Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chochopk 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 30 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Chochopk

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 06:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC) at (48/1/0); Scheduled end time 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chochopk (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate myself to be an administrator. I have over 20,000 edits since my serious participation in 11/2005 (or since my very first edit in 1/2005). I understand that being an admin is a difficult duty, an admin is a servant to the community, and it's a job. I am requesting to share this responsibility with the existing admin. Here are some highlights of my quality before going into the questions.

I am a work horse
Besides the number of edits, I am also not afraid of getting my hands dirty to do the tedious work. This is best illustrated by my manual inter wiki link on dollar, dollar (disambiguation), ruble, and Russian ruble.
Participation of TFD
I don't just vote and go away. I research the matter and explain myself thoroughly. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 5
I revisit and reconsider routinely. For example, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 4#Template:Painting.
Detail oriented
My edits on the currency symbol (Ghanaian cedi, Costa Rican colon, Cent (currency)) resulted in this praise.
If I were to patrol WP:AIV, I would block a user after verifying that the user has vandalized after the last warning and a DSN check. But immediately after blocking, I would make sure that the user did vandalize in between each warning, so that each warning is legit. This is not explicitly written at WP:AIV, and not-so-obviously implied at Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism.
If I were to close an XFD and the decision is to delete, not only will I delete the page in question, its talk page, but also use "All pages" to see if there is any subpage, or pages of similar names. We have quite a few orphaned subpages because some admins omit to do this.

ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to close TFD, as it is the XFD area I'm best at.
I would also participate speedy maintenance. If they are named speedy, then they should be speedy. Editors serve the readers, and the admins serve the editors. But that doesn't mean an admin should blindly perform each of the speedy maintenance for the sake of helping editors. Each must be validated first.
In terms of anti-vandalism, I will patrol WP:AIV, watch new pages and Special:Unwatchedpages. If you ask me, the default recent change is patrolled by too many people, and obvious vandalisms are often detected there. New pages often created under good faith but fail WP:N or meet WP:NOT, and then go undetected. I will focus my energy on the parts that require more help.
If I run out of admin things to do, I will just check WP:BACK and CAT:AB.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Standardization effort
  • {{Infobox Currency}} Before the inception of this template, various people have attempted to do something similar, but none was really widely adopted. Others have followed my steps without me asking them to do so. For example, this template was deployed to most of the African currencies by User:Zntrip.
  • Standardized table for coins and banknotes An effort that I began in December 2005. User:Timur lenk and I co-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style/Currency article. And I am still continuously implementing such changes, such as [1] and [2]. The thing that I'm the most satisfied is setting up a standardized scale across all currencies in the world.
  • Wikipedia:Template test cases A recent and ongoing effort of promoting a standardized test-driven template editing pattern/method. An editor may know obscure use case X, Y, Z of a template, while another may know another set of obscure use cases. The use of a centralized sandbox and test cases encourages collaboration.
  • {{Navigational templates}} A navigational box of meta navigational boxes. It serves as a catalyst to improve the meta navigational templates.
  • {{Random portal component}} Before its existence, if an editor wanted to put a component in a portal that shows random content, this was how it was done:
{{/box-header|''Selected pictures''|Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture/{{#ifexpr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) >= 0 | {{#expr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} | {{#expr:-({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} }}|}} {{Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture/{{#ifexpr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) >= 0 | {{#expr:({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} | {{#expr:-({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 22) + 1}} }}}} {{/box-footer|[[Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture|More pictures...]]}}
Now:
{{Random portal component|max=37|header=''Selected pictures''|footer=More pictures...|subpage=Selected picture}}
After the creation (11/2006), I deploy the template into 4 portals. Now it's on 75 portals.


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: It would be lying if I said no. Anyone who has stayed as long as I did, or edited as much as I did is bound to run into conflict. I avoid editing the articles back and forth. I will try to resolve in the talk page first. I abide WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. I stay on the topic in question, rather than personal attack. If you're curious about a specific instance, I believe the best example is the issue of "what to include in the euro infobox". It started at Talk:Euro, and moved to Template talk:Infobox Currency. Unlike most other edit disputes, this one is not POV. Two sides of the editors wanted different things, but both for a better Wikipedia. Hexagon1 and Stefan2 considered euro as a "European thing", while Zntrip and I consider it a currency. Fortunately, we were able to derive a solution is satisfy both sides.
Having conflict is not a shame. What matters is how we deal with it. I believe in due process. I have more respect for people that follow the process and have different opinion from mine, than people that do not follow the process and have the same opinion as mine.
Optional Question form Lwarf When Should A user be indefenetly blocked and how many warnings/blocks should they have had before the indef block?
A: One easy answer is that a banned user is usually indefinitely blocked. The hard part is to decide whether or not a user should be banned. (Yes, ban and block are different).
There's no codified procedure for indefinitely blocking a user. (When I say codify, I meant like software code, where no steps and decisions involve a qualitative judgment). If a user account is created solely for the purpose to vandalize, to spam, or to make personal attacks, they will be warned just like any other cases. When the warning is beyond level 4, the user will be blocked. Depending on the severity, the initial block may be 24 hours, or a week, or even indef. If the first block happens to be temporary, and when the block is off, the user immediately comes back and continues vandalizing, spamming, or making personal attack, then this behavior will most likely result in indef block. Generally, it is easier to indef block a user than an IP address because block the latter is in greater conflict with Wikipedia's openness. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chochopk before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support! We've had differences, but Chochopk is civil, discusses matters, and understands that people have differing opinions. He actually researches before acting, and that will make him an awesome admin. SchmuckyTheCat
  2. Support Long time contributor that has kept out of trouble. Wants to work on TFD and clean-up other places as well. A mop will come in handy. —Gaff ταλκ 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support mainly to quench Chochopk's power-hungry cravings, but also because I am impressed with this editor's contributions. I expect that as an admin, he will work behind-the-scenes, maintaining templates at both an editor and an admin level, and handling protected edit requests. GracenotesT § 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, why not. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Kurt Weber ;) (In other words, there obviously are no problems) - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This user is active, and reliable so why not support him?--James, La gloria è a dio 04:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support. I close TfDs regularly, and see this user around very frequently. He/She always expresses thoughtful opinions and is one of the frequent TfD contibutors whose opinion I have come to search for when I close difficult nominations. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hell yes. Daniel 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I have no concerns about this user; they appear to have a solid handle on policy, conduct themselves well, and should make a good administrator. Carom 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Yup. KrakatoaKatie 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Has been on Wikipedia a long time. Contribs indicate that this user is active on Wikipedia and has been civil with others. He deserves the mop. -- Hdt83 Chat 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Edits like a bandit, glad to support. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support I am very confident we have an excellent admin candidate here. Has the experience, great answers, brilliant contributions. Hell yeah, let's give him a mop! —Anas talk? 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support I was really impressed by the exchange here. - TwoOars 11:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support of course. Peacent 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support seems to be a reliable editor, he's been around for a long time too. SalaSkan 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support just been looking through the contribs and he looks good to me (lots of maintenance work, reverting vandals, that sort of thing) --Lwarf Talk! 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools. PGWG 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Should have been an admin last time..but I hopes he succeds now.. --Cometstyles 14:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - This user follows guidelines. ;) Seriously, though, no problems here. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I feel the user will use the tools properly. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 17:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support (in a Ted Kennedy voice) give him the mop mister bureaucrat. BH (T|C) 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good user, no problems - Zeibura Talk 00:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I've worked with him at the numismatics project. He does an amazing amount of work, much of it drudgery. He always has respect for others' opinions and is willing to help out wherever asked. Ingrid 02:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great with templates, getting consensus and compromises. :) Joe I 03:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I know I'm not eligible to vote, but I'd like to express my support of Chochopk whom I know as a smart and knowledgeable contributor. --Novelbank 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you not egligible to vote, any registed user can vote. --Lwarf Talk! 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I thought I need to be around long enough to be allowed to vote. --Novelbank 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 10:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I've seen him around the 'pedia -- he does a lot of good work, and always seems reasonable. no reason he wouldn't make a good admin. Coemgenus 13:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support -TimV.B.{critic & speak} 15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, happy with the contribs and the answers. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Terence 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support It's obviuous dedication that gets you 20K edits and a second time to be abused here. I think you will do well. JodyB talk 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I don't see why not. Sounds like a good candidate! --wpktsfs 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Agree with Wpktsfs. Captain panda 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support dedicated template contributions. –Pomte 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Should make a great admin. Davewild 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Default support. —AldeBaer 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support clearly demonstrated dedication to the project ~ Infrangible 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support dedicated editor.--VS talk 09:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I am impressed by his wonderful edits. He has many edits, and is a valuable editor.Politics rule 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Third time's a charm :)...good luck! Jmlk17 08:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support That many edits deserves adminship--LtWinters 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Everything looks good and we could always use another template specialist. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Vote 46 was casted after the 7-day discussion period was over). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Changing my vote per my discussion with the nominee (below). --Ssbohio 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Last Minute Support As above. ~ Wikihermit 02:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is currently opposing all self-noms for the sole reason that they are self-noms.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: please consider reviewing the community accepted guidelines for RfA. You will find nothing, not a single shred of support, to back up your decision to oppose RfA's solely based on self-nomination. This is the second RfA you have voted this way that I have seen. —Gaff ταλκ 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite familiar with those guidelines; I disagree with them--and they're just that: guidelines. Certainly, assuming good faith is a good idea as long as there's no evidence to the contrary. It is my position that self-nominating oneself for adminship constitutes evidence to the contrary. Kurt Weber 12:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, and withdraw this vote. The toleration of self-nominations is a core aspect of our RfA-system, so if you cannot agree with this, I suggest that you go participate in other areas of Wikipedia instead. SalaSkan 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how anyone can see 20,000 edits and 2.5 years on the project before an RFA as 'power hungry'. CIreland 14:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Power Hunger? What makes you think that selfnoms are by people who are power hungry, give me a good reason to think this user is power hungry, becouse at the moment I think you have a grudge against this user and are trying to ruin his RFA. --Lwarf Talk! 13:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope; I've never interacted with him before. But I believe self-nominating oneself for adminship is sufficient evidence of power-hunger, and so as of last night I have opposed all new self-noms. Kurt Weber 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Nietzsche, all humans desire power. You seem to imply that a self nomination necessarily indicates a base or vulgar desire for power that is not in the project's best interest. I can't help but wonder, what if Chochopk is deserving of more authority? Is it wrong to ask for more authority when you are deserving of it? Or is the sin being conscious of the fact that you are deserving? Perhaps a lack of self awareness, or low self esteem should be a precondition for adminship. MoodyGroove 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    This is not really worth discussing. Kurt has an opinion to explain, and the only place it will be noticed is on an RFA. It's too bad that he chose this one, but... eh, what can you do. GracenotesT § 17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is best continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Self Nomination. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Conflating information from this RfA an this editor's previous RfA, I fear that the editor is exceptionally favorable to deletion. I all-too-well remember the sea of userboxes coming to TfD, and I fear that another pro-deletion admin (under those circumstances) would have done a great deal of further damage and kept us from consensus for even longer. Between counting noses and reviewing comments on XfD, I don't see evidence to convince me that this editor is neutral on the deletion question, but is more or less predisposed to favor deletion. However good their intentions, I would have a hard time entrusting admin tools to this editor based on their record thus far. I'd much rather their desire to delete be ratified by another party. I also think the edit summaries can be unnecessarily brief, but that wouldn't have caused me to vote this way. --Ssbohio 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm trying to change your vote. Everyone is entitled to vote their own way. But I would like to clear things up a bit. I am not pro-deletion. I am only pro-template-code-reuse. If you look closely, a good proportion of the TFDs are redundant templates. In the current TFD, we have Template:Infobox Peru district and Template:Infobox District Peru, and Template:AbiaGovernors and Template:AbiaStateGovernors. Four distinct templats. Let's say we have a city infobox. Sometime it doesn't fit an exceptional country/province. People often just fork off and copy-paste code. I can hardly imagine anyone would say this is a good practice.
After redundancy, the 2nd most common category of TFD (in my opinion) is "whether-or-not-this-is-worth-a-template". When this kind of case arises, a domain expert on the subject is often required. I normally post a TFD notice to the related wiki project, or an article, like I did to this and this. I do this because I think this is the right thing to do. Normally this kind of invitation would tip the balance toward keep. So IMHO, I don't believe that I am a deletionist. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking the time to address one of my concerns. My opposition is weak, and open to reconsideration the more I know about where your heart lies.
To be clear, I don't think of you as deletionist. However, any self-nomination that (to paraphrase) says "I want to work on deletions" doesn't sound like a balanced approach to content, and when I looked at your contributions, what I found supported my thesis. That's why I'm reticent to have you in a position to delete on sight, without ratification by anyone. From what you say and do, you still appear more interested in deleting than keeping, and that would worry me in any admin on a large collaboration like this. Are you planning to delete off your own bat, or only in response to consensus? What words do you have to address my concern that your predisposition (based on your reason for seeking admin tools) would be to delete?
The userbox TfDs (in the midst of ongoing discussion about what to do with userboxes) were a result of forum shopping by those who thought userboxes should go, "consensus be damned." Since you've staked out TfD as a primary interest for you, I'd like you to expound on the issue I raised about being an admin predisposed toward deletion and the effect of that when the next moral panic brings a wave of widgets to TfD. I don't want to think (at that time) that I supported another admin who now wants to "delete stuff." Similarly, how would you interpret CSD:T1, narrowly or broadly, and on what criteria?
On the subject of edit summaries, I appreciate your use of them to give a clue as to what your edits are about. I've been dismayed to see editors elevated to admin without your commitment to giving these summaries. I feel that, if an editor is unwilling to explain himself routinely, how can I expect differently once he's an admin? I do think that your edit summaries are abbreviate more than they need be, which limits their usefulness, especially to new editors. As I say, it's not a big deal, but it's a point I raised that I'd like to hear more from you on, in order to inform my thinking. --Ssbohio 00:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This message is posted after the 7-day discussion period is over) Actually, I just want to close TFDs. If I were granted sysop permission, I would never outright delete something even if I think it qualifies CSD. I would put a CSD tag and have some other admin to take action on it, therefore, a second opinion. In addition, I would follow this procedure when closing XFD:
If I have participated the discussion, take action only if the consensus is unanimous, very close to unanimous. If I have participated the discussion and the XDF has some room for debate, I will leave it alone. If I have not participated an XFD, I would act according to the consensus. This is actually inline with Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.
Regarding the userbox, are you talking about the "no-unencyclopedic-content-in-template-names-space" thing, which results in Wikipedia:WikiProject Userbox Migration? If you ask me, I think it's silly to delete those because it can be easily circumvented by relocating to the user space. I would argue to keep because moving them is just tedious, and the boxes would still exist! There is cost, and little benefit. They really don't hurt anything. I know..., some purist will tell me "read WP:ATA" and "this is to uphold the policy". Well, I'm just using common sense, you know.
CSD:T1 says "divisive and inflammatory". I think it's not very hard to tell when you see one, like porn. It's hard to define, but you know when you see it. An easy example is a navigational boxes for "Stupid Wikipedians" which is transcluded on the user pages of the victims. But inflammatory content, personal attack, or POV are relatively uncommon in TFD discussion. The only real example on the top of my head is one userbox about being atheist.
I appreciate your comment on edit summary. I will keep a closer eye one it in the future. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up. Since the userbox thing was decided some time ago, I will follow the consensus: to userfy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chochopk_2&oldid=1090627845"