Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sirkablaam

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.

Sirkablaam

[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page)

Final (2/21/3); ended 08:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Sirkablaam (talk · contribs) – Hello, I am a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and this is my first attempt to become an admin to this wonderful community. I have about 3000 edits to my name and will only continue to grow. After seeing countless acts of vandalism I truly believe I have what it takes to be able to make the decision between banning blocking a user/IP for a certain amount of time and also recognize when true mistakes happen. A problem I have noticed of late is when an a page is tagged for speedy deletion, those tags have been up for a bit of time. Two things I will look for when a page is tagged for deletion is the overall quality of the article and its potential to grow. I feel as though I will be an invaluable asset to Wikipedia and only wish to see it continue to grow and maintain the quality it has now SirkablaamTalk 08:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: My main focus is going to the banning blocking of users that continue to vandalize pages. In my experience of using Huggle and other anti-vandalism tools, I find it annoying when a user has no obvious intention to stop vandalizing after two or three warnings. To a lesser extent, I will put time into deleting pages that should be nonexistent on the wiki.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel as though my best contributions are my anti-vandalism efforts. All aspects of the wiki are important, but monitoring the recent changes queue makes sure we have quality assurance on the site. This keeps Wikipedia as a reputable source of information.
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: Many new or inexperienced users do have issues with moderators and other editors; I'm no exception. I try to be as fair as I can be to the user. Rather than being stubborn, I want to see the conflict in the other person's point of view. If I am correct, I will detail the reasoning to the user. If I am wrong, I will apologize for the mistake and revert back to the user's original edit immediately. I feel as though most of my mistakes have come from a lack of knowledge of certain topics and owing to how bizarre this world may be, some edits that may look like vandalism but in reality be completely correct.
Questions from Someguy1221 (talk · contribs)
4. You say that you "have what it takes to be able to make the decision between banning a user/IP for a certain amount of time and also recognize when true mistakes happen.". Could you explain the difference between a block and a ban, in Wikipedia terms, and describe the appropriate time for either to be applied?
A: I'm sorry for my phrasing of the word "Ban" in my nomination and questions. I am sick and was a little tired when I was typing this last night. I meant to use the word "block/blocking" and I would only ban users in very extreme cases. The best time to block a user would be after multiple warnings in a short amount of time. Most commonly this will be because of vandalism. A short term block should give the result of no future offenses by that user. An exception would be IPs, as many of them are used by shared computers such as schools and libraries (so frequent that I believe most IPs that vandalize a school's page are students at the school that very moment). A ban should only be used in specific cases. A good time to downright ban a user would be a long history of Wikipedia policy violations with more than three blockings. This shows that they truly do not want to contribute to the community and have no intention in changing their ways.
5. You say that when deciding whether to deleted a candidate for speedy deletion, you will look at the "overall quality of the article and its potential to grow." How will you mesh this with the policy on speedy deletion, and how will you handle a disagreement between your standards and policy?
A: I am a very strong supporter of policy whether it be Wikipedia or the Constitution of the United States. Policy should always triumph over opinion. If the article violates WP:SPEEDY very clearly with no room for contest, I will stand firmly by the policy and its criteria to any other admin who may disagree. When that disagreement does occur, I will handle it like I do with everything else. I will listen to the other person's opinion more so than I will discuss my own. I understand that other people care as much about Wikipedia as I do, even if we do disagree, so I would like to be persuaded that I am wrong. If an article does not violate any of the the speedy deletion policy criteria, but yet is still not up to the average quality of most articles, I would hope for a compromise to give time for the article to grow. Many users, especially new and inexperienced ones, create articles and add to it little by little over a period of time, rather than making a page in their sandbox and making it into a new page when it is ready.
Questions from Acather96 (talk · contribs)
6. Having just been through RFA myself recently, I understand that it can be stressful but I wish you well with it. I have two questions that I would like you to answer please. First - please explain your recent activity levels. Whilst you've made lots of edits today (4th January), your last edits were in May 2013 (bar one single edit in November)! I'd be interested to know why this is and if this is a pattern that you think will continue.
A: I will agree that my activity does fluctuate. However, I would think they would be at least steady. For the months of September through November, I was at Basic Training for the United States Navy, so that does explain that time frame. Unfortunately, I was honorably discharged not too long after because of medical reasons, so I do have plenty of time on my hands nowadays to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. In June, my computer broke and I also got a summer job. In between leaving for boot camp in a few months, working, and spending time with my girlfriend, I really had no time to be on a computer and therefore, didn't want to drop money on buying a new one. I don't mean to make Wikipedia sound unimportant, but we all have to volunteer our time to it when it is reasonable. I understand that being an admin will require more of my time, but I would like to have the added responsibility. I see no long periods of inactivity for me in the future.
7. Do you have any experience in content creation? If yes, what articles are you most proud of and if no, why not?
A: No, not really. I would love to be involved with the creation of new content but my knowledge of things sums up to "as wide as an ocean, but the depth of a puddle." In the future, when I have more of an education in specific topics, I am planning on creating new articles and pages; for the meantime, in good conscience, I cannot do that and would prefer to focus on anti-vandalism.
Question from ϢereSpielChequers
8. You said you find it "annoying when a user has no obvious intention to stop vandalizing after two or three warnings." Are you familiar with the blocking policy, and can you give some hypothetical examples of editors you would block without going through the normal four levels of warnings?
A: Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with the blocking policy. And even though there are four levels, it becomes obvious they have no intention in stopping their vandalism or spam after the second warning. As I said above, when I was making my nomination and answering the default questions last night, I absent-mindedly referred to blocking a user as banning a user. For the sake of the question, I am going to assume you mean blocking a user before they receive all four levels of warnings. If they are consistently vandalizing one page, after the third warning, I believe I can justify blocking the user for 24 hours. If they got four warnings, either 48 or 72 hours. If they are attacking two or more pages without correcting their behavior, I think a minimum 48 hour block is fair.


General comments

[edit]

«Contribs» 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Weak support: Not yet ready. Give it a year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support for a good faith editor, but the community understandably feels you aren't ready for adminship at this point, so I suggest that you withdraw the RfA at this time. All you need to do is say that you withdraw, and someone with experience on this page will do the "paperwork." Good luck with your editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Not remotely ready. Overstated edit count (only around 2000); patchy editing history (some in January 2013, then nothing till May 2013, then just one edit in November 2013, then reappears today to mount an RfA); only significant experience seems to be in vandal fighting; not opted in. Sorry, but I need to see broad experience and clue about policies. --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Inconsistent editing pattern.... well, let me clarify that it is consistent: a whackload of edits in Jan 2012, nothing. A whackload of edits in May 2012, followed again by nothing. A whackload of edits in January 2013, followed by (you guessed) nothing. Follow the pattern until Jan 2014. Although I believe the editor is well-meaning, this is a role for someone who has regular time to apply to the project ES&L 09:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose From what I have looked at so far I like the work the candidate does, but the patchy history concerns me. Only logging in and editing every few months is perfectly fine for a regular editor (my history is similar, with even longer gaps) but my main concern would be that if someone had questions about something the candidate did as an administrator they may not get an answer for several months. I greatly encourage you, if you're still interested in becoming an admin, to build up a more consistent edit history and try again in a couple months.Chuy1530 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Not yet. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Misunderstanding of the term "banning" in the nomination statement and answer to question 1. No evidence of AfD contributions. Questionable criteria for deciding when to speedy delete. Lacking content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I would think this is a valuable editor for the project - but in their present role. Admins don't have to be on 24/7 call (some of us do have the chance to be around more than others because of the way we work off wiki), but vast gaps aren't a good thing if only for the reason that admins have to justify their actions at times. (Usually very inconvenient times...). Also, I'm not happy about the 'banning' thing. I'm not saying, "No! Never! Go away!". I would join in suggesting widening the field of activities, and trying to be around more often. Otherwise, just keep up the good work as at present. Peridon (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Seven days of editing during the whole last year? You're kidding, aren't you? Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine it went something like, he came on to do some vandalism reversion, etc., got to some things he couldn't do because he wasn't an admin, and decided to look up what to do to become an admin. I don't really fault the guy for that and I hope he doesn't get discouraged. Chuy1530 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Miniapolis 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First, usually on Wikipedia one does some editing and then, after some time, one may become an admin. To come here and ask to be an admin, and then start editing is putting the horse before the cart. Second, I'd like to quote somebody from another RfA who said "the last thing we need on Wikipedia is another non-content-creating-vandal-fighter admin." Checking out contribs, there's zero content. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing you should change your vote, I voted oppose too. I was just saying there's a plausible reason he could have seen fit to make the request, and it's better to tell him why the request is inappropriate than to act incredulous. Chuy1530 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just did. Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, shouldn't the horse go before the cart? Peridon (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There isn't much recent editing to look at, and what there is indicates that Sirkablaam is not ready to be an admin, and should, as a regular editor, be editing with more care and awareness of Wikipedia processes. This is a mistaken revert, which leaves a confusing automated notice on the user's talkpage. OK. Mistakes can happen. But when the user asked for clarification, what he got was not an apology, but a different explanation, in which he is told that his correct edit was incorrect. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Perhaps not just yet. Keep at it though, and surely the second request will be more successful. :) — foxj 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as not ready at all. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose 2000 edits is not enough these days, I'm afraid. You've also not been active for at least 8 months. Furthermore, you've only created 2 short articles. The good news is, I'll seriously consider supporting if you edit actively for the next six months, rack up another 3000 edits or so, and maybe create 10 or 20 articles. --Jakob (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Per Axl. If your intent to becoming an admin is deleting pages, then you should be active in articles for deletion, it would make a strong understanding of the deletion policy as well as the general notability guidelines, also another intent you have if becoming an admin is blocking, you only have 45 edits towards the Wikipedia namespace, administrative attention pages and noticeboards. You're not currently active on Wikipedia, meaning most likely if you become an admin in the future, you will likely be suspended of the tools due to absence. I don't think your ready for becoming an admin for now. Always keep trying! ///EuroCarGT 16:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose (edit conflict) EuroCarGT, stop EC-ing with me on every RfA. =D xD :P The reason is simple. Not experienced enough. As opposed to King Jakob, it doesn't matter how many edits have you made or how many articles have you created. There must be some area where you work. You say it's vandalism. But 3000(Sorry, 2000) edits with an automated tool are not that reliable in proving your experience. --Ankit Maity (chatter)Contribs 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Try again in around a year when you have more edits and more experience. buffbills7701 18:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Misstated edit count by almost a thousand edits, edit count either way is not enough, answers to questions don't impress. Nomination statement and question 3 answer show misunderstandings of some core policies (question 4 is intended to address part of that, there is no position called "moderator", although admins are the closest equivalent). I would suggest that you withdraw this RfA, and perhaps have better luck in a year or two after you've gained some more edits and experience.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While the answers to questions 4-8 are a bit better, they still show a misunderstanding of the policy (for starters, a (site) ban cannot be enacted unilaterally by an admin). Answer to question 5 is not completely correct because policy reflects consensus, which reflects the opinion of editors. Answer to question 8 still not satisfactory.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Not yet. Rzuwig► 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose User has a rather patchy history of editing, and does not know the difference between a block and a ban. KonveyorBelt 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. This editor has very poor knowledge of policy, has a patchy contributions record, and is nowhere near ready for adminship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Not yet, but potentially in a year or so I could support the user. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Only comes around every few months and, when here, does nothing but mass vandalism reverting. Although there is nothing wrong with that line of editing, it shouldn't be the only thing you do. A quick glance at contribs show little content editing (if any at all), and 2,100 edits over four years is hardly active. User does good work, but I don't think he/she is ready for Administrative-type duties. United States Man (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very longterm contributor, deleted contribs look good, and there is a clean block log, clearly hear to help defend the encyclopaedia. The episodic nature of the editing history doesn't bother me, we are here as volunteers and we should welcome all sorts of editing patterns here, from the soldier who doesn't edit during tours of duty to the farmer who doesn't edit during the sowing and harvesting seasons to the 9-5 office worker who edits in those evenings when there is nothing good on the TV. But there are some answers that I find troubling. We do want admins who know when to go straight to a block, but its nothing to do with whether someone says poop on two different pages or twice on the same page. Rather its about some vandals making comments that are sufficiently objectionable to earn them an instablock. Also I'm of the camp that considers the adding of referenced information to be a basic skill that all admins should have demonstrated. So I'm afraid it is an oppose from me this time, however I'm not seeing anything that couldn't be resolved before a successful run in three to four months time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WereSpielChequers (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral for now while I wait for answers to Q4, Q6 and Q7. Whilst everyone on the project is surely very grateful for your contributions so far, I'm getting the feeling that maybe adminship isn't right for you at the moment. But I am willing to be convinced if I see some very compelling and clueful answers to the above questions. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very longterm contributor, deleted contribs look good, and there is a clean block log, clearly hear to help build an encyclopaedia. The episodic nature of the editing history doesn't bother me, we are here as volunteers and we should welcome all sorts of editing patterns here, from the soldier who doesn't edit during tours of duty to the farmer who doesn't edit during the sowing and harvesting seasons to the 9-5 office worker who edits in those evenings when there is nothing good on the TV. Like Acather I'm parking myself in this section whilst waiting for question answers. I'm of the camp that considers the adding of referenced information to be a basic skill that all admins should have demonstrated, and I also consider that admins should know the policies in the areas where they are active, and be able to only use the tools in those areas where their views accord with policy. Thus far the candidate gives me concerns on both those matters. However I'm not seeing anything that couldn't be resolved before a successful run in three to four months time. ϢereSpielChequers 11:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems like a good candidate, but I feel like I can't support them right now. Sorry. (But I'm not opposing it either.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can see myself supporting this candidate if they keep a good track record of editing for another six months to a year. An oppose is too strong in this case, so I'll stay down here. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 19:06, 4 January 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/Sirkablaam&oldid=1237727371"