Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FastLizard4

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.

FastLizard4

[edit]

FINAL (3/12/0); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FastLizard4 (talk · contribs) - A user who has been here for one year, but edited for 6 months`. He currently has 2900 contribs, and is dedicated to fighting vandalism, blocking misbehaving users, protecting pages when needed, and deleting nonsense and spam pages. -Goodshoped 03:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am FastLizard4 and I approve of this, err... nomination. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Statement

[edit]

I started editing Wikipedia about one year ago (one year, six months, and 24 days to be exact) on April 26, 2006. You may notice if you looked at my edit stats that I have only been actively editing for about six months. The period of inactivity was a sort of "break in" for me, I was looking around, seeing how things were done. Then, after some true inactivity for about a month, I remembered Wikipedia while on vacation (ooh, imagine that) at my grandfather's house, and so began my active editing time. I have been actively editing since then. After making smaller edits every now and then, I discovered vandalism, and got a job as a vandal fighter, starting with Lupin's tool. Vandalism fighting is the main constituency in my mainspace edit count. You also may notice that it is rather low (298 as of the time of writing). You may also notice that my edit counts in other namespaces (especially the User and User talk) is much higher than the mainspace count. Well, I sometimes feel that the some of the best users on Wikipedia don't just focus on articles, but on the community itself. Think about it, without a community, there would be no encyclopedia now, would there? If you were to deduct from my total edit count (2927) the edits to my userpage, my talk page, and my status page (the reason I don't use a statusbot is because I have found out that they are sometimes unreliable and inaccurate), I have a total edit count of (opens calculator) 2039 (remember these figures are taken at the time I am writing this).

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in mainly vandalism related admin work, especially AIV, and possibly CSD stuff, probably needed because of the recent move to allow anons to edit Wikipedia (see here). Vandalism has always been one of the things I never understood the motive for (yes, I know, "20 seconds of fame", attention, etc.), and that is where I mainly focus my efforts.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel my best edits to Wikipedia are my anti-vandalism edits. As I said above, I never truly understood why people vandalize, and it really bugs me.
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: The last edit conflict I was involved in was when a group of users started stubifying Star Trek character articles with questionable edit summaries (attacks). After having an e-mail conversation with an admin, we decided a course of action to be taken, let them stub them, and rewrite them when possible. I know I probably jumped in kinda fast on that one, but in the future, I will remember to read the talk pages and what has previously happened in the conflict and take appropriate actions from there.

Optional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between indefinite blocking and banning?
A: An indefinite block is a punitive action performed by an administrator in response to persistent vandalism. A "ban" is a punitive action by Jimbo Wales or ARBCOM, sometimes indefinite, that acts similar to a block, but is used for arbitrative actions
5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: If he/she has not vandalized, the first step would be to warn the user using the templates at UTM. However, if the user continues, the user should be blocked for a short time (definitely not indefinite) and perhaps reported to an appropriate noticeboard. However, if they persist after perhaps some discussion on the user in question's talk page, a longer block could be applied, but steps should be taken to correct the situation. However, in extreme cases, an indefinite block could be used as a last resort.
6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: My understanding of NFC is that unless the image is absolutely necessary, meaning that there is no other picture already serving that purpose and that there is no free alternative, a low resolution non-free image may be used, but should be immediately removed and deleted if any free equivalent is found. Also, non-free images should never be used in any space except mainspace.
7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Absolutely. I believe the Wikipedia community has the right to choose who essentially "governs" (for lack of better word) the population, and any admin should be available for recall if the community feels that he/she is no longer benefiting the project.
8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: Aah, a tricky one! My interpretation of IAR is that you should be free to experiment if you are reasonably sure if, for example, you would like to write an article that you feel satisfies, say, notability, you should be free to write the article (ignore all rules), and see if, well, it gets nommed for deletion. Another good one is WP:SNOW, that things that don't stand a chance should not have to run through the process to achieve an expected outcome.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/FastLizard4 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Hey, this guy gives good advice! -Goodshoped 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. While he is not really active in the AFD and MFD parts, he is a regular contributor in fighting vandalism. An admin is, as everyone calls them, a janitor; they do the clean-ups. An extra helping hand at the vandalism department won't hurt. Besides, he has plenty of time to learn. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. No A majority of your edits are to the user space, and you have only just over 100 edits to the Wikipedia space, and only around 300 to the mainspace. I don't feel you are yet ready to become an administrator. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make my go into that whole edit-count-itis thing again, as I said above, sometimes I feel that the best Wikipedia editors mainly help out the community (I do work renovating userpages, as well as making userboxes). Remember, edit-count-itis can be fatal. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 06:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I read your nomination, but I see what you are saying as an excuse. You have over 1500 edits to your user space, and I don't care for your protests relating to editcountdiseasething; I don't feel you have the experience required. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed to strong oppose following answer to question four; blocking is preventative, not punitive. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose You're off to a good start with the anti-vandalism work, but I only counted 3 8 reports to WP:AIV, as well as only one a few contributions to the XfD process. I'd suggest getting hip-deep in those arenas to get a better feel for the blocking and deletion processes and try back in a few months' time. Caknuck 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict)I dont understand what you say about AIV, I just went to wannabe kate and it reads 8 Administrator intervention against vandalism (link). Also, I have nominated one AFD, participated in at least two, participated in a deletion review, as well participated in a miscellany for deletion debate. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, you're right (for some reason the site decided to show 50 edits per page when my default is 500). Nonetheless, it's still the equivalent of dipping your toe into the lake. My advice on getting more active in those areas still stands. Caknuck 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. oppose You have done some good anti-vandal work and I commend you for that but most of your edits are to user space related areas. A review of your contribs show a lot of user related edits with some anti-vandal work in between but not enough. While you seem to be knowledgeable about policy per your answers to the above questions, one must demonstrate they are in fact knowledgeable through edits related to Wikipedia and mainspace which you currently do not have enough of. --Hdt83 Chat 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry, but some of your answers to my questions were not satisfactory, and are partially not what the answers should have been. First, your answer to question 4 +5 shows me that you do not understand why blocks are issued. Blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive. Second, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discussion are key when dealing with extreme POVists. nat Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice. 07:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. As mentioned above, only two comments in AFD and only 121 edits to the Wikipedia namespace show a definitely lack of experience in admin-related areas. This editor does do a lot of communicating with other editors, which is great, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, so I'd like to see more mainspace experience. Useight 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongest Possible Oppose, as blocks are not punitive, and this editor does not appear to understand block policy well at all. This is incredibly important, as the ability to block other users is one of the most genuinely powerful tools an admin wields. K. Scott Bailey 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, though you show promise. If you take the time you spend fixing your userpage and use it on article writing and vandalism patrol, you'd get elected 3-4 months down the road. (As an image patroller, I do like your answer to Q6 as well) Wizardman 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per Q4. Block are preventative, not punitive. I do not trust this user with access to Special:Blockip. Maxim 14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose; per answers to questions and lack of experience relevant to becoming an administrator.—treyomg he's back 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As an admin, you will be given the ability to block others. For you to do that well, you need to understand the blocking policy that we have here. If you do not, then you are apt to make accidental mistakes as an admin. That is not a good thing. By saying that a block is a punnishment, you are showing us that you do not have a good enough understanding of the blocking policy here. The blocking policy is clear that blocks are not meant as a punnishment, but instead are meant as a means of preventing someone from making disruptive actions. I'm sorry that I have to oppose your Rfa. Try again in 6 months, and improve your knowledge of policy, then I will support you.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your lack of experience is a major concern. I have learned from experience, and from common sense, that experience is very valuable. "More valuable than gold." --SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Looking at your contributions, I'm afraid I cannot support. Nice guy, but to say you intend to focus on AIV, and only have 8 edits there, I cannot support. — Jack (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you seem to update User:FastLizard4/Status too much. I know there is no rule against this, but it is clogging up your edits. — Jack (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
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/FastLizard4&oldid=1142576184"