Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slumgum

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 08:12, 3 April 2023 (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.

Slumgum

[edit]

Final (49/18/2); Ended Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:25 UTC

Slumgum (talk · contribs) - Slumgum is here since November 2005, contributing heavily to football-related articles and templates. I think that we can absolutely trust this user with the tools. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you Snowolf.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  22:17, 2 May 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 can foresee the rollback ability to be useful. On occasion I have been a little frustrated by backlogs, so I would like to be able to help with those.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have stayed mainly within the realms of football (soccer), English football in particular. I have been integral to the introduction or growth of a few things which have, as far as I can see, become key factors within Wikipedia football.
These include:
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, on a few occasions. They seemed to resolve themselves, e.g. the troublesome reverter who eventually got banned for use of sockpuppets, and a couple of unregistered users who didn't like my reverts of incorrect edits or vandalism. Once or twice I've had to question users' edits which were, although made in earnest, disruptive. I've found that generally, if you can get a consensus, you can get people who make disruptive edits to change their mind. Or if it's a minor issue, such as trivial vandalism, users (or I) just don't need to pursue the matter, and it's soon forgotten.
4.Are you active in any other parts of Wikipedia, or any other sites, such as Wiktionary, etc.?
A: Yes, but only occasionally. I sometimes answer on the Ref Desks and I tend to fix the odd formatting error I spot when using Wikipedia for research. I don't really use any other wikis.
5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: You mention two aspects. I tend to remove anything that I wouldn't like said about me, unless it's relevant and verifiable.
If someone does re-insert contentious material they deserve a warning, if they originally inserted it. Although blocking is unpleasant, it's sometimes necessary for persistent offenders.
6. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject has requested deletion, what weight would you give this information?--Docg 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: This is a hypothetical question, so I have to answer, "I don't know". It depends on the circumstances. You wouldn't have just the opinion of the subject to consider, there would also be a consensus of opinion.
7. In question 1 you indicate you "have been a little frustrated by backlogs" on occasion. However, just saying you'll help with the nebulous 'backlogs' isn't a convincing answer to the question. Take a look at User:Dragons flight/Category tracker. The biggest backlogs on Wikipedia are in areas where you do not need admin tools to help. Which of those backlogs have you last helped clear, and which do you see yourself as clearing in the future, if this rfa is successful? - Bobet 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: A belated response... Pages needing cleanup has a backlog stretching back to September 2005 - that's older than I am! I regularly come across articles in need of wikification/clean up that haven't even been tagged, so I usually fix them immediately. In actual fact, I've bypassed the categories in most cases, only tagging articles if I haven't got the time to fix them straight away. However, I plan to work on that cat when I can. Thanks for the link, btw.
8. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule? --bainer (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Whenever it's necessary. Not all guidelines fit all situations, but they are there to help not hinder, and they're ever-improving.

9. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: Yes.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Looks like a decent canidate to me. I don't see any history of disruption of any kind. The fact that Slumgum has a bad reply to an optional question should not bear too much weight here. Good editor, adminship is not a big deal :) —— Eagle101Need help? 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support First support come free with the nomination ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --U.S.A. cubed 22:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great editor. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. No reason to oppose. Abeg92contribs 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support- see no indication that the user would abuse the tools. David Füchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I see no problem with the candidate. Bballoakie 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A good user with excellent use of edit summaries and no red flags. Adminship is not big deal, after all. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support It will be good to have an admin with such extensive main space experience. DGG 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems so I will support. Captain panda 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Yes, I shall endorse! Jmlk17 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support In agreement with Captain Panda. No problems here. Acalamari 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support especially as more interested in creating and modifying than deleting cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Slumgum would be an ideal admin, because, personally, I think that not enough administrators help with vandalism, as he indicated he would. Cool Bluetalk to me 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support enough experience and willingness to clean up backlogs. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support after reviewing your recent contributions, although I would like an expansion to your answer to question one. (aeropagitica) 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Great editor, no issues here. Oldelpaso 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - more than adequate experience. Addhoc 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seems a legitimate case for demotion to admin, would use the tools, and looking through the edits same courteous and civil. Good luck. Pedro |  Chat  11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I see no potential problems in giving him the tools. I would, however, like to see more project work showing collaboration skills, but I think he'll do fine. JodyB 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nothing wrong with specialists. —AldeBaer 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support answer to Q1 is not very compelling, but adminship is no big deal, and you seem like a fine user. —Anas talk? 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Ummmm... contributions to the Wikipedia namespace is low but, I'm sure he'll take care that. Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per norm..--Cometstyles 22:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I do not like the answer to question #1 as it apears you will not be doing a lot of admin tasks, but adminship is no big deal and can not find any problems with your edits, so I will support. -Mschel 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I'm sure you'll use the mop wisely! --Ali 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I'm confident you'll apply the admin tools with care. The Transhumanist 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Experience, good edit record, template knowledge, seem civil, you'll do fine. --Shirahadasha 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per above. Good editor. --Phoenix (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --VS talk 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support --Tone 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Q1 is slightly weak, but adminship is no big deal. I don't see why you need to demonstrate a need for the tools; surely there's no harm in just giving them to any experienced editor? It doesn't cost anything. Walton Need some help? 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I can see no evidence the tools would be abused, and Slumgum has indicated a willingness and desire to help out with various backlogs. Adminship is no big deal, and (as far as I can see) there are no valid reasons to oppose this nomination. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Answer to Q1 is weak (rightly picked up by Bobet's further question) but your track record shows trustworthiness and I'm happy to support. --Dweller 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Based on your superb football work - I trust you to only do useful things — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Plenty of experience, consistency of edits, and edit summary usage. While stated above, the answer to Q1 is weak this user seems to be trustworthy enough to be able to have the tools as every other aspect checks out.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Spike Wilbury 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Joe I 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support If you don't, someone else will. --Infrangible 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support See no reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 18:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No concerns of substance have been raised; the answer to question #1 is basically irrelevant to whether someone is qualified for adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Small namespace edits, but I'm sure he will increase it if he becomes an admin. TTalk to me 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Review of contributions shows balance and hard work. Smee 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  46. I support not in spite of but because of his forthrightness in question 1. (well, and per his contribs, etc.) Better for him to be honest than to lie and say "oh, yeah, I really have a deep abiding interest in, uhh... Stubs for Deletion! Yeah, that's it!" ... right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree with you more about this. I asked an optional question because his answer seems precisely like an attempt to please, the fact that it shows he doesn't have any need for the tools (by giving a generic "backlogs" answer) is only tangential. He states he's been frustrated by the backlogs, yet I couldn't find any evidence that he's ever tried to help with them in any way. Are you saying you believe he's happier wallowing in his frustration, instead of eg. wikifying some article that really frustrates him? - Bobet 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it does seem like an attempt to please. But honestly, adminship is no big deal, he doesn't need a specific reason to be given it by the community. I'm frustrated by backlogs frequently, but without being an admin there's only so much you can do. I'm not sure I understand this concern being serious enough to merit opposing a solid and trustworthy editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No evidence he'd actually misuse the tools. RFA shouldn't be a test of how good you are at RFA... despite people's occasionally textbook answers to Q1, no one really knows what they're going to do as an admin before they actually are one. I sure didn't. Proven good faith editors will make good admins. --W.marsh 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No-one needs the tools, but Wikipedia needs people to have them. If they aren't being misused then a user-rights change will have no detrimental effect. I don't think they will be misused with this user. James086Talk | Email 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak support. Weak answer to question one garners a weak support. Makes sense :P--Wizardman 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I trust the user with the tools and suspect that Slumgum would use them moreso as a wrench than as a flamethrower or bulldozer. We need more topic-oriented admins, and this would be a great one for all things soccer. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (changing to oppose after a careful reading of points below)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose So sorry but to me Question one is "very" weak. Not very inspiring :S, best of luck. ~ Arjun 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based in the answer to Q1, it seems clear enough to me that the canadate will help in admin. backlogs. May I ask what is "weak" about the answer?--U.S.A. cubed 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is one sentence; which isn't enough to merit an oppose...but to me it just doesn't show the candidates need for the tools. The user says he wants to help out with the backlogs...but fails to go into detail about how he would go about this business. So I really don't see the huge need for tools. Great user but right now I don't see the need for the tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arjun01 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, but why should we only give the tools to users who desperately need them? It costs Wikipedia nothing to give out the admin tools, and as long as they won't be abused, I don't see any problem with giving them to any experienced and trusted editor. Having some admins who only edit occasionally is better than having a shortage of admins, IMO. Walton Need some help? 09:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Q1, I don't think that this user quite knows what sysop status would give him/her. As a normal editor, you can perform all of the tasks mentioned in Q1. Diez2 12:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Sorry but your answer to question one is extremely weak, I cant support a candidate with such a weak answer, except for that you're a good user.The Sunshine Man 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I would support you if you just elaborate on Q1. Sr13 (T|C) 08:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient projectspace participation to determine user's understanding of relevant policy. In the age of popups and [undo], sysop flag manifestly unnecessary to roll back vandalism. Factoring in the uninspiring answers, this is a Strong Oppose -- Y not? 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I can't support someone who at best would do nothing with the tools. There's no indication that he understands policy or any admin type processes due to the lack of relevant Wikipedis-space edits: outside of the reference desk, he only has a handful of xfd edits, and the ones I looked at were mindless ditto votes that didn't help the discussion (example: [1]). Since he indicates in question 1 that he'd be helping with random backlogs, with no evidence that he'd understand the relevant policies or common sense behind them, I have to oppose. - Bobet 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose-per Bobet. Q1 give only a general response, and it's good to have experience in areas that you'd be working in. Also, if you want to be able to rollback, just use TW. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per User:Y, as well as the answer to Question 1. Given the lack of experience, and lack of elaboration, it is entirely unclear to me whether candidate grasps what adminship entails. I can't support giving the mop to someone until I'm sure he'll know when (and when not) to use it. Xoloz 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per my reading of the candidate's answers to the questions above. You are a good editor, and good for the project, but I don't understand how adminship helps either you or Wikipedia. "No big deal" also has the converse of not everybody needs it. --Tractorkingsfan 08:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. There is a lot more to being an administrator than simply having a rollback button. Sean William 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Xoloz. --Rabbeinu 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose per Arjun and Y. A welcome contributor, but I just don't have enough evidence to convince me that this user understands policy well enough to be given the tools or has a need for them. Better answers would be a great start. · jersyko talk 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sorry, but upon further consideration of level of experience, oppose. Come back after you get some more project space experience and you'll be a great candidate. --Spike Wilbury 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Per Arjun, Y, and Xoloz. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Having a few extra buttons is no big deal, but I'm rather underwhelmed by the responses to the questions, which demonstrate that he might not actually know how to use the buttons, which is a bit of a concern gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Y. Hook him up with popups for a while and allow for time to learn more on policy. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - If you want rollback, use Twinkle, for everything else, your vague answers to policy questions don't give me much to go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgies (talk • contribs)
  18. Oppose per weak Q1 answer. Reviewing project space contributions is a bit disheartening: virtually no participation anywhere beyond the reference desk. Last AfD contribution was in October, and comments in XfDs have shown thought but not familiarity with Wikipedia standards. Sorry, I really think this user needs to learn policies and processes better, and can use Twinkle or popups in the meantime to fight vandalism. I hope you apply again, though, you have a lot of the qualities I would want to see. Mangojuicetalk 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Not a large amount of XfD work (or, if there is, I can't find it), so I don't think I can support. However, there is nothing very wrong with this candidate. If proof of extensive XfD work is shown to me, I will change to support. ~ G1ggy! Reply 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that such a pivotal issue? He hasn't expressed interest in closing XfDs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was pivotal, I would have opposed. I voted as I did because I think XfD is an important area of experience for a candidate. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it. ~ G1ggy! Reply 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per question one. You can use the rollback button on Twinkle. However, I may change my vote soon. Real96 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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/Slumgum&oldid=1147966891"