User:ArcAngel/RFA 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ArcAngel 2

Final (4/22/11); ended 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) - Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

ArcAngel (talk · contribs) – NOTE: Some of the text below I copied from my first RFA as it still applies.

This is my second self-nom.

I first signed up for an account in September of 2006, and I have been editing off-and-on since 2008, and I can proudly say that I have never been blocked, used a sock, or have been otherwise disruptive.

My main focus when I started editing (and I suppose still is) was vandal fighting, but over time I have branched out to other areas such as xFD, UAA, AIV and RFA. Over the past year or so I have taken part in or read AN/I, WP:RSN, WP:SPI, and WP:WQA.

I am a past contributor to the AFC project, and I have created three 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 feel that my content work is a bit weak so far, but I think that if I spent more time on it that it would improve.

I 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, and a second review in December of 2009.

I have been granted rollback and reviewer rights, and earlier this year I had account creator rights, but due to a lack of activity there those were taken away.

On my first RFA, most of the concerns were over my CSD work. Since then, I feel it has improved, though there was recently a bit of a disagreement/misunderstanding about A7 and inherited notability. Also it was noted that my automated edits were around 40% at that time. I have since reduced that to just under 35%, which shows that I am relying less on automated tools in favor of actually doing things manually.  :)

I suppose you could say that my philosophy on notability is a bit different than some (as evidenced by my talk page), but I have always tried to work with those that have contacted me about whatever issues that were brought up.

Some of my other article work includes keeping non-notable record labels out of the List_of_record_labels articles, as per the hidden comment in those articles.

To address my lack of recent activity, that can be explained by the fact that my computer crashed in February of this year, and I have not been able to get it repaired as of yet. However, I do still have semi-regular net access, and so whenever I am at a computer I will endeavor to use the mop as efficiently as possible.

  ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawl

Given the advice of HJMitchell and PhantomSteve (and using my common sense about beating a dead horse), I hereby voluntarily withdraw my nomination as the community has stated that I don't yet have the trust for the mop. Yes, I am leaving some questions unanswered because they are moot - I feel there is nothing to be gained at this time by answering them.

Again, I will learn from this RFA, and I will endeavor to brush up on policy (A7 in particular), and I have nothing but deep respect for the opposers, but I am not taking it personally.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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 the outset, I intend to clear whatever backlogs may exist at UAA, AIV, and RPP. I may not have many edits in these areas, but that doesn't mean I don't know what's going on. I intend to focus only in those areas that I am familiar with, and if I ever stray into an area I am unfamiliar with, I will study it profusely until I get familiar enough with that area to make confident decisions. I will also eventually handle CSD's. Summarily, I will always THINK before I ACT (or RE-act) with the tools.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In my first RFA, I noted Frank Browne (Photographer) (though at this history --> [1]) and Rowdy_Herrington as my best work. While I am proud of the work I did on Frank Browne, I think that my best contributions have been in trying to help keep various articles "clean", and to try and establish notability on those articles where it is questioned. More recently, I have been trying to cleanup the category list as I noticed a lot of redlinks that were caused by typos, or others that I felt did not belong there.

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 any "conflicts" as worded, though I do recognize that I have been in some disagreements, but I have tried to remain calm in all cases.

Additional question from WFC

4. A large proportion of your edits are to user talk pages. I would never oppose an RfA based on the breakdown of a user's posts, but that strikes me as unusually high. Could you explain how you have accumulated so many posts in this area?

A: Sure. When I first started actively editing, I started by welcoming new users and warning vandals. Sometimes, when using Friendly, I noticed that it would add two messages at a time based on the radio button I chose.

Additional question from Phantomsteve

5. Your last RfA was in September 2009 (here), where you withdrew your nomination when it stood at (8/24/7).

a. What has changed since that was closed which has helped you decide that you are ready to try again?

A: Since some months have passed, I have more edits under my belt, and thus I have a better understanding of policies and procedures.

b. What contributions since that RfA do you think show that you have an "administrator" attitude, and why?

A: I feel that my CSD taggings since my last RFA have shown that I have what it takes to deal with deletions correctly.

Additional optional questions from MC10

6. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?

A:

7. Questions about CSDs:

a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A:

b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A:

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

8. Give a hypothetical situation where IAR would apply

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/ArcAngel
• Requests for adminship/ArcAngel 2

• Links for ArcAngel 2: ArcAngel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ArcAngel can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats have been posted to the talk page by Fetchcomms (talk · contribs). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support What is clear to me is that this candidate has improved considerably in the last 10 and a half months, that speedy deletions aside this candidate knows what to do with the tools, and that I am convinced that one day ArkAngel will be a valuable admin. While this RfA will probably fail, I don't think the nomination was as ill-advised as the early comments imply. WFC (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I think he would handle the mop well. Kansan (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Moral support-- Needs more experience in the areas you want to help out. -Tommy! [message] 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Numbers 3 and 5A could be significantly lengthened in my opinion. -Tommy! [message] 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

4. Support ArcAngel is thoughtful, and focused on improving the encyclopedia as well as the quality of his contributions. I see some opposition about an A7 speedy nomination for an article on an obscure record label... well, look at the version of the article he nominated. Looks like a perfectly reasonable nomination of a sub-par article without solid sources. That something existed is not enough to avoid an A7. Even more importantly, ArcAngel's ability to defend his position to admins and other users, as well as continue to follow process with an appropriate AfD suggests he has enough clue to wield the mop. If anything, it seems wildly inappropriate to vote against him simply because you differ in opinion on a matter of little importance. The fact that many admins don't agree with SoWhy on the interpretation of A7 suggests that the matter is far from written in stone. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose with a bit of regret. I am sorry, I am just not convinced by your responses to the questions (not just my one). You say that you want to work with UAA/AIV/RFPP, but looking at the last 6 months, I see 3 contributions to UAA; none to AIV, and 1 (a comment) at RFPP. Your reply to my question mentioned your CSD nominations - but this is not an area in which you want to work as an admin. I think that you are not yet ready for adminship - although I would not say that you never will be ready, just that you are not at the moment -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should have worded A1 a bit better - CSD's are an area in which I want to work, yet I am mindful of the past mistakes I have made in this area, so initially I won't work it. As for the other areas you mentioned, my focus would be on clearing any backlogs that accumulate on those pages.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your response - however, I do believe that in order to trust you with the ability to use the tools, I'd rather see some evidence of work in the areas in which you have stated you have a desire to work. I wish you luck with a future RfA, should you wish to go for a third attempt. Your work on Wikipedia is good and valued - this is not a reflection on your Wikipedia contributions! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose with moral support This faulty CSD nomination is too recent IMO. I have otherwise held this editor in high regard, and hope that they are able to learn from their mistakes. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I do not feel way. The decline reason made no sense to me as notability is not inherited, and that's the way the decline reason sounded to so, so I said so in my response.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   I have to say I agree with the admin here. As I understand it, A7 isn't about actual notability, but about whether the article makes any notability claims - even invalid claims are enough to avoid A7. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   WP:NOT is policy and you can't use those reasons for speedy deletion. WP:INHERITED is just part of an essay and absolutely should not be used to justify a speedy deletion. Speedy deletion criteria are written very narrowly, with as much of a bright line as possible so that the admin doesn't need to make a judgment call. It either fulfills the criteria or it does not. Think about thinks, if you want to work on CSD. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   I must second what boing! says, and clarify: A7 is for articles lacking a claim of significance or importance, and is an easier standard to meet than notability. The notability of the article's subject is irrelevant. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Not right now for me. Your response to RadmanCF's concern directly above shows that you still do not have a good grasp of what A7 does and does not include. —fetch·comms 22:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I think it's a WP:NOTYET RFA. You've got plenty of experience, but, in my opinion, you're not ready yet; and, quite frankly, I wholeheartedly concur with Phantomsteve: you have way too few edits in the areas you'd like to work in. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose based on other opposes, and the fact that I don't think you need the admin tools; you do a good enough job doing what you do already. -- Jack?! 00:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose, concerns about judgment and responses to questions. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose With deep regret. This RFA reminds me of my own RFA just a few days ago. I understand that it can be very sad (and even depressing and demoralizing to an extent) to have an RFA fail and then the second one go just as badly. I really wish that I can support; you seem to be an honest and constructive contributor who has the best interests of Wikipedia in your heart. However, there are a few red flags that pop up in my opinion such as your edits to the places that you wish to work in as well as your knowledge of policy. Here is some advice that you can take (or leave) if you'd like: Start making many edits to the places that you'd like to work in or you can even expand your horizon (we could always use you over at WP:DYK and I know that User:HJ Mitchell is dying for more editors over at WP:ITN/C) As for CSD's, why not keep a list of the CSD criteria on your main or talk page, I have one. If you're not entirely certain about a new article, just go back and take a look at your "cheat sheet"! I hope that you take all of these comments and learn form them, don't get discouraged just take it all in as advice. I look forward to supporting you about 5-6 months :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   User:White Shadows: because its really all about you, isn't it? FFS just at least try to consider, if you possibly can, whether your personal experience has any relevance to discuss or constructive advice to offer - particularly when you mindlessly parrot the same sort of uncomprehending teenage wiki-platitudes you extrude day in, day out, just for the imaginary gain of yourself and your little mates. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose, with regrets, due to concerns on interpretation of CSD A7 and lack of recent experience in stated admin areas of interest (AIV and UAA in particular). Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose - The CSD issues especially interesting because this editor has opposed others based on CSD issues ([2] [3] and [4] for some). I also find [5] this reason for opposing wrongheaded. There is no reason to try to reduce any particular percentage-we need automated editors for vandalism patrol-and there's nothing wrong with them. Shadowjams (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Like others above, I don't think you are quite ready. Keep at it, get stronger in the areas you want to work in, and the community will back you next time around. I sincerely thank you for your interest and work on the project to date. Best wishes, Jusdafax 10:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Faulty understanding of CSD. Limited experience in the areas where he intends to work (AIV, RFPP). Limited content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose If you think A7 is about notability, you're not ready for the delete button. Courcelles (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose although I can't rule him/her out yet. I think more practice with the CSD tagging is ideal first before this user press the delete button. Minimac (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, and policy knowledge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per above. I do not feel you have the experience needed for adminship. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - to be frank, i dont think your ready yet. Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Comments on CSD A7 is plenty reason enough to not support giving this user tools. Vodello (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Sorry, I just get the feeling you're not ready yet. --Fbifriday (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Sorry, not at this time. Mlpearc powwow 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose - You don't appear to have enough of a focus on content building, less than 30% of his edits are to article space and less than 3% to article talkpages. While it might not be the only area to specialize in, I'd like admins to be Wikipedia editors first and foremost. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose. WP:NOTYET. ArcAngel has improved since the previous nomination, and I think that he will make a fine admin in the near future. Unfortunately, the response to RadManCF shows a clear misundertanding of the higher threshold for deletion under A7, and I cannot support any candidate proposing to work with CSD who does not appear to make a distinction between WP:N and A7's "indication of importance of significance". That indicates a certain degree of inexperience, and I suggest that ArcAngel carries on gaining experience in that area, along with those other areas that he wants to work in–as indicated by PhantomSteve–and comes back in a few months, when I am sure that he will be successful. Rje (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose. WP:NOTYET. Too close to the last RfA without a convincing accumulation of new experience and new edits. Adminship - IHMO - is not for a once-in-a-while editor. There is plenty of good work to be done without needing the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have seen some great work, but I can't support with the mistakes you have made. Sorry. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral – Great work, but can't support in light of the opposes. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now. Great Wikipedian with lots of good work, but I'm concerned about understanding of deletion criteria. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I am checking out the deleted contributions. With Catherine Angiel it was tagged by the candidate in less than a minute of creation. Last RFA this overhaste in speedy delete tagging was also a problem. This suggests a slow down is needed or at least a bit more of a check first. But otherwise accuracy of tagging for the deleted stuff is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Context - That article was deleted 3 times within 2 days. I don't know which nom was ArcAgnel's, but if I assume it was the third one, I'd say it was more of a good call than a mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   I think Graeme is referring to the first deletion, where the candidate tagged the article as A3 in the very minute of creation (21:44) and then re-tagged as A1 a minute afterwards (21:45). Although, in this case, a part of the blame lies with the deleting admin who deleted the article as A1 five minutes after creation (21:49) without allowing the creator to even react to the taggings. Regards SoWhy 08:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Ok. That works. I, and most of us, can't see which deleted contrib he made. I'd only note the article was ultimately A7'd, but your explanation clears up a lot. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

   Correct, it was the first one, the article only contained a repetition of the title at this point, but the subsequent recreations showed that the creator actually intended to put something in it! I think that ArcAngel could work with speedy deletion, as long as it wasn't instantaneous deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral You do excellent work, but I can't support at this point due to the experience issues noted. I strongly encourage you to take the good advice given by those voting, and try again later. I'm sure you will be more successful with extra experience in Admin related tasks "under your belt" - Begoon (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral and sorry - as I tell my students, you need to show up more regularly. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral As it turns out, you have good intentions but I think you need some more exprience, mainly because of what Phantomsteve raised. You are welcome to re-apply, of course by October, I'd think after some more exprience on the areas you intend to work on. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Moral support. I perfectly understand your A7 woes- I myself avoid A7 like the plague and only really deal with G10 and 11. I would support, but your lack of recent activity in the areas you say you wish to work in is not good. If RfPP and AIV are what takes your fancy, start offering useful non-admin comments there- you'll find that many admins, including myself, greatly appreciate the input as it can save us a few vital seconds in weighing up whether to block or protect. If you did that for 3 or 4 months and avoided getting yourself into trouble, I'd almost certainly land in the support column. Bugger it, I might even be willing to nominate you, but for now, I'm afraid you're not quite ready. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
9. Have at it and you'll get there (for what its worth, after all). Just do what you like best, and see where it takes you. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
10. Moral Support Sorry, WP:NOTYET is still clearly apparent. I would recommend discussion your future admin plans with a trusted admin or 2 (or 3), and have someone you trust let you know when they think you're ready. Future self-nom's are not likely to succeed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral your responses to the questions need some work specifically Q5 needs to show how you have grown since your last RfA. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:58, 10 July 2010 (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.