 instead of A7 had much to do it; the same would have taken place if you place a A7 notice on the page. But you were part of a larger pattern of neglect towards new users, that is now very common on Wikipedia. What do you think can be done to ameliorate this trend?

A: To counter the occasional biting that many newbies face, we have to adopt more of them and show them just what the editing process is about. How about we put in this guide on our welcome templates for emphasis? That way, everyone will feel settled in once they read pages like the introduction box, five pillars, and the quintessential Your first article. Too many newbies at present, I fear, overlook every single bit of this, and go once (albeit only once in nearly all scenarios) to create a whole batch of CSD trouble and headache for admins and the community at large. With this suggestion, it's time we showed them how much quality it takes to get through the Wikipedia system.

Optional question from Tiptoety ^talk

8. What would be your requirements for granting a rollback request?

A: The user must have made at least 500 quality contributions to Wikipedia, and stayed here for 3-5 months. If said user has committed vandalism, 3RR, or attacks against others, he or she will not be given those rights when asking for them. However, once one is given rollback rights and then misuses them, these will be revoked in this case as well and should never be given back, though this has rarely happened so far. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its [sic] that time. for the basis of this answer.

Optional question from TheProf - T / C

9. If a user who has only been a member for 2-3 months and all his/her edits so far have been vandal fighting asked you for rollback rights. Would you ignore your criteria (as stated in your answer to question 8) and grant them the rollback rights? Note: All the example users vandal fighting has been good with no mistakes.

A: Per IAR, this would be a definite yes! If he/she keeps up with the good work, then he/she is guaranteed a high chance at succeeding in adminship. That, and a whole lot of article development/Wikipedia duties, can easily come in handy.

Optional questions from Mr. IP, defender of IP editing

10. What is your gut feeling about edits by anonymous IPs? When do you respond differently to an IP editor's actions than to those of an editor with an account?

11. Do you feel that anonymous IPs should have more rights at Wikipedia, or less?

General comments

• See Slgrandson's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Slgrandson: Slgrandson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• You may find the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Template/Cheatsheet useful. 172.189.183.61 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Keegan^talk 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I have seen Slgrandson around, seems to be doing a good job. Húsönd 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - The user is an established and trustworthy editor, with applaudable goals. While he lacks experience in several key areas, his history of constructive editing and demonstrated familiarity with policies leads me to believe that he shall become acclimated in no time at all once given the trusty mop. Policies are not too difficult to learn; it's following them that seems to cause people trouble, and this user is one of the few that doesn't seem to have much difficulty there either. You'll make a great admin! --Liempt (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

   Nice. Consider that my rationale as well, because it is. Keegan^talk 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Support, as he's a very helpful user, and it does not concern me that he's not done much AIV work, (per Liempt: he will learn). · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Q2. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. No problems. AIV experience isn't always neccesary if you take it slow at first. Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Per all. Majorly (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per above and meets my standards. While more experience in the admin areas would have been preferable, user has sufficient experience to use the tools constructively so long as caution, WP:AGF, and common sense are given rein. Oh, yes. Self noms do not trouble me one bit. Dlohcierekim 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Redacted comment in the spirit of Evula Dlohcierekim 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

11. -- Naerii 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - a good editor who is friendly and capable. Will make a good Administrator. Xdenizen (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Nothing in any of the contributions history, ansers to the questions or the oppose comments leads me to believe that this editor will abuse the tools . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
14. The opposition makes a good case. Dorftrottel (talk) 05:53, April 10, 2008
15. Support. Know from a long time ago. Obvious support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak support - user is OK. Wikipedia-project-talk could have been much higher (interaction with others in project space), but other than that, nothing stands out that should deny this user the tools. Lradrama 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
17. AGF. You'll learn on the job. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support, sensible user, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
19. Support - per above. iMatthew 2008 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - I see no red flags. Slgrandson is reasonable and reliable. P.S. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of self-confidence. Kingturtle (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Weak support - I change my mind. I think this user has a little learning to do, but don't we all? Nice answers to questions, so WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
22. It's okay if he only has a few edits to AIV: in my second RfA, I mentioned that I wanted to help out at RFPP, yet I only had about two edits to that page at the time, no one opposed me for that, and I haven't gone wild protecting pages. Also, Slgrandson is not in a hurry to re-request adminship, for his previous RfA was almost a year ago, and he's been editing since early-2005. Any evidence to show that he will abuse the tools? Acalamari 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - I was somewhat on the fence because your answers comes off as a little wishy washy, but I really don't see anything that inhibits my ability to trust you. You have been an active editor far longer than many Admins have even been editing, so you clearly understand the project and know your way around. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - Seems to me this user has been here for a long time, and has lots of experience so I trust him. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - Looks well established and experienced. Krashlandon (e) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose - You indicate that you wish to work at WP:AIV to start, yet there seems to be a pittance of contributions to that area. Granted, it's not really brain surgery, but, I would still like to see experience in the areas you wish to work in as stated in question 1. Also, I didn't see much in the way of WP:CSD participation. I saw some red links which looked accurate, but CSD is starting to become a tricky area to work with. I'd like to see more contributions in order to feel comfortable supporting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose-- I agree with the directly above. So many people come along claiming to want to work in AIV have about 2 edits there. I can only (yet again) emphasise what brilliant preperation for adminship AIV really is. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose - Per Wisdom89's explanation. You seem to be a good user, with articles under your belt, and I'm sure you will learn - but just a little bit more working in the areas where you say you will help when you are an administrator will be good! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 09:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Self-nomination. Agree or disagree doesn't matter. It's a point of view supported in some quarters.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   You mean "per Kmweber"? Dorftrottel (bait) 01:50, April 10, 2008

   Yes, this is a very Kmweber-style comment. Please don't follow his example. Ever considered the fact that this user might need the tools? Why wait to be nominated when you can nominate yourself? Lradrama 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm ignoring Kmweber from now on. We've been told off. But all the same, it's best for both parties that way. Lradrama 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Why ignore him? Why not post the following notice instead... The Transhumanist    23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Subject to bureaucrat discounting - The Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship states that the closing "bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity". "Self-nomination" is a reason of questionable validity, because self-nomination is an official part of the RfA process and is specifically allowed in the instructions at the top of the RfA page, which were created by community consensus. The appropriate place to get the process or the instructions changed is on talk pages and not in nominees' RfA requests. Also, the Guide to requests for adminship specifically instructs nominees to Follow the instructions. Opposition to following RfA's instructions, is really opposition to the RfA process itself, and is a dodge around community consensus by directly enforcing a counter rule through the use of one's RfA vote, and this is a form of disruption. For these reasons such votes should not be counted. (Feel free to copy this notice on all "Self-nomination" opposes). The Transhumanist    23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose It concerns me greatly that a person who is running for adminship has as many articles/pictures nominated for deletion and/or license validity questioned. While anybody can have an occassional article/picture questioned, the consistency of yours being nominated raises questions as to whether or not you know and can apply the standards. I am also concerned with your stated goal of having created 300 articles. This is pure editcountitis. But, what is worse, is that looking at the articles that you've created, there are quite a few that could be nom'd for deletion. Looking at a haphazard sample of your articles, it looks as if you are simply creating stubs with the desire of getting to your goal of 300. Then you leave the stub for others to clean up/expand. I'd rather see somebody making more commitment to develop articles than take pride in the 'raw number' of poorly written stubs.Balloonman (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Both here and in real life, I always face overwhelming tasks. With so much yet to do, I really can't choose what article(s) to get involved with next, so that might be part of the problem. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Comments about Kurt and not the candidate have been removed. We're all reasonable people here, folks. Let's understand that his argument is his and his alone and move on with our lives. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Subject to bureaucrat discounting - The Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship states that the closing "bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity". "Self-nomination" is a reason of questionable validity, because self-nomination is an official part of the RfA process and is specifically allowed in the instructions at the top of the RfA page, which were created by community consensus. The appropriate place to get the process or the instructions changed is on talk pages and not in nominees' RfA requests. Also, the Guide to requests for adminship specifically instructs nominees to Follow the instructions. Opposition to following RfA's instructions, is really opposition to the RfA process itself, and is a dodge around community consensus by directly enforcing a counter rule through the use of one's RfA vote, and this is a form of disruption. For these reasons such votes should not be counted. (Feel free to copy this notice on all "Self-nomination" opposes). The Transhumanist    23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose - While I like the answer to my question, I do not think you are quite ready yet. Looking over your deleted contribs I see little to no CSD tagging. Just overall more admin related experience is need before I can support. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - While my own few interactions with Slgrandson have been quite pleasant, I feel an admin should have a good understanding of some of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, such as proper image uploading and adding appropriate FURs to non-free images. I also feel he needs to continue learning more about the proper use of CSD, PROD, and xFD before working in such areas and would like to see more xFD participation beyond the much appreciated delsorting :) I also feel leary about a self-nom, but but have to have kudos for having the self-confidence to do so :) Collectonian (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Balloonman and others. A much better understanding of policies is needed, as well as a (slightly more optional but no less important) demonstration of the ability to see a project through. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Nominee states that they will focus on AIV but has only made 14 reports, and only 5 in the last 10 months. Also, in this recent report, the nominee asked that an IP address (with no apparent previous block history, and only a handful of warnings) be blocked for "at least 3-6 months". This seems far too heavy-handed and completely against policy. I can only come to the conclusion that if the nominee had the block button they would indeed have blocked for that length of time. TigerShark (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Pending answers to the questions. --Sharkface217 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral does not deserve an oppose. SexySeaShark 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)