Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icewedge

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.

Icewedge

[edit]

Withdrawn(5/13/3); The RFA has no further chance of success and even if by some miracle the support votes came pouring in I would not want to be an admin with so many well respected users against me from the start anyways. - Icewedge (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icewedge (talk · contribs) - I have been happy enough with my editor status for over a year now, content with the timely way admins have responded to my requests for assistance but after witnessing a recent GrawpVandal attack in which I was unable to do anything to clean up the mess and having to wait for several hours to have a {{db-author}} tag responded too I have decided that I could benefit from Administrator tools. Editing Wikipedia consistently for a little over a year now, during which I amassed just over 4,000 edits, I feel that I have a good grasp on all the core policies of Wikipedia and experience in most admin related areas. The primary thing I do is revert vandalism (nearly 150 reports to WP:AIV) but I can also be found commenting at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, and here at WP:RFA or helping users at the help desk; I also enjoy discussion at the village pump but I have not done that recently. I do some article writing but I am not a very good writer so I am not very active in improve articles to GA of FA status.

I already know the technical aspects of an admiship because I am a SysOp on RationalWiki.com (under the same username). Also, my edit rate may is rather low right now (300-500 edits/month) but I expect that to increase because it is summer :) No more homework!

I hope you guys guys find me eligible for the ever so allegorical mop (for I imagine the application of a real mop on wikipedia would cause server failure!) but if not thats fine. A very good day to you all :) - Icewedge (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to do mainly anti-vandalism work although I will also closely monitor the categories Candidates for speedy deletion by user and Wikipedia protected edit requests because I feel that pages in those categories should always be dealt with swiftly, there is no reason to let the pages within ferment.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not have any particularly "best contributions" per se, as I stated my writing is bad and would most likely hurt a FA candidate more then it would help it, but I am rather fond of my collection of DYK's.
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 don't believe that there have been any instances that have caused me undue stress. I have never been in an "edit war"; as you can probably tell I have a low opinion of my writing so I don't mind particularly if another editor comes along and reworks or deletes my contributions all that much. There have been several times where I have been irritated with other editors but I pride myself on the ability to, whenever I get into an argument, get us both to walk away on amicable terms with each other.

Optional Questions from Legoktm

4. Will you add yourself to CAT:AOR? Why?
A: Yes, I would. I have always been a supporter of AOR, or at least since I first saw it brought up on a RFA. If a more than minor slice of the community decided that I was not a good administrator a simple review RFA would probably prove to be much less painless then an arbitration case or any other (should I call it disciplinary?) action. I am not sure what under what criteria though, probably just the default criteria. - Icewedge (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional (loaded) question from Iridescent

5. I appreciate that What People Get Up To At Other Sites Shouldn't Concern Us but would you care to explain this? (copy here should the original change) — iridescent 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, what I do on other sites has no bearing on my behavior on Wikipedia. That was just a joke though, if you noticed how that section is full of people screaming bizarre "codes", we were trying to create intrigue about an event that was supposed to happen on May 16 and then have May 16 go by without a peep. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Stifle

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?
A. I don't believe that Wikipedia policies permit the use of non-free images no BLP's because it is still possible that a free picture could found to replace it. However if the image is of iconic or great historical significance it may be include as long as it is subject to commentary in the article. - Icewedge (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Zginder

7. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A. I feel that the no personal attacks policy is probably the most important policy to me, not to say that any of the ethers are not extremely important, I just feel that maintaining civility is the best possible way to keep the encyclopedia growing. - Icewedge (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question by Trees Rock

8 How can we trust you as an Admin on Wikipedia?
A:You can trust me to never to participate in areas of Wikipedia (as an admin) that I do not know well. Many of the opposes are coming from perceived problems with my voting record at AFD's but I do not want to work in closing AFD's, just as a reverter of vandalism and making sure that when authors request that there own pages are deleted that that request is answered with speed. You can trust me not to vandalize or make rash decisions and to learn from my mistakes; an item many people are opposing me for is when I added an external link to my site on an article, but this was 4 months ago and after it was removed and I was told no way on the talk page, I left it be. - Icewedge (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from TravisTX

9. When patrolling speedy deletion nominations, I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. Has each article been tagged correctly? If not, please explain how you would handle it. (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)
a. Sam Jones
A: This would would be better tagged with {{db-bio}}, the article makes some sense but their is no assertion of notability. - Icewedge (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b. Rob smith
A:I would say that this one is correctly tagged, there is no line of text in that article that does not violate at least one of Wikipedias policies. 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
c. Aliens on earth
A: This one is incorrectly tagged, it still has some salvageable content. I would support the merger of the better pieces of content in that page into Extraterrestrial life. - Icewedge (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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/Icewedge before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Oh yes, the is true, what I was trying to say was that I have been editing consistently for over a year and have the rollback userright. I am sorry if phrased it in a confusing manner. I am allowed to edit my main post right? Looking over Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship I see nothing that says no so I will go clarify. Thank you for pointing this out. - Icewedge (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support. I looked through this user's contributions, didn't see any red flags and thought "WP:WTHN". The attitude portrayed in this user's nomination statement is refreshing, because he honestly wants to have adminship to help Wikipedia. Because of this, I'm sure that this user will do great with the mop. Kurt should take a look before opposing for power-hunger for sure. Malinaccier (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I can't see anything particularly worrying here. There might be horrid things in the deleted contribs as stated in the oppose section, but as I cannot actually see them for myself I can't really hold that against this user. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Support per reasonable arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Since there seems to be a pile-on oppose at this RfA right now, I think I'll go against the crowd and support this contributor, for a couple of good reasons. Firstly, I don't feel the same specific concerns that the other opposers feel - For one thing, the deletion summaries do not significantly concern me, as the articles themselves were subsequently deleted, and I think the tagging-summary hardly shows anything at all, there have been worse. Secondly, Google verification is a widely-used method, so widely used in fact that even a few current admins do it (though I can't give specific examples and I admit it shows a very slight lack of understanding of the policy on notability. Also, I don't believe that edits to Wikipedia talk namespace are reflective of interest in policy, but that's just my personal opinion and open to scrutiny. After giving it some thought, I decided to support, as I see a good-faith contributor here to assist the project in any way he can. Valtoras (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support per weakly answering my question. Zginder 2008-05-17T16:36Z (UTC)


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Provisional Strong oppose although I may change my mind after a more thorough look through your contribs. A look through your deleted contribs shows (aside from G7s) virtually no articles correctly tagged for deletion (by any process), two articles correctly tagged as {{prod}} in your entire time on Wikipedia, and a worrying tendency to tag articles for deletion with no edit summary (1, 2 in the last week alone, for example). You also appear to think "Hoax" is a speedy criteria (1, 2), and seem to rely exclusively on the Google test to determine notability (1, 2, 3 today alone). This wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker; what is a deal-breaker for me is that you have a grand total of 20 Wikipedia talk edits, which gives me a very strong feeling that you have no interest in Wikipedia policy whatsoever. If you can provide a very good rebuttal — or if I find something fantastic in your article-space contributions — I'll change my mind, but at the moment, no. — iridescent 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If something is beyond all reasonable argument a hoax I see no reason why it should not be speedily deleted. As for Google, I find it a useful tool to determine notability, if something has very few results (like example 2; five) then it is probably not notable and I would argue that I do not rely on Google solely, in example 3 that you provided I decided to AFD that because the only match his profile listed him as participating in was in 1998 and he lost, I then used Google to back up my arguments. As for tagging for deletion without an edit summary, I am sorry about that, I did not know that I suffered from this problem; I recently (last two weeks) disabled the script that forces you to use edit summaries so I could make trivial edits to my userspace without having to write summaries longer than the edits themselves but I guess that I shall go re-check that. As for Wikipedia talk edits, I don't know, I am happy with Wikipedia policies. Some things could be better but I am fine with working within the system. - Icewedge (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - but while nobody should be expected to know every policy, any admin, and certainly one who explicitly says they want to work in deletions, needs to know the deletion policies; the most recent "speedy delete, either a hoax or OR" was only yesterday, when you presumably knew the RFA was about to run and could reasonably be expected to know the policy. Hoax is explicitly not a deletion criteria, for very good reasons. I have no problem with people not always using edit summaries, but when nominating a page for deletion, it's essential. The "As for Google, I find it a useful tool to determine notability" is a clincher for me, I'm afraid — I see far too many "I can't find it on Google" AFDs. Google's useful to determine notability, in the sense that a million hits may point to something being notable, but shouldn't ever be used to indicate non notability. (more on WP:GHITS - which isn't policy but should be - if you care.) Sorry if this comes across as negative; I do suspect that this RFA will pass (I wouldn't be surprised if myself and Kurt are the only opposes), but I can't support it. — iridescent 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to strong oppose having found you trying to add external links to your own website into articles — iridescent 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] I don't recall the exact content of those article but as I recall they all contained extremely dubious content where the page is basicaly CDS G3 "[which] includes blatant and obvious misinformation". And I did not say that I wanted to work all CSD, just author requests. I agree with you to some extent about Google hits though, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daat Research Corp (2nd nomination) I argued against Google hits being used to indicate notability. - Icewedge (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I believe that CSD G3 covers some hoaxes, as "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation". Of course, if it's plausible and not "blatant and obvious", then obviously that rules it out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Change to strong oppose having found you trying to add external links to your own website into articles — iridescent 04:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose Iridescent nailed it... I could give more reasons, but wow Iridescent is completely correct. You are not ready.Balloonman (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose at this stage though I may be persuaded otherwise. My concerns are similar to those above by Iridescent. But in addition, I also find your own statement that you have no "best contributions" slightly sad. Perhaps you are just being modest, but an admin should understand article building and dealing with article editors, this doesn't seem to be something you've much experience at. Anyone deleting material should understand the perspective of someone creating it. I'm also discomforted by the opening section of your statement where you talk about why you think you need to be an admin, quote "I have decided that I could benefit from Administrator tools". Admin tools aren't for your benefit, you should be here to serve the rest of the community. I'll look back and see if other points are made to change my mind as I prefer to support people. Dean B (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more or less talking about how my editing would benefit from admin tools such as being able to block vandals and not just report them; I am not really sure how I could personally benefit from admin tools, they would not really improve my life in any significant way. Also, I do understand the perspective of authors, for example I basically rewrote the article Daat Research Corp and finding that there was a drastic scarcity of information out there about the subject, no significant coverage by RS, I nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daat Research Corp (2nd nomination). - Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... that was a seven-sentence substub, not an article. To save reposting my "article space" lecture, my comments here apply in this case. — iridescent 04:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards tothe opposer whose opinion I (as always) deeply respect, I must state my personal view that not having a specific (or more than one) "best contribution(s)" to Wikipedia shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from adminship. In fact, there are many users who don't take pride in one form of contribution more than in another, but rather value all their contributions equally. I see having good-faith intentions and constructive edits to a wide variety of namespaces, or mmaybe even just one, as an indicator of a terrific contributor - there doesn't necessarily have to be specific contributions that the editor values above all. Valtoras (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. As Iridescent correct summarized, the candidate seems to be lacking in basic knowledge of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While I may agree that hoax pages should be an available speedy criteria, they are not and one can not decide to use it as such anyway. I'd also like to see more participation in the various areas of interest, including participating in the relevant discussion areas and being more active in the Wikipedia namespace in general. Candidate's edit history shows very little interaction with other editors in the user space and the article talk spaces. Combined with his own self-effacing statements, I'm concerned he doesn't have the necessary confidence and "chutzpa" to be an administrator. An admin can't really be a wallflower or so willing to just back down from any disagreement without a fuss. I'd recommend the candidate work on getting more confidence in his work, perhaps by diversifying more and taking steps to correct his own self-perceived weaknesses, and coming out of his shell, so to speak, to get more active and interactive with other editors. That said, it seems like the candidate is also a bit confrontational and can be badgery when he wants to, such as here and in AfDs, which is not a good thing either. Balance both. An admin should have patience, confidence without arrogance, an even temper, an ability to admit he is wrong, and, like all editors, a ability to accept constructive criticism with grace. Also, while the candidate has been a user since 2006, he has only really been active since May of last year, effectively having just around one year experience. I think he is on the right track, but has a ways to go yet. Maybe retry the failed editor review, or look into admin coaching. Collectonian (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per iridescent's points above. Also, the way I've seen you act at RfA's, and the badgering that you're giving the opposes here, gives me the impression that you're somewhat "mean" (or maybe just really assertive).--Koji†Dude (C) 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose - I agree with Iridescent and KojiDude. I simply do not trust you enough to give you support. asenine say what? 05:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Most unfortunate because I have an aversion for pile on opposes per a few users/their provided diffs, but the arguments brought forth by the aforementioned are just too worrying for me to feel comfortable that you would be a net positive to the project with administrator tools. The ghits don't bother me all that much, as the internet is excellent for determining notability, but the way you go about it, just counting is simply..well...wrong. Since you indicate you wish to work in deletion, this is eyebrow raising. Anyway, I'm not saying adminship is hopeless, but, at this time I can't extend my support to you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated that I would like to participate mainly in anti-vandalism and also monitor CSD A7 CSD G7's; CSD A7 is the only part of deletion I stated I wanted to work in, I hope we can agree that even complete incompetence at WP:AFD does not mean the a user is not qualified to check a pages history and tell if the poster of the deletion request is the pages sole author. - Icewedge (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wisdom is opposing for the same reason as me (which it seems he is), then it is simply that you cannot expect me to trust someone to monitor any CSD category if they have made a lot of mistakes in that area before. It is more the fact that you have mistagged them at all, demonstrating a lack of knowledge of guidelines. asenine say what? 09:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Iridescent. As a CSD patroller, people tagging speedies with entirely non-speedy reasons is something that I feel is particuarly irritating. I'm sure you'll make a good admin at some point, but not right now. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Good vandal fighter, but the above comments say a lot. Come back in about 6 months and improve the points mentioned above, and I would gladly support you. RedThunder 11:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: G7...?? —Alex.Muller 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yeah. Please forgive that was supposed to be G7. I was tired last night =/ - Icewedge (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to spamming as shown by Iridescent. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - for all Iridescent as said. Ironic that Icewedge might be seeing some SNOW.--Bedford 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No,he has enough support that I would not support a premature closure unless the candidate withdraws.Balloonman (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support a SNOW close, Icewedge is an established editor in fairly good standing. He still has a chance, even though he's hit the twenties. Let it sizzle.--Koji†Dude (C) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree unless the candidate withdraws. The opposes always go up before the supports; Risker was in the same situation last week and ended up with 100+ supports. — iridescent 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't. Addshore was at 36/5/0 at one point, now it looks like it will fail.Balloonman (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA's for established users can go either way at any time. It could start good and end bad, start bad and end good, start bad then get better then go back to being bad; the list goes on. Obviousley I'm not in support of this RfA, but there's really no way of telling what's going to happen, so we might as well leave it open.--Koji†Dude (C) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Per the answer to Q4. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]

Neutral pending answer to question as I am currently undecided. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming my neutral. Understanding of copyright policy as well as speedy deletions seems below the standard required of an admin. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to oppose.
  1. Neutral. Good AFD participation and judgment, but I would have to be convinced about ability to be NPOV since the nominee runs a wiki dedicated mainly to disrupting/sabotaging Conservapedia and stalking Conservapedia users. By the way, if hoaxes aren't speedy deletion criteria they should be. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Great vandal fighter, but I'm concerned with the things Iridescent brought up. SpencerT♦C 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral -- I may change my mind but for the moment it will have to be a neutral. I really like your anti-vandalism work but the points raised by iridescent are worrying. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (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/Icewedge&oldid=1086343505"