Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Intforce 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.
Closed as successful: No opposes and more than five people !voted, so this is a clear cut, my !vote notwithstanding. -Barras talk 10:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intforce

[change source]
Intforce (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) (previous RfA)
RfA of Intforce
Previous RfAs: 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time online, especially to this wiki, and I happen to discover a lot of vandalism, including pages that need quick deletion and repeated vandalism, that I feel that I could more efficiently help with if given the mop. I'm also involved in the "technical area" here, like maintaining and improving user scripts (the Twinkle script should really be moved to the MediaWiki namespace, or it might sound like I would be "owning" it, because it is stored in my user namespace) or creating and fixing templates et cetera, and some areas I work on may only be done by administrators. Apart from that, I also enjoy contributing to articles, particularly those in my interest. I think that improving an article can be a good alternate to deletion. I do not seek these tools simply for "power" or "fun", but I feel that as I am already spending a lot of time contributing to the project, I could help even more given the tools, and I hope fellow wikipedians will entrust me with the mop to enable me to make a better impact to the project. --@intforce 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Questions

[change source]
  • Q: You've no doubt learned some things since your previous request. I'd be interested to know whether any of the answers you gave in that earlier request now seem inadequate or even wrong to you. If so, could you pick one or two of the most obvious and either add something you've learned or correct yourself?
Old questions, answers revised
A: That's a good question. I had this problem before and I wondered whether a guideline or policy concerning it exists. Generally I assume good faith when a page is created, especially if the page was actually not bad. Users sometimes create an article under a title for which we forgot to create a redirect. I would compare the two pages and try to add the content from the new page to the old one and then establish a redirect from the recently created page. In any case I will also notify the user first before doing so.
A: One of my principles as an admin would be not to force through my point of view. Closing an RfD in which I participated is only acceptable for me if a clear consensus has been established. Otherwise I would leave it to another (probably uninvolved) admin to close the debate.
A: I would block a registered user without warning if the user has a username which clearly violated the username policy, if the user is a confirmed sock puppet of an other editor, or especially if the user is obviously aware of policies or if the account was only created for doing vandalism, making personal attacks, et cetera.
  • Q: An editor has tagged a new article for quick deletion as a copyright violation, giving a link to a website from where the article has been copied word-for-word. The website, however, is another wiki (e.g., wikia.com). Would you delete the article? Osiris (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: In this case, I would first add a {{wait}}-Tag to the article with the comment that I'm checking the issue and ask the author of the article whether he is the author of the article in that wiki as well. We would need to provide rationale for the article if this case is true, otherwise the page may be deleted as an act of copyright violation.
Can you clarify what you mean by providing rationale? Osiris (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even a derivative work requires attribution. Attribution must be done or the article will be deleted as a copyright violation. We usually provide transwiki attribution here, but we can do that for a Wikia too. --@intforce 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Indefinite blocks should only be used in the worst cases and therefore I take unblock requests from indefinite blocked users with a grain of salt. They have been blocked for certain issues and thus they need to indicate that their old issues have been resolved. In this case, I would have acted same as DJSasso, declining the request. But if the user has provided a good rationale, I would open a thread on WP:Simple talk.
Why is a thread on simple talk necessary? Osiris (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for unblock is when a blocked user believes that his or her blocking from editing has been unjust and wishes to contest the block. It is often used when administrators make mistakes in policy, or maybe that that editor was involved in a dispute and was unfairly treated. These cases a single administrator (especially if he blocked the user) can not solve alone. He may need to open the thread to see what the opinion of the community is and respond to the request by observing the community consensus. --@intforce 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: The difference between a guideline and a policiy is not exactly what I thought it was (especially during my first RfA). Quoting from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on enwiki, policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally , while guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus.
What this says to me is that policies are really quite strict and should be always followed, except some very rare appeal to WP:Ignore all rules (however, WP:IAR is really an exception and should not be used as a common rationale). On the contrary, there will be more common-sense exceptions to a guideline but maybe not as many as I thought. I think it depends on the guideline itself. There are some guidelines which importance can nearly be seen as a policy, while guidelines only describe "suggestions".
Because this wiki is smaller than the main English Wikipedia, there are some cases for which we don't got a specific rule here, though on the main English Wikipedia. In this case, we may use the main English Wikipedia's rule to deal with the problems. However, if a rule exists here locally, we take them priority over the ones from another wiki, even from en.
A: One of my personal core principles is that with increased power comes increased responsibility. Admins should never use their tools to give themselves an advantage in any situation, even in edit wars. The page where the edit war goes on should be protected, in order to start a discussion about the edit on the talk page. Generally, a page should be protected if the three-revert rule is broken, but I would leave it to another admin to protect the page or to block the user eventually. But I would certainly not use my sysop rights in this case, to be an admin doesn't mean that one stand above someone, only that one got some additional rights to contribute to the project.
  • Q: Say an editor made a VIP report and the request concerns an IP which vandalised several more pages after a final warning, but who hasn't edited for 25 minutes. Would you accept or decline the request and what would be the reason for your decision? -Mh7kJ (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: That would rather depend on how the IP vandalised. Some vandals are really bad; they create things like attack pages. In this case, I would leave the report open and tag it with {{AIV|m}} to watch the IP actively and intervene if vandalism occurs again. But normally I would close the request with rationale "No changes since final warning. Re-report if they continue vandalising" after a short timeframe.
Hmm, I think you might have misunderstood my question a bit. The IP had already edited past a final warning. What would your actions be and why? -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Really sorry, I misunderstood it. Okay, I do not tend to block all users; I'd rather give them a chance to change. But like my answer above, I would say that it depends on how the IP vandalised. Really bad vandals would probably get blocked by me even they haven't be editing for 25 minutes, whilst I would watch the a "regular" vandal actively, add a corresponding tag to the report and intervene if any vandalism occurs again. --@intforce 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: I imagine my admin work would include anything that's needed. Specifically, making sure that appropriate edit requests to protected pages are taken care of in a timely manner and quick deleting material that is clearly un-encyclopedic (by "un-encyclopedic" I mean things that are listed on the deletion policy page, e.g. test pages, pure vandalism, attack pages, patent nonsense, etc) are deleted quicky. Because I'm also active to the technical areas of this wiki, I would also maintain and improve user scripts (especially Twinkle), handle bug reports/feature requests as fast as possible and update/improve templates that are (reasonably) fully protected because they have a lot of transclusions.
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are most likely in the technical area. I truly enjoy JavaScript and HTML/CSS coding and I've managed to keep Twinkle and other scripts in good condition. I also work in the template namespace, where I mainly try to keep the code up to date.
My contributions to the article namespace are quite scattered. My work is mainly concentrated on making minor edits like cleaning up an article (e.g. wikify, cat, interwiki), add references and sometimes also copyediting. If I come across to a red link here, I might also create the article here. I'm also currently working to get Yellowstone National Park to GA status (although I didn't edit the article for a while because I recently didn't really have enough time for it).
A: Well, I saw this page on Special:NewPages, where I check recently created unpatrolled pages. I usually check articles to see wether a they are a hoax or not (especially articles concerning people), and the Google search didn't bring up any good references. Thus the article is either a hoax or not notable enough. But I noticed that the article isn't really bad (there are even some references), so I'd probably rather go to RfD instead of QD.
Do you think you were a bit 'trigger happy'??--Chip123456 TalkChanges 19:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I'd have thought more about that before clicking 'Submit'. I'm sorry... --@intforce 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Such articles should always be considered as "controversial", unreferenced facts should be taken even more seriously than BLP articles. Articles about diplomatic (and non-diplomatic) relations can easily be used to spread POV material (e.g. making a specific country "better" in the point of view). Although the articles predominantly cover diplomatic relations, a big part of it covers the historical background. The article has been directly copied over the main English Wikipedia; no sources were added and therefore it is heavily violating our NPOV-rule. --@intforce 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support. User makes many good contributions. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OK. I'm just wondering since when people here ask so damn many questions. One or two are OK, but this looks a bit overblown to me. Contribs seem to be OK here, has some QDs, adminship is no big deal and this project needs more help anyway, imo. Less people appear to be interested in this project nowadays. Just look at this request. Usually at least like 10 people !vote here, and after 5 days it is still quite empty. Everyone on vacation or so, I assume. I also only just noticed that right now despite the fact that I look in here everyday (even thought I don't edit much). -Barras talk 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the user trans'd the questions from the old RfA and attempted to answer them better. But yes, at least one is just picking fault with an action and demanding an explanation. Not cool. Kennedy (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I know it looks as though I've flooded the page with questions, but I only actually posted one and having all of those comments from June transferred wasn't what I asked for -- but at least my question was answered thoroughly. In this particular case I would like to first see what others think, so I probably won't vote until the last day or so. Osiris (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Don't think user will break wiki. Done some useful stuff. Answers to questions not brilliant but not terribly bad either. I don't really see a reason to oppose at this point, except slight inexperience which they will gain quickly. Kennedy (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I don't think the user is going to wreak havoc on the site and seems to have a good grasp of what's going on. I see no reason not to allow access to the tools. Kansan (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - User makes good contributions.He also helps new users and does great work on Wikipedia.Receptie123 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My thinking here is roughly the same as Kennedy's: intforce has shown himself to be a bit unfamiliar with some protocols, but I'm certain he will pick it up quickly enough. He is comitted to helping out, very eager to learn, and when making mistakes he is usually quick to own up to and fix them. His redevelopment of the Twinkle script was a fantastic contribution to the wiki, and it would be helpful for him to have the access to maintain it. As long as you understand what the exerpts in your answers mean and ask someone else if you're unsure about something, then you should do fine. Osiris (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support On reflection, this user does seem to put 100% into this project. Sure, their answers maybe a tad rusty, and he hasn't got a shining edit count to article space, but he seems trustworthy, with good intentions. IMHO, we do need more active admins, intforce is capable of filling this role.--Chip123456 TalkChanges 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]

I will try to think up some questions and post them later tonight. Good luck! Osiris (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flood of questions here, and I've added yet another one. Just I'm not convinced yet. Last RfA I opposed as user was too early, I'd have liked a longer period of waiting. Will wait on answers to questions before deciding though. Kennedy (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't find myself feeling much for or against, mainly because I have not yet formed an opinion of this user. I do sometimes think the speed with which some propose themselves is a bit surprising. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2012 (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://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Intforce_2&oldid=8899211"