Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cadillac000

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

Cadillac000

Final (11/18/6); ended 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Cadillac000 (talk · contribs) – Hello. I'm Cadillac000, and I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I have been a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia for around two and a half years, beginning in October of 2012. Since then I've had experience in many areas making various non-automated edits, from fighting vandalism to reporting users to gnomish tasks such as copy-editing and changing pages to fit WP:MoS, etc., despite my low edit count. I believe that I have the necessary maturity and understanding of Wikipedia policy for the mop, and I don't plan to be leaving any time soon. The one that forgot (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WITHDRAWAL: Candidate has stated here that they wish to withdraw. Somebeody uninvolved please close this as 'Withdrawn'. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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: A bit of everything, really. This includes closing AFD's, fighting vandalism, blocking users, CSD work, UAA closing, RPP, AIV and the like. The admin backlog seems to be getting ever-longer and more crowded, and I will strive to sort out the problems there, especially at CAT:UAA which often exceeds 1,000 usernames. Another area I wish to actively participate in is Wikipedia:MOTD which sadly seems to be dying due to lack of participation, with only a single active user currently participating.

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

A: As said earlier, I don't believe that I have a single best contribution, but if I were to choose one area it would be my continued work at Recent Changes. I have always been a very active patroller, reverting vandalism and good faith edits frequently. Recently I graduated from the CVUA, the intensive vandalism training course, furthering my knowledge about vital policies relating to vandalism and blocking users. Recently I have been sourcing and adding content on pinball-related articles, which will continue into the future.

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 been in conflict with other non-vandal users and I never plan to. I have a peaceful and kind yet firm policy when talking to other users, especially vandals. Though I have gotten into edit conflicts with vandals and sockpuppets before, I warned them appropriately and they were blocked. Helping other users in situations like this would be one of the areas where I would help with adminship. Users have asked me before why I have reverted their edits, and I kept with my core beliefs and responded peacefully. I won't lie and say that the CVUA wasn't stressful but it was highly enriching to complete and I thank my trainee for the challenge. Thanks for reading my nomination.

Additional question from Iaritmioawp

4. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?

A: In this scenario, the answer is outcome B. Consensus is not purely judged by the amount of people voting one thing, but by the quality of the arguments put forward. Additionally, none of the arguments have been refuted by other members of the discussion, which indicates silent agreement.

Additional question from StewdioMACK

5. After reviewing your earliest edits, you seemed quite well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and policy for a new editor. Did you ever edit Wikipedia before creating this account?

A: No, I have never edited on another account or IP address before this one. I was interested in Wikipedia before the account but had never edited before.

Additional question from Aldnonymous

6. Since I want to give benefit of the doubt, I will ask you some hard question that's many enWP admins/or experienced established user can't answer, 1) Do you know what is rangeblock? If so please do explain it to me, 2) There are User who are blocked on other wiki, but didn't get blocked on enWP, he edit while logged out and you know his IPs, later he's confirmed to be Long Term Abuser(LTA) or a Cross Wiki spammer, later you also confirm he use multiple IP from same range, how will you deal with it? 3) There are user from other wikis asking for help on enWP with language you don't understand, but he didn't disruption here on enWP, what will you do? 4) Do you know the difference between block, lock and ban? That's all.

A: 1): A rangeblock is a block to a stack of IP's that prohibits each one from editing. This is used if a group of IP addresses are all problematic.

2) This is a scenario where a rangeblock would be appropriate.

3) I would probably find a user who speaks the asker's language through Wikipedia:Babel, and refer the user to them.

4) Blocking is the removal of the technical ability to edit Wikipedia. A ban is more of a social decision; a prohibition of the right to edit.

Additional question from Noyster

7. From your nomination statement: I have been a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia for around two and a half years, beginning in October of 2012. Could you remind us what dates you received these two user rights?

A: See below - this was a mistake in wording and I have actually had these rights for about 3 months.

General comments

• Links for Cadillac000: Cadillac000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Cadillac000 can be found here.

---

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

• "I have been a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia for around two and a half years, beginning in October of 2012" is a bold-faced lie. See Cadillac000's user rights log. He had the permissions for ~4 months, which isn't "around two and a half years" by any stretch of imagination. 206.125.140.113 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you mind logging in and telling us who you really are? --Biblioworm 17:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that as soon as you disclose your previous accounts, including the one still under restrictions. 206.125.140.113 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. I have no previous accounts, much less ones that are under restrictions. --Biblioworm 18:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for this statement; it was a mistake in wording. I meant to say that I have been a user for about 2 and a half years that now has rollback and reviewer. I have actually had these rights since November and December of 2014, respectively. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support Ballsy move with the self nomination, the low edit count, and the near absence of any editorial or log based contributions. I like that, we need more people with that "what the hell, I'll give it a try" attitude, and Lord knows your right about those afd backlogs. I won't ride your ass for lack of experience since I'm sure others here will do that plenty much, so instead I'll offer you my moral support on WP:BOLD and WP:NOTNOW grounds. Bon chance, amigo. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Could not find anything to worry about in your contribution history, and like the tone you take with other editors. I do agree you're a little on the greener side when it comes to experience, but I think you've proven your responsibility. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 10:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support We need people like you. I don't usually vote so early in RfAs, but I can see nothing resulting from here but a net positive for the project and the admin backlog. I don't mind the relatively low edit count. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 11:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Moral Support - In a similar vein to TomStar81, I do not wish to become part of a pile-on of criticism about your relative lack of experience to other candidates. But it's exactly that which may well mean that this particular RfA may not be quite so successful. What you must understand, is that what you have done so far is absolutely excellent, and one hopes that you'll get plenty of encouragement to keep up your highly useful and beneficial work. There is much you can do without the mop yet, and I would advise you to continue your great anti-vandal work, and also keep a toe-in in various Wiki-project spaces, most importantly the spaces YOU enjoy working in. In the meantime, I wish you all the best of course :) Orphan Wiki 12:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Moral Support per above. You only have about 1400 edits right now so keep up the good work and try again in a few months. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Has sprite. And while I do respect the opposes and their rationales, I also like those with the courage to self nom.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Moral Support I want to see a change. Low experience but I hope you will gain experience in work. Jim Carter 13:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
8. Moral support. I like your attitude that WP:DEAL. Keep up the hard work. I was quite surprised that no one has closed it per WP:NOTNOW yet ;) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
9. Support - Decent vandal fighter, decent user. The experience is sufficiant for me. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
10. Support Adminship should not be a big deal. However, since so few new sysops are promoted these days and the ranks are thinning, it has become a big deal. It is time to reverse course and that begins with lowering the excessively high RfA bar. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
11. Support, though somewhat of a moral support. As others have said, you're doing good work and are on the right track. You don't have as much experience as most other successful (and some unsuccessful) candidates, especially in WP:AfD and content work, but otherwise your record is great. If you have time to spare from vandal fighting - we do have plenty of people doing that already anyways - I'd focus a bit on these areas, as they're pretty much central to the notion of this place being an encyclopedia (strange, I know). Good luck! ansh666 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry. As you say, the fact that your edit count is low shouldn't matter. But what does matter, to me, is that your experience is relatively narrow. In particular, you haven't really written any substantial content or become involved in deletion matters (other than four AfDs). Without experience in either of those areas, I can't support, I'm afraid. I think they are essential prerequisites to being an administrator given the kind of tools that an admin has at their disposal, and in particular, the delete button. But enough negativity. Your answers to the questions, as well as your track record thus far, are excellent and show that you're very much admin material in the future should you wish to broaden your horizons. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Too green for adminship—both in terms of length of active editing and, as Mkativerata points out, in terms of breadth of engagement. To broaden your experience, consider more participation in AfD’s, patrolling more new pages, adding significant content/New article creation, etc. But…please keep up the good work—in whatever you decide to do! Shanata (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. By not reading the advice you were given several times before proceeding with your transclusion you have failed the first test for adminship. Admins are expected to be able to read and absorb instructions, evaluate situations, and apply reasonable judgement. The fact that you are unable to judge whether or not you are ready for adminiship has disqualified you. Sorry to sound so harsh, but per an analogy I use quite often: If you walk across the street againat the big red 'Don't walk sign', you might get hit by a truck. You might also be charged with jaywalking'. Stay enthusiastic, stay around, read the rules, policies and guidelines, read WP:Advice for RfA candidates thoroughly and when you meet this set of criteria, I'll nominate you. You may also wish to read the current thread on WT:RfA because it directly concerns this kind of application. You are welcome to join the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose No content creation (one article created, was deleted). Wants to close AfDs, but voted only 4 times there. Disregards instructions for RfA nominations. As I stated before several times: The very last thing that Wikipedia needs is another no-content-creating-vandal-fighter admin. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose More experience needed, which after all is only a matter of time ...  Philg88 ^♦talk
6. Oppose Far too inexperienced in all aspects except vandal fighting (but thank you for doing that -- we need it). --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose, you need more experience. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose for today. Adminship requires that an editor have both depth and breadth of experience. Not in all things, but in sufficient areas such that the community is able to judge how they will react under different circumstances. Kudpung makes some very clear points as well. Adminship is about judgement, starting with knowing when to run at RFA and when to wait. Finally, there really is no way I could support a candidate with 590 mainspace edits. At the end of the day, content is why we are here, and to have the tools, you need to show you have some kind of grasp of content, either with created articles, or at least one GA, or a large amount of gnoming and sourcing. Something that demonstrates competency at some level of content creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Kudpung and others above. You need a lot more experience. 1,388 edits is not nearly enough to even be considered for adminship. Also, you really need to create more content, as the only page you've created has been deleted. Also, if you want to be an admin in AfD discussions, you should really contribute a lot more to AfD. Finally, if you want to become an admin, you should probably edit Wikipedia more often--your record so far indicates that you don't edit a lot, and that's not a positive thing for admins. BenLinus1214^talk 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose I'm not going to repeat what has been said above. You clearly have your heart in the right place. One way of improving your AfD experience is in participating AfDs, nor=t doing non-admin closures (we have so many of hose that I rarely close anything as "keep" any more, as all the obvious "keeps" have been taken care of by NAC). But when I go through the list of old AfDs needing closure, I regularly encounter that have been open for weeks and have only a few participants. We really could need help there and it would be a low-risk way for you to gain AfD experience. Hope to see you back in a year (or earlier if you become more activ) and hope to be able to be in the "support" line then! --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I really hate to do this, but you're just not quite experienced enough. You certainly have potential, but I think you need a bit more experience. Get around 2,500-3,000 namespace edits, and you'll stand a better chance of success. Also, if possible, try some different things; you could do some content creation, copy editing, and other things. Although focus on one thing doesn't really bother me, I know that it bothers many people who !vote here. --Biblioworm 16:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose Im sorry but you need more experience, try redoing this down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose as unfortunately you're inexperienced at the moment, I suggest withdrawing and retrying in a year or 2 when you have alot more experience here, –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Inadequate tenure. The EDIT COUNTER shows that the first time the "Very Active Editor" mark of 100 edits in a month was cracked was in December 2014. The most prolific month is January 2015, with 491 edits, and on a pace to not meet either of those two monthly totals in February. Regardless of when the account was registered, this is the mark of a very new Wikipedian. So: welcome and keep up the good work and don't be too discouraged about the result here, it's not a reflection on you, it's rather a reflection of the commonly held belief that it takes a considerable amount of time and experience to really become a fully fledged Wikipedian with whom some very powerful tools can be trusted. That you seem to be a vandal fighter is a plus for gaining the toolbox in the next go-round. I'd suggest a minimum of 12 more months bumping around the 500 edit per month mark (or a longer time at a lower level). You probably will also want to demonstrate familiarity with the deletion process through participation in AfD debates and to start a new article or two or to do some substantial work to improve others. Again, keep up the good work! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
15. Not yet You have a lot of good advice here to consider and should be a good candidate down the road. --Gaff (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
16. Not yet You need a lot more experience. You should pay careful attention to what Kudpung wrote above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
17. Not yet BMK (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
18. Oppose 1100 non automated edits - I'm not a fan of editcounitis, but this is just way too low to show enough experience. I had a rough enough ride with 6000 non automated edits. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Needs more experience, can not support now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
2. I appreciate your good work here, but I believe you need more experience before considering adminship. You may retry in 6-12 months time. Jianhui67 ^T★C 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I feel you're on the right track, but I do not believe you have enough experience yet. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Neutral: While your anti-vandalism efforts are excellent, you should participate in WP:AfD and write (or change) some content. Esquivalience ^t 13:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Neutral Edit count is too low for me. You've managed to get reviewer and rollbacker - stick with them for a while longer. Get up to around 3,000 plus edits still showing - and 200-300 deleted edits that aren't things of yours that were rejected. Those figures aren't carved in stone - by them I mean more work in CSD, prod and AfD nomination. Lack of content creation isn't a great worry of mine, but I do prefer admins to know how, why and when things should be deleted. And there I mean down at the dirty end of it. Not sitting in an ivory tower arguing over flyspecks in interpretation. Otherwise, I feel you've got potential. Keep up the good work, and expand into other areas as you get to know them. Lurk first... Peridon (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Neutral I don't have any reason to oppose (other than not now). I do join those in all three sections in recognizing good work and good interactions. Therefore, I too express moral support. I think that amounts to more like a neutral position. Also, it looks very much like the nomination will be closed on a WP:NOTNOW basis. So I will park here on this one. (Moved ahead of next entry to keep numbering in sequence.) Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral pending answers to Q5 and Q7. ansh666 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Questions answered, moved to support. ansh666 21:17, 15 February 2015 (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.