Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graymornings

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.

Graymornings

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

(10/13/4); Candidate withdrew - closed at 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) SoWhy

Graymornings (talk · contribs) – Hello! I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007. I became a more active Wikipedian in 2008, and have accumulated enough experience to be comfortable requesting adminship from the community. I've had rollback for a few months and have taken the time to become familiar with policy. My primary contributions to admin-related areas have been in XfDs, CSD, PROD, and vandal-fighting. I'm a committed Wikipedian with a deep love for the idea of a community-based encyclopedia. So, with that, I've decided to boldly give a self-nom a try and see if my fellow Wikipedians trust me enough to hand over a mop. I hope you decide that my work has benefited the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance! Graymornings(talk) 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal: I cheerfully withdraw my adminship candidacy. Thanks to everyone who gave helpful advice. I may not be ready now, but I'll come back in a few months with some solid editing under my belt and see if I'm mop-worthy. Again, this has been a great experience and I've got a better idea of where I need to improve now. Thanks! Graymornings(talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: I expect to continue working in deletion-related areas like AfD, MfD, RfD, CSD, and PROD, as well as in vandalism-related areas like AIV, ANB, page protection, and blocking. Basically, I've been doing fine so far without admin tools, but find myself needing them more and more often.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm very proud of some of the articles I've created. Street dentistry is one that I'm particularly proud of; I feel that it filled an important gap. I'm also feel that Smoking jacket, which I rewrote completely, was one of my best. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is the ability to find info on the smallest, least significant subjects. While it makes me feel silly to be so proud of such an obscure article, it took a lot of research and was worth the time.
I also take my AfD work very seriously. While it's not something the public sees, AfD is vital to the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia, and it's an area in which I wish more editors would participate. I attempt to create a thorough, well-researched rationale for every page I nominate for deletion. In discussions, I never !vote "per nom" or "per so-and-so." I feel that this helps create an AfD atmosphere that encourages further research into an article's merits and possible sources rather than an exercise in follow-the-leader.
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've experienced the usual userpage vandalism from disgruntled trolls as well as a few contentious AfDs, but I've successfully avoided any major conflicts. I had one run-in with Dimitree over an AfD on a page he was particularly attached to. This editor left hostile, insulting notes on talk pages and was generally uncooperative. I felt that I handled the situation well. I kept calm, tried to mend fences, and, when that didn't work, stopped responding to his messages altogether. As an admin, I might face more or different problems, but my response would generally be the same: be friendly, stay calm, and know when to quit.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, include a real-life analogy between the two.
A. What, Wikipedia isn't real life? ;-) A block is technical and a ban is social. A block is enforced by the software as a preventative measure, while a ban is enforced by the community, usually when a user has repeatedly ignored policy and violated public trust.
A real-life analogy might be IRL criminal penalties vs. social penalties. Let's say a citizen violates a minor law. Public drunkenness, say. As a result, he might be sent to jail overnight. This is a physical measure that prevents him from doing any further harm (a block), while giving him some time for reflection. Afterwards, he can decide to do better and be welcomed back into the community. A citizen who committed a worse crime, though (or a series of crimes) may not be as welcome in the community. He may be shunned. He might not be welcome in certain businesses, and people might not trust him around their children (a topic-wide or article ban). He might even be told to pack up and leave town (a project-wide ban). (Count on me to end an RfA question with "This article ain't big enough for the both of us, pardner.")
5. Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable in the field of WP policy? If not, what do you believe that you lack? What could you do to further your understanding of policies?
A. My lack of experience in some areas has prompted some to oppose, mostly with good reason. I'm knowledgeable about deletion policy in general, especially notability/verifiability issues, and also have experience in vandalism-related policy, though I could use more. If this RfA doesn't succeed (and it likely won't), I'll attempt to gain more vandalism-related experience at RPP and ANB, pick up some dispute-resolution skills in the talkspaces, and exercise a little more care with CSD -- as well as continuing my usual article-building work. In time, I hope I'll have a stronger understanding of admin-related areas and I'll be able to more confidently ask for your support.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • There's an interesting difference of opinion among the voters on how long before the next RFA if this one should fail; meet me on the talk page, guys, so we can see if we're ready to say anything more specific now than we've said in the past. If we are, and if we can figure out how the consensus applies in this case, I'll come right back here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support
[edit]
  1. Support.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Looks good for the most part. CSD tagging and thin projectspace contributions aren't a major negative for me at the moment, but may keep this RfA from passing. If it fails or is withdrawn, advice is to wait 6 months or so (no rush really) and get a nominator who has had past successful noms. Avruch T 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support User:Graymornings/Somebody's bored at work shows a level of cluefulness that I haven't seen in a RfA candidate in well... at least a a couple weeks. I would like to see the candidate get some more experience and try again in a few months, but I think that he is on the right track. Trusilver 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I think you're a great editor, and although this RfA probably won't pass, you would be a great administrator. I'll be looking forward to RfA #2. LittleMountain5 21:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Your first few edits show cluefulness and clear-headedness. A bit more work in the Wikipedia and content spaces and I believe RfA #2 will pass. FlyingToaster 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. You're a great editor and definitely on the right track. I am sure you will do well with the tools despite being active only three months. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I have faith in your abilities. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support. First of all, bad speedy very recently; you said you will be working in that area (read the criteria VERY closely; you'll see why). Secondly, little experience... technically you've only been here three months. Finally, your contributions with your edit count. I saw several edits that weren't manual (twinkle, friendly, hotcat, etc.). That was all in the first 250 edits. You haven't done anything wrong, it's just experience. Remember, it's no biggie if this fails (sorry for the pessimism, but it probably will). K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Wizardman 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per this closure, the fact that you only have 2542 edits, only 1000 of which are to the mainspace (sorry to go all editcountitis on you, but there is a point at which it becomes necessary) and the fact that you have only been properly editing since December 2008. You seem to be going about it the right way, though; my advice would be wait 3-4 months and apply again. Assuming nothing major turns up I'd be happy to support then. Ironholds (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Ironholds, and per lack of project space contributions outside of AfD - since you wish to essentially work all over, according to Q1. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - The mainspace edits don't matter to me so much, I just don't think you have enough policy knowledge. AfD is good, but it isn't the be all and end all of projectspace areas - I'd need to see you branching out more before I could !vote support. If you were to come back in the timeframe which Ironholds suggested, I would probably support, so long as no major issues cropped up. — neuro(talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose Wishes to work with CSD but the CSD work is somewhat faulty, see these declines: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Has many deleted speedy taggings though, so I am just weak but mistakes like applying A7 to software are a red flag for me. I suggest you brush up your admin-y knowledge and try again in a few months. SoWhy 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose per WP:NOTNOW. You've only been truly active for about three months, and Wisdom89 brings up a good point, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Welcome to RFA, and although some people will suggest withdrawing, please don't withdraw too early, because you're clearly on the right track and you can get some good advice here that will help you the next time you run for the mop. I've been looking at your November contributions, trying to figure out when RFA people would peg the time you started editing "seriously". December was obviously a solid month. this from November shows you were just getting started (which article?), but you did some solid vandal-reverting in November. Figuring out when people should come back to RFA is an issue we haven't quite gotten consensus on, and this is something that would probably be good to work out. Guys, would it make sense for this candidate to come back to RFA 3 months from now, if this RFA fails?
    Generally, I was impressed by your contributions in November and December, although as mentioned above, you'll need more varied experience when you come back in May, and it's your choice how to branch out. More article work would be nice, and I think you could easily learn how to push some articles through the good article nomination process. On the general subject of previous debates related to comments like this: it's perfectly okay for an admin to have an "atheist" userbox, as you did in November (but not now), and I don't think one bit less of an editor for making the comment you did. kind of rolling-your-eyes comment that you did concerning how Christians define "pride".strikeout - you're right, I went too far. We'll talk after this RFA. The difference when it comes to applying for the mop is that the role of admins is to reduce drama, not increase it, so in the next 3 months, give some thought to how people in "red states" or people in other cultures might react to anything you say. AFAICT, you're in the majority with respect to your education and values on Wikipedia, but being in the majority carries its own risks at RFA, where people are looking at how respectful you are of all editors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to clarify about that comment - you may have misunderstood. I wasn't making a comment about Christian values, just the way the sentence was worded. The sentence was "Pride is a feeling of self-respect and is one of Christianity's 'seven deadly sins.'" As you can see, it was phrased in a confusing way that seemed to associate Christian values with a lack of self-respect, which was both unintentionally funny and could have potentially offensive to Christians. This was why I changed it to make it clearer and add relevant links. Graymornings(talk) 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support but weak oppose per only 3 months with active editing without superstar-performance to offset it, plus demonstrated recent weak policy knowledge that would make me neutral even if you had the experience. Keep editing, keep learning, and come back after mid-year. You do seem to have a clue and a good attitude, as demonstrated by User:Graymornings/Somebody's bored at work. Will be an asset with the bit soon enough, but not quite now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Not enough time and edits to be able make an evaluation of whether or not to trust with the admin tools. There is no hurry here. Spend some more time editing, build up a reputation and a history. --NrDg 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Simply not enough experience. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose No need to rush, get more experience and then come back. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Not enough experience. Also, I took at look at some of the editor's contributions. Sexually-induced sneezing is the article which is listed as the one with the third most of his edits, and he's the editor with the most edits to it. The article was pretty much a mess, quite sloppy, with stuff that could easily have been fixed. I know it's not a widely-held precept, but I believe admins should be, first of all, good editors, and I'm not seeing that here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still working on that one. Actually, I'd forgotten somewhat about it. It was a one-liner that I rescued from deletion, and I added some stuff, but it's not ready for primetime yet. Thanks for reminding me. Graymornings(talk) 07:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Sorry, this is one of those "way too soon, far too few edits". A few other issues noted above, but overall on the right track. I might avoid self-nom next time if I were you - you've expressed the interest, and someone will (hopefully) let you know when you're a little closer to ready. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Not enough experience. —macy 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral since I don't know the user, but I think some of the oppose votes are rather misguided. He closed one of his own AFD nominations in good faith, without much controversy arising, so I can't see where the problem is. Saying that 2500 edits is not enough indicates to me a ridiculous inflation in experience standards (a few years ago we routinely considered 1000-2000 edits as enough, and you need to look at the quality and work required to make the edits.) This diff was cited as one of the improper speedy tags, but if you look at the context, this is where the tag was actually added, on an article with content "Starring Amir Korangy and Moshe Ivgi" which is something I would speedy. That someone rescued the article after the speedy tag was added is not something which I can hold against Graymornings. The only reason I'm not in the support column is that I don't know him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you would have deleted it does not mean that it would have been correct, would it? I looked at the context and the tagging was incorrect when added. The title was "Breath of Life (film)" and the content was, as you say, "Starring Amir Korangy and Moshe Ivgi". I think it's pretty clear that the article is about a film, don't you think? And if that is clear, then A1 cannot be applied. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Only 3 months of active editing, so come back in 2-3 months and I'll support, but for now, I'll be neutral.--Giants27 TC 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral 3 months, to me, is a short amount of time to be editing WP. We all have that feeling of "Hey, I've been around here a while. I know everything. I should be one of the senior editors here, and should be given tools to prove it." I did too, and so did most everybody else. You aren't the typical "Give me the tools because I know how to use them" guy; you actually could use them, and probably wouldn't be much of a bother. You wouldn't delete the main page, you wouldn't block Jimbo, you probably wouldn't do anything stupid. In short, you have common sense, which most "Give me the tools" people don't have. The questionable thing here is your understanding of policy. While you clearly understand (for the most part) deletion vs. keep policy, there are so many different areas of work to be done. Sure, there's XfD's, AIV and other vandalism-related things, such as blocking, page protection, etc. (which you mentioned); but there's so much other stuff to do with your brand-spanking-new admin tools. Before doing any of this, however, you really should know the policy behind that feature. Learning policy can be a long and tedious task: You can study at WP:BLOCK for years, but you'll never really understand it until you've seen it in action (this is just an example; I'm not saying that you failed Q4). Come back in a little while when you've gathered a bit more experience points, and maybe you'll have learned some new moves, have battled a couple more gym leaders, and have evolved into a more knowledgeable-on-policy creature. And if you didn't catch those subtle references, you haven't played enough Pokemon games. Try doing some more of that. flaminglawyer 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I've been playing Pokemon since before you whippersnappers had teeth. Or after. Or during. ;-) You're right, though - opening another one up in a few months would probably be a good idea. I'll lurk around policy-heavy areas until then. I might keep this RfA open for a few more days just to get some input. This has been a great experience advice-wise. Go CHARMANDER! Graymornings(talk) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come back in a couple months and (as long as you've studied your policy, of course!) I'll support. Probably... Probably-leaning-definitely. flaminglawyer 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Too early, and I don't want to pile on. I'd advise two to three months, finding a respected editor willing to nominate you, and hanging around admin areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2009 (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/Graymornings&oldid=1142540703"