Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident

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

Note: I am closing this RfA per WP:SNOW and from this user's request noted here and also on this RfA page. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Dissident

edit

FINAL (3/8/3); Ended 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) - I have been on wikipedia for about six month now, and made about 3700 edits in total. I mainly work in article creation (I have created over 60 articles in the mainspace), but, more recently, I have been working with the New page patrol, an area which I think I could contribute to well with the tools, and have participated quite a bit in XFDs. If made an admin, I could not tell what I would specifically use them for; I think I would dabble in different areas and use the tools whenever I can, and when the need arises. The only sure place I could say that I would use my tools in would be at T:DYK, and in the clearing of the worsening backlogs (especially the Speedy Deletion backlogs). Also note that there is one sure area where I would not were I granted the mop -- WP:IFD and image related issues. In past, I have had several bad experiences with images, and have now generally decided to stay away from that area unless I am certain that an image I upload will not be deleted. I hope that my particular image flaws will not provide anyone with reason to oppose, as I am sure that I will never go there. Anonymous Dissident Utter 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Before you make a vote, please review my contributions while remembering that I am human, and have made my share of mistakes on wikipedia, just like every other editor. Anonymous Dissident Utter 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intent to use the tools for work on the New page patrol, where I can simply delete pages that qualify for speedy deletion, rather than just nominating them. I would also work to close XFDs, and help to clear the T:DYK backlog. I cant really say, as I am now as a normal user, what I would definitely use the tools for; I think I would tend to dabble in this and that, drift around, and use my sysop tools fairly equally.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The pages I have made. I have made over 60 articles on wikipedia, 34 of which have been selected for DYK, and two of which are Good Articles. I have also created about 10 templates/userboxes and am the founder of WikiProject Malta.
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: There is not a particular conflict (diff) which I can provide, but yes, there have been times where I have not exactly seen "eye to eye" with another editor/s. I find that keeping cool, clearing my head, taking a break and trying to see the other persons point of view always helps. I have learned alot of things from listening, but not much from speaking, so it seems that letting someone else have their say in times of doubt can often be the solution to a problem. When I now look back at my earlier, petty conflicts, I see where I was wrong, and have tried/try to not make the same mistake again.

General comments

edit

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Anonymous Dissident before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. Beat the self-nom support :) Anonymous has my complete trust in using the sysop functions well. « ANIMUM » 20:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- great editor, know him well. Albert the brave 20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the user's only edit, the account was created a minute before this support. FYI. Keegantalk 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats fine. Discard the support if you wish. Anonymous Dissident Utter 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. You have my complete support in this, you can be trusted, and would make a great admin, especially as you recognise people make mistakes, and know your limits! Stwalkerster talk 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support you seem to be a good editor whose contributions here outweigh his relative newness. Not wuite sure this RfA will pass though, but I'd support this candidate in the future too. BH (T|C) 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this a reason to oppose? Editors ARE allowed to nominate themselves, and there a a fair few great admins out there who were self-nominated. Stwalkerster talk 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam or Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. --Calbrina36 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Newly created account used solely to troll RfA's; now indef-blocked. MastCell Talk 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the above are both very unfair opposes, in my opinion. Anonymous Dissident Utter 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Anonymous Dissident here, why does this make them uneligable for adminship? Stwalkerster talk 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, both are ridiculous. Struck the SPA, left Kurt's. It's his opinion, unfortunately, and although it has nothing to do with anything, or is in the slightest bit important, it probably should be ignored by the closing bureaucrat, since his oppose is his de facto. Majorly (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for that. It is obvious that the latter opposer was a troll only, but Kurt seems to be a full-fledged contributor. I cant understand why he is doing this... Anonymous Dissident Utter 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, Kurt is indeed a troll, just not on Wikipedia. He's been banned from the #wikipedia IRC channel many times for his trolling. Majorly (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The question remains though: does his vote still count? Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not supposed to be a vote. His comment is valid, whether it is worth anything to the closing bureaucrat, I don't know. Majorly (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to crats: Kurt Weber has been trolling this message onto every recent selfnom, and seems to be very close to a community ban. SalaSkan 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly does it say Kurt Weber is going to be banned from RfA discussion? People are just saying that the bureaucrats will look at his oppose, and probably give it less, if any, weight in the overall decision. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, user has nominated professional soccer players for speedy deletion as recently as a few hours ago. Wouldn't trust him with the delete button. —freak(talk) 20:32, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)
    Could you provide an example of this? Anonymous Dissident Utter 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [1]. —freak(talk) 21:23, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)
    How could I have possibly known he was a professional? there was no indication of it in the article; I simply took that he was a normal person who happened to play football, thus failing WP:NOTABILITY. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The mistake is easily understood, given the state of the article at its creation (I would have done the same thing). Pot-shot edit summaries like yours [2] are worse, though (addressing freak). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The mistake is not that easily understood in my opinion. Its a stub, quite simply: he is listed as a player on the team Berwick Rangers F.C.. It would have taken less than 5 seconds to look and see if Berwick Rangers F.C. is a professional team or not. —Gaff ταλκ 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaff has made a fair point, and I will accept it. I was on a speedy tag run, I saw the article, read it quickly, it looked like WP:NOTABILITY vio, I placed the tag. Now I see that the player is professional, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY. Lesson learnt. Should most definitely read New pages more carefully and analyse more when on patrol. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I really hate to oppose good editors (trust me, I know how it feels [smile]). However, given that Anonymous Dissident's stated intention is to use the mop on Newpage patrol, it's hard to understand the rationale behind this G11 tagging. Based on the comment on your user talk that led me there, and the previous oppose, it seems not to be the only mistake you have made. My advice is to use WP:PROD if you think an article is speediable but you're not sure, and to keep up the good work. YechielMan 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is an admited mistake on my part, there is no getting away from that. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it means anything, see this diff Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that you notified the author of the speedy deletion tagging, and you apologized when you realized that you had erred. It also means that, if a similar situation arose for you as an admin, you would probably undelete the article without making a fuss. However, my opinion stands. I'm concerned that similar mistakes might occur in the future. YechielMan 21:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fine too...but, if I could just undelete the article without a fuss and no-one be the worser-off for it, what would be the great issue of this happening again? If you look at how many articles I nomed for speedy, you will see only a very small percentage of them survived. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant Oppose I've seen this editor around and have a lot of respect. However, I'm really nervous about giving somebody the tools to delete articles, who seems like they are maybe a little too trigger happy. Arguing that "well it can always be undeleted," is not so convincing, as many of the articles contributed as stubs showing up are contributed by newbie users that would have no idea how to protest deletion. Forutnately, this user knew how to contact you [3]. I'm really sorry to oppose and will strongly support in the future if I see that you have developed a little more of a cautious approach. —Gaff ταλκ 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Awfully quick with the speedy tags, scary to think what will happen with no one responsible for checking the tags. We don't need more admins that need their deletion logs constantly monitored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per Badlydrawnjeff, he really sums it up for me. --MichaelLinnear 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose - sorry, I appreciate your contributions but feel that you may not be ready for the tools just yet, given the recent controversial speedy-tags. I'll be glad to support a future RfA. SalaSkan 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose; this is not patent nonsense, and the diffs provided above add to my concerns that you don't quite understand the criteria for speedy deletion just yet. I know how you feel also, as when I started newpage patrolling I did get carried away a lot in similar ways. Keep at it though, I'll happily support some other time when you're more experienced in these areas. - Zeibura Talk 23:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm now thinking of closing the rfa, per WP:SNOW. All of your advice has been good, and I hope that perhaps my second Rfa will pass. To sum up, what I have gathered from the critisism is that I need to more intensely study New pages before making a judgement on what tag to place, if any at all. Would that adequately sum up most of the opposes? Anonymous Dissident Utter 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. I am a bit in a quandry. Sofar the user has shown great capability of improving himself from initial mistakes and seems to make good contribution to the project. But there seems to be some small niggles still in fully understanding policy, which together with the age of the account (5+ month) make me postpone support to a future RfA, which I can see to have a greater chance of success. Agathoclea 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You are a great editor but people who have opposed you have made some good points. If you improve, I will vote to support you in the future though. Sorry:(--James, La gloria è a dio 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. definitely learning towards support - I think that you need a little more time to make more mistakes until you can be confident that you won't make mistakes. When that time comes, I am more than certain that other editors will have that confidence. Best of luck, GracenotesT § 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks for your comments. You are probably right. Anonymous Dissident Utter 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_Dissident&oldid=1136438178"