Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Folajimi 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.

Folajimi

[edit]

Final (0/17/3) ending 03:48, July 8, 2006 (UTC)

Folajimi (talk · contribs) – Second self-nomination. Most of the comments during the last RfA were focused on the malformed RfA, as well as the lack of contributions outside the article space. Both issues have since been addressed. Folajimi 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Folajimi 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose told me to "cease and desist" when I editted articles he hadn't touched in weeks, but felt that no one else should edit until he was done with them (whenever that was). The attitude that one can reserve articles for weeks or longer on a whim suggests that the candidate doesn't understand WP:OWN, one of the project's fundamental concepts. --W.marsh 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per W.marsh. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Does not look like administrative material at all to me. --WillMak050389 05:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose his remarks right on this page suggest that he will not be able to take criticism of his admin actions well. He goes into the defensive and assumes bad faith too easily. To top it off, the candidate has no user page. Kimchi.sg 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I don't have good feelings about this candidate. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, extremly hard to work with, very short answers to "Questions for the candidate". --Dijxtra 06:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - reviewing talk page comments, I do not feel that the user is yet confident enough of Wikipedia policies and procedures to be effective.--A Y Arktos\talk 07:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose nomination is just saying how the user fixed the problem from their last RfA, so it's not a complete nomination, very short at that. Answers to questions are not satisfactory.--Andeh 10:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose due to answers to questions below not illustrating a thorough grasp of policy or requirement for admin tools. Also exchanges such as [1], [2], [3] and [4] are not indicative of the civil tone that all editors are expected to display. Why wait until June 20th to reduce the length of the Talk page when it had been suggested on June 9th? I wouldn't like criticism of my actions to be given in this fashion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The behaviour mentioned by W.marsh is quite worrying, the answers to the questions below and the entire RfA is quite short, and finally this is a self-RfA (not that I disagree with self RfAs, but everybody that does it should be aware that the standards to met are higher if your self-RfA - at least in my view). CharonX/talk 12:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per W.marsh and Andeh. -- Steel 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per W.marsh --WinHunter (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Lack of civility is a major concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per W.marsh and my awful experiences with uncivil admins. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Siva. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Siva and my own experience with uncivil editors and admins TruthCrusader 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I don't have good feelings about the candidate ethier. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral Because he meets my requirments, but clearly not having the familiarity of policies is something that he is lacking thus far. — The King of Kings 11:15 July 01 '06
  2. Merovingian {T C @} 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overall just 6% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, that is less than 1,000 or 10% of total edits. Answer to question one is somewhat weak, administrators should concentrate on more things than just closing AFDs. I have had little interaction with the user in the WikiProject Albums, but always positive. Suggesting candidate to withdraw and others not to continue opposing based on WP:SNOW, WP:SENSE and m:Don't be a dick. If not for his reply to the first question, and the fact of readding the {{inuse}} tag to that article, I would have supported. -- ReyBrujo 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • W.Marsh apparently is unfamiliar with the GFDL — which I have agreed to by contributiong to Wikipedia in the first place. Somehow he got it into his head that I was being possessive, even though I pointed out that the Preamble to the licence makes it perfectly clear that such claims to ownership are invalid. At first I thought he was oblivious to the corrosive nature of such rhetoric, however his snide remarks following that episode has proven otherwise.
If I was indeed so possessive, perhaps he would care to explain my contributions to Portal:Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geelong‎, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums — all of involve collaborating with others — according to WP:CIVIL — over extended periods of time. Folajimi 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that said user is the reason I used the template in the first place; he was in the habit of stepping on my toes and then accusing me of failing to heed WP:OWN. Somehow he seems to overlook the third [of many] suggestions for patrollers. (FWIW, if memory serves correctly, someone else suggested the template while I was asking around about how to deal with this issue.) Folajimi 05:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's not really an accurate representation of the situation. You used the template on April 30, [5] did not edit the article for 14 days, then I removed it on a routine maintenence patrol as the inuse template was never meant to be left up for more than 3 hours. So to say you used it because of me is impossible, since I didn't "step on your edits" until nearly 2 weeks after you used the template (as far as I know, before May 13, the only time we edited the same article was when I gave moral support on your first Rfa). Telling someone to cease and desist editing articles is at best not civil, and at worst a clear misunderstanding of WP:OWN. No template gives you the right to tell people not to edit articles for weeks or longer. --W.marsh 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very first encounter occured less than a minute after I created an article. The edit was dated March 15, 2006 — approximately two months prior to May 13.) If you know anything about how I create articles, you would have realised that I was going to move the page right afterwards to the correct spelling. That incident, along with your response, precipitated the use of the tag. Of course, you are free to deny that constitutes stepping on my toes. Folajimi 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... though I didn't remember that encounter, I don't see how that's a problem. On another routine maintenence patrol (not following you around or anything), I moved a page to the correct title, which you were going to do anyway. What's it matter who does it? Any attitude that I'm not allowed to edit your articles is going to seem to other people like an attitude of article ownership. --W.marsh 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aeropagitica, allow me to respond to the question & concerns that you raised:

The difference between the third and fourth edits you pointed out was simply a matter of tone. The former came across as rather demanding; my page was refactored within an hour and a half — yes, it really did take that long — following the latter's missive. (Just in case you were referring to the primary purpose of Audacity's note, please feel free to review my response, which is located at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Agateller.)

The situation surrounding the first two edits could use some context, as has been outlined above. Although W.marsh would have you believe that I have an issue with article ownership, there are several entries that I started which would prove otherwise:

  1. The Virginia Quarterly Review‎ – Although I created the article, most of the edits are from another user;
  2. Star Wars Tales – I would hazard a guess that I created less than a dozen of the pages that are connected to this page; in fact, when I last worked extensively in that area, most of the links were still red.
  3. Dissimulation – I received a fair amount of criticism about this article, most of which can be perused on the article's talk page.
  4. List of mayors of Geelong – This article is still a work in progress. In fact, I received some rather constructive feedback [offline] on the subject that most might consider harsh criticism. (Information on that exchange can be provided if it will help my case.)

The last pair of articles represent what might perhaps be my best response to the assertions regarding my perceived defensiveness and inability to receive constructive criticism. I'm all for receiving criticism, as long as it provides a constructive solution. --Folajimi 14:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the last two articles, here is another example that might be helpful. In particular, I would invite you to consider my exchange with AnonEMouse.
Also, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your concerns regarding the answers provided below, as well as the policy-related issues. Folajimi 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username	
Total edits	5885
Distinct pages edited	3294
Average edits/page	1.787
First edit	19:06, 27 October 2005
	
(main)	4109
Talk	357
User	45
User talk	595
Image	112
Image talk	22
Template	12
Template talk	36
Category	24
Category talk	22
Wikipedia	377
Wikipedia talk	86
Portal	45
Portal talk	43


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Answer requests for deletion/relocation of articles, as well as closing AfDs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Most of them are articles I created because another member had requested them. Their gratitude serves as positive reinforcement.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A user left vituperations on my talk page because of an article I created to address another user's request. I reminded the user about the importance of adhering to WP:CIVIL, and made it clear that the user was no longer welcome to contact me if practicing civility was impossible.
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/Folajimi_2&oldid=1259685919"