Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poetlister

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.

Poetlister

[edit]

Final (1/10/2) originally ending 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC), closed early at 00:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Poetlister (talk · contribs) – Seems to have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia as well as an all-important cool head. Reacted very calmly and appropriately to an unjustified ban, and hasn't show any sign of resentment. Very good at dealing with vandalism, even of the very sneaky variety, as exemplified by this [1] edit. Stanfordandson 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Honoured to accept. Poetlister 15:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Emphatic support. We need more admins with good academic qualifications who work on serious articles. Poetlister fits the bill. Erik the Rude 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't have the level of trust towards this person necessary for this role. -- sannse (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User is just too new.Voice-of-All 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. As with sannse, I am not comfortable extending to this editor the trust requisite with the position of administrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, lack of experience. Roy A.A. 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, edit count real low.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant oppose. Poetlister is, I think, a valuable contributor, but I don't see any evidence that they need the tools, and I don't see enough activity on which to base a firm judgment. Sorry. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose doesn't pass my RFA criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to lack of experience and the sockpuppetry concerns outlined in questions (below). Cynical 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Edit count. -- Steel 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Several blocks and inexperience. Afonso Silva 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Reminder not to pile on neutral - suggest withdraw, most users won't support until they have a chance to really understand who you are and what you're like, keep on editing and sometime you'll breeze on by! -- Tawker 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - this user has a knowledge of what an admin is supposed to do, but just doesn't have the experience for the job yet. Please try for adminship again later, when you have many more edits in the Wikipedia, User Talk, and main namespaces. —Mets501 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Comment I can't vouch for the validity of this information, but this may (or may not) shed some more light on the situation behind the blocks: User:Zordrac/Poetlister -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Poetlister (over the 513 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 317 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 24, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 11, July, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 513 edits): Major edits: 56.94% Minor edits: 92.63%
Average edits per day: 1.58 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 315 edits) : Major article edits: 79.11% Minor article edits: 95.56%
Analysis of edits (out of all 513 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.78% (4)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 15.98% (82)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.76% (127)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 51.74%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 194 | Average edits per page: 2.64 | Edits on top: 6.82%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 37.04% (190 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 14.62% (75 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.89% (61 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 35.09% (180 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 61.4% (315) | Article talk: 8.38% (43)
User: 10.72% (55) | User talk: 10.92% (56)
Wikipedia: 7.21% (37) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0.78% (4)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.58% (3)
Username Poetlister
Total edits 513
Distinct pages edited 204
Average edits/page 2.515
First edit 15:16, 11 July 2005
 
(main) 315
Talk 43
User 55
User talk 56
Image 4
Template talk 3
Wikipedia 37
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would monitor WP:ANI and try to resolve problems and defuse disputes. I would also concentrate on those things that admins can do to improve Wikipedia and remove vandalism and spam but others can't, such as use of rollback, speedy deletes, page protection requests and closing AfDs, RfDs etc. Naturally, I already revert vandalism when I find it; as an admin, I could do more.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have started or expanded many articles; see User:Poetlister/articles. English & British Queen Mothers is a good example of the sort of thing that Wikipedia can do well; it has attracted a lot of interest and many contributors. Many articles are about poets who deserved to be in Wikipedia but weren't.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:Yes, I have had several conflicts. The key is to keep calm, argue rationally with opponents, ensure that I am in the right both in terms of fact and adherence to Wikipedia policies, and if things get too nasty, seek support. A good example is Seamus Heaney, where there was an edit war about whether he was from Londonderry or Derry. I proposed a compromise, and when this was rejected and all reasoned argument failed, I asked an admin to intervene. Had I been an admin then, I could have done it all myself. The fact that I am still an editor here is proof that the strategy works.
4. Can you elaborate on question 3 further? Why do you have 3 blocks saying you're a sockpuppet of RachelBrown?
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/Poetlister&oldid=1142573920"