Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrScorch6200

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.

MrScorch6200

[edit]

Final (0/8/1); ended 00:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC) - Withdrawn as WP:SNOW --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) – I am a regular editor with varying experience in the different corners of Wikipedia, including being a Rollbacker, Reviewer, and a regular user of huggle. A lot of my experience stems from my volunteerism in places such as Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where I am a regular volunteer and occasianlly at the Guild of Copyeditors. The next biggest thing that I take part in is New Page Patrolling and using huggle. I am able to talk out disputes with other users calmly and efficiently. An example of that is in this archived discussion on my talk page. I go in to more detail below. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 21:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: The largest administrative work I intend to take part in is deleting or denying pages with a CSD nomination and dealing with problematic users. I have extensive experience in these subject areas. I also would like to help out at ANI and the alike pages. I also intend to clear up pages with backlogs such as during high vandalism times when ANV has a backlog ongoing backlogs like Requests for Closure.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My largest contributions are patrolling new pages and dealing with problematic users. I also extensively help out in content dispute situations.
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: No. Users do not ever cause me stress because I take time to review queries from them (or something else depending on the situation) and formulate a good response. I am not like some other users who after dealing with Wikistress take extensive Wikibreaks; when I am stressed out I go and edit some other part of Wikipedia and therefore continue to contribute.

Question from AGK

4. Exactly why did you think it appropriate to report the username 'Almighty Atheist' to usernames for administrator attention? Would you do so again if presented with it today? AGK [•] 22:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A. At the time I believed that this might offend religious users (especially with the prefix "Almighty"). Despite this, at this point in time I would not do so because I highly respect the free speech of other users and it is not a blatant username violation. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
5. What is your view of Process is important?
A: Process is important to the project. It allows us to carry out actions that are fair and widely accepted between editors (e.g. consensus).
6. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A:
7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A:
8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: First off, I believe that all editors have a duty in helping new users. I see myself resolving more complex disputes now, and using my experience from DRN to do so. This is a role of an admin that can be filled by normal users, and one that I have filled myself. I am aware of the appropriate noticeboards that handle their topics respectively. For example, if a user came to DRN in regard to the reliability of a source, I would defer them to RSN.
Additional question from User:Moriori
9. Considering the hatred for Apple products you express on your userpage, could you fairly deal with any disputes respecting Apple related articles, or should you be topic banned from articles mentioning Apple technology?
A: No, I do not need a topic ban. I see that more humorously than I do hatred. Yes, I can deal with disputes fairy and remain neutral. You'll never catch me at Apple (company) anyway, and I would't participate in a dispute if I was recused on it. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. If you are so sure you can remain neutral, why would you recuse? Moriori (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2014 (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 their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Sorry Nick to be the first to do this, but I do not find it appropriate to report anyone's username based on religion. First off, I'm atheist, but that doesn't mean that I would go around reporting anyone who states their religious views in their usernames. To each their own, but as long as they aren't being an outright jerk or having usernames that are outright against policy, there is no need to interfere in free speech. In terms of your userpage, there are also a few templates that make me worry that you would end up being a hardline administrator, but I am willing to assume good faith in the end, as you are new and have plenty of room to learn in the future. That being said, you are a promising editor, and your dedication to the project is duly noted, as I think with more time and experience, you will be a good candidate in the future. Best of luck in the future, and feel free to respond here or via e-mail if you want clarification on some of the points I brought up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's clarification to Question 4 is good, but I still believe that they don't fully understand policy as well as they could. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Roughly 50% of this enormous batch of stuff that you recently archived from your talkpage consists of people warning you you're misunderstanding one Wikipedia policy or another, and all from within the last six weeks. As things stand, I don't trust you with either a block or a delete button. Mogism (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure as to where you got "50%" from, I see only roughly four/five discussions on the same policy, not multiple. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, 'exactly 24.3% of this enormous batch of stuff that you recently archived from your talkpage consists of people warning you you're misunderstanding one Wikipedia policy or another, and all from within the last six weeks - is that better? Threads 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 31, 37 and 38 are all warnings that you're misunderstanding or misapplying one policy or another. Mogism (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are all not "warnings that you're [I'm] misunderstanding or misapplying one policy or another". You are taking at least 40% of those out of context. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, you need to stop badgering other editors, as it is only going to further hurt your chances in the end. Mogism was just throwing a number out there (hence, "roughly"), and wasn't going for scientific accuracy. In light of the above, I would suggest withdrawing this RFA and start taking the suggestions to heart, because this is going nowhere fast, unfortunately. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 50% of 41 discussions is pretty far off. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really nothing to badger someone about, as I feel that Thrub was right in his assessment of your literal interpretation of everything. I am advising that you pull this because I can relate to you in how I first started here when I was a teenager. I too ran a few ill-advised RFAs when I first started and I have grown and matured in the past six and a half years since I started. As people advised me in those RFAs, if you continue to keep this open, it will look worse for you in the end, so that is why I am telling you that this is pointless to keep open now, as you don't even have a support. Closing this is up to you or another user, but I would advise that you pull it as you are a budding editor and I am writing this as someone who can sympathize with your position right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose (edit conflict) I didn't have to look back very far in your logs to see your CSD accuracy still needs improvement. The fact that you nominated HappyBird multiple times for speedy deletion is worrisome. Two admins declined here and here. I think you're not quite ready for the tools. Mkdwtalk 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Technically, I nominated it twice because AWB had removed the original tag (from what I see). --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a section of the edits:
    1. 19:54, 29 January 2014 - 1st speedy tag
    2. 20:20, 29 January 2014 - Restored after IP removed it.
    3. 20:32, 29 January 2014 - Restored after AWB removed it.
    4. 00:22, 30 January 2014 - Added 'no-context' speedy after DESiegel declined it. The CSD tag was incorrect as the article's subject was clear.
    5. 00:36, 30 January 2014 - Added "confusing" maintenance tag after Writ Keeper declined your "no context" speedy tag.
    6. 00:38, 30 January 2014 - DESiegel removes the maintenance tag.
    As stated above your understanding of the due process is not correct based upon your recent edits and you will need more time before you should apply again for the tools. Mkdwtalk 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And everything there results in two legitimate CSD tags. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't necessarily call them "legitimate" as the no context speedy tag was incorrectly applied as the article in its state had clear content and did not closely meet the criteria for CSD A1. Additionally, DESiegel's feedback to you was "Not a valid speedy under either of these criteria, nor under any other that I can see, do not renominate" in which you ignored and tagged it for speedy again. Also, I think you're missing the point as my comment about "multiple" is not contradictory. I brought up your tagging accuracy because I wanted to point out it was not about quantity but quality which you seem to have missed. Mkdwtalk 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. This RfA will collapse quickly. I think you need a further 12 months solid editing and participation in general areas where you can acquire a broad exposure to Admin-related stuff. Don't worry about "wanting to be" an Admin., it's not the be all and end all by a long chalk. If/when you are suitable it will become obvious, but that it not now. Leaky Caldron 22:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for now as imo needs more experience with the basics, I'd suggest retrying in a year or 2. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Way too soon.. needs more experience first. JMHamo (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Agree way too soon. Seven months of editing and only 2000 odd edits will win you no favours here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. OK, I've read over your talk page and looked back over talk page archives, and I quickly got the feeling "This is someone still at school" - at this stage I have not looked at your user page, so I don't know what you actually say about yourself (and please, I'm not asking you to reveal any personal information here), but I'd wager I'm right. What gave me that impression? Well, the way you interact with other people and your somewhat literal understanding and interpretation of rules and guidelines clearly says "teenager maturity" to me (and again, I stress I'm not asking you for personal info - I think the less you reveal the better). There's nothing wrong with teenager maturity, of course - it's exactly what I expect in teenagers. But admins here are frequently dealing with very experienced editors who have been around the block a few times, and a more adult level of maturity is needed to deal with them - I'd hate you to be burned by getting on the wrong side of some of our more irascible contributors here. You're clearly intelligent and I'm sure you'll acquire the appropriate level of maturity in time - but I think it will be a little while yet. In the meantime, carry on with the good work you are doing, and listen to the good advice people give you on your talk page (and please try to learn from it - I've seen some of the same CSD mistakes being made in the past month or two that I saw in your earliest archives). As a long-time reader of Wikipedia, I thank you for all your good work so far! Thrub (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a pretty big give away. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, didn't see that - I rarely read the stuff people clutter the top of their talk pages with Thrub (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I had exams that week and placed that there. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Pending answer to my question. I do not like the look of a candidate who thinks an account ought to be blocked because its username contains the word "atheist". Leaving aside the obvious point that the candidate appears to have imposed religiosity on newbies, this incident from four months ago demonstrates an unfamiliarity with policy. AGK [•] 22:38, 14 February 2014 (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/MrScorch6200&oldid=1137351464"