Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RandomStringOfCharacters 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RandomStringOfCharacters (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 3 February 2010 (→Questions for the candidate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RandomStringOfCharacters

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/10/7); Scheduled to end 04:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

RandomStringOfCharacters (talk · contribs) – Hello all, I am RandomStringOfCharacters, I have been editing Wikipedia since early 2008. I figure this question will be asked, so: Yes, I have edited under a different username. I don't want to disclose it for the reason I mentioned at my rollback request. My previous account was left in good standing, as I was given rollback after my request. As for what I do: I am a college student heading towards a compsci degree. On Wikipedia I do several things: image resizing (and other image things), anti-vandalism, new page patrol, some afc work, and I'm starting to get into more content creation. I also occasionally help people in the #wikipedia-en-afc IRC channel.

I will attempt to answer any questions you have. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: I intend to work with CSDs, help with the Category:Rescaled_fairuse_images backlog (and other image work), and continued work with anti-vandalism. As for other areas that I have less experience in, I would not perform administrative actions without first getting experience.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would consider this tool my best contribution to Wikipedia. To date over 2000 non-free images from this category have been reduced using it. I have also done a fair amount of new page patrol and anti-vandalism work.
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 haven't particularly been involved in any editing conflicts. As far as dealing with stress and annoyances, I consider myself fairly good at staying calm, and I am able to recognize the few occasions where I should go take a walk and calm down. I have a general policy of treating people nicer than they treat me.
Additional optional questions from Davemeistermoab
4. I respect that you disclosed having edited under a previous username and can understand why you don't want to publicly reveal said username. Would you be willing to privately reveal your old username to someone with administrator privileges so they can, without giving specifics, confirm to the at-large community if you have been involved in any Arbcom probation's, RfC's, repeated blocks, etc? Obviously this would be someone of your choosing that you trust to preserve your privacy.
A: I've already done this with Nakon in my rollback request, and I am currently in-process of revealing my previous username to a Bureaucrat for confirmation.
If you can have Nakon comment here, that works for me. I don't see a need to reveal this info twice.Dave (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe has already checked and commented down below as to the standing of my previous account. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few from Smithers
5. Please explain CSD criterion G1 in your own words.
A. I think G1 applies to new pages that are basically random strings of characters or words that cannot be parsed for meaning. For instance: lfof89y0hj0 would fall under G1, so would "pie not what jump die". Something like "the sky blue" can be interpreted as "the sky is blue", just poorly written, so it would not fall under G1.
6. Please explain CSD criterion F7 in your own words.
A. F7 applies to files where for some reason a fair-use claim is invalid, for instance, a file that is easily replaceable with a free equivalent would not have a valid fair use claim, and thus fall under F7.
7. Please explain CSD criterion F9 in your own words.
A. Basically, any file that an uploader claims is free (uploads under free license) which is obviously not free.
8. Please explain the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3.
A. It is context versus content. A1 is for created pages where the subject can't be reasonably identified, A3 is for pages lacking meaningful encyclopedic content.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
9. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Wikipedians do not have rights. They have privileges. If they abuse these privileges, they will have them taken away. I don't consider the "right to vanish" a right in the classical sense either. A person can always leave Wikipedia, it's not a matter of on-wiki rights, we could call it a right, but in the end it's just semantics. The disassociation of an account from a person (perhaps by changing the username) is not a right either, but a courtesy that isn't required to be extended to all. Accounts left in bad standing might not be extended this courtesy. This makes it, in my eyes, a privilege.
10. Would you see it as part of your admin's role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: No, I don't believe this is the sort of thing a single admin (or user) should decide.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support: For what you said you planned to contribute to as an admin, I think you have experience. Though you might be lacking in mainspace edits, and therefore experience in the issues arising from disputes in that space and how to handle them. Overall though, I don't think this is a reason to outright oppose you. Good luck, and regardless of the outcome thanks for your work! NJA (t/c) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support: Experience issues are my main cause of concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per WP:AGF more so than User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, i.e. I am going only on what I have seen thus far and on the positive side of things, we have had no memorable negative interactions and you have never been blocked. While I suspect this candidacy will not succeed due primarily to having less than a certain number of contributions, I encourage you to consider some of the following ideas over say the next several months before trying again: 1) rescue articles for Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron as doing simultaneously improves our content while earning the appreciation of those editors and article creators whose articles you improve; 2) help make Wikipedia a pleasant place through Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee and Wikipedia:KC, which are also sound ways to avoid conflict (although every once in a while you run into someone who acts miffed over being welcomed...); 3) consider joining Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User where an established editor can walk you through and assist you with the many complexities of Wikipedia; and 4) get as many DYKs and GAs as you can. Good luck! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support I like the answers to the questions, but agree that more diversity is needed in your edits. However, I refuse to pile on and hope you don't let this RfA discourage you. AniMate 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support. I've seen RandomStringOfCharacters doing a lot of very good anti-vandalism work, and it always appears effective and efficient. I can't comment on other issues regarding this particular RfA because I haven't checked, but I do see admin material here - if perhaps not this time, then certainly in the future. -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support He has experience in the areas he wished to work. The admin tools don't help with writing pages, they help with maintenance. This user will do a fine job.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose 165 edits in the Wikispace? Sorry, but with that low of a number I cannot accurately judge your experience in that area. While I see a lot of file work, and a bit less than 600 deleted edits, I would feel more comfortable if you had more edits to Wikispace.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. While you've done some great work for the project (especially those non-free resizes!), I must agree with the above that you have rather limited recent experience in the Wikipedia namespace. My ideal RfA candinate would have at least 700-9000 edits in this namespace with lots of discussion. Hope to see you back here in a few more thousand edits and several months. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but your edit summary does not indicate a great deal of experience in consensus building or working with other editors on resolving disputes. Your user talk edits appear to be mainly vandal tags, and you have negligible WP talk and article talk edits. Were you to become more active in the content creation side of things, and had a demonstrated history of working with other editors to resolve differences, I would be more than happy to support. From one Comp Sci major to another, good luck, and hope to see you back here in a few months once these issues are addressed. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. I've asked this a bunch of times, and keep getting ignored. Why in hell is it so easy for poorly-considered RfAs like this to get transcluded? Şłџğģő 07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with the applicant getting some feedback. A quick and speedy "no" would be more likely to discourage future attempts, which isn't a good idea. In this case particularly, I feel the applicant simply lacks the resume, rather than the character, and would welcome them back when they have more experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As those numbers at the end of the RfAs go up, the odds of passage go down. Say the next RfA doesn't pass and RSoC becomes a worthwhile candidate thereafter. There will be votes opposing based on the number "4." Can this feedback come unaccompanied with the giant middle finger that is a WP:SNOW RfA? Şłџğģő 19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Clearly insufficient edits in the wikipedia namespace. A very quick look and I cannot find any experience at WP:AfD how can someone be trusted to do admin work with no evidence of experience in admin areas? Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Sorry, mate but they're not going to take you if you have less that 5,000 active edits (as has happened with me before) also the lack of expirence in the admin areas makes me oppose The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - You show enough mainspace experience for me to trust you know your way around the encyclopedia, but I'd like to see more evidence of good communication abilities and dispute handling. I'm not worried about your ability to properly delete CSDs, but what will happen when someone gets in your face about deleting "their" article? I don't just want an answer to the question, but actual evidence, and I don't see it. -- Atama頭 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little surprised that after several hundred CSDs, the only person who went into my face about a CSD is still Sslingbat. My response was to his question on my talk page. After this, he left a message on Talk: R.D. Kratz, syntactically directed at Wikipedia in general (though I can only imagine mainly directed at me). He said things like "kiss my ass" or "fuck you" repeatedly. At this point I decided not to respond. I said all I had needed to say in my response on his talk page. If he was going to say mean things instead of argue why his page was notable, I didn't see any reason to continue discussing his article with him. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a very good attitude and I think a lot of potential. Consider this a very weak oppose. I'd just like to see more in "Wikipedia:" space. (By the way, that anecdote would have been a great thing to mention in the answer to question 3.) -- Atama頭 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose. I'm sorry, I just don't feel you have the experience I'd like to see. I see no evidence of article building (rewrites, expansions, maybe an ITN or DYK, perhaps a GA or even FA are all nice to see)- you've never made (at the time of writing) more than 11 edits to a single article in the mainspace. I would also like to see more experience in project space- the number of edits to AIV shows me you're a proficient vandal fighter, but the lack to places like ANI, UAA or RPP doesn't show me that you'd be up to the job of handling anything more serious than petty vandals (though they do need dealing with) or that you keep an eye on pages that you know are vandal targets. I'd be more comfortable supporting in a few months when you have a little more experience, sorry. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Lack of content creation. Perhaps you should just write up a quick article and nominate it for a DYK? Low amount of namespace edits as well. I would love to support you but you lack alot of major "requirements" that most people have (Includeing me). I guess that my oppose can be sumed up as "per WP:NOTNOW". Come back in say April-May with alot more content creation and edits to articles as well as participation in other areas such as the AN or ANI and then I'll be more that happy to support. Good luck in your current RFA none-the-less!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral You do have lots of experience, but I'm not sure if I consider the tool you use as "mainspace" editing. Minimac94 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I am unsure whether you are ready for adminship for the reasons given by the opposers, but I do not feel strongly enough to oppose. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning support - Although this user has a clue, anti-vandal work requires WP:AIAV for example, and that number in the Wikipediaspace is a bit low.... smithers - talk 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Insufficient visible evidence in the WP namespace for me to go either way. I would advise getting a little more experience on this account. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I am on the fence and am not sure the user has enough experience in all facets of Wikipedia to be trusted with the mop yet. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You are a great editor, but I don't see the sufficient experience. Don't get me wrong...you haven't done anything wrong yet, but I'd like to see some further experience before I support. The Arbiter★★★ 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per those above. Keep on editing though and I will surely support next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RandomStringOfCharacters_2&oldid=341598093"