Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Normandy

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

Closed as not successful. Percentage is far below consensus. Please try again later. -Barras (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy

Normandy (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 09:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting adminship to assist with my work here on Simple. I am usually on this site daily and have reverted scores of vandalism, warned many users, improved a good number of articles, helped out DYK etc. I hope I have shown my abilities so far and know I would be able to carry out the duties required. I have experience with the admin duties, deletion of pages, blocking of users, protection etc and would like to carry out tasks here.

I know I have not created any "good" or "very good" articles (yet), however my main field of interest is lurking in the background fixing the little things, reverting the bad things and protecting the wiki. I realise I only just meet the criteria, however I know I can do the job well, therefore I decided not to wait any longer. Regards, Normandie ^Talk! 09:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nom, accept.

Optional question from wiooiw (talk)

Q: Would you ever block a user or ip without any warnings?

A: Unlikely. The only example I can think of is if a user was making vast amounts of bad edits perhaps using a tool such as automated scripts or bots it could be argued a block without warning first. However its relatively easy to revert one single users edits so if it was that bad I would consider starting with a final warning with a block if they edited again. Normandie ^Talk! 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Kansan:

Are there any circumstances in which you might undo the block of another administrator? Kansan (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Hoping answering these make any difference) Again unlikely. Obviously not considering the unlikely option of an admin going rogue. I would rather discuss the block first before undoing. I'd not be pleased if someone did that to me, so would discuss with the blocking admin first. Obviously there is the unblock request template however, if they gave a reasonable explanation it could be considered but again, notifying the blocking admin. Normandie ^Talk! 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I've read the three opposes and understand why they've been made, however I don't think that's a major issue as the user clearly wants to help and has got involved behind the scenes where needed. Several of the edits have been quite menial tasks that others have ignored as well. Basically, why not? Gob lin 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
Hrm. I like that idea. Give adminship based on merit. That's what they do at RationalWiki and it looks good. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admin is only ever given based on merit. fr33k man 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its perhaps too early, but Normandy has been doing a good job here and would do well as an admin. I agree with BG. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fr33k man 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose. User made a total of 300+ edits as of January 18, 2011. Come back in a year, I suppose. Try harder next time! H y d r i z (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year? I'm sorry but the criteria does not state a year, only 3 months is preferred, this is why I have applied. Why should I wait a year? Also, sorry but I take offense at being told to "try harder next time", I try to edit when I can. Normandie ^Talk! 11:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 months is the bare minimum. Most people like to see a year. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say that most users prefer a full year, but the key issue here is probably the relatively low number of edits as opposed to the date per se. Kansan (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right...its gotten shorter recently...but there was a time where you had no chance if you weren't around a year and over 1-2k edits. For me as I mention below, its all about time, not so much edits. Anyone can behave for a few hundred/thousand edits if they are done only in a month or two...but can they behave for 6-12 months. And I think its pretty much impossible to show a grasp of the wiki culture and policies in only 3 months. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the criteria say three months if actually no-one will get the tools unless they have twice as much, or four times as much? I can't understand the 'too soon' votes as I meet the criteria set out by this community. Normandie ^Talk! 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking the whole night, I am a little harsh to do that, but I am still leaving Wikipedia due to someone else being rude to me too. I wish you good luck! H y d r i z 10:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention below, the criteria isn't so much about when you can get the flag, but more about when you can't. Below three months and a crat or admin will generally close the request as soon as they see it. Above three months you can still run, but the likelihood of you passing is pretty low. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vote made by Hydriz is invalid due to language concerns. H y d r i z 13:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have only very few edits on this project. Per sulutil exactly 269 which is too less for me to support. THe experience shows that people who get this flag with a that low edit count often disappear after a short period. Please show some more activity first and request the tool later again. However, this is only my opinion. I still wish you good luck. -Barras (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks for your views anyway. Obviously I disagree that I will leave, and can only give you my word that I will be here for the future. I would have hoped that my current sustained useful editing would have persuaded you otherwise. Normandie ^Talk! 12:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, solely for clarification, I count 336 edits Normandie ^Talk! 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mh...I checked the number here. But 50 edits more or less don't really make much difference for me. Sorry, -Barras (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'd have to oppose this one. You will need more experience and more edits. Remember, patience and hard work is key. Keep up your work and I will see you at your next Rfa. But for now, it's a no.-- Tdxi ang 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, far too often we have people race to try and get admin, doing rapidfire edits like the ones I see your history filled with, only to become inactive or to end up as bad administrators. I prefer time to judge an editor, not edits. And in such a short period of time with such little activity, there just isn't enough to judge you on. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry, but I repeat some of the words of Barras. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)~~ I know see.[reply]
Oppose - WP:NOTNOW sorry. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the concerns that there is not enough historical information to make a reliable trust metric. Please do continue to do the good work that you do. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't shoot me. In our recent craze of proxy vandals, there was a certain vandal who kept saying that we need to watch out for the next RFA candidate because it could be him, and that he was gonna get admin and destroy the wiki. I don't think you are this proxy vandal and I don't think we actually need to worry about the crazy claims he is making. He's just a proxy vandal after all. However, what this has made me do is really really really make sure I trust any candidates that offer themselves. At this time, I don't fully trust you with the tools. I like the work you are doing, and think you will make a great candidate later when you have more experience, but it's a no for now. Please don't give up!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: per Barras mostly. Where as I am not as adamant as Hydriz, I'm not ready to support Normandy as of yet Purple backpack89 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: I'm sorry, Normandy. I think you're a really great editor and would do a great job as an admin, but just not yet. The wiki hasn't had enough experience with you yet, and it seems to be too soon. :( I really want to support, and I really would, if this was not the only fault. But do nom yourself for RFA next time, dear! Then I certainly will support. ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 12:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per a lot of the above reasons. Also, I do not like Normandy's handling of the RFA. Normandy seems to think that the CfA is the end all and be all of this. The CfA is a guideline not a policy. Additionally, the CfA says three months is preferred to request, not to be granted the tool. I think the interpretation and arguments made here show Normandy is not ready for adminship. Either way (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify. I don't believe the guideline means that I should be granted the tools. The point I'm trying to make is that RfA should not be a big deal, but the main problem I had was with the manner in which one vote was made, i.e. "try harder... come back in a year". My point that I should not need to come back in a year. You'll note that I haven't reacted to any other oppose vote in this manner. Regards Normandie ^Talk! 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Okay I'm going to say it again here instead of following on from Hydriz's vote: Why does the criteria say three months if actually no-one will get the tools unless they have twice as much, or four times as much? I can't understand the 'too soon' votes as I meet the criteria set out by this community. Normandie ^Talk! 12:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's a little confusing isn't it. I would support a candidate after three months, but they would need to have done a lot of quick deletion requests, VIP reports, and some edits to WP:AN and WP:ST would also be nice. Looking through your contribs, I see 13 QDs, 3 RFD ( All of them look good, but it's not many) and I don't see any reports to VIP. This may be the reason people are saying not now, as they haven't seen you working in the admin related areas often enough to gain trust in the pretty short time that is three months. I seriously think that a little more time, and a little more experience, and you will make a great candidate.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is just a guideline to indicate to potential candidates that there is a snowballs chance in hell that you will pass below 3 months. We have had people nominate themselves in a month. The criteria is not a checklist to complete but a bare bare bare minimum. Basically if you are below that we close your Afd automatically. They are in no way an indication of when you can get them. As gordon has said, this is all about experience and getting to know you and build trust, these are things you can't quantify in a written criteria. Everyone has their own level at which point we trust someone. Basically the best rule of thumb for someone wanting to be an admin is to never ever nominate yourself, that is usually the kiss of death. Wait for someone to nominate you. Then you know you have passed atleast one persons internal criteria and are likely to pass others. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me couch it to you this way...and this is going to sound a bit mean: there are people who meet or exceed the requirements, but are blocked. Should we give THEM the tools? Of course not. We don't necessarily give the tools based on any one threshold Purple backpack89 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take the wisdom of PBP; there are users who "meet" the criteria on this page, but may not necessarily make a good administrator. Please remember that page should not be taken literally, as 3 months and # edits does not guarantee a success. It should be viewed as a guideline to help users, voters and nominators. And the level of trust required can never truly be written down. I personally do not care for the accumulation itself, I only worry for what the user has learned from the accumulation. Your doing fine so far Normandy. -- wiooiw (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, Normandy. I worked for 6 months and I had a great deal of involvement in the community before adminship. You're doing good, but we want to see more.-- Tdxi ang 02:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying folks. Sorry for the questioning, I think I just got riled up at the wording and style of one of the votes which I took offense to and carried that offence over to other editors. Understand clearly now :) Normandie ^Talk! 12:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) I got the mop after 3 months for example. But I was really really active with +2500 edits and some hundreds of QDs in this 3 months. The guideline is just a guideline. It works always a bit different and also depends a bit on the candidate. The more you've done here, the better people can judge you if you need the mop and if you are trustworthy enough to get this flag. We don't have to follow any guideline. This guideline is also fairly old and the wiki is grown. People nowadays may feel a bit different than they did 2 years ago. -Barras (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well my actual point still stands. If the guidelines are out of date they should be updated immediately instead of written guidelines but unwritten actual criteria for adminship. I followed the current criteria only to be told by several people now that this is no longer what people agree with. If its a year, make it a year on the guidelines so people understand. I (or others who wish to apply for admin) can't be expected to know this when the written guidelines are totally different. Normandie ^Talk! 12:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you would have 10 times more edits and we'd have seen you much more often in the RCs, people would support you even after 3 months. So it is still a guideline, and people actually don't have to follow the guideline. Everyone has a different view on adminship. There are surely people who still agree with this guideline. -Barras (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy - would you mind creating User:Normandy/EditCounterOptIn.js with any text at all? It gets the edit counter to be more specific and detailed if you OptIn. Thanks! --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Apologies I've just noticed this request. Normandie ^Talk! 12:46, 24 January 2011 (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.