Jump to content

User:ArcAngel/RFA 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ArcAngel

[edit]

Final (8/24/7); Ended 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (withdrawn by candidate User:ArcAngel.)

Nomination

[edit]

ArcAngel (talk · contribs) – Having been an active editor since 2008, I have decided to see where I stand with the Wiki community in regards to the tools. Using WP:WTHN as my reasoning, and that there can never be enough admins (indeed, there are times when I have been on that I have seen quite a backlog in spots that have last for HOURS) I can say that I have never been blocked, used a sock, or been disruptive. To some, I may have been a bit incivil when I first started actively editing, but I feel that I have gotten to the point where I am always civil now.

My main focus when I started editing (and I suppose it still is) was vandal fighting, and over time I have branched out to other areas such as xFD, UAA, AIV and RFA. I have participated in AFC's in the past, and I have created two articles from scratch (while I have two other works-in-progress in my userspace, but I don't have any GA or FA noms to my credit at this time. I also welcome new users and warn those that vandalize, and even report them to AIV when necessary and if other editors have not done so already. I also mainly report promotional usernames to UAA, but those are few and far between so far.

I started an editor review in the first quarter of 2008, but due to real life issues, I was not able to complete the process, and actually was forced off the Internet for a few months while I got things sorted out. That's why my activity dropped to nothing in the last half of 2008. I had a minor lull again in the middle of this year, but I feel I have gained a basic understanding of what it takes to be an admin.

I will not make any hasty decisions with the mop, however. I will always think about the consequences of my actions before acting, or RE-acting if that is the case.

I should note that I was granted rollbacker rights and to date no one has informed me of any problems with my use of that tool.

So - there is my self-nom in a nutshell. I will now leave it to you fine people to see if you will trust me with the mop at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal

[edit]

Given the direction of this RFA, I feel it is best if I withdraw at this point in time. In lieu of thankspam, I would like to thank ALL those that !voted and appreciate the concerns of everyone involved. I will take the comments left by my opposition and continue to improve. I am not at all disappointed, nor soured by, the process. I know RFA is tough and will learn from this experience. I will likely run again, but it will probably be 6 months from now and not 3 as others have proposed. ArcAngel (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Those that I am already participating in as stated in my nomination, along with RPP. I will also work to relieve backlogs where needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: For awhile, I felt my best editing was on Frank Browne (Photographer), until one day I came across Francis Browne and decided that a merging would be a better idea. Rowdy_Herrington would be my next choice, although it is only a stub at this time.
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 do not recall being in any contentious conflicts as such. I have had "battles" with various vandals in reverting vandalism at times, but no real conflicts that one would term "edit wars" or "wheel warring".

General comments

[edit]

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

  • It's probably worth noting that adminship is not a badge, rank of seniority, or level; RFA is not a way to "see where [you] stand with the Wiki community". And while I'm here, it's not Wiki anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]
  • Edit stats posted on the talk page.  7  03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For those opposing due to my incorrect CSD tagging, posted for your consideration in that admins also make mistakes - this example - an article tagged with A9. Only problem is - the artist DOES have an article. ArcAngel (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a great emphasis on the speed to nominate, but as an admin there has to be more checking, and more non template interaction with the contributors of the articles or changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure admins also make mistakes; the question is how often? Airplaneman talk 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's even more of a reason to make sure that new admins have very good knowledge of the CSD, to reduce the error rate. Interestingly enough, when I just checked another editor's SD work, I stumbled across three examples where they corrected SD tags originally placed there by you. Two of them were eventually deleted, to be sure, and with an editor tagging pages, incorrect speedies aren't that much of a problem. But if an admin makes such mistakes, and doesn't stick to the criteria, it results in two things: First, he sets a bad example for other NPPers. Second, the editor whose article was deleted is given the wrong reason, which will confuse him even more.
    Speedy deletion is, to me, one of the few areas where I expect sure footing by any candidate, since almost everyone will come into contact with speedy deletion, and because it's one of the WP:BITEiest areas we have. And it's really not hard to get it right.
    Amalthea 12:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral Support - as to avoid piling on. Work on your CSD and AfD reasoning, and I hope to see you back here again.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support CSD work, especially of BLP's, isn't great, but going through his user talk contribs seems to indicate that only about 5% of his CSD's are declined, which to me is not as great a problem as the opposers are making of it. It's easy to make a few mistakes when you do 500 CSD's in a month. Now, granted, an administrator whose deletions are good 95% of the time and wrong 5% of the time is a bit frightening, but if Arc passes and even if he doesn't I think he'll be more cautious about CSD from now on. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support Longterm user with a clean blocklog. The CSD mistakes do concern me as did the comment about speed of warning vandals - there's little point issuing warning faster than someone can read them, the idea is to escalate if someone is ignoring warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Per long record of quality contributions. Also impressed you're one of those too rare people with the flexibility to change their position in the light of new evidence as you did in NewName2008's RfA. While I agree it important to give newbies a chance to improve their articles before tagging, the only specific issue I saw in my checks was the user you tagged for having a dating site style page. As it was a new user it might have been better to give her a chance to get used to wiki culture, which I guess is a culture shock to some used to other parts of the net. Or if you wanted to address the issue straight away it would have been nice to offer some specific advice on how she could achieve the same effect within policy (e.g. saying shes single with a user box , talking a bit about her editing intentions on wiki to balance out the personal stuff). FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I actuallly did open a dialogue with the editor and asked that she re-arrange her uesrpage to be more in line with what Wikipedia expects a userpage to contain. ArcAngel (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    ok, switching to regular support FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support Collegial and collaborative contributor to Wikipedia who isn't embarassed to course correct after considering information pointed out by others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per WSQ and COM. iMatthew talk at 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support A misunderstanding led to my oppose, so my only concern has been addressed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  8. Strong support as this user is a mature editor who has demonstrated the will to learn from previous mistakes. I see that Chick magnet has been mentioned in the oppose section below, and as the creator of the article, I am not concerned over this action as they clearly pointed out their concern and why they nominated it for AfD. Even though they might have made a mistake, they still discussed his edits in a civil manner, something that many admins who use the mop right now, can't even do. I also appreciate the concerns of others about CSDs, however I am willing to trust that this user will make well-thought decisions in this area if given the tools. Give this user the tools, they can be trusted.. --Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose due to concerns over recent inappropriate CSD tagging (as detailed on the candidates talk page) and this AfD . I think it's great that you are prepared to listen to the explanations of why your decisions were incorrect, but an administrator needs to have a more thorough knowledge of policy than you have recently demonstrated. I was particularly concerned by this - it's the sort of thing that will put off a new user, and they had done nothing wrong by adding a few personal details to their user page. I'm sorry; I don't like opposing; I hope that you will continue to learn more about policies, and that you will return to RfA in a few months.  Chzz  ►  04:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per this diff from chzz, as well as a few other things. About 40% of your edits are automated (according to this tool, and most of the AfD votes i have seen have been generic per noms. Also in accordance with chzz above, you have 8 seperate warnings on your talk page for incorrect CSD tagging. If you had been an admin, that would be 8 inappropriately deleted pages. Work on your CSD tagging, develop some AfD reasoning, and try not to bite. I don't normally oppose, and I hope to see you back soon. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 04:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Sure, I use automated stuff for things like CSD's, welcoming new editors, and warning vandals. Sometimes speed is important with vandals when they are vandalizing a page every few seconds and you need to give them several warnings fairly quickly. ArcAngel (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with you there. But sometimes such speed is discouraged with CSD noms, as well as AfD nominations. The AfD nomination of Chick magnet is particularly concerning there, as the page did have an underconstruction template on it. Also, the high percentage of automated edits suggests that you may not be communicating on Talk: pages yourself, which I believe is important for an admin. Although, I did notice your AfD rationales improving after my comment above, so I would like to congratulate you for that :) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 11:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Poor work in CSD. A7 for a company president, a fashion designer and a website from the Wall Street Journal. Please review the CSD criteria. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Few more: A Russian politician with a clear claim to note
    British band, declined A7.
    Another faulty A7.
    When tagging A7's, it's not whether the subject is notable, it's about whether there is a credible claim to notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. I think you're definitely off to a good start, and you do great work here. In particular your maintenance work is certainly appreciated. However, the CSD issues pointed out by Backslash Forewardslash are too significant and common to overlook I'm afraid. I don't think it'll necessarily be bad if you're promoted, but the delete button is fairly powerful, and can result in all sorts of dramas and debates if used incorrectly. As these issues are relatively minor within the grand scheme of things, I think three months before your next nomination (should this particular discussion fail) is a sufficient period of time to gain my trust. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm going to oppose, as I feel that your recent oppose on A new name 2008's RfA shows that you cannot assume good faith on the part of another editor. If you can't assume good faith, I don't think you can make a good sysop. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Moved to support, as my reasoning was based on an action that ArcAngel had apparently already decided to reverse. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for reminding me that I had not changed my oppose on that RFA. If that candidate was unwilling to reveal his account, would you have opposed? ArcAngel (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, I try and avoid hypothetical situations too much. However, I think someone else will need to take a look considering as Pastor Theo was recently determined to be a banned editor (Or something like that). Irbisgreif (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I can see some strange stuff in the deleted logs, such as welcoming an image: File talk:Hyatt Regency Atlanta Atrium.jpg, Nominating a picture on commons for deletion on en.wikipedia File:Nonni.jpg. They probably just indicate that a bit more carefulness is needed. Also the candidate was pretty inactive July to December last year, and May to July this year. However the work on WP:AFC looks good. On the speedy delete front I see quite a few nominations for A7 no importance claimed when the article is only 1 minute old. Since these are not vandalism, there is not such a great hurry to get rid of them, and the writer should be given a chance to say something important about their topic.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I covered the inactivity in my nom. Sometimes life is more important, you know?  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I suppose that is fair enough! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    More positives are a nice user page, received awards (though I don't know why 4 service badges!), used a sandbox rather than experimenting on an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    The service badges were self-awarded just showing my progression as an editor.  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Just FYI, your userboxes don't display correctly in IE7. Keepscases (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, suggest closing per WP:SNOWper above. The incorrect CSD noms worry me too much. Until It Sleeps 07:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    ArcAngel is not that bad, sure there will be some supports coming out if this nom stays up for a week. I think it also shows admin potential if the nomination is not withdrawn, and maximum benefit can be derived by getting the review and practice in working in a hostile environment. Working for the Navy I would expect no surrender from the candidate! So what would be the criteria for changing our votes to support? Perhaps 1000 correct speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I guess you're right. After all, barring time zones, it is rather late... I've changed my reasoning. Until It Sleeps 07:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Moral Support and welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.Please try again later through you have been around since 2006 cannot support you and this time. Very Sorry and Best wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per poor CSD Tagging. Improve this and come back later. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, primarily due to concerns raised above by Chzz (talk · contribs), MacMed (talk · contribs), and Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose, poor CSD Tagging, although otherwise seems ok. Good luck with future editing. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per CSD (5% error rate is way too high) and very limited main space edit history. Clean up the CSD, edit a few more articles and I'll happily support.--SPhilbrickT 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per CSD Tagging.  Francium12  13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Per work in CSD.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - poor grasp of policy, concerns about WP:BITEyness. I just corrected ArcAngel at an AFD here, where he stated that contributions from anonymous IPs are to be ignored in deletion discussions (which is not the case, as far as I am aware). Combined with his incorrect CSD tagging, I have to oppose. Robofish (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Mostly per chzz, Juliancolton, and Irbisgreif. I'm also concerned about you BITEing newbies. I'll support maybe when you have some more experience. It doesn't mean you're not an asset to the Wiki, though; you are! Keep up the vandal fighting but please be kind to the newbies. Watch your CSD tagging, and in a few months, I think you'll be ready to be an administrator. Best wishes, Airplaneman talk 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  17. Weak Oppose with Moral Support Per per CSD work. I can however see myself supporting in the future. =) America69 (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per \/ -- Deville (Talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  19. Oppose but I will support in the future with increased knowledge of policy and how things work, especially regarding deletion. hmwith☮ 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Based on recent submissions (today) to AfD that have been unanimously opposed by the community and by relevant policy quoted, incorrectly in some cases, by ArcAngel in the nominations, I don't believe that this user is well-versed enough in policies relevant to their interest area to be trusted with the ability to perform deletions. With more experience, especially centered around improvement of deletion policy knowledge, both CSD and AfD, I would likely support, but cannot do so yet. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 01:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. The CSD issues are mentioned above. I haven't gone through all the diffs mentioned above, so pardon me if you've heard this one before: I find this diff troubling, and the explanation afterward doesn't make the editing of others' comments more palatable. ArcAngel was incorrect in their reading of policy and admitted this later on, apologizing for it (comme il faut--bravo), but I am still bothered by the misreading of policy and the rather drastic action taken as a result. I'm also a bit troubled by the lack of article content, and by the claim that Francis Browne is held up as the best editing done--it's a fine article, but ArcAngel's contribution, if I read the history correctly, is limited to an infobox and a couple of sentences and a category. I've seen some of your work go by and think that for the most part you're doing a good job, showing promise, but I don't think you're ready for this position yet. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    I see now that Robofish has brought the IP vote issue up also. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    Please see this history [1] as it more fully documents my work on Francis Browne before I merged it with the present article. ArcAngel (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Based on lack of Constructive Edits [2] - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, but how do you define "constructive"? –Juliancolton | Talk 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    Seconding Julian - please expand on your statement. What constitutes "unconstructive" edits? Are you saying that article edits totalling 25% of my total edits aren't enough? ArcAngel (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, I'm really sorry, but your CSD work is clearly not up to the standards I expect yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC).
  24. Oppose - IP editors are important to Wikipedia. I'll happily oppose anyone who shows ignorance of founding principles by trying to discount the voice of IP editors. Attempting to speedy delete a userpage just 7 minutes after creating is very bitey. Editors attempted to discuss this, the result is here - no further contribs from that editor. Would they ever have made a useful contrib to wiki? AGF tells me they might have, if they hadn't been scared away by an aggressive delete happy editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. Candidate showed great personal integrity in WP:Articles for deletion/Chick magnet. (Disclosure: I !voted in, and reworded the close of, that AfD.) However, the concerns over the CSD taggings are very substantial indeed. G1 and A7 tags appear to be overused, in particular. Candidate also appears to be confused over "bad faith" and "good faith". So neutral for now, but, if the CSD's improve substantially, I fully expect to support at the next RfA. Tim Song (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree re integrity. It was actually an understandable deletion reason, but when the explanations were provided, took full responsibility. Despite opposing, I look forward to the next RfA and hope to support.--SPhilbrickT 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Seems to be a well intentioned editor, but the CSD concerns me some. I just removed an A7 tag from a software product. Will reevaluate, but neutral for now. --A new name 2008 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. I'm not going to pile on because this won't pass and I have nothing to add to that of opposers, other than you are on the right track, you just need to be a little more thorough and careful with your CSD and AfD nominations. Best of luck, if you need any help/advice you're welcome to ask on my talk page. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Cyclonenim said it perfectly for me, great start but as with many, the CSD tags are dodgy , but overall you are a great editor. Good luck in the future! AtheWeatherman 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Neutral - reporting names to UAA (and the other username notice boards) is mostly pointless, especially if it's for "promotional" usernames. I'm gently concerned that someone wants to block editors for their username. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    In all fairness, UAA is an established part of Wikipedia's administration; if you feel there are fundamental issues with this process, you should initiate a meta-type discussion rather than hold it against one particular candidate. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed, this has nothing to do with the candidate but instead our policies here at Wikipedia. Someone blocking someone else over their username is an established policy and if anything this demonstrates greater potential for the candidate as opposed to a no-hope scenario. Feel free to reply. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Julian and Cyclone but this is a neutral vote, so it has no bearing on the consensus of the RfA.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    No. You're both wrong. (And this is one of the problems with many of the username noticeoards - too many people reporting usernames that are fine, or reporting usernames when they should be using behaviour blocks). For a long time policy said that a username could not be so promotional that it needed an instant block. look at the type of username the editor says he reports. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Well done Julian and Cyclone. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I've interacted with ArcAngel and they are a good editor with a lot of vandal-fighting experience. I don't think there is enough experience outside of that area for an administrator, but rather than add yet another oppose vote I'm going neutral as moral support. -- Atama頭 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - You have much potential to become a solid hard-working admin. Hopefully you'll learn from the comments written here and try again in the future. -- Ϫ 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Some good work, I see, but the CSD issue is troubling. Also, saw the exchange at this AFD, and found it problematic as well. If the candidate takes the advice from this RFA and applies it, and corrects the issues we have here, then I expect I'll support the next attempt. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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=User:ArcAngel/RFA_1&oldid=1144604442"