Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inka 888

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

Inka 888

Final (1/8/0); ended 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW - Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Inka 888 (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm Inka 888. I've been here for a little under 8 months. I have roughly 4,500 live edits. I work a lot in making pages more readable. I also have a good amount of experience in vandal-fighting. I consider myself knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I herby present myself for adminship. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:24, 15 March 2011 (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:I would like to help with AIV and page-protections mainly I would also probably answer {{editprotected}}'s and {{adminhelp}}'s I already answer {{editsemiprotected}}'s and {{helpme}}'s. Besides that I would pretty much be open to helping with any work that needs help with. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

A:I consider my best contributions are answering {{helpme}}'s. I feel that newcomers are often not helped with their first edits, which leads to them having problems with their edits in the future which may lead them getting blocked. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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:Yes (not that many though), I usually dealt with by taking edit conflicts to the users talk page or sometimes the article talk page. I will probably continue to do the same in the future. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Inka 888: Inka 888 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Inka 888 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support, looks like a good editor. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   Support, see nothing wrong with his contributions or attitude. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to, for example, repeatedly requesting "rollback" (i), misuse of "twinkle" (ii) which lead to removal of twinkle access (iii), misuse of 'reviewer' rights leading to removal (iv), and various other concerns over temperament, policy knowledge, civility and competency which can be seen on archives of the user talk page (1 and 2). I do appreciate that Inka 888 has improved, and that mentoring has helped, but I also feel that these incidents are not far enough in the past to be ignored. I suggest Inka 888 spend at least 6 months demonstrating exemplary conduct prior to re-applying for RfA.  Chzz  ►  09:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Six months ago, Fetch.Comms was considering blocking this user on competence grounds, which is a pretty massive red-flag for me. I'm not convinced that enough time has been spent demonstrating exemplary conduct, as chzz puts it. Especially when you consider that, since December 2010, Inka888's edits have dropped off significantly, to only 100-200 a month, which gives us much less to judge on. (Additional info added slightly later) In addition, for someone who claims to work on helpme and wants to work on adminhelpme, I am not massively impressed by contributions. here for example, Inka888 initially gives a fairly unhelpful (and possibly inaccurate) answer, directing the user to 'take it to the talk page' without a link, which may not be much help to an inexperienced user. Then, when the user follows up, Inka888 simply tells them that they can make 'whatever changes they feel like', seemingly without giving any information about edit warring, WP:3RR, WP:BRD or how to discuss and achieve consensus.--Korruski^Talk 09:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose in the terms outlined by Korruski. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I know that in the past some editors have got the mop with only 4,000 or so edits, but with bots doing much of the work these days, admins need to have good communication and mediation skills. With only 1,150 edits to main space and the majority of the others (50%) to user talk, and very few to project space, I feel there are not enough contributions of the right kind yet to be able to measure how you would perform as an admin. The number of RfA !votes also seems top-heavy compared to the rest. I haven't done any further checks but I'm sure that Chzz is right with his research and I trust his judgement, and Korruski makes some very valid points. I think you should consider continuing to work on the aspects of Wikipedia that you are still not quite confident with. When it when it it becomes routine in a few months, and preferably with a few nicely created articles, you should should work for several more months without the main idea of working towards adminship. --Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   I do manually archive that's probably part of the reason that I have a high percentage in user talk space. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 10:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Inka_888_misusing_Vandalism_Templates, which was the biggest red flag I've seen in my interactions with this user in the past. Also per Chzz and Korruski. I think that given your history here, you should not self-nom and wait for a respected admin to offer to nominate you for RFA before I'd consider supporting. StrPby (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Although the inappropriate "vandalism reversions" and other misdemeanours were six months ago, they created a significant problem for editors and readers. Inka 888 has not demonstrated better judgement since then. I am disappointed by the lack of candour regarding these issues in Inka 888's opening statement & answers to questions. I have also informed Intelati of this RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   He's not really my mentor any more. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose, Changed from support following an examination of the various vandalism tool problems. Yes it was almost six months ago, but I would like Inka 888 to wait a bit longer before getting the mop. Vandalism reversion is one of the simplest tasks an administrator performs. At the moment, I do not have enough confidence that Inka 888 will use the myriad other sys-op tools correctly. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose, per the ANI discussions linked to above. Also the 2 archives of your talkpage show too much rushing with reverting and templating, perhaps trying to beat other vandal-reverters (I could be wrong, but that seems to be the reason behind all the attempts to get rollback), which is kind of missing the point of anti-vandalism work. When people have brought up problems and mistakes on your talkpage, your attitude has not always been the most helpful, either missing the point of what has been said, or just saying "sorry" and the going on to make more hasty mistakes. Many of the issues on your talkpage are several months old, but there doesn't seem to be a good block of consistent, constructive edits since then to look at. This comment made me wonder: do you actually add anything to articles, or make constructive edits changing what is there? Or do you only edit reactively to other people's edits (eg. reverting vandalism)? Your most recent edit is not really acceptable. You should simply point out to User:Axl that Intelati is not your mentor, don't change another editor's comment. Sorry, but there are far too many issues right now. --BelovedFreak 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

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.