Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha

Shirahadasha

Voice your opinion (3/4/3); Scheduled to end 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) – Regular editor since March 2006 Shirahadasha 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Self-nomination.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Welcoming new users, AIV, RC, dispute resolution, SPEEDY and AfD, ANI. I can help in a lot of areas.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Significant contributions and assistance in dispute resolution in articles including Role of women in Judaism, Bible. Helped create the article on Jewish feminism and a series of related articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you believe other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Regularly involved in articles that come into conflict, e.g. Bible. Involved in the Mami Wata conflict, and the dispute in [Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Religion]] about whether related WikiProjects should be listed as subprojects of that projects, and in a number of edit disputes with the banned User:Daniel575. I attempt to keep cool, apply WP:CIVIL, and give benefit of doubt, but ensure policies are followed. I try to stick to sources and policies.

Optional questions from Iced Kola

4. Under what circumstances would you place a longterm or indefinite block on an experienced editor?

A: This is not something I would want to do as an inexperienced administrator without seeking agreement from other admins. I think administrators would need to block even an experienced editor with a long productive history if the editor becomes so disruptive as to be a threat; this can unfortunately occassionally happen as people go through life changes, crises, disagreements, psychological issues, etc. I acknowledge that even long-term users can occassionally do unexpected things and, as the Pegasus affair illustrates, an RfA requires a significant extension of trust that deserves careful scrutiny. --Shirahadasha 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

5. If you encounter a dispute in which users are being incivil torwards each other, how will you try to make everyone remain civil and follow the dispute resolution process?

A: When acting as en editor, I've attempted to begin by attempting to model civility and sticking strictly to discussion of the content on an article talk page, followed by a brief and polite note on the editor's talk page referring to WP:CIVIL. I've done this several times but wouldn't want to mention any particular user by name. I would I would only a consider block procedures or other action if repeated incivility is becoming disruptive to the editing process or users, especially newbies, are being attacked in ways that are harming their Wikipedia experience. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A. Well, the United States, for example, has a legal policy against age discrimination that frowns on asking this question. Acknowledging that laws that concern employment and the like don't necessarily apply to volunteer organizations, I nonetheless think that the policies behind anti-discrimination laws are very value guidance for an organization that seeks to conduct itself ethically and wishes to be a responsible and a decent citizen. I don't personally think that age matters. One can tell a person's general intellectual development and maturity from looking at a substantial collection of what they've written. If people have the skills and show enough maturity, focus, and respect for others, I don't believe they have to be a certain age. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

10. How do you interpret the policy Ignore All Rules?

A: I think Wikipedia expects editors to behave decently to each other, to do the right thing, and to the get the job done. Rules and policies can sometimes be an obstacle to all of these things, and and when it is something is wrong with the rules. There's an old Swiss army saying that when the map and the terrain differ, following the terrain. I think we're similarly expected to be able to provide a basic reality check, using our basic sense of decency as people, and to develop and follow good instincts. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

11. How long would you block an anonymous IP address which had been blocked 5 times before for serious disruption and personal attacks?

A:

12. What would you do if another administrator disagreed with your decision to block a well-known and well-liked member of the community for abusive sockpuppetry?

A:

13. What is consensus? How does it differ from voting?

A:

General comments

• His Interiot stats. Added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• His Mathbot tool stats. Added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

Moral Support Your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, you're nowhere near qualified enough for Adminship. I suggest you try spending more time fighting vandalism, visiting WP:AFD, WP:PUMP, WP:FPC, WP:SSP, WP:AIV, and more time interacting with the community. Come back in 6 months after you have done this, and others will support. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

whoops, changed my vote. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support, not moral. It looks like this is going down the tubes, and I do not understand why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Full Support. Looks like a perfectly fine candidate to me after scanning the contributions. Q1 is a little vague, but names areas which require admin tools. Editing a relatively narrow range of articles is not bad in and of itself. Grandmasterka 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support: This user is clearly involved in the right activities for an admin: countervandalism, XfD etc. I would strongly urge you to write a better answer for Q1, though. Heimstern Läufer 03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all. — Arjun 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As per the Arjun, I think you are in no need for admin tools at al. I suggest you to put more work at reverting vandalisms. Best luck! --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose Seadog Arjun nailed it on the head. You really don't tell us why you need the tools for what you do. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Other reasons There are also several other reasons for this oppose. You have a pretty narrow range of mainspace and project articles here on Wikipedia. I could and in the past have over looked that (the RFA of Wikiwoohoo is a prime example of that). I probably would have were it not for your incredibly short answers to the questions. I do not think that a person who is trying to Adminship, a job that grants the users extra powers over other members, can answer their "job application" questions with only a sentence for each question. If you notice the RFA of Kinu (below this one), it has a large paragraph for each answer. The RFA of BostonMA has pages of writing about his work here on Wikipedia. Your answer to question 3. does not elaborate at all. You cite no examples of scuffles you have had with users here on Wikipedia. Now, if you do not have any at all (which I doubt, but hey, anything is possible), I would bring your lack of experience in dealing with these situations into question. If you have never had an angry vandal attack you on your talk page or vandalize your user page (or even get into a civil argument with other users), how are we to know how you will react when you get into that situation? That being said, if you improve the answers to your questions, I will gladly consider supporting you changing my vote. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose: I scanned your last 1000 edits - almost all involve a fairly narrow range of mainspace articles. It's not at all clear that you'd even like to do administrator work - closing AfDs, moving articles, blocking users, whatever. I suggest you spend a fair amount of time with vandal patrol and XfDs and cleanup (see specific comments by others on this), and then you'll have a much better idea as to whether you'd really want to be doing admin work. John Broughton | Talk 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; your statements are too short to give anyone an idea what you would be like as an administrator. Personally I don't see a need for the admin tools; and there's not much of a vandalfight. Apart from that, you'd be a great administrator. Cheers! Yuser31415 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral (this means possibly pending any discoveries by support or oppose voters). You seem like a great user, and your edits are pretty good, but your answer to question 1 makes you really not need the admin tools all that much. --Wizardman 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Part of me thinks you just added in this new things in Q1 for the sake of adding them because they fit, as opposed to if you really want to do them. Going full neutral now. --Wizardman 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral best of luck to you in the future though. Just H 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Sorry, but you don't seem to have an actual need for a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. While I would be more than happy to support this candidacy if I saw a more enthusiastic presentation of a need for admin tools, I have to agree with EVula and (although not with the vociferousness of) the "oppose" votes, that I see no foundation for the RfA. My interaction with you and my unrelated review of your contributions leads me to think you'd make an excellent admin, but adminship entails a bit more in-depth involvement in the Project. With respect, Tomer^talk 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)