Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rifleman 82

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

Rifleman 82

[edit]

Final (46/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rifleman 82 (talk · contribs) - Rifleman 82 has been editing since April 2006, as a chemist and an active member of WikiProject Chemistry he has a strong interest in improving Wikipedia's coverage of organic and inorganic chemistry. Rifleman operates the bot Chem-awb, so has experience of bot policy and operation. He also has participated in AfD, TfD, template maintenance, writing style guidelines and peer review. He is a polite, knowledgeable and constructive editor. Tim Vickers 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Apart from normal reversion of vandalism which I (and many other users) do, with the mop I intend to be more involved in contacting the vandals, and try to dissuade them from persisting. Blocking is drastic, and I would use it only as a last resort. In this aspect, I look at User:Beetstra as a role model. As a frequent victim of autoblocks, I intend to review unblock requests and rectify the collateral damage.

I also intend to assist in article renaming. I have encountered quite a few articles needing renaming. Previously, I used to tag them for moving. Being able to move pages over redirects will be a helpful capability.

Lastly, I intend to continue to do article housekeeping, in the same vein as my current work with User:Chem-awb — migrating the old {{Chembox}} to {{Chembox new}}.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I was involved in revamping the article on distillation. This diff contains the bulk of my major edits. Of course, that was a collaborative effort and many of User:mbeychok's edits are there too. The other article I am quite proud of is the article on Air-free technique, which I wrote in about 2 days with User:Smokefoot's help.
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:My edits deal mostly in the field of Chemistry, so I rarely see much conflict, though there was an incident where a user started an article, aurum sulphuricum. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. My recollection is hazy, and the deleted articles no longer have page histories. Ultimately, I commented on the talk page, brought it to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, and participated in the afd.

Another incident was a misunderstanding was with User:AxelBoldt over phenol red; the disagreement was due to the image cache not being flushed. Hence he thought I was uploading incorrect images. Instead of reverting with just a note in the edit summary, I contacted him directly and we solved the problem. See here.

My other conflict was with regard to {{Military ranks}}, where I felt quite irritated that other editors were trying to turn a quick reference into an exhaustive list of all possible ranks, which I felt was against consensus. After attempting to trim the edits a few times, I decided to pick my fights, and walked away; my rationale was that while I disagreed with the edits, it didn't really detract from the articles on which this template was placed.

4. Your talk page has a number of messages about red-linked images. As you do not want the tools for images, this should not be a problem. However, it might be concerning for some. How has your understanding of image use improved since then. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:I've just archived those talks, but I assume you refer to the messages found here. I uploaded these images for this article, using {{Military-Insignia}} license. At that point in time, my understanding was based on the template's transcluded text:

"This image displays an insignia of a military rank. Copyrighting combatant identification and/or rank insignia violates international law; hence this image cannot be copyrighted and belongs to the public domain. This applies worldwide. Note that the use of such symbols is restricted in many countries independently of the copyright status."

The template has since been deprecated, and all images using this template were reviewed. I do not have the ability to make replacement images, so I did not respond and the images were ultimately deleted.
5. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Policy is found at WP:BLOCK and WP:UNBLOCK. Also relevant will be WP:WHEEL. We shouldn't be expected to know it by heart, so I'll refer to it when needed. Anyway, in this case I intend to contact the admin and discuss my concerns, not to give the impression that even admins can't agree with each other. I refuse to comment further on any follow-up questions specifically pertaining to the User:Sadi Carnot issue, because I am acquainted with some admins there.
6. How would you, as an admin, respond to this situation? Would you issue a similar, 3-hour block? Would you have gone for a longer block? Or would you have blocked at all? Be sure to review the underlying AN/I thread as well, so as to fully understand the frivolity of the "complaint" that had been registered in the first place. K. Scott Bailey 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
A: Question withdrawn and wikilink removed, per discussion with FisherQueen and Tim Vickers. May revise and place new question later.K. Scott Bailey 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7 Optional question from User:SJP I have a question for you. Lets say you are in a edit war with a user, and the user breaks 3RR. Would you block that user. Thanks for your time:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, I shouldn't even be edit-warring in the first place? So, if I *were* edit-warring, I'd have very little moral authority to block him for 3RR.
Comment Not wanting to sound biased or anything, this is simply the best answer that could possibly be given to this question. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good answer. The blocking policy says that you must not block those who you are in a dispute with. The question was hypothetical. I was not saying you ever actually would do that.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rifleman 82 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I've interacted with Rifleman quite a bit on chemistry-related articles. I find him to be a responsible, mature, conscientious, and trustworthy editor and I'm confident that he will be a great admin too. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Does not look likely to abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And I realy liked he answer to Q &. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems like a good candidate. --Folantin 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've noticed him on some chemistry related articles I've worked on. His edits look solid, and he seems like he can be trusted.Yilloslime (t) 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Has been a wonderful, courteous contributor for a considerable time. Walkerma 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support—hey, I offered to nominate him a while back! Civil, responsible, excellent article work and plenty of WikiProject experience. No concerns on my part. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. No concerns. Majoreditor 18:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Great editor, and I am sure he will make good use of the tools (hey, guess what, with this bit you can see the history of deleted pages!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Didn't even realise that he wasn't an admin, but hey, it can be hard to keep up with all the products of WP:CHEMS! Excellent, level-headed contributor who has been a great asset to the WikiChemists. Physchim62 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm SJP and I approve this message.--SJP wishes you a happy Veterans Day 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. the_undertow talk 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NHRHS2010 talk 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - looking through around 1000 contributions or so, I find nothing to oppose with. Rudget Contributions 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. It is God's will. Keepscases 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Solid editor who'll obviously be a good admin.Nick mallory 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, per Edgar181 (talk · contribs)'s remarks about character and responsibility. We could use more Admins here that are knowledgeable about Science and Chemistry. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Ideal candidate :) ~ Riana ⁂ 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support--MONGO 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support seems fine. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. If the only question you answered had be #7, you would have had my Strong Support. The fact that you have a wide variety of experience, and tons of edits in the mainspace is just a bonus. K. Scott Bailey 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, yes. Neil ☎ 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support – always a pleasure to work with him. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - more than sufficient experience and no concerns. Addhoc 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, looks solid, and I like the answer to #7. --Coredesat 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Carlos and Curt's observations. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support well round user. Marlith T/C 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No big issues here. Phgao 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, very good answers to the questions, nice edit history, appears to be an excellent candidate that will make a good admin. Dreadstar † 09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I encountered Rifle about a year ago over on the military brat page I believe... and was impressed then. Still am.Balloonman 09:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I'm particularly impressed with the candidate's detail work on chemistry articles. Attention to detail serves an administrator well. Question 7 only sealed the deal - and a great answer that was. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, why not? @pple complain 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Of course. Acalamari 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Seems to have talent as an article-writer and a willingness to negotiate to obtain consensus. Good answers to the questions. EdJohnston 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support - I was watching this RFA for awhile. When I noticed the oppose I waited longer. I am totally convinced he will make a good administrator. Not only because of his edit history, but the way he handled the section under oppose. --businessman332211 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support - this user's contributions are generally good, although despite saying Anti-vandalism is his speciality, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism has hardly been touched by this user. But I still believe we have a good admin in the making here. The answers to the questions show good knowledge and understanding. Lradrama 09:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Thanks for your comments. To clarify, I don't claim anti-vandalism is my specialt. Looking at my contribs, my specialty is writing articles on chemicals, reactions, laboratory techniques, etc.
    Reverting vandalism is very much a chore where many hands make light work. Most of the time, I simply revert an article to the last good edition and leave it at that. I have, on occasion, left messages for users making inappropriate edits, such as [1], [2], [3], etc. Where I need some help, I leave messages on talk pages of wikichem[4], or talk pages of admins [5] and [6], or on the appropriate noticeboard such as [7].
    To sum up, I have not, and will not actively seek out vandalism to "fix". I will continue to help deal with it where I encounter it, and if I were an admin, I would rollback serial vandals/spammers, as well as be more active in contacting the culprits and telling them to cut it out. Hope you can see my point of view. --Rifleman 82 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Will use the tools well.--Bduke 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support As per track has over 9000 mainspace edits.See no concerns as per track .Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support for nothing else than to counteract the ridiculous oppose. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. We need admins who can handle rifles! More seriously, I've watched his contributions to chemistry articles and discussions for a long time, and he is a productive and sensible editor. --Itub 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- from my limited interactions with Rifleman, I can attest that he is a solid editor who is concerned with quality of content. Danny 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support — Save_Us_229 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose. He destroyed article 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine [8] It was one of the best information source about this theme on internet. He did not tried to improve it. He deleted that it is brown, reactive, hazardous, ... He even deleted Safety information! He deleted everything. --Snek01 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... OK, he let there the one word hazardous. --Snek01 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing text that violates copyright is entirely in line with our policies. That fact that this collection of information was copied from multiple sources doesn't make it any less of a problem. Furthermore, encyclopedia articles are not simply lists of properties, as he said in his edit summary, Wikipedia is not an Material Safety Data Sheet. Tim Vickers 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no copyright problem. There was no unused information in the article and all of them should be keep. He had problem with the style only. You can put informations into sentences and paragraphs but deleting is not good solution. The article was not in the best style but the main purpose of encyclopedia is information, not style. I can not improve this style more but administrator should be able to. --Snek01 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I stand by my edits. The article then was not encyclopedic. It was merely a list with assorted information. WP:NOT does not specifically say that we are not an MSDS, it does say that WP is not a directory; WP is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. I have been actively cleaning up "cookbook-style" chemical/chemistry articles by rephrasing and rewriting them. I updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines, and I had consensus for the changes here. I cleaned up this article in accordance with this styleguide. Specifically, #Safety — that all these information should go in the chembox; what *should* remain in the text is production, history, applications, specific safety issues, toxicology, etc. --Rifleman 82 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So why have you deleted toxicology? You can MOVE it to Chembox, but not delete. Should I continue? I am sorry but I am tired to explain such trivial things to maybe future administrator. --Snek01 11:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there *was* no discussion of toxicology. All there was, were hazard codes, LD50s, and text lifted from MSDSs. I suggest you read the styleguide to understand what makes an article on chemicals. Examples of what a safety/toxicity/toxicology section should like include Potassium_cyanide#Toxicity and Hydrochloric_acid#Safety. The gist is that we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not an MSDS.--Rifleman 82 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
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/Rifleman_82&oldid=1257416743"