Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shapiros10

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship or request for checkusership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Shapiros10

[change source]
Shapiros10 (talk · contribs)

Ended: January 18, 2009

Result: Candidate withdrew. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time, I'm serious. I feel that many excellent points have been brought up, and I don't feel I can pass. Consider this my withdrawal request. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 00:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I, Yotcmdr, would like to present Shapiros10 for adminship. He has been here at simple for over 11 months and is a dedicated user, active for the last 6 months. He has made just over 1000 quality edits. He always seems to go for the quality, not quantity, but still manadges to create enough articles. Shappy (his nickname) is also a fine vandalism reverter. Shapiros10 contributes regularly to T:DYK and keeps it alive. He has also higly contributed to one Good article (Avril Lavigne). According to my count, he has 32 QD tags which isn't bad at all considering the vandalism level on simple. He also has 5 reports to VIP which is also good. Anyway, I think Shapiros10 would make a great admin, here at simple.Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CONOM by VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? I would also like to nominate Sam for adminship. He has great edits and is always assuming good faith. While I was banned he sent me emails as suggestions to get me unblocked. I thank him. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by BG7even 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC) - I am co-nominating Shapiros10 for adminship because I feel that he has what it takes to fulfill the role of an administrator and has shown dedication to the project since he has been here. I first met Shapiros10 via a Test Wiki that RyanCross set up, and I have been with him in several other wikis since. In that time, I have seen him mature a lot and also consider things more deeply than before, rather than taking them at face value. He has all the values I would like to see in an admin, and I am fully convinced that when he does recieve the mop that he will use it very proffessionally and correctly for the better of the wiki. Good Luck! BG7even 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you for the nomination Yotcmdr, I will accept. Please note that I will be inactive in the following hours because I will be at synagogue, and will be on vacation on Sunday and Monday. :) Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from NonvocalScream (talk)

[change source]

In your opinion, for what is the rollback feature intended?

Support

[change source]
  1. Strong support - As nominator. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Sure. Won't break the wiki. SteveTalk 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support Yes, this user would do good with the bit, however, I have some concerns with activity. I generally would like to see an administrator be slightly more active than Shapiros10 has been in the past few weeks, however, I will not hold that against this user because of the good amount of vandalism reverting and what-not. Also, I would like to see more QD tags, but again, I will not hold this against the user. Good luck. Cheers, Razorflame 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Okay, sure. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - so that he will stop telling me to delete stuff :p....--Cometstyles 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I think he'll do fine with the tools. Juliancolton (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Still manages to get 1k edits with more quality. This user also does a great number of vandalism reverting. Altogether an excellent user that can be admin. MathCool10 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Garden (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support... I don't think there will be anything problematic here. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Does more than just edit Wiki. His use of IRC worries me, but so be it. Soup Dish (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Sorry, just read on CM16's apology page that you are a previously blocked user somewhere, so no thanks Soup Dish (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Soup Dish, I was blocked 9 months ago, was unblocked and am now a trusted member of the English Wikipedia. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support The opposes below are simply off the mark. Activity is not a requirement for adminship. Some of us have busy lives, so we can't spend all day on wiki. It's not like he's inactive, like some admins. This is about trust, and nothing mentioned below is about trust, or suggests he's untrustworthy in any way. Majorly talk 03:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support - Per upcoming co-nom. BG7even 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Duh. He's also nominated other people for Adminship. TurboGolf 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do his nominations of others have to do with his qualifications for adminship? Either way (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They show that I have somewhat of an understanding of the RFA process. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is maturity a "qualification" for adminship? Majorly talk 16:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maturity prevents you from getting carried away easily, making stupid decisions and above all, being calm rather than rash and childish. It's definitely a qualification for adminship. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose per my interactions with Shapiros10, I do not feel confident in his maturity level at the current time. This discussion suggests to me that Shapiros10 would be quick "on the trigger." He asked for a block on a good-faith editor (as the edits clearly show) without discussing the issues with the user first. Additionally, the user name there is far from inappropriate per the user name guidelines. Either way (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, he didn't claim it was inappropriate, only misleading. Synergy 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, what I mean by inappropriate is that it doesn't meet our guidelines (because it is misleading). Notice that at the en guidelines, it puts "misleading names" under the "inappropriate names" category. That's what I was saying. Either way (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very understandable (cross-wiki guidelines). Synergy 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, to be fair, that happened over 1 month ago, which means that his mistake has had time to sink in :). Razorflame 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. This usually is proven by a diff of him using the correct action. Do you have this offhand? Synergy 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just saying in general, not that it could be implemented in this situation. Cheers, Razorflame 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we start opposing people based on just one of their edits, we will not have any sysops at all. Everyone has made mistakes and usually more than once and to pass judgements based on just one of these errors does not truly reflect the person's abilities at all. If EitherWay can find some other errors he may have made then his oppose may be legit but if not, then this is truly just a grudge...--Cometstyles 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to those who have been questioning my "maturity" rationale, I think that this sequence sums up my concerns fairly well: [1] [2] [3]. Either way (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right when I withdrew, I was told I had an inkling of hope from someone else. Right when I withdrew.
    I don't think you've had the stress of going through an RFA in the past year. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - User is not active enough in my opinion (27 edits this week, last 100 edits goes back till Boxing day) and, for the most part, activity is in the wrong place (only 31% mainspace editing with most recent edits focused on a single article.) Only 4 VIPs in 6 months is not showing need for blocking. 3-4 QDs in a week is the same for deletions. --Creol(talk) 00:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Been here a year and has under 2k edits. I like candidates to have much more than this. I think you have what it takes, but I don't think you are ready yet and I definitely know you are not active enough for our needs. Synergy 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, my account was registered in February of 2008 but I did not start actively contributing until the middle of July. I hope this clears that up. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only here for just over 5 months and 700 edits before I became an admin so i really don't see why edit count matters. It may matter on enwiki because RfA is a game there )(survival of the ppl who support the admins) but it shouldn't matter on simplewiki. I generally oppose ppl not on their edit count but more on their attitude. Synergy, would you support Razorflame because he has over 20,000 edits? I wouldn't because even though he has made so much contribution, he is still too desperate to be an admin and thats what I judged him on and with Shappy, he isn't obsessed with becoming an admin and so what if he just has a 1000 edits. it really shouldn't matter ...--Cometstyles 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had maybe 2 months solid experience, and 700 edits exactly. I passed with one neutral. And that was from Creol. Majorly talk 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I was unsure about whether or not the amount of activity that you have would be good for our community, and based upon what Creol and Synergy have said, and coupled with the edit count and activity levels, as well as the minimal qd tagging, I am sorry, but I have to change my support to an oppose. Sorry! Razorflame 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I really didn't want to do this Shappy. You're a great guy and you'll make a perfect admin someday. However, like the above opposes, I'm concerned about your activity level and mainspace count. Once you raise both significantly you'll get a support on your next RfA. I'm really sorry buddy and I hope you don't take this personally. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also going to have to oppose due to wanting adminship too much. We're here for the encyclopedia. Saying that your life is ruined etc etc (on IRC, but still) is too far. Adminship is no big deal man. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate that line, "Adminship is no big deal", it is or we would give it to everyone who asked for it.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take into account that Jimbo said that back in 2003 when wikipedia (all languages) had 600 regular editors, 7000 occasional editors, en:wp had 175K total articles and they had just recently broken the 1 million page hit mark.. back then it wasn't a big deal. Today, its more of a dead horse.. --Creol(talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then personally I think it should be removed from the WP:RFA page header, but that's a discussion for another time.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm also going to have to oppose due to wanting adminship too much." My goodness you're one to talk, Swirlboy. How many times have you talked to me about adminship, begging me for a nomination? Hypocritical or what. Majorly talk 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Either way (talk · contribs) and Creol (talk · contribs). — RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per Creol and Synergy. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose, as he nommed me for adminship. It turned out that he was actually fishing that day to nominate someone, asking other users on IRC whether they wanted to be nommed. MC8 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was over two months ago, and I admit it was a rash decision. Do you have any other reasons why you think I wouldn't be a competent sysop? Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what the fsck is this ?? Why are people opposing him based on his activity levels. I'm the only one that ever judges people based on their activity levels and his is just fine for a student who needs to study and go to school and have a leisure life rather than spending all their time trying to help those that do not appreciate him. Creol, you never support anyone and please if you have nothing good to say about someone, do not VOTE, and Synergy, I did not expect the edit requirement thing from you. For someone who has just been an admin for barely 2 months and decides to go for cratship then deletes a whole lot of stuff without a definite explanation then gets his right removed then leave and return a few days later and ask for his right, you should be the last person to judge someone and EitherWay, opposing someone based on their age is really a low blow which I don't want to see happen on any wiki and please look up immature before you start opposing the wrong candidates and yes there are many immature users on simple and some of them are admins or even crats, but shappy is NOT one of them and Razorflame, I expected you to have changed by now, but you are still treading on the same path as before. I actually expected much more from this community ....sadly i was wrong !!...--Cometstyles 13:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time, I'm opposing on maturity levels, not age. There are plenty of younger editors and, even, admins who display great amounts of maturity. I don't believe Shapiros10 to be one of them. This was evidenced by his "Woe is the world" type withdrawl and then quick un-withdrawl all within a good five minutes of each other earlier today. Either way (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that it was an immature move, I was just told I still had hope. I'm not perfect. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 13:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Unfortunately I don't think I could knowingly support a user who has been blocked. It would take a very long time to gain the trust back totally. Before you say 9 months ago, I would need more time than that. Rfa is about trust and being blocked causes trust issues. -Djsasso (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that I have never been blocked on Simple. I admit that a very long time ago I have made regrettable actions on other projects, but I don't want to be judged against them here. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 14:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know some people believe what happens on one project shouldn't affect another project. Personally I think that is BS when it comes to Rfa. The is exactly the kind of information that should affect Rfa. Just because a person killed someone in the US doesn't mean they should be trusted in Canada because the didn't kill the person in Canada. Yes this is an extreme example but it gets the point across, you do something that shows there may be trust issues, no matter where it is, then its a valid issue here. Just because this is simple doesn't mean you are less likely to be the same person you were at en. Now I don't know your exact age, and it doesn't really matter. But I am sure to you 9 months sounds like a long time ago but to someone who I am guessing is close to twice your age 9 months is a blink of the eye. People rarely change that fast. -Djsasso (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say rarely, that doesn't mean never. WP:AGF. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 14:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately you stepped into a zone (Rfa) where we are asked to not assume good faith but to determine if there is evidence enough that they can be trusted with the tools. No one should assume in Rfa, they should research. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF Should be used EVERYWHERE! And people can change in a little while. He has great edits and a good attitude. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you knew me back then, you would definitely say I have undergone a gigantic change. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we assumed good faith everywhere then we would make everyone an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was in regard to your statement that "people rarely change in 9 months". Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I replying to FastReverter. -Djsasso (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 31% mainspace level shows a shockingly low commitment to mainspace. Also per Creol on the low QD and VIP reports (unfortunately, I cannot actually verify the QD tags, anymore). cassandra (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Oh god, what can I say? I'm so sorry I've been a pain in the ass about this whole thing. No matter how you slice it, RFA is so stressful on anyone. I know this RFA is pretty much done, but SwirlBoy told me there was an inkling of hope. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral - I was leaning towards support but I'll go neutral for this one.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 05:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this add to the request? Neutral? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight, if I may, you comment like I'm wrong when I opposed Mallicner or whatever his name is (I can never get his name right) and when i vote neutral you do it again, do I ever do anything right in your eyes? Neutral votes are allowed here.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All he's doing is stating that this is a tough decision for him to make. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the opposes concerning:

  • Activity level
  • VIP reports
  • QD tags

are all completly ridiculous. Why on earth did you support Malinaccier or Djsasso then? Shapiros10 has been more active since july he said. That's 6 and a half month. The two others have been on for 8 months and they hadn't made as many qd tags or VIP reports as shappy. It's stupid, and people with that reason, I'd like you to change your reason, or not vote (or change to support :D ). If you don't have another reason, and just keep this one, it'll show that you are more immature than Shappy and comments about his maturity on EN have nothing to do with him on simple. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "All the opposes concerning"... Either way (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely amazing. You're calling everyone who is opposing for those reasons stupid and ridiculous, and not only that, immature. not only that, you're going to "prove" that they are more immature than Sebb if they don't support. Christ, I think you've single-handedly done more damage to his RFA than any opposer could ever do. I haven't seen such RFA harassment since R 2. At the very least, you've pretty much moved me to log in to oppose, when I might have otherwise just let it go. cassandra (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a note to all about my inactivity: I have edited every day this month except for the 14th (orchestral concert) and the 6th (post-break homework overload). Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 13:25, 17 January 2009 (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/Shapiros10&oldid=8871447"