Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/21655

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

21655

Final tally: (4/8/2); Ended 23:47, 17 March 2008.

21655 (talk · contribs) - Hello, everyone. I'd like to present 21655! This person (or number?) has been around since 2005, but became more active last year. He branches out in Anti-Vandalism (where the tools could be used). I'm sure he'd be more than capable to take requests for rollback, as well. In addition, he has nominated pages for deletion, as well as participated in a deletion discussion. I feel that 21655 is more than ready for the mop! Cheers, Glacier Wolf 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Shucks. I accept. (PS: I'm a he, FYI :) )Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, because I started debating a withdrawal with myself a few minutes back. But fine, if you people don't need another mopster, I'll be happy to oblige.

As for the break, FINE! If you guys want a WP:BREAK so bad, I'll give ya one! My time was better wasted playing Guitar Hero 3 anyway.

I hereby withdraw my nom, and wish you the best of luck fighting against vandals short-handed. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 23:39, 17 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Blocking vandals and WP:RFR--I can take part in more, per user request.

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

A: Master Control (Cartoon Network) for the main reason that I more or less improved it (then again, just about anyone can do that, can't they?). [1]

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: Only those that have vandalized my user page, but I just stick 'em with UTM temps and leave it at that. Besides, my only bout of stress occurred for non-WP reasons.

Question by Glacier Wolf

4 During a vandalism investigation, you find evidence that a well-known admin has been using sockpuppets abusively. How would you handle that situation?

A: WP:SSP and template them as appropriate, as I recall doing before...of course, a well-known admin might be a bit harder to handle, but I'm confident that won't happen.

Questions from Thehelpfulone

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:A block is when an admin prevents a user from editing pages and used after repeated vandalism or 3RR problems. In a ban, the EDIT THIS PAGE tab disappears completely. It can be full or partial (certain subject matter no longer editable).

Follow up: You may know this, but when is a ban set it place, and by whom can it be set?

A: ArbCom (after Request for Arbitration), Jimbo Wales, the community (with consensus), and the Wikimedia Foundation.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A: It makes sense, as far as I see it. After all, the only thing some people need is a whack with a WP:TROUT or two...heck, I created a subpage just for users to point out the holes I fell into!

As far as adding myself, I probably would--maybe a subpage in itself isn't enough....

7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?

A: History clean of vandalism, active for 2-3 mos.

Questions from Seddon69

8 The IP 192.197.78.16 is found to be vandalising several pages with racial and sexual remarks. How would you deal with this?

A Have they really? I'll stick 'em with UTM temps as always, and then rat on them once they get past level 4. Yep.

Pfft. Fictional IP. I should've known...

Please look at WP:SIP (sensitive IP's)

Optional question from Tiptoety ^talk

9. When should cool down blocks be used?

A:

General comments

• See 21655's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for 21655: 21655 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/21655 before commenting.

Discussion

• Recommend withdrawal at this time [2]. This is not becoming. Tiptoety ^talk 23:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Good luck! Cheers, Glacier Wolf 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Support. Lots of anti-vandalism work, super active, tons of mainspace edits, and communicates a lot. The only thing I don't like is that his most edited mainspace article has only been edited by him 13 times. Isn't there some topic that really interests you? Maybe join a WikiProject? But, that's not all that important. I definitely support. Useight (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Support - 21655 looks like he'd make a great admin. Good at vandalism-fighting, lots of edits. He could do a lot of good with the tools. --clpo13_(talk) 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support — Yes, blows my criteria out of the water. Good luck! (But here, remember edit count isn't important, it's helping the encyclopedia that counts) (But I think you know that :) Regards, EJF (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Great interactions with this user. Spencer^T♦C 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry to be the first one here, but I have a problem with edit summaries such as this. Also, I'm not thrilled with messages on talkpages like this. I get the impression, that although you do a fair bit of vandalism reversion (which is a good thing), you seem to have a problem when any other user actually confronts one of you reversions/actions. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a user here in 21655 that can get way too defensive when actually challenged, which of course is a bad trait in an admin. Prove me wrong, I'll switch my !vote. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Admittedly, I have a little bit of a problem with those who edit pages without reading the repeated (and usually all-caps) warnings we hide under HTML comments. As for the talkpage message, I don't mean to sound defensive, but I remember my Wikimood was -7 at the time--three hours before I posted that message. Just sayin'. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   For the first case I don't really blame 21655 — almost every time I do recent changes patrol I have to remove inappropriate additions to date articles; I don't blame him for getting a bit hot under the collar. That said for the second diff, if you're Wikistress level is high I would advise switching off the computer, and taking a break, be it one hour, one day or one week. Regards, EJF (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   I've noticed those too, some on this page. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Poor mainspace coverage as well as limited experience on wiki generally, despite some vandal-zapping. I want admins to grow out of the encyclopedia building process, so I'd prefer the candidate to do some of that for its own sake. Always suspicious too when an editor's user talk count even approaches mainspace contributions. You don't need the tools, and wiki hasn't been given enough to risk giving them to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Per the diff's provided by Kepper above, and then the way that 21655 responded to them. Just because you "wikimood" is at a -7 does not make it alright to go off on a user (vandal or not). Just appears that there may be some WP:AGF issues here. Also, while I love anti-vandalism work, there has to be a sweet medium between that and other areas that may require administrative attention, like contributing to WP:ANI, WP:AFD, ect. With a little over 5,000 edits, and most of them reverts coupled with the other issued raised, I can not support. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Also, this bothers me. I feel that a admin should take constructive criticism as a way to improve, not get upset about it and take it the wrong way. Tiptoety ^talk 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose Serious concerns regarding civility and temperament raised above, including instances from today. There is no way that I would feel comfortable with this editor having the tools right now, and likely not until there has been a significant history of avoiding such behaviour. TigerShark (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - The diffs provided leave something to be desired. You apparently have civility issues that need to be addressed before I trust you with the tools. Also, you lack vital experience in the project space. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is another example of a small temperament problem: [3]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC).

   "So indicate it!" Is not a way to address a new user attempting to create a page.

6. Oppose - I have to agree with the reasons given above. There is no excuse for incivility. If you know your not in a good mood, take a short break Seddon69 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose It is unfortunate that the candidate's reaction to certain of the (entirely reasonable) opposes has served to bear out that Keeper's concerns about temperament, judgment, and civility are not unfounded, and I am led to have those concerns myself. Joe 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose (switch from support) (edit conflict). In light of the above diffs (especially incivil edit summaries during an RFA, I am opposing this RFA. Useight (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. When I saw your name, I got all excited. But the diffs left me with a sour feeling. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
2. No problems with your actual editing, but incivility is a great concern here, and I'm not so sure I like this edit summary that much. I kindly suggest you withdraw for now, work on your behavior and interactions with other users, and come back in a few months time. Acalamari 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Wow, that is really worrisome. Dear.... Tiptoety ^talk 23:26, 17 March 2008 (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.