Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adolphus79: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 86: Line 86:
#'''Oppose''' per DGG. Experience very shallow. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per DGG. Experience very shallow. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per more time writing.....[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per more time writing.....[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' Adolphus79 has fans but doesn't seem to be ready to use the tools (my own analysis of his contribs is very similar to DGG's observations). It's not that he'd be a ''bad'' admin necessarily, just that he's not in the readiness zone. His prospects might improve if he got involved in wider admin-area discussions outside of the usertalk pages of individual admins. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 22:33, 26 November 2008

Adolphus79

Voice your opinion (talk page) (23/2/0); Scheduled to end 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adolphus79 (talk · contribs) – I would like to submit Adolphus79 for consideration for adminship. I found him to be a well-reasoned and mature editor through the course of his admin coaching. Adolphus always seeks to make himself useful, whether it be cleaning up articles that he comes across, reverting vandalism, or contributing to a deletion discussion. I have little doubt that he will be able to wield the tools in a way that will elevate the community. bibliomaniac15 00:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratiously accept... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At first I will probably work on the areas I know best already; RC/NP patrolling, CSD, AfD, AIV, UAA, etc., I know a number of these are often backlogged, and I would like to help alleviate these backlogs... Being a bit of a sloth, I am sure that I will find myself bored and wandering around helping in other areas as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a bit like like asking a parent which of their kids is their favorite... I honestly don't know what my best contributions are, and what I think is the best may not be what someone else thinks is my best... I suppose the areas that I feel I have made some better contributions would be Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons (when I first joined 2 years ago), and more recently NP patrolling, AfD, Micronation and Piracy related articles, and creating a few articles...
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: Quite a few minor conflicts, as goes with RC/NP patrolling and vandalism fighting, but nothing so major to cause me much stress... If I find myself getting too worked up over a situation, I generally either try to get a fresh set of eyes on the subject (bring it to one of the noticeboards and/or talk page of an admin), or just walk away from the 'puter for a little bit. In the future, I will probably deal with it just the same as I do now.

Additional question from Nsk92

4. As a follow-up to Q2, could you please comment in more detail on your mainspace contributions?
A: I'm not completely sure what you are asking here, to comment in more detail on my mainspace contributions... Off the top of my head, and being bold in assuming what you want, I would say that most of my mainspace edits are either minor copyediting or vandalism reverts. Throw in the random major copyedit or article creation (and/or fixing my own typos), and that would pretty much cover it. Hopefully this answers your question; if not, let me know...
Thanks. I actually wanted to hear about some examples of articles your created, because at first I did not notice the book icon at the top of your userpage that contains a link to the list of articles you created. Sorry, that was my bad. Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from DGG

5. I notice that almost all the articles you created have no third party references. [1] , or the many album articles that are your main contributions. How important is it that articles have such references when judged the criteria for keeping an article at AFD? How important when judging a possible deletion at Speedy? DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: To be quite honest, I don't know... I think part of the reason for that is the fact that a lot of the articles I have created were created simply because I found a redlink... I don't only edit Wikipedia, but also like to use it to read up on subject I don't know much about... the album articles are created whenever I am listening to a song or album and can't find said album on the Wiki already... they are admittedly quick jobs just to get a stub in place, hoping that someone more knowledgeable in the subject (a Wikiproject:Albums participant) will come along to fill in the gaps. With this now brought to my attention, I will try my best to go back and find some better sources for my creations... I know just how important such sources are at AfD, as I have used the arguement that an article fails WP:V several times myself. As far as CSD goes, so long as a possibility of notability is shown (RS's or not), then said article should not be speedied.
6. I notice no particpation in the last 3 months in any discussion on Wikipedia Talk space, and no discussion of any sort in Wikipedia Talk space about a question of policy. a/ How can we see that you do know about current policy questions? b/Could you please select two currently disputed issue relevant to the work of an administrator and briefly explain your view. DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I really don't talk much to begin with... I stalk User talk:Xenocidic and User talk:Keeper76, and also read AIV's talk and AfD's talk mostly to try to learn from more experienced editors. As far as Wikipedia Talk space, up until now I've sort of been more of the young pup learning from others and following the policies. I haven't really found the need to discuss said policies/guidelines, as I agree with them most of the time. To be frank, I don't consider myself a policy-maker, but more of a janitor (no pun intended) cleaning up the public face of Wikipedia, and leaving the behind the scenes stuff (policies/coding/etc.) to the more experienced. To answer question A, I think Biblio and I discussed a few different policies during my coaching. I'll have to look into question B and get back to you...
7. About 95% of your !votes at AfD have been to delete the article. I agree with almost all of them--and even the few I don't , there are none so wrong that I would really question them. But why have you almost never found a disputed AfD on an article in your subject where you though a !keep was in order? DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, I didn't even realize that. I promise I am not a deletionist myself. This could possibly be due to the fact that I simply agree with some AfD noms, and therefore cast my !vote. I don't have a simple answer for you since this was not done consciously... I don't scan through AfD specifically looking for noms that I disagree with, it's more along the lines of when I nominate something, I happen to scan through and pick a couple others at random to look into.


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Adolphus79 before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. Beat-the-nom Support - I had already looked over this editor a few weeks earlier (He was another of my Admin Coach's students) and I feel that Biblo has taught him fine :) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per experiences with the user. bibliomaniac15 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support John254 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Funny, just earlier today I thought about nominating you. I'll throw my Support in. RockManQ (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Another good candidate. When will the streak end? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Candidate seems to be knowledgeable in the areas he wishes to take part in, especially AfD. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I would say that with an admin coaching background and good knowledge of backlogs, there is no reason why I shouldn't cast this vote. Leujohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Support as soon as I saw this on my watchlist. I've seen him around the wiki, and he both has clue and is willing to use it. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support There is something that makes me uncomfortable with this candidate, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I was pleasantly impressed with his CSD tagging... he actually corrected another editors mistagging of G1! Perhaps it is my general mistrust of CSD'ers? Whatever my hesitation, it's not enough to deny a support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)PS I did add a comment on the coaching page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - User appears competent enough. Good AFD and AIV. I would have liked to see more UAA experience since they state this in their answer to question one, but I didn't find anything alarming. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Good user, good contribs, won't mess up. AdjustShift (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The candidate's answer to Q3 has me a bit concerned as to whether or not they will be able to effectively manage the stress of being an admin, because editors are going to bring disputes to administrators expecting them to resolve matters. However, I figure it's better to take a break and relax than it is to go off exploding randomly everywhere. It's also good that he is willing to ask for help when needed. He seems to have an overall solid grasp of policy, and has a degree of common sense I would hope for and expect from an administrator. Why the hell not? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - When will this string of excellent candidates end? No problems here, or at least that I can see, no reason not to trust this user. — neuro(talk) 07:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Another great candidate? What's going on with RfA these days? Support as a great user, with excellent contribs. Xclamation point 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Certainly is a bit of a green week at RFA! Great candidate, nice diverse editing, civil and calm looking at user talk. Also appears to share my twin interests in smoking and drinking - two habits that adminship will no doubt only strengthen .... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - It's a cliche, but I thought he was one already. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support RfA is going green, indeed. You show a major net positive, which is great. iMatthew 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Tangobot's report is green like cash monies. IMO, this user will do a fine job as an admin. Sam Blab 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support per above Message from XENUu, t 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wanted to be a co-nom support - Would make a great admin. Often does my work for me by answering questions on my talk page. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Hello, I'm Mrs. Balloonman, and I need to hire a detective to follow my husband -- he keeps sneaking out of the house at night to go to someplace called "RfA" and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an excellent editor who would be a fine admin! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions between us. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support because candidate is clearly responsible enough to handle the admin tools in a way to help wikipedia and I see no reason for him to abuse such tools either purposefully or accidently in such a way that would skew the values of wikipedia. Lympathy Talk 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I have seen him around, and I like what I saw! America69 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Perhaps I could sneak by in the surge of good candidates... Oh the irony! ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I respect DGG's concerns (as I always do) but I don't feel that they're really a deal-breaker. He's done quite a bit of gnomish work and admins with that sort of background usually turn out to be quiet and averse to drama. Willingness to follow policy is more important than knowledge of policy. I think he knows enough to get around and will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose (pending answers to my questions). I see a great many people like you, and, if I were working in your areas, I'm sure I would also. But I consider you not yet qualified for administrative functions. You have never participated in a policy discussion. You have never given an extended comment at an AfD. There is thus no way of really telling if you understand policy. You have essentially no article writing experience--almost everything you list on your user page is a trivial stub,and almost all contributions to other articles are also very minor. You have only 3,000 edits in 2008, and 400 in 2007. (and another 5,000 two years ago, in the first half of 2006). I'd suggest about 6 months experience in those things before you re-apply. DGG (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per DGG. Experience very shallow. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per more time writing.....Modernist (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Adolphus79 has fans but doesn't seem to be ready to use the tools (my own analysis of his contribs is very similar to DGG's observations). It's not that he'd be a bad admin necessarily, just that he's not in the readiness zone. His prospects might improve if he got involved in wider admin-area discussions outside of the usertalk pages of individual admins. — Athaenara ✉ 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral pending answers to questions and in-depth analysis. I hope I can turn this into a support, but the research DGG put in before asking his optional questions means I will have to take time and do my homework on this one. Even if the candidate doesn't address DGG's questions in the way DGG probably wants, I may still offer support, see User:Davidwr/RFAs#General philosophy for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Adolphus79&oldid=254314332"