Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flooded with them hundreds

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Flooded with them hundreds

Final (1/18/0); ended 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC) per WP:SNOW zchrykng (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Flooded with them hundreds (talk · contribs) – With over 65,000 edits in total from both accounts I've used, I began editing Wikipedia in March 2016 and first ran for adminship on December 31, 2016, as Zawl. I have created over ~500 articles and 100 categories although I don't have any good or featured articles. My best content work might be Martin Garrix, The Chainsmokers, Martin Garrix discography, Marshmello and Marshmello discography. In my early days on Wikipedia, I made contributions mostly to electronic music topics. In February this year, I abandoned the Zawl account to return a few weeks later as a clean start.

I'm requesting because I heard the community is in need of new admins and some editors even suggested the idea of giving out adminship on a voluntary basis like in the late 2000s, which I'm hoping would happen here. I'm counting on the facts that being admin on Wikipedia isn't a big deal and requesting for adminship should made easier for editors who've edited for at least a year or more, to be the prevailing factors in this RfA that might encourage voters to support because my content and counter-vandalism contributions might appear as being greater and more significant than my amateurish and below-average history. My AfD record is a bit weak for now but I promise to contribute more in the coming years, although I regularly nominate articles for deletion. As for my choice of username, I've seen admins with more peculiar username so I'm hoping this wouldn't be an issue.

My recent RFA poll ended badly but it was mostly to do with my tenure as most of the editors who commented thought I'm a cookie but I am confident they would've given a better rating had they known of my editing since 2016. While my use of software has brought me an excessive amount of automated edits, my edit count doesn't mean anything. I can be that guy who works on music charts manually to rack up 200,000 edits without any automation but the stats don't mean anything much if they're not evaluated properly. I hope the bigger picture is looked at, that I'm here to be here and not to hat-collect or boost my ego. I'm hoping against all odds to become the youngest Wikipedia admin of all time and one of the only admins in the electronic music field, and have a landmark RfA that would forever change the way this process is done.

Please give me a chance because I'd surely do a much better job at adminning than many of the current admins (according to XTools, there are about 300 admins with a log of less than 50 admin actions and just ~100 admins have made more than 10 blocks), this might come off to many as being arrogant but I'm just being honest and looking to become admin the right way because I'm so eager to contribute more to Wikipedia with a greater technical capacity. Flooded with them hundreds 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Flooded with them hundreds 19:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main focus in the administrative area is WP:AIV. Blocking vandals and deleting spam pages would be the main tasks for me if I become an admin. I would stay away from disputes and WP:AN/WP:ANI because apparently many editors dislike "minors" overseeing their case or getting into something like that (I'm 16 years old if it matters). WP:RFPP is also another area I intend to work in. Some editors say anti-vandalism work is "easy" but I believe this area's what keeping Wikipedia in tact, alongside content creation. In addition to that, I also intend to help out at the important speedy backlogs, deleting attack, vandalism, spam, copyvio and promotional pages. The username department is another I would like assist but my participation there might be lower than the others because usernames don't matter too much (to me) unless they're grossly degrading or blatantly promotional. My approach on notability is to see if there is significant coverage on Google (for topics like musicians and bands) and would consider at least three reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly as passing the GNG. As for WP:A7, I tend to follow SoWhy's perspective on the matter.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are my article creations, counter-vandalism activity with Huggle, AfC reviewing, article mergers and many more listed at User:Flooded with them hundreds/housekeeping (I've not updated the list since August but I plan to, some time later). My content contributions include writing the lead sections in discographies (Marshmello, Martin Garrix, etc), the main content/body (Marshmello, Martin Garrix, The Chainsmokers), awards & nominations section (Richard Ayoade, Chloë Grace Moretz), creating articles about electronic musicians (Andrew Bayer, Marshmello), DJs (Slander, Getter), albums (Bearthday Music, Head Over Heels, Wrld on Drugs), songs (High on Life) and record labels (NoCopyrightSounds, Future House Music).
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 one editor in particular with whom I've had a long-term dispute regarding redirects and authorship credits but I do not consider it as causing stress although it has had a slight influence on my decision to take a fresh start. I've been blocked for edit warring two years ago over a trivial matter regarding Calvin Harris and for sockpuppetry but they're in the past now and will not be repeated. I tend to avoid arguments/disputes and I often try not to escalate situation by ignoring/avoiding the issue. In the future, I will be more level-headed and resolve an issue amicably by discussion.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Mz7
4. Thank you for volunteering. Do you think you could explain a little further why you decided to abandon your previous account earlier this year?
A:
Additional question from Nick
5. Please list all of your previous accounts, renames, permitted/un-permitted socks and detail your past RfA attempts here and on any other project.
A:
Additional question from Dolotta
6. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
A:
Additional question from Argento Surfer
7. On October 11, you said "I don't plan to run for adminship until at least mid-2020 or later", yet you self-nominate less than a month later. What changed?
A:
Additional question from Cymru.lass
8. Can you list all current and previous accounts you've used? There seem to be quite a few, and not all of them are listed on User:Flooded with them hundreds/fingerwaffle#Alternative accounts.
A:

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Moral Support - We do indeed need admins. Thanks for throwing your hat in, and all your work improving Wikipedia! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Unfortunately no. That your page mover rights were revoked eight months ago, and that there are restrictions on your use of it (Flooded with them hundreds agrees "to no longer move pages related to songs, music, or discography without first obtaining consensus (be it a talk page/WikiProject discussion, RM, or something else)". Should this be breached, PGM will be removed again.) is already a deal-breaker, because page mover rights are far less sensitive than admin rights and are (obviously) bundled with them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm not supporting anyone with a block log like this. The highlight for me is on 22 October 2016, where you were blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 with a rationale of "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". That you ignored the ORCP who said "don't run, you won't pass" and that you frame adminship in terms of how quickly you can hit the block button, suggests your temperament is completely unsuitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which begs the question why exactly one needs so many accounts...Praxidicae (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not using both, they abandoned the old account and started a new one as a WP:Clean start, which is fine. I'm opposing here but I don't think this particular point should be held against the candidate.  Swarm  talk  20:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well except for the fact that they've socked elsewhere in the last month on a sister project, so...Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They've also had multiple SPIs on another old username (User:TheMagnificentist) resulting in blocked socks. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see I was wrong here.  Swarm  talk  20:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I usually wait until a candidate answers my question. However, Ritchie333 stole the words out of my mouth. I can not support someone who was blocked more than once in the past 2-3 years. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose the block log and your comments above do not demonstrate the maturity and good judgement required of admins. Catrìona (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose From what I've read so far, this user lacks the maturity needed to be trusted with the mop. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per all of the above. Nihlus 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The block log on English Wikipedia is concerning and would be a red flag on its own. The primary reason for my oppose however is the block on Zawl on Commons for Intimidation/Harassment and the subsequent evasion of that block (for which I have blocked). The comments that resulted in Zawl's block on Commons were (correctly) deleted so I won't repeat them here, but they consisted of a series of homophobic epithets being directed at a fellow administrator on Commons. I see little evidence that their behaviour has improved significantly from that of October 2016 in any case. Nick (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I'm sorry. I know you probably did this to get RfA active, but I oppose per reasons above and, overall, WP:NOTNOW. SemiHypercube ✎ 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose You say you're not doing this to boost your ego and yet you want it to be a landmark RfA that would forever change the way this process is done. I don't believe you have the maturity to be an admin. Also I cannot support a candidate who, as Galobtter notes, is currently under an editing restriction.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per concerns about reasonableness and good faith after their comments at WP:CUOS2018#TonyBallioni (CU), in which they opposed an (ultimately successful) CU candidate, in part over an alleged unjust threat to block them. The CU candidate, TonyBallioni, responded at their talk page with a perfectly reasonable explanation that FWTH had completely misunderstood the point he was trying to convey, which was actually meant to be the opposite of the threat that FWTH understood/portrayed it to be. Shockingly, FWTH completely ignored Tony's good faith explanation, and did not amend their opposition in any way, despite continuing to actively edit. I even called FWTH out specifically for this and pinged them, and they still refused to retract or amend their comment, or even respond. That was pretty low, even in the context of the aspersion party that was going on there. Sorry, it's a firm no from me.  Swarm  talk  20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per everyone above - You were told just under a month ago your RFA would be unsucessful so why the hell run ? ..., As noted above your block log is a major concern as is your page mover rights revocation. –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per Swarm, and evading the commons block as recently as a few weeks ago. SQLQuery me! 20:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Block log is concerning, apparently there's a history of public attacks, multiple sockpuppet investigations resulting in blocked socks under an old username, an editing restriction. I don't really think what's presented as a reason for giving you the tools outweighs the risk we'd incur. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per this and all other valid reasons above. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose No way. Simon Adler (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose largely per everyone else here but also I cannot support someone who has made such egregious and blatant personal attacks as this user (under their various accounts.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, largely per the comments of Ritchie above. Furthermore, I took a look at a couple of the candidate's "best contributions" mentioned in question two and became concerned about copyright violations (both copying and very close paraphrasing). For example, this material in Martin Garrix was copied/closely paraphrased from [1] and [2], and was added to the article by ReZawler and Zawl. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per all the arguments already mentioned, as well as the bad impression I got from your attempt to have me WP:PROXYING for you in a feud with Ss112 (permalink). I don't mind an admin being 16, we have had younger; I do want an admin to act maturely. Sam Sailor 20:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments
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/Flooded_with_them_hundreds&oldid=879680092"