Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 2

Add links
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.


Undead warrior[edit]

Final tally (1/6/0); Originally scheduled to end 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn by candidate below. --jonny-mt 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undead warrior (talk · contribs) - I nominated this editor (who will confirm acceptance within the next 12 hours) before, but he was not felt to have sufficient experience at the time, so he eventually withdrew from the assessment process. He spends a lot of time tracking down vandals and other malefactors, and also spammy, nn and otherwise suspect articles, so I commend him to you .Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Please ask me all the questions you want. XD. Undeath (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone withdraw me now. I'm not going to be recieving any support votes. Remind me in June and I might try again. Undeath (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: I would mainly work with things like AfD, IfD, and new page patrol. I was recently cleared for NPWatcher and it helps a lot.(although, it does tend to stall on me) I like to look for vandals too. When I encounter a vandal, I give them a small warning if it's their first case, or a last warning, if they have been active a lot. If they continue, I forward the information to AIV. Also, if I am cleared for adminship, I will constantly watch AIV on top of the other, previous listings. Undeath (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that my best contributions deal with WikiProject Metal. I've created a few good articles about metal bands, and I've also uploaded many, many pictures for the metal articles. I also do a great deal of image tagging and article tagging. Undeath (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 was actually in one about a month ago. I did mis-use my rollback rights, and it was taken away. Before you go, OH NOEZ, HE'S EVIL(lol), I did realize my errors and I did appologize.(many times) I normally try and stay away from big conflicts. I don't like to argue online. I've been in edit conflicts before, other than the one listed above, and I just try and talk to the other user. If I can come to some type of agreement, or find out why the other user is doing what he is doing, then I take that route. If, however, the other user is non responsive, and does not stop, I will report him/her for vandalism. In the future, if an edit conflict should arise, I will ask the user, politely, what his/her reasons are for doing the changes they made. I will then go forward with trying to explain to them what my edits are for, or, if their edits are best, I will thank them for their persistance. Undeath (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions (you asked for them) from Malinaccier (talk)
4. It has only been a little over 1 month since your last RFA. Do you think that you have had enough time to address concerns?
A.I do believe I have addressed concerns. I have expanded my views in wikipedia since my last RfA. Undeath (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. What are your personal criteria for adminship?
A.My personal criteria basically has to do with certain areas of editing. I think that newpages and recent changes are a great thing to watch, which I do watch on a daily basis. Also, I was told, during my last RfA that 3000 edits was the magic number, so I'll go wit that. I also think that admins should have had some previous mistakes in the past. I think that you learn more from a mistake. I have made a mistake before, look at the previous run-in with rollback. I learned from it, and I moved on. I have recently applied for, and was accepted for NPWatcher, which I believe has helped me further. Undeath (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. You state that you had your rollback rights removed, yet upon becoming an admin you will get these rights back and you will be able to grant rollback to others. Why do you think you are ready for this so soon after abusing and losing rollback?
A.I admit that I had not been too familiar with Rollback when I had recieved it the first time. I have read, and re-read the rules for rollback and realize that I was in the wrong. I made a mistake, I'm only human. I have learned from that mistake and I will never repeat it. If there is any doubt that I do not know the rules for anything, just ask a question over it. Undeath (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Weak Support. The answers to the questions have cleared up most of my doubts. The only thing worrying me is that your rollback rights were removed, and if you are promoted you should stay away from WP:RFR. You won't destroy the project however, and I'm not opposed to you becoming an administrator. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's at all possible, can rollback rights be taken away from admins? If so, if I make adminship, take it away from me until you all believe I am ready for it. Or, I could always make a promise of not to use it with charges of losing adminship if I did. (just a thought) Undeath (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you feel that if given rollback, you may abuse it? Tiptoety talk 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. I was just saying that for the people who believe I will abuse it. If anyone thinks that I will abuse it, I won't use it. I won't abuse it, I know that I won't. I was just stating that for the people who believe otherwise. Undeath (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong oppose. Less than 5,000 total edits. Only 1313 mainspace edits. Only registered under this username for less than a year. Many edits without an edit summary according to the edit count tool. A bit overzelous with deletionism, including numerous weak arguments, repeated nominations, "per nom" votes, near sarcasm in some comments, use of the made up and non-academic word "cruft," etc. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) Thus, I am not convinced of adequate inclusion criteria and article building experience to have the deletion button. The shear number and rapdity of tagging for image deletion on March 4th is astonishing. Also, some ANI controversy: [13]. To be fair, in the preceding diffs, I have focused on activity since his previous RfA. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to be registered for more than a year to be an admin now? That's a new one. I can think of many admins that passed after ~6 months experience who haven't burnt the project to the ground yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just wanting to clarify that your second link to the AfD thread was a procedural nomination. I had noticed that it was supposed to be re-visited in a month, but no one had re-nominated it. I did not vote in the AfD, I just re-nominated it because of the previous AfD for it said so. Undeath (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cruft is not a made up word. It is even notable enough to have its own article, located at Cruft. Per nom is common jargon in the deletion policy debates, and many a respected editor uses such terms. If you are opposing this because of WP:EXJARG, I would like to point out that such terms as ANI and RFA would also violate this policy, and you used these in your argument above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite true, but the use of "cruft" is disfavored by many in view of the term's potential to irk editors to whose work it is ascribed (toward which one may see the lead of Wikipedia:Fancruft). With respect to "per nom", its use is seen by some as indicative of a malapprehension of the role of AfD or of an essentially reflexive/thoughtless approach to a discussion. To be sure, neither WP:AAAD nor WP:CRUFT is policy—neither, in fact, probably, at least as applied broadly, commands the support of the community—but each indicates views held by a nontrivial number of editors, and it is probably not unfair to oppose in part in view of that which one thinks to be a problematic approach to AfD (whether there exists evidence here of that approach's being used widely I don't know). Joe 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, as others have pointed out the term is needlessly condescending and not something scholars would use. I cannot and noone should take seriously any "arguments" that include that term. As far as the less than a year as a Wikipedian concern, it's a combination with the low mainspace edits. In order for me to feel confident in an admin's ability to adequately judge an article's merits in an AfD closure, I need to see clear evidence that they know what goes into building an encyclopedia that is advertised as a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and the sum total of human knowledge and not just what goes into making it smaller or fall short of these goals. I need to see evidence that in AfDs, when sources are found and the article in improved that they will acknowledge such efforts and not just attempt to win the argument by continuing to argue for deletion. I need to be sure that their expectations for the project do not make editors and readers feel excluded. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut me some slack man. Nowhere does it tell me that cruft is a term to be avoided. I've just seen it used many times in AfD so I picked up on it. If I had known that it causes any type of adverse effect to another user, I would not have used it. Undeath (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That arguments to avoid essay is cited pretty freuqently in AfDs, and while I and others do not support everything on it (see the essay's talk page), there is consensus that "cruft" is not particularly constructive, but that gets back to my concern about experience. I am pleased to see that you would be willing to avoid the term, but in any event, there's no urgency to become an admin. There is plenty of constructive non-admin related work to be done here and say if you bring some articles up to GA or FA status, rescue articles from deletion, etc., maybe down the road I would be inclined to reconsider. After all, as was the case with Seraphim Whipp's recent RfA, I am more than willing to respond to positive evidence of improvement and reconsider my stances accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#An editor abusing Rollback privileges and User talk:Metros/Archive 9#Templates which occurred about a month ago. The user abused the rollback priveledges, wikilawyered over the rules, and showed a lack of understanding of what was a content dispute and what is vandalism. I question whether the user would use administrator powers in disputes to gain an upper hand (through both his own consciousness and a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines). Metros (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I have absolutely no problem with deletion tasks - however, there does seem to be some rapid-fire repetition going on , e.g "per nom" contributions. More thought should go into these processes. Secondly, I am put off by the above diff regarding roll back. Thirdly, your wikispace contributions are mostly deletion-related. There's some antivandalism, but not much. There needs to be more participation in admin related areas. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Not seeing a well rounded editor that I like to in a admin. The whole rollback thing put me off, along with not improving much from your previous RfA a little over a month ago makes me oppose. Tiptoety talk 02:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Metros. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Doesn't show enough interest in the talkspaces (ignoring User talk). Seems to need a bit more general tempering as an editor. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2008 (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/Undead_warrior_2&oldid=1142572468"