Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/White Shadows

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.121.245.182 (talk) at 03:01, 7 July 2010 (→‎Neutral: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

White Shadows

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (6/3/4); Scheduled to end 02:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

White Shadows (talk · contribs) – I'd like to nominate User:White Shadows for adminship. WS does a tremendous amount of work here, and he is now in the semifinals of the WikiCup. He knows his way around the wiki, and I believe is widely respected for what he does. He has grown as a person during his time here (not going to deny that he and the whole over-18 thing have yet to intersect). I suppose I've tried to take him under my wing a bit here and keep him flying right and I"m now pleased and proud to nominate him for adminship. Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

For my second ever nomination, I present you with White Shadows. Specializing in submarine warfare, White Shadows is a wonderful content worker who has contributed to some 25 good articles, three good topics, and 41 DYKs. Identified as an "Awesome Wikipedian" by Rlevse, WS is a familiar face at the DYK talk page (486 edits) as well as AIV (99 edits) and even the WikiCup.

I think everyone's aware of White Shadows' humble origins. Let's not beat around the bush, his beginnings as an editor were not ideal. He began as a well-meaning but zealous user who struggled with maturity and clue issues as well as some contentious conflicts. Despite the fact that people were often criticizing him (sometimes a hard thing to face), White Shadows came to appreciate their advice; he learned to listen to it and began to apply it to his editing. For months, he took to heart advice which helped him grow as a person. I was one of the first people to try and reach out to him, and reflecting on his history, I am stunned by his progress. In the past few months, he has grown exceptionally not only in his editing but as a person - becoming more mature, not jumping to conclusions, and spending more time in the content area, amongst other accomplishments.

I want to make it clear that White Shadows makes a strong candidate. Apart from the fact that he was able to spring back from a rather rough start (which I feel is very demonstrative of his enthusiasm), he has many positive traits. His quick learning ability, newly-acquired accountability, plus his dedication to improving himself while improving the encyclopedia we all work on - highlight what I think makes White Shadows a strong candidate for adminship.

I hope you will join me in supporting this request for someone who will continue to work hard for the benefit of the project who is also very enthusiastic and obviously has the best interest of the project in his heart. ceranthor 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you Wehwalt and Ceranthor for nominating me. I accept.--White Shadows There goes another day 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My admin work would be concentrated around the main page, in particular WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS, both of which I am a regular to (with over 480 edits to the suggestions page of DYK) and are on my watchlist. There seems to be a shortage of willing admins that work in both areas and I have seen some error reports that go unfixed until the DYK queue is updated. It would be my pleasure to assist with the admins that already work in these places. I would also like to participate in {{editprotected}} requests which I have relevant experience from WP:ERRORS requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my personal opinion, my best contributions to Wikipedia in the mainspace would be my work on the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary which I wrote from a short list of names of the 13 battleships in the Austro-Hungarian fleet to an A-class article, as well as my contribution in getting World War II to GA status. I am also very proud of my work on German submarines such as German submarine U-47 (1938) and the entire class of 9 German Type IXA submarines, as well as the promotion of over 15 further U-boat and warfare related GA's and over 41 DYKs. I've also got a further 10 GA's from other naval ships such as Austro-Hungarian battleships like the SMS Zrinyi and the SMS Habsburg. Behind the scenes, I believe my best contributions to this project would be my work in DYK, creating queues and clearing the backlog of DYK suggestions as well as my participation in other projects such as the WikiCup. While I am technically a contestant in the competition and not a judge, I generally participate in helping out by answering questions to the project's talk page, updating the pools, as well as the contestants page along with User:Stone. On a personal note, I am also very proud over my transformation from a Myspacer to a prolific content writer during the months of January and February of this year. Prior to that, less 25% of my edits were to articles and over 50% of my edits were to others talk pages and my own userpage. since then, I have managed (with the help of several editors) to leave behind my unproductive past and find my niche on this project, German submarines and battleships.
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: Anyone who knows my past knows that I had a number of editing conflicts during my 11 and a half months here. I originally took these conflicts personally and went about the wrong way of trying to end them and I even kept grudges against several editors. Two such conflicts got me blocked in January and February. However, I have learned that when editing on a site like this, there are bound to be people who disagree with you. Rather than fuel the flames, I've now tried to just back away from any situation that can result in an unfavorable outcome such as a lengthy ANI thread that wastes others time or a block. If I feel that I myself am getting tense with the situation, I simply take a break for a few minutes and cool down. As for holding grudges, I've learned that holding grudges means that one can never move on and forget about an unpleasant situation. I've always thought that it is best to not dwell on the past and simply let these conflicts go. In the future, if I ever get into a disagreement with another editor that possibly would require administrative attention, I would defer to another neutral admin because there are always two sides to a dispute and when you yourself are involved, you don't always see the other viewpoint.
Question from —fetch·comms
4. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: Oppose White Shadows has been an very unproductive editor in the first 6 months of his time here on Wikipedia. While he has made a major turnaround in his editing, I still have concerns over his maturity. For instance, on occasion he has interjected in ANI discussions and made unhelpful comments without understanding the entire setup of the situation.
My reply would be: I understand the reason for your oppose rational. However since January-February, I have made a massive effort to turn myself around. It was a tough journey but I am glad to say that I made it. While I have in the past come across as immature, I believe that the biggest sign of maturity is owning up to your mistakes and making a valid effort to correct them. I've learned that commenting in such threads tend to result in inflaming the situation rather than cooling it down.
Additional optional question from Noraft
5. What is your opinion of WP:AOR?
A: I am a huge advocate of WP:AOR and I myself would be open to recall if my RFA passes. I believe that if the community has a valid grievance, then I believe that it is an administrator's duty to be open to calls for their handing in of the tools.
Additional optional question from Noraft
6. User:Fozzie9000 is editing an article about a Chinese church that was ruined during the Cultural Revolution. The article has a photo taken before the Cultural Revolution of the church that shows a statue of Jesus in the courtyard. Another photo taken after the Cultural Revolution shows that the statue has been removed, and that all the stained glass windows of the church are broken. The article narrative talks about the damage to the church, and states that the Red Guards (China) destroyed the statue and the windows. However, this statement is unsourced.
User:RunOff, who has never edited the article before, reverts the unsourced statement. On the talk page he states that the statement is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. Fozzie9000 quotes policies that appear to be relevant such as Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F and WP:OI, but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight. Fozzie9000 brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and implies (without stating overtly) that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF, he states that editors must "earn good faith."
How would you analyze this situation? Is it Original research? Does it constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should Fozzie9000 do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff?
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Diego Grez ¡aprende a llorar! 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nomination. No problems here. --John (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – I've seen White Shadows around the wiki, and he has been a clueful and useful editor. I trust him with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support. No recent red flags, but old problems last in my opinion. ACCESS DENIED 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As co-nominator. ceranthor 02:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am pleasantly surprised by the strides WS has made in these last few months, and am impressed with his dedication to content work. But he's not ready for adminship. The old problems were based on issues of judgment and maturity, which do not resolve themselves overnight; I still have significant current concerns in this area, and they are an important facet of adminship. These issues will disappear slowly with time, but it is too soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Atrocious spelling is of concern, especially when simple words ("makeing"?) are spelled wrong on a continuous basis. Vandals do not take admins seriously when immaturity shows. Comments like this one during the Tanthalas39 situation are extremely unproductive and add nothing to the discussion. Aside from the above, your answer to question 1 does not show a large enough range of admin areas you'd be willing to work in. For someone who is not very active in warning vandals (as far as I can see), 32.81% of all edits dedicated to user talk pages is very concerning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that my spelling needs work. However as for warning vandals, I am active in that area. That is why I have 99 ANV reports.--White Shadows There goes another day 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Floquenbeam and as per what I said earlier on White Shadows's talk page. I also think that the nominators have demonstrated rather poor judgement in putting White Shadows forward for this "trophy" too soon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm on the fence here (leaning support). On the one hand, your work since your issues multiple months ago has been spectacular. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can overlook the issues even after this time. It was a pretty large mess, and I'm not sure I can let it go. From that whole get-go, it seemed like you were on a race to get adminship, but I haven't seen much to substantiate that recently. Since I haven't worked in the same area as you for many months, I'm going to have to look into your contribs more to make a decision. (X! · talk)  · @126  ·  02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Your contributions are definitely great, and I really try not to judge by time, but between the one year time here and myspacing until just 6 months ago, that's enough to have me a little worried. Good luck and you've definitely done good work, but I just cannot support for adminship yet. PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm sorry to say that I can't support right now, per the two above me. Perhaps in just another few months, but right now is too early for me. Sorry, —fetch·comms 02:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If I'm perfectly honest, I'm extremely surprised to see this nomination. I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw the name in the RfA TOC, but Wehwalt's signature is reassuring. With that said, as someone who has (maybe?) helped him get his bearings, it seems like just yesterday WS spent much of his time engaging in highly unnecessary disputes with respected users or unnecessary chatter on his talk page. He has made one of the most spectacular turnarounds I've ever seen in my three years on Wikipedia, but yet I feel he needs several more months to detach himself from his checkered past. I have no reason to believe he would deliberately misuse the admin bit, nor do I believe he would accidentally induce mayhem, but I don't yet think of WS as "admin material", however vague that may be. My advice would be to continue to establish yourself as a solid article creator. I'm well aware that one can literally change his ways in an instant, but in a community like ours, where every last mistake and quarrel is forever etched into multiple historical records, a consistent track record is necessary to pass RfA. On a more down-to-earth level, I agree that you need to work on sounding more professional in your talk page comments. "Your" and "you're" are not interchangeable, for example. Don't worry about achieving adminship so much – it's more a burden than anything. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC) (Juliancolton logged out due to wikibreak)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/White_Shadows&oldid=372145965"