Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Useight 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kmweber (talk | contribs)
6,865 edits
→‎Oppose: oppose
Line 69: Line 69:


=====Oppose=====
=====Oppose=====
#'''Oppose''' &mdash; Three RFAs in just over four months, two of which were self-noms? This user just seems a little bit too eager to be an administrator. That worries me. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
#


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 17:25, 1 December 2007

Useight

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/0/0); Scheduled to end 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Useight (talk · contribs) - Since it's all quiet on the Western front, I think I'd like to take this moment to nominate Useight for adminship. I acted as his admin coach, the page of which can be found here. Useight has made two previous self-noms before, and both were failed on concerns on his application of the speedy deletion criteria and that he did not have enough experience. Since then, I believe Useight has grown to be someone who could really help us clear the CAT:CSD backlog and someone who is also willing to learn new ways to benefit the community. bibliomaniac15 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination and thank Bibliomaniac15. Useight 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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: My primary admin function would be helping clear CAT:CSD, which is very often backlogged, since I have the most experience there, and I would eventually spread my wings into other areas. I spend a fair amount of time monitoring and tagging new pages, so having access to the delete button would be a time saver. I'd eventually start doing some work at WP:AFD, closing obvious discussions, but I wouldn't want to jump into that one with both feet, so I'd start out slow. I'd also like to help out at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, but, particularly with AIV, I'd begin with obvious cases until I became more accustomed to using the mop.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my mainspace contribs have been among my best. I normally edit articles within WikiProject Video games, but have shifted focus to WikiProject National Football League during the season. After the season ends, I'll be back focusing on the former. Both of these WikiProjects are subject to vandalism and POV fairly often, so I pride myself in helping to keep everything neutral. Some of the articles I've created are: List of living supercentenarians, Nike Air Pasco, and I recently started 2005 San Francisco 49ers season (which still has tons of work to be done, but I'm going as fast as I can). I also do a lot of WikiGnoming, which may not be the most celebrated type of editing, but I don't want to see typos and spelling errors in an encyclopedia.
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: I have only become stressed over Wikipedia a few times, but my inadvertent block was by far the most stressful. The full transcript of what happened can be found here. Basically, when I was a new editor and had recently learned about tagging new pages, I tagged one {{db-attack}}. The article was deleted and all contributors to the attack page were blocked, including myself. I calmly explained the misunderstanding to the admin that blocked me, the error was discovered, and I was immediately unblocked. Since then I have made sure to use edit summaries so other editors can quickly determine what I'm doing with as much transparency as possible. In future conflicts, I will act in the same manner, with a calm demeanor and a level head.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you think you will leave some portion of your estate to Wikipedia upon your death? Keepscases 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, I never saw that question coming. Actually, no, I don't expect to. Not that I have much stuff, anyway. I guess if Jimbo and I start hanging out, then I will. I'd prefer to leave my computer to my brother so he could have his own place from which to edit Wikipedia. Useight 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't mean to be rude, but what is the relevance of your question? bibliomaniac15 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keepscases appears to have a history of asking fairly off-the-wall questions of prospective admins. I'm not familiar with him/her, so I can't speak to the relevance of the question, but I thought that this might clear up some confusion (or maybe it just created more?). faithless (speak) 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. (optional) Could you provide a few diffs showing past interactions with vandals that would demonstrate competency when monitoring WP:AIV? Something beyond standard warning templates is what I have in mind here; I'm looking for efforts at correction rather than the typical level1 - level2 - level3 - level4 - block progression. Tijuana Brass 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure, here's the most recent. A few days ago I realized that two accounts were sockpuppets and mentioned it here. I reported the two socks to AIV here. I then mentioned here that I didn't think the puppeteer should have any administrative action taken against him. I then posted to his talk page here, giving the new user some pointers and letting him know that he can always come to me on my talk page. Useight 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Balloonman

6. Besides the Admin Coaching, what did you do differently to prepare for this RfA?
A: There are a couple of things. I slowed down my tagging of new pages to make sure I do each one justice and hopefully prevent mistakes. I also review the criteria for speedy deletion every couple of weeks to keep it fresh. I also tried to improve my comments in the discussions at AFD to avoid "Google said..." or "per nom", which don't really add any value to the discussion at all. However, my AFD participation has taken a backseat somewhat as of late as I have focused more on newpage monitoring and mainspace contributing. I have also been wandering over to ANI to learn what kind of incidents come up there. Useight 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nom. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No problems. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, candidate failed last time due to perceived lack of experience. Reviewing Useight's contributions, I do not believe this is currently the case. Cheers, GracenotesT § 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Might as well, as we are pretty desperate. -Goodshoped 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Niiiiiice... ;) WODUP 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's also active in vandal fighting and username reporting. Good. Support. -Goodshoped 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good answer to my question, and I see specific improvement made since his last RFA. Also, I like the six character quick bio on his userpage. Tijuana Brass 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support I like the Admin Coaching and the answer to my question. I'd personally like to see a little more experience, but your guidance in your last RFA was to wait 3 months. You've done what you were asked to do, so you get the nod to support.Balloonman 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - seems to have progressed nicely since other RFA's. — Rudget contributions 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Yeah, sure, I think the user will make a great admin. Can be trusted, can keep a level head and is a competent editor. ScarianTalk 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support First two RfAs showed much more support than opposition, even if no consensus was reached. The sole issue with Useeight seems to be the CSD stuff, and it looks like he's learned from his past mistakes. faithless (speak) 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per rationale at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_2 when I supported, and I have only seen your efforts increase. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Keepscases 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support He has a very good edit summary. On top of that he had very good answers, he has my support. --businessman332211 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I don't mind giving support on this one. I have one issue though. It's that I am hoping you are very careful when messing with speedy deletion. I think speedy deletion is a touch subject, because I believe great descretion needs to be used in whether to delete or not delete an article. I hope you are very careful there, aside from that you have my support. --businessman332211 17:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No red flags here. нмŵוτнτ 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose — Three RFAs in just over four months, two of which were self-noms? This user just seems a little bit too eager to be an administrator. That worries me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral for the time being (changing to support). I'm a little concerned that you answered that having a delete key would "save time" at C:CSD - unless it's a blatantly obvious case of vandalism, I don't agree that admins should do the combined task of tagging and deleting in a single article. There should be at least a two person oversight. I'm a little unsure about Useight's capability regarding other interests (due to unfamiliarity with him/her), so I'm adding in a question to see how this candidate responds. Tijuana Brass 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see what you mean there, the potential conflict of interest if one admin tags and deletes the article. Let me assure you that I will not delete any article in which in which I was directly involved. Useight 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer to the above question, so I'm changing my vote to support. Regarding speedy deletions, I still strongly suggest that you not make that call even if you're not directly involved, as it provides a second opinion (which is especially helpful if deletions are questioned, since you won't have made a unilateral decision). Tijuana Brass 06:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is no requisite for an admin to CSD tag an article. We should know if it is speedyable or not. If it is, delete it. If it's not, prod or AfD. Pretty cut and dry stuff. The CSD tag is to alert admins since you cannot delete with an unflagged account. Therefore, Useight was on the right track with that answer. Again, for what it's worth. Keegantalk 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's no requirement for what I suggested - that's why I didn't link to policy, but just gave some common sense reasons for why I choose to do it. It's advice from an admin who's spent plenty of time at C:CSD and has found it to be good practice. Tijuana Brass 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_3&oldid=175085487"