Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16 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.


Alan16

[edit]

Final (6/21/7); Closed by Rschen7754 on 07:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal First of all I'd like to apologise that I never got around to answering everybody's questions. I'd also like to thank those who came with kind words. I'm not going to pretend that I'm happy about the outcome - it has gone laughably badly in fact - but that's life. Again, thank you to some, but there's only so much of a beating one person can take, so I withdraw. Goodbye and happy new year.

Nomination

[edit]

Alan16 (talk · contribs) – Hello and happy new year to everyone. It has been almost exactly one year since I started editing Wikipedia regularly, and I feel that I am ready to become an admin. Some of you may know me, most of you will not, so I would like to quickly detail what I do on Wikipedia. Most of my time goes to improving articles on topics which interest me: this can be anything from rewriting badly written stuff, to including new information I have read. I also do a lot of work with WikiProject Novels, where I am assistant coordinator and writer/editor of the monthly newsletter. I also regularly read WP:ANI and WP:RPP because I have found these useful for learning about Wikipedia policy. As far as my edit count goes, I am aware that it is not huge. The thing is, though, that it will never be: I edit as much as my time will allow. However I do not believe that this should be viewed as a negative mark against me. What I contribute, I contribute to the best of my abilities and were I to become an admin I would continue in that vain. Quality not quantity, to use an old cliché. To wrap things up, I would like to say that I believe I have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and I don't say this simply to try and get some cheap support votes. I honestly believe I understand Wikipedia policy, so I would encourage you to ask me any questions you have. Thanks for reading. Alan16 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I said above, I regularly read WP:ANI and WP:RPP so I will gladly help there wherever I can. I also occasionally check in on Wikipedia:Requested moves and have a decent knowledge of the policies involved there. In general, if there is something needing done and I completely understand the situation, then I will do it, and do it to the best of my abilities.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of the work I've done to help revive WikiProject Novels, a job which is by no means done. I am also proud of the work I've done to the Bernard Hill, John Byrne, and Steven Erikson articles. Apart from that I just try to edit Wikipedia as best as I can.
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 have been in conflicts. Anyone who edits Wikipedia fairly regularly will more than likely have got caught up in one conflict or another. Whenever I end up in anything like that I try to stay calm, and if it becomes particularly stressful I will walk away. When interacting with other users I always try to be civil and stick to policy - I feel I have stuck to this mantra throughout my editing on Wikipedia.
Additional optional questions from Alan16
4. Why have you not edited a lot in the last 3 months?
A: In late September I moved to university, and as well as having internet problems I have obviously been adjusting to the all the new things which come with this. However we have now had a working internet connection for the past 2 months, and things have settled down socially, so I have been gradually putting more and more time in to editing Wikipedia again, and not just reading it.
5. So what has changed since the last RfA?
A. I've grown up a bit. That's the main thing, in my opinion. As I said above, I have recently moved into university, and as such have been forced to mature a bit more - I have been forced to meet new people, and am now completely sustainable (in monetary terms etc.), and this has had a tremendously positive impact on me. I feel I have a better understanding of policies than I did before - the last RfA convinced me to make a point of reading policies which I hadn't previously, and to try and understand policies in a way I didn't before.

Questions from ArcAngel

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: The short answer is they shouldn't. If a user is annoyed or angry I would ask them to take a breather and come back when they feel calmer. Blocking them will more than likely only annoy them more. If in their anger or annoyance they simply become disruptive or start vandalising, then I would block them for one of these. Cool down blocks have no positive effects.
7. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A: CAT:AOR is, in essence, a good idea. Admins are normal Wikipedia editors with a few more powers, and so there is no reason why they shouldn't have to face the consequences for their actions. We can debate how well it actually works, and unless things have changed a lot since I last looked at that page, such a debate has been going on for a while. I would add myself to the category as if I did something which showed a lack of judgement or understanding of what being an admin means, then it would be bad for Wikipedia for me to stay as an admin. I know it's easy to say, but I honestly believe this.
8. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
Comment By this do you mean find actual examples of inadequate reports, or do you want me to create hypothetical examples. The later seems the more obvious as finding actual examples would just require me to find examples of this happening and say I agree. Just want clarification so I don't go off on the wrong tangent. Thanks.
Sometimes real-life examples are hard to come by, so if you have to use your imagination, go for it. :P The question is meant to be open-ended, however. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 06:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: WP:AIV is for persistent vandals, so if somebody had been reported after one or two small pieces of vandalism I would remove their name from WP:AIV and instead give them a warning on their talk page against vandalism. I would also inform the user who reported said editor that WP:AIV is for persistent vandalism, rather than a one of case. I would also remove somebody if they had been reported and this was their first warning (in other words no previous warnings on their talk page), again giving them a warning on their talk page about vandalising. There is as well the obvious things like people who break WP:3RR or people who should instead be at WP:UAA or WP:SPI. In cases like these, I would assume it was just a mistake or lack of understanding on the reporters behalf and would inform them of what WP:AIV was for, and help them take the action that should have been taken.
9. Why are edit summaries important?
A: From my own experience, I would say it is important for somebody to write an edit summary so that the intent behind their edit can be easily worked out. Also a good edit summary means that other editors don't need to check the edit for vandalism or similar behaviour. Providing good edit summaries makes life a little bit easier for everyone.

Question from DC

10.Why do you list your grades on your userpage?
A: If I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure any more. I think the original reasoning for putting them there was to tell people a bit about me. Maybe also a childish pride in them as well. To be honest, I'd basically forgotten that they were there. They do no harm though, so I'm not going to rush over and remove them, but in the future I'll probably get around to editing my userpage and making it a bit more succinct, which will probably involve removing them.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
11. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A.
12. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A.

Question from Phantomsteve

13. Looking at your contributions, I cannot see much indication of participation in CSDs or PRODs - and only a few AfDs. As I assume that you would use this tool if you were to be an admin, could you please answer the following questions:
a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A.
b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?
A.

Non-deletion related questions from Phantomsteve

14. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which sections of which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A.
15. In your own words, could you explain what the difference between a block and a ban is?
A.
16. In question 9, you explained why edit summaries are important. However, looking at your edits, you don't seem to use them often in non-article edits. Could you please explain why they are not so important in these cases?
A.
Additional optional questions from Shirik
17. You stated in question #1 that you intend to help "wherever [you] can". Does that include areas like WP:RFR and WP:CSD which you failed to list, but which periodically have backlogs to be addressed?
A. If I can do what is required there, and do it well, I will certainly help. I understand how both of these work, and have a good grasp of the criteria in both cases. If I was ever in doubt about a decision I would check with a more experienced admin.
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
18 How much work in project space is necessary to become an administrator in your opinion.
A I think the most important thing is that a user understands how to work, and what are the correct decisions to make, in the project space. From the responses it is obvious that people would prefer that there was evidence of me working in the project space, and although I can understand this to a certain extent, I am confused by it in others. People obviously think that some experience in places like WP:ANI would better qualify me for adminship, however I'm not sure I agree. An admin needs to show good judgement, and in my opinion getting involved in heated arguments, which WP:ANI quite often is, that have nothing to do with me shows a lack of good judgement.
Additional optional questions from Shirik
19. As a follow-up to #17, you stated that you believe you have a good grasp of the criteria for speedy deletion and may get involved in that area if needed. Could you please give an example of an article that might be ineligible for speedy deletion under criterion A7 but still not meet the general notability guideline and/or other notability guidelines such as WP:BIO?
A.

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/Alan16 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Although some people have suggested a NOTNOW closure, may I suggest that this is held off until the candidate has at least had an opportunity to answer the questions which have been added since they last edited in the early hours of today? There are at least two neutrals who are waiting for the answers — and I'd guess that others may be waiting for them, but have not commented here as yet. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will answer the questions within the next hour. Alan16 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay, problems at work are taking up some time at the moment. Will try to answer the questions as soon as possible. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. I've looked through his contributions and I have found only a few edits to the incidents noticeboard and no edits to requests for page protection — I'm not so sure Alan16 is going to fare well, I'm afraid. Yet I trust him when he says he monitors both regularly and I will assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that he knows how they work, so I personally am registering a support. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I found 14 edits to WP:RfPP – none since June 25, though. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I typically don't look much further than the most recent RfA (which was in August). But thanks for pointing that out. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported last time, and with zero diffs to backup the poor judgement comment in the oppose section, I have no hesitation in supporting again. ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Decent answers, nothing in the user's contribution history to cause any alarms. Wikiproject Novels contribution is a plus, lack of drama board activity is a plus. -SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems sensible, good contribs. The opposers make some good points however, if I didnt try to live mainly by faith Id find it easier to trust youd be good at ANI if youd had a few more contribs there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seems okay to me. Oppose arguments are pretty weak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think you could give some specific examples? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Strong Oppose Exceedingly poor judgment. This RfA won't pass. Keepscases (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you mind listing specific examples of Alan16's "Exceedingly poor judgment"? Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I'm just not seeing the experience in the project space I'd like admin hopefuls to possess. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Needs more behind-the-scenes work. Şłџğģő 08:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose—I'm concerned that the last RfA was closed in August, and Alan16 has taken a three-month break from editing in the interval... so scarcely any discernable change. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Very few edits in the last three months, so doesn't appear to be any need for the admin tools. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Per above. Serious concerns with experience, judgment, policy knowledge; little has changed since the last RfA. Recommend early closure per WP:NOTNOW. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose If I had seen any reasonable attempt to remedy the lack of experience in admin areas I would support as I believe Alan16 to be an honest contributor. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WereSpielChequers, here's a diff to back up my assertion of poor judgment. If Alan16 had shown some improvement between then and now, I wouldn't be bringing it up, but due to the wikibreak, I can't really be sure of that. In fact I'd even say that running an RfA with almost nothing to run on is itself poor judgment, or at least a misunderstanding of how far we can trust each other on Wikipedia. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose It's nothing personal, but you tell us in Q5 that you've matured. I'm sure you have- but 195 edits in the last 3 months of 2009 isn't enough to demonstrate that. Come back in three months. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per above. The diff. shown by Soap is concerning but with limited personal interaction with you I'm not going to jump to conclusions based upon it. However, 195 edits in the last 3 months is enough to oppose for me since I want to see more dedication and experience in admin areas.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I'd suggest waiting a little longer to demonstrate that you have fully moved past any pitfalls from before. Overall experience is still a slight concern of mine. Regards, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Barely 200 edits in 3 months? One thing we don't need is inactive admins. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose self acknowledgment that the editor has not and will not be active. The last thing we need is another inactive admin. RP459 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Very little activity since last failed RfA. The point of waiting is not mere passage of time, but to build up a body of work to ascertain abilities. I don't want to hear that you may be returning to more active participation, I want to see it. Some are advising three more months - that won't be enough for me.--SPhilbrickT 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I avoid opposing RfAs with less than 50% support and avoid pile-ons, but I remember seeing Alan16 at RfA in the last few months and remember not being impressed, and it's enough to convince me to oppose. There's this comment against discussion in RfAs, this harsh oppose against a snowball candidate, and an oppose where he didn't even give a reason. I also seem to remember this RfA where he seemed to oppose on the basis that the candidate was "unlikeable" (also asking the candidate how they'd close their own RfA, though it was removed by Alan16), and also tough responses to several people in this RfA. Acalamari 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose per RP459. --MW talk contribs 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose WP:NOTNOW.  fetchcomms☛ 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose per WP:NOTNOW--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above. Sorry, but good luck next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Close to Strong Oppose - almost no experience in the admin areas and the fact that he took a 3-month long break. This might be a case of WP:NOTNOW. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose You just aren't yet qualified to be an admin. Don't think of this as a position of power. You really don't need to be an admin to have a good reputation here. Be active, contribute and maybe further down the line you might attempt an RfA. Not now. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm still on the fence. I like some of the answers, but i'm waiting to hear more. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is anything specific please just ask - I'd be more than happy to answer. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks! I'll probably put up a question later. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I am not sure one way or another at the moment. Hopefully the candidate's answers to my questions will help me to decide. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - or actually on the fence between Neutral and Oppose. Overall, I see positive work, and a reasonable quantity/quality of edits. However, I see very few edits since the last RfA - no real way to show change/growth required to prove that you have learned from the last RfA. The recommended period of time between RfA's is to change and build further experience - a lack of edits between them does not give us that - especially working in the areas that you were recommended to step into. I want to oppose simply because you did not listen to the advice, and seem to assume that we're just going to trust you with time - but I will WP:AGF and stay here in Neutral unless I see something offensive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral but leaning towards support per SpacemanSpiff's rationale. I like Alan16 as a candidate for adminship because (a) he has a year's experience but no history of "drama"; (b) his article work seems to be his primary focus, and he would be an admin "when needed"; and (c) he seems intelligent, trustworthy, and articulate. His efforts at WikiProject Novels are laudable. It's particularly good to see a potential admin who wants to help out with the always-backlogged WP:RM. However, there are some issues which make me hesitate to support. The dearth of edits in the last three months (and, really, since the last RfA) is hard to ignore, and I would like to see more experience in the project namespace. In any case, I'd like to see the rest of the answers to the questions before supporting. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Answers to the questions aren't sufficient for my liking- I'd like to know what he would do, not what he thinks he's capable of doing. I await the answer to Coffee's question with great interest and if the answers to the remaioning optional questions get a bit longer and more specific, I'll more than likely switch to support unless the opposes can actually find a serious red flag (backed by diffs, not persoanl opinions). HJMitchell You rang? 20:44, 3 Janry 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agree with Acalamari about some questionable posts by the candidate in the past, which largely keep me from offering a support. Nonetheless, they seem to check in almost every day and I'm not convinced by the arguments that being relatively inactive is grounds for opposing. Given the humble nomination statement and lack of any major issues, I'm neutral for now. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral While I like the answers to the questions so far, I see very little work in the way of ANI, AIV, AfD, and especially CSD. If you had more contributions in these areas, I would feel more comfortable supporting. Also, your low level of recent activity is a concern. If you can manage a more stable editing history (say, at least 250 edits a month) over the next few months, I'd be more comfortable with that. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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/Alan16_2&oldid=1150995251"