Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:05, 3 January 2007

Shirahadasha

Voice your opinion (5/7/5); Scheduled to end 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) – Regular editor since March 2006, over 4000 edits, created several dozen articles, extensive contributions to existing articles, lots of user discussions including conflict resolution, regular work with WP:AIV, positive editor review. Shirahadasha 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: I will help with vandal-fighting, closing deletes, help monitor WP:AN, and take appropriate action in consultation with other administrators. I would also like to continue with welcoming new users, and do more work in dispute resolution. copyright issues, and the maintenance backlog. I expect to help regularly with administrative backlog issues. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. I've created dozens of articles and contributed to several hundred. I've also made numerous contributions to WP:AfD, WP:AN (particularly for vandalism issues), extensive discussions with other editors, and other work.

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)[reply]

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 only consider block procedures or other actions if repeated incivility is becoming disruptive to the editing process or if other users, especially newbies, are being attacked in ways that are harming their Wikipedia experience. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

6. 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 valuable 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)[reply]

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

7. 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 get the job done. Rules and policies can sometimes be an obstacle to all of these things, and when they are, 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)[reply]

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

A: It depends on the situation, and I'd check. If the IP address is shared, particularly if it's a widely-shared one, I'd hesitate to block an entire school or similar for an extended time over the occassional disruptions of a single editor, although e.g. in cases of extremely disruptive vandalism it's something that may be necessary. For a single user, I'd check to see if past problems are balanced by a record of good edits and if past brief blocks resulted in improvement in behavior for a substantial period of time. People occassionally do things when they get angry and the like that they regret a short time later, and I wouldn't want to block a person for 3 months for something that might be gotten over in 24 hours. Ideally a block is a temporary protective to permit a cooling down and a resumption of civility and trust. However, for seriously disruptive and repeat vandals, the purpose of a block is to protect the encyclopedia, and for some people the encyclopedia may need a lot of protections. It's a judgment call I wouldn't make likely, and I as a new administrator I would seek input from others before initiating any long-term block. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. 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: As a new administrator, if I found evidence of abusive sockpuppetry in such a case I simply wouldn't act myself, I would bring my information to the attention of other administrators and seek input and help. I would definitely want to know the views of others, who are likely to know more than I do. I'd certainly want m:CheckUser applied, consider the 100 edit rule and the like, and want clear evidence of sockpuppetry, which can be hard to detect and prove. Nonetheless, If there was clear proof, I would want to act on the evidence and not on reputation alone. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Consensus is an attempt to reach agreement through a process of discussion and exchange, to arrive at group conclusion that is not the conclusion of any one single individual but one which everyone involved can support. People consensus by actively engaging each other, changing each others' outlook through their interaction. Its analog is the jury room rather than the ballot box. A vote simply tabulates a sum of the voters' individual opinions; consensus create a whole which is more than the sum of its parts. Doing this takes time and energy. --Shirahadasha 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11 How would being an administrator affect your presence in the Jewish articles of WP seeing there are many opiniated wikipedians involved. frummer 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A I apply the same approach to any area I'm personally involved in editing as I would to any area of Wikipedia, and there are lots of areas of the encyclopedia where there are many opinions, and lots of administrators successfully manage this issue. I don't intend to use administrative powers in disputes I'm personally a party to, I'd call in a neutral administrator if one was needed. I will apply administrative powers only on the consensus of other users and to address clear violations of policy which are disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. I would never apply punitive measures to address merely technical violations. I consider disputes about content, placing maintenance and dispute tags on articles, and the like to be normal parts of what Wikipedia is about and not disruptive at all. I would expect that any administrator who does otherwise would deserve to be recalled. Best --Shirahadasha 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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. Grand master ka 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. Ghostbusters in NY 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support Seems like a fully qualified and regular contributor who happens to focus on the mainspace.-- danntm ^T _C 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support. We who edit Judaism article know you to be a reasonable person who injects a doze of calm into frequently overheated debates. However, I am afraid the community at large does not know you at all. You have very limited project and user interaction outside of Judaism topics and the answer to Q1 reflects that. Though we would hate to lose you, if you want to succeed at RfA in 3-6 months, you should branch out into the process- and maintenance-oriented areas of the the project (deletion, vandalfighting, policy discussion). Then users would be more comfortable trusting you with the tools. I suggest withdrawal. - crz crztalk 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong 2^nd... Tomer ^talk 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong Oppose Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all. — Arjun 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can cite scuffles, as I've had several of them with Shira, mostly back in hir earliest editing days. :-p Much of this was covered in brief here. Tomer ^talk 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong oppose Just today, Shirahadasha filed a three-revert rule violation report on WP:AN3 concerning a situation in which neither of the two users reported actually violated the three-revert rule. (see [1]) The three-revert rule is a major policy that I would expect any administrator to apply correctly. While users may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule, Shirahadasha's report is troubling in a number of respects:
(1) If an administrator blocks a user for edit warring not involving an actual violation of the three-revert rule, the three-revert rule may not be cited as a justification for the block. A block for a three-revert rule violation where in fact none occurred will almost certainly be overturned.

(2) The expected administrative response to edit warring involving a three-revert rule violation is quite different from edit warring without violating the three-revert rule. Where the three-revert rule is violated, the justification for issuing a block is clear, and an administrator may block the offending user(s) unilaterally, without prior discussion or consensus. However, the decision as to whether to block a user for edit warring without a three-revert rule violation is necessarily a subjective one, which may involve many factors, including, but not limited to the user's prior edit history, the content of the edits themselves, and the definition of "edit warring" employed. While a single purpose account whose only contributions are edit warring may be blocked unilaterally, the question of whether to block an established user with a substantial history of constructive contributions for "edit warring" may present a substantial controversy -- a controversy that should be resolved with a discussion on WP:ANI prior to placing a block.

(3) Most importantly, reverting a page four or more times within 24 hours does not automatically amount to a three-revert rule violation. This policy has certain exceptions of which administrators must be aware. For example, blocking a user for a "three-revert rule violation" or "edit warring" because of reversions of vandalism, WP:BLP violations, etc, would be highly improper. Since Shirahadasha has recently misapplied the chronological requirements of the three-revert rule, reporting a violation where there were no more than three reverts in any 24 hour period, I do not believe that he will apply the exceptions to the three-revert rule in a satisfactory manner at this time. John254 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I specifically requested that an administrator not involved in the dispute give both parties a warning in this case. As you indicate a warning here is a reasonable thing to do. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A slight correction: though under what circumstances warnings should be issued for potential 3RR violations, actual 3RR violations, and edit warring generally, and the manner in which such warnings should be issued, is certainly an interesting question, I did not actually discuss it in my comment above. Moreover, while Shirahadasha did "specifically... [request] that an administrator not involved in the dispute give both parties a warning in this case" [2], he did so only after Wildnox observed that there "Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to WP:AN/I?" [3] John254 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be worth mentioning that while Wildnox did say what you quoted, he immediately followed this with "Correction, User:BrianSmithson has violated 3RR...," and my comment followed this "correction". This is a genuine timing mistake and I regret that I and others were mistaken in this. I never intended a block to be applied in this situation, and I had wanted both users to be warned equally to prevent an appearance of favoritism in the dispute. You might also want to look at my own interactions with the users involved in Talk:Mami Wata. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can do everything that you want in your answer to question one without the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 06:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, user does not require admin tools. You need to do administrative work before becoming an admin. Terence Ong 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

~~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)[reply]
Neutral best of luck to you in the future though. Just H 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, but you don't seem to have an actual need for a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neutral, leaning Support - Sorry, but you don't actually seem to have use for the tools. Maybe in a few moths. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 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 [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators]] and the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]].
-::'''A:''' I do regular [[WP:RC]] and [[WP:AIV]], and additional tools such as page protection would be helpful. I've done a fair amount of work in [[WP:AfD]] and[[WP:ANI]] and would like to do more. I plan to regularly monitor and help address [[WP:AN]] issues in consultation with other administrators. I can help with [[WP:COPYVIO]] issues and help close [[WP:AfD]] and [[WP:SPEEDY]]. I can help with [[WP:RM]] and [[WP:SPLICE]].  I would also like to continue with welcoming new users, and do more work in dispute resolution. I expect to help regularly with administrative backlog issues. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
+::'''A:''' I will help with vandal-fighting, closing deletes, help monitor [[WP:AN]], and take appropriate action in consultation with other administrators.  I would also like to continue with welcoming new users, and do more work in dispute resolution. copyright issues, and the maintenance backlog. I expect to help regularly with administrative backlog issues. Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 :'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 #'''Full Support''' Seems like a fully qualified and regular contributor who happens to focus on the mainspace.-- [[User:danntm|danntm]] <sup>[[user talk:danntm|T]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danntm|C]]</sub> 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Moral Support'''. We who edit Judaism article know you to be a reasonable person who injects a doze of calm into frequently overheated debates. However, I am afraid the community at large does not know you at all. You have very limited project and user interaction outside of Judaism topics and the answer to Q1 reflects that. Though we would hate to lose you, if you want to succeed at RfA in 3-6 months, you should branch out into the process- and maintenance-oriented areas of the the project (deletion, vandalfighting, policy discussion). Then users would be more comfortable trusting you with the tools. I suggest withdrawal. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|crz]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|crztalk]]</small> 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
+#:Strong 2<sup>nd</sup>... [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)