Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WarthogDemon: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Questions for the candidate: cprrected limerick link
one lastcorrection
Line 51: Line 51:
::'''A.'''
::'''A.'''


:'''11.''' If the IP address, 156.33.0.7 , was vandalising the article Racism with defamatory comments, how would you deal with it?
:'''11.''' If the IP address, 156.33.0.7 , was vandalising the article [[Racism]] with defamatory comments, how would you deal with it?
::'''A.'''
::'''A.'''


Revision as of 14:30, 22 March 2008

WarthogDemon

Voice your opinion (talk page) (27/4/3); Scheduled to end 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WarthogDemon (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure, to nominate WarthogDemon today, for adminship. WarthogDemon, was my first real "interaction" with wikipedia. WarthogDemon, as far as I can tell, is always civil, and extremely helpful. He does a lot of CSD tagging, and AIV reporting. He's at 20016 edits right now (including deleted, 17167 without)[1]. WarthogDemon also makes a lot of reports at WP:UAA. He's a great communicator, and shows excellent judgment. I think the project would benefit from giving him the tools to do these things on his own. SQLQuery me! 04:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank SQL for nominating me and I accept. :) -WarthogDemon 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional statement? I'll just state for the record and for being politically correct: my username has nothing to do with Halo. I made the username before I even heard of the games. :) -WarthogDemon 05:25, 21 March 2008 (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: Mostly taking care of CSD backlogs, and tending to AIV. I will probably work with AFDs as well. -WarthogDemon 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well admittedly many of my edits have been gnomish and thus, I have not created an article that's anywhere near Featured-worthy. My contributions can be found here: User:WarthogDemon/Articles. I wouldn't say the Pokemon lists were my biggest contributions since after all, most of those edits were just formatting the pages and listing all the pokemon. I would say perhaps Innosense is the biggest contribution article wise. It took a while for me to find good sources for it, and after several days searching too. I'm also particularly proud of finding notability for the ghost town Calumet, Colorado.
Gnomish contributions? Well, recently I went and fixed 30+ articles that had wikilinks to the disambig page Inglewood instead of the appropriate city. I've also gone around inspecting lists of musicians for red links to deleted pages. I do the same for disambig pages. -WarthogDemon 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Three conflicts come to mind. The first was when I was a relatively new editor. A vandal decided to start tagging articles, that I had created, as AfDs for nonsensical reasons. (Doll Graveyard, for example, he claimed was a hoax.) After being blocked he created sockpuppets and continued trying to get various articles AfDed. That was somewhat stressful for me as I was wondering why the heck he was trying to hassle me. I removed one nonsense comment he made on a talk page...
The second conflict, I'm not sure how deep I actually was. I was briefly accused of being "in league" with User:Lucky 6.9 at: [2]. No one informed me of this until one admin told me. By then the problem seemed to have been discussed on without me, so I assume I was not seen as a part of the problem. One user did wonder if I was perhaps a sockpuppet of Lucky, but became convinced I wasn't before taking any actions.
The third conflict I declare myself at fault. It was at Ho-Oh. One user was reverting a redirect for reasons that made no sense to me. I thought the user (User:Kappa) was simply opposing the merging of Pokemon characters to lists. It was not until I hit 3RR that I realized the user was talking about Fenghuang. Had I understood what Kappa was trying to say before, I would've stopped reverting before I hit 3RR and asked the assistance of another editor about how to disambiguate.
In the interest of complete disclosure, there's a Cabal Case that was brought up that I was involved in, but the user typed my name wrong, so the notice never reached me: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content. I found it when I was bored one day and searched for mispellings of my name. By that point, the editor had disappeared so the case had closed. In this case, it was equally a misunderstanding and I had actually stopped messing with his talk page edits and had apologized to the user.
As for handling stress, if something gets too hard to handle, I usually just walk away and/or just give it for another editor to deal with. I'm never the only person on here after all. :) -WarthogDemon 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jon513

4. One of the general criteria for speedy deletion is blatant advertising (spam) and applies to all the namespaces including the userspace. However the distinction between a valid userpage and a spam userpage has never been well defined. When (if ever) do you believe that userpages should be speedily deleted as spam?
A. At WP:SPAM it says Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Of course, this is not always the case as explained later on the page. Not all external links to userpages are bad, heck in my userbox page I have a link to my devArt page. (But I'm speaking around the question.) I am currently reading up on userpage policy, but as of current my answer is that userpages should be speedily deleted as spam when 1) The userpage is written in the form of promotion, 2) External links that further the promotion and particularly when 3) The username itself is named after the company (possibly the product) it is promoting. Band pages are not spam, but could be brought up with MfD if the user has not made any contributions for a long period of time. Finally, as I said, simply having a link to your devart page or facebook is perfectly fine if you contribute and are part of the project. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from ArcAngel

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A. A ban is formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Whereas a block is used to prevent damage/disruption. Blocks are NOT a form of punishment. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? Why/when are/aren't you willing to use it?
A. My interpretation of IAR is when there is a problem and it becomes convoluted enough that there is no real solution that can be made without a (slight) breaking of one of the rules of editing. Another case can be when you must revert more than 3 times when reverting serious vandalism, such as libel. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A. I do plan on using it. Everyone works (or should work) as a team here, and I am no different. -WarthogDemon 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. Absolutely never. You can't force somebody to calm down; time-out blocks would only make things worse. Plus as I said all editors here work as a team. It is unfair to treat one of us like a 6-year-old child. (The major reason why WP:SPANK is red, not blue.) -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Irpen
Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for edit warring, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on the editors?


Optional questions from Seddon69

9. What is your wiki-dream?
A.
10. If you had to create a limerick about adminship what would yours be?
A.
11. If the IP address, 156.33.0.7 , was vandalising the article Racism with defamatory comments, how would you deal with it?
A.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support; the interactions I have had with him have been positive. Give this man a mop! -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Per my nomination statement. SQLQuery me! 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Even though the user in question reverts Sinebot Hahaha sorry WhD, I just had to bring it up ;-) But seriousl,y great contribs and an overall well-rounded user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With pleasure. Valtoras (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - seems a good wikipedian...will make an even better admin...good luck! --Camaeron (t/c) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very strong support, excellent candidate. Rudget. 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Generally a good editor. Just avoiding posting things (like the issues raised by Wisdom89) in Wikipedia-projects just for the sake of it. Two of the posts were unecessary. But otherwise, your work seems fine. Take note, and improve. Lradrama 11:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Over 5500 mainspace edits and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks great, and Wisdom's diffs are too old to be at all worrying. GlassCobra 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good choice here. SpencerT♦C 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tags for CSD correctly. Civil on talk page-- even self-deprecating. Eschew Username stuff for now. We can't all be big article builders. Dlohcierekim 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. He's not an admin already? At least one vandal thought he was! Reviewing deleted contribs shows an acceptable understanding of speedy deletion criteria. Good candidate. --Ginkgo100talk 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Heard of WarthogDemon before. You'll do fine with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support iMatthew 2008 16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I think the person who voted oppose below because of his involvement in UUA is making an !vote upon a weak position. Just because a person doesn't like an area of WP doesn't meant that is a valid reason for !voting against a candidate who works there.Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support After some consideration, candidate seems solid enough. ArcAngel (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I strongly support this nomination: I've had excellent interactions with WarthogDemon and I think he'll be a great admin. Regarding the concerns below, I glad he's corrected the rationales on those articles, and with UAA, as long as you plan to stay away from there you'll be fine, but I recommend reading more to do with the username policy if you ever decide to want to help in that place. Acalamari 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support will make a good admin, from what I've seen Dreamspy (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support After reviewing the opposers concerns I'm calling a net positive here. I feel the candidate has learned from that error and will tread easy. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support our interactions have been positive. A good faith minor error at UUA isn't enough to oppose IMHO. Plenty of edits show dedication to the project. Royalbroil 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Iff you stay away from UAA and fair use stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no plans to work with images or UAA; even when I do finally understand those areas better. -WarthogDemon 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No significant problems have been raised. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, as the user generally does good cleanup work, a few mistakes aside (suggest brushing up on the relevant policies, nonetheless). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I trust this user will know where he needs to learn more. MBisanz talk 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support It's not as if people can't learn... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 11:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose- per this, you clearly do not understand policy very well, as the word "wiki" in a name is acceptable, where as "wikipedia" wouldn't be. A lack of policy and guideline knowledge tells me of a lack of experience and knowledge of how to assist sysops. It would be worrying if this user got the tools and blocked people for things like that, sorry. AndreNatas (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warthog hasn't stated that he wishes to work at UAA, so I'm sure if any reports such as that are made, he will know the correct procedure to follow (i.e. not blockable). Although that doesn't really answer your oppose, I hope it makes a little change in your final decision. Rudget. 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose is based on the editors misunderstanding of policy in general, this is just one area. The editor could make many more mistakes in many other areas with the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rudget is correct, I do not wish to work hard with UAA. If I do, I certainly shall brush up on username policies first. However, your concerns are noted and appreciated. I am taking what you say into consideration. :) -WarthogDemon 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose - good vandal fighter, however lack of meaningful article contributions. Also, the fair use images that he's uploaded are missing rationales. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only some are missing (complete) rationales, yes? I have gone through and adjusted the rationals for the images. Hopefully they're complete now. -WarthogDemon 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through those, all but one, were uploaded before we even had the rationale requirement. (And, we're talking about 2 years ago on almost all of those). And, the one that had an extremely weak rationale, he went back and fixed, it seems... SQLQuery me! 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously WarthogDemon doesn't understand the fair use policy - at the time of his above comment, none of the images had rationales, which have since been added by SQL. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the rationales to templated rationales (pet peeve of mine -- I find it easier to read the templates, than free-form text.) And, again, 2 years ago, before the rationales were even required, on all of them (Except one, I think). SQLQuery me! 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Involvement in UAA is always a negative for me, but if you can't even do it right... :/ Sorry. -- Naerii 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, are you insinuating that you generally oppose if a user participates at WP:UAA? Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose solely on that, no. -- Naerii 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just wanted clarification : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to my oppose: I just saw that he got a CSD declined on an article I AfDd [3] and I checked through the rest of his CSD nominations - I believe that this candidate is too hasty to delete. In fact, I think all the issues here could be solved by a) re-reading policies thoroughly and b) less rushing. On the basis of this I'd be happy to support you next time around if you slow down and take more care in CSDs and UAA reports. UAA reports are of special concern to me because if you block a newbie that doesn't really need to be blocked, that newbie could be deterred from editing ever again. -- Naerii 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall keep from going too fast, however I wasn't the one who tagged that article: [4]. -WarthogDemon 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeeeez I was thinking of somebody completely different with that particular link LOL. I'm so sorry! Haha. The rest of what I said still stands though. -- Naerii 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per the poor UAA report of the name "Wiki Greek Basketball", as it shows a patent ignorance of the username policy. If you can tell me why this report was incorrect according to the policy, I'd definitely consider supporting however. The majority of your contribs are great, but that kind of misunderstanding of the policy could have seriously negative effects if you were granted the tools. VanTucky 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After going through the appropriate articles, I find my error lies with WP:IU. I mistook it for a "misleading username" thinking it suggested power. I would have to dig through my old contribs, but I think I was confused due to the fact that an account was usernameblocked that contained the word "wiki," but which wasn't the reason for the block. -WarthogDemon 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - Looks like a well rounded user, but I'm a little troubled by some of your reports to WP:UAA: [5] Has the word wiki in the name? So? [6] Non English Characters? Again, so what? Ask them to translate. [7] Name of living person. Ok, again, so ask them to change it. Besides, a matching name doesn't necessitate immediate admin attention. There were others that you cited as promotional, yet they hadn't made any edits. A little premature for a report if you ask me. I'm swaying on the fence for now, leaning towards support. I need to take a closer look at the contributions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that those are premature. As good as I am with policy in other areas, I do need to brush up on reading policy with usernames since, as you have pointed out, I have treated some with harmless names as if they were serious threats. I'm aware of my shortcoming here and until I actually know the policy by heart, will avoid giving out ANY username blocks unless it's obviously racial/vulgar. And on the promotional ones, have you checked to see if they made any spam articles that got deleted? I do not believe I've mentioned any being promotional unless they made an article, unless my midnight-tired brain is forgetting something. -WarthogDemon 06:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the third user, this probably warranted a block anyhow. SQLQuery me! 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The third one was quite a while ago, to be honest. I'm sure that WD has improved since then, aside from those other two which have been quoted. Rudget. 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The candidate says they want to work at WP:CSD, yet combing through the usertalk space I couldn't find any notifications. Can anybody provide diffs as evidence that the user has experience here? This is making me lean towards oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentHe did just two minutes before you saved this edit. Also these [8] [9] [10] [11] for starters. --Ginkgo100talk 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, although diff 6 makes me worried. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup The #6 makes me very worried. could you explain your rationale in placing the A7 no claims to notability? this is pretty basic. DGG (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to be promotional, though I had a tricky time (upon its creation) telling if it was about her or her company. I should have paused for a few minutes more to figure out what it was. Also, upon research, some of the wording is very similar to: [12] at the About Us page. Probably not close enough to say "copyvio" but the mispelling of Eli's and Rudy's names is a bit too coincidental. But I'm not using this to cover my tracks. The better course of action for me would've at the least been simply watching the page for a few days and then either prodding/afding if (after like a week) I saw no improvement. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, that's just it. A7 has nothing to do with promotion or notability. It's whether the biography indicated importance, which it did. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: I see no evidence that the user will misuse the tools on purpose but, from looking at past UAA reports, (s)he may make some policy mistakes. I will switch to support if the (obviously well-meaning) user can prove that (s)he has brushed up on policy. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We all make mistakes, FWIW... I actually expect WD to make mistakes. I know I made a couple doozies when I first got the bit. The important part is how one handles making mistakes. SQLQuery me! 05:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Good user, but the UAA diff's are worrisome. Cant support or oppose here. Tiptoety talk 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WarthogDemon&oldid=200076343"