Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Supdiop

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

Supdiop

Final (1/13/4); ended 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC) per WP:SNOW —^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Supdiop (talk · contribs) – I started editing wikipedia on 2 March 2015. I nominated new articles for speedy deletion at first and later did a lot of anti-vandalism work. I also participated in AFC. I am requesting adminship because I want to extend my contributions to other important areas of wikipedia. I have been here for 6 months and I got used to the wikipedia culture. I have experience in dealing with vandals and new editors. I created a few articles, mostly geography related. I like to help new editors by making them understand the wikipedia policies. Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: I want to mainly work in AIV, UAA, RFP and RFPP. I will rewiew the articles which are tagged for speedy deletion and delete them if they meet the criteria. I patrol recent changes; I will take appropriate action against vandals. I take BLP and copyright violations very seriously and I will warn the violator, if they continue to violate, I will block them to stop further disruption.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I did a lot of anti-vandalism work, I consider that to be my best contribution. I created 8 articles. I put a lot of effort in creating Moula Ali hill article because its history was different in different sources. I had great difficulty in putting all the things together to make it understanble by the reader. I reviewed many drafts in AFC and helped the creators to make it acceptable.

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: Yes, I first edited as an ip before creating this account. My edits were reverted by several editors, I had no idea why this was happening. I thought my edits were being reverted because I am editing as an ip, so I created this account and edited from this account. Again my edits were reverted but this time I got a message on my talk page that I was edit warring. After discussing with the editors on article talk page, I understood that my source was not reliable. I don't like to go into conflicts. Even if I ever go into a conflict, I will try to resolve it with discussion.

Additional questions from Ian.thomson

4. Define your understanding of what constitutes edit warring.

A:Edit warring occurs when two or more editors revert to their own preferred version of a page (several times). If editor reverts more than three times in the same page within 24 hours, they will be blocked from editing, but they can also be blocked if they don't violate 3RR.

5. You said you created eight articles. What are they?

A:1.Paraspori 2.Harda twin train derailment 3.Ramanthapur Lake 4.Moula Ali hill 5.Kapra Lake 6.Safilguda Lake 7.List of ISRO missions 8.Ramakrishnapuram Lake 9.ECIL Bus Station

I thought I created 8 articles.

Additional question from Berean Hunter

6. In this edit summary, you explain that you are not a new editor. What other accounts have you edited under? Please justify the "not new" qualifier as an account from March would certainly be new to most editors.

A:I consider editors with less than few hundred edits and 1 or 2 months of experience as new editors. As I have more than 5500 edits and I am more than 6 months old, I don't consider myself as a new editor. Everybody has their own definition of new, I don't think I will be considered as a new editor. As I mentioned before, I edited as an ip just before creating this account. I never edited wikipedia before that.

Additional questions from TheMagikCow

7. With this edit, you ask a person to not revert your edits, you will be blocked. Do you feel that not showing details, context or policies that may be relevant is acceptable conduct? TheMagikCow (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A:That person knows very well why they could be blocked. I felt no need to explain why they could be blocked. I could have left a edit warring notice but I didn't.

8. Given that you intend to fight vandalism, what is the difference between a ban and a block? TheMagikCow (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A:A block is removal of editing privileges technically from the user but ban is authoritatively removing editing privilages. Users can edit even after they are banned from editing but blocked editors can't.

Additional questions from Ian.thomson

9. You have three editors on a page, who we'll call A, B, and C. A has reverted to his preferred version 3 times, and has not cited any policies or guidelines for doing so. B has reverted A once, citing an essay that not only addresses A's edit, but represents community consensus. C has also reverted A twice, likewise citing the same essay. Which, if any, of these editors is edit warring? If none are edit warring, who has come closest to doing so?

A: A and C edit warred. Unless B is a sock of C, B has not edit warred.

10. (Obviously Hhypothetical): A WP:TEND WP:SPA has filed a WP:AIV report because Jimbo Wales called the WP:SPA a "fucking dumbass" in a message which the SPA reverted four times. What action do you take, if any?

A:I will not take any action on Jimbo Wales because it is not vandalism. I will block the SPA, duration depends on other edits.

Additional question from Softlavender

11. What is your understanding of WP:NOTNOW?

A.

Additional question from Ayub407

12. What is your understanding of assumption of good faith?

A:

Additional questions from ToonLucas22

13. What is your understanding of WP:INVOLVED?

A:

14. When do you think should IP addresses be blocked indefinitely?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Supdiop: Supdiop (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Supdiop can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Moral support - The candidate nade about 6,000 edits (including 2,000 semi-automated) and has been around for a little more than half a year. NOTNOW clearly does not apply. Although the tenure may be short, we have had candidates promoted to admin with such an edit count, and back in the old days six or seven months was enough to pass RfA, there are still lots of admins around from those days. A candidate with this tenure is entitled to get serious feed-back, evaluating his content creation, AfD participation, noticeboard behavior, reports made, saying something about his suitability for adminship. The idea is to lead the (possibly failing) candidate in the right direction, to improve his contribution to Wikipedia. I suggest the "oppose" !voters amend their rationales. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   Seconded --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I really dont like to oppose but I really cant take seriously a candidate with so short of a term of experience on Wikipedia. Is this really happening? Dont hit me, this oppose vote is mild compared to what others would write, but I suspect this RFA will close soon. —Soap— 11:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   When you're bleeding, do you peel off your bandages and say "stick another knife in me!" Thats what it seems like youre doing. —Soap— 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

2. WP:NOTNOW- eight months is not really long enough tenure. Reyk _YO! 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   See my contributions. My account's age doesn't determine my ability to do admin work. Supdiop (T🔹C) 12:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   But it is an indication of knowledge of policy and experience. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   I would say that eight months is more than enough to understand what adminship is. And in my opinion, it is also more than enough time for someone to demonstrate their suitability for adminship. This would seem to be less a case of WP:NOTNOW, and more a case of WP:NOTNOTNOW. Let's give Supdiop's contributions the serious attention that they deserve. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

3. WP:NOTNOW and not anytime soon. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
4. WP:NOTNOW and feel this should be a WP:SNOW. Too few edits and too short a time on WP. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
5. WP:NOTNOW try to gain experience and work more and gain community trust. I suggest working on reverting vandalism and helping with the backlog --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
6. As per WP:NOTNOW, 8 months is not enough for this user to get the mop. Ayub407^talk 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Alright, this user indeed made 6000+ edits with in 8 months, compared to me where I made 2400+ edits in 2 years so I feel WP:NOTNOW does not apply. But I'm still opposing because of the way how he sent the message to a well experienced user, per this link [1] shows that the user does not assume good faith which is important for the community. Ayub407^talk 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Clearly lacks competence. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Adding my opposition here, just so the nominee gets the message that he or she is not ready yet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
9. (edit conflict)Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, but I really don't want you to feel I'm piling it on. --Rubbish computer 14:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Strongest oppose per possible hat collecting and ownership. Fortunately, you're not getting the block button too easily. Esquivalience ^t 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

    WP:AGF --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

11. Oppose: so I won't be adding another unliked "not now" I shall just echo Softlavender and say ANDNOTANYTIMESOON. Fylbecatulous talk 15:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. A look at his edits today proves to me he's not even close to ready. Needs to focus on actually editing for a while. Wizardman 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
13. OPPOSE As much as I'd like to assume good faith, I see hat collecting, too. 8 months is too short...12 minimum, 18 would be better. Also...9 created articles is small beans. Turn some articles into GAs and FAs. Address those shortcomings, then I'll reconsider my opposition. Good luck! JackTheVicar (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't know what the wiki is coming to if candidates with 6k edits and almost a year over seven months of experience are being shot down with the dreaded blue NOTNOW. Someone with this level of experience deserves a serious evaluation of their edits. So, on one hand most of the UAA and AIV edits I spotchecked seem reasonable. Content creation could be better, but is not bad (there's even a DYK). On the other hand, repeatedly insisting on running when this is clearly going to fail shows bad judgement (as does leaving notes like this). RFA can be stressful, though, so perhaps it's a one-off incident. This is concerning, as it shows a lack of understanding of either what vandalism is or what the purpose of AIV is. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
2. I have to second Jakec's disagreement with using one's account age to apply WP:NOTNOW, though I think it's applicable when it comes to behavior (but that could apply to editors who have been here since the beginning). I was even going to leave this alone until I saw the edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Discuss more, like you did at Brahma Kumari because that's how you are going to learn how consensus is achieved and deepen your understanding of policies. You have made only 64 edits to article talk pages, and most of the edits in the user talk is through TW or are notifications. Edit in contentious areas if you want to. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Supdiop's account is about as old as mine was, and has more edits than I did, when I became an admin (2005) so NOTNOW is not really appropriate. However, I'm not convinced they are ready for adminship from a behavioural point of view. Particularly the answer to question 7 "That person knows very well why they could be blocked. I felt no need to explain why they could be blocked. I could have left a edit warring notice but I didn't." is nearly enough on it's own for me to oppose (assuming good faith and treating other editors with respect is a key requirement for admins in my opinion). I haven't looked in detail at other things, as given there are opposes being made for other good reasons and the number of opposes in general I don't think there is a chance of succeeding at this point, so this vote is neutral rather than oppose at this point. However, if the voting sways to around 50/50 or better, please ping me and I will evaluate further. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment. It would be better if you withdraw nomination, otherwise this would create problems for your second nomination. You have a clean block log. Your account needs to be two years old.--112.79.36.220 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "Your account needs to be two years old" - There is no definite time of editing presence required for RfA. However, current consensus is that almost all !voters frown upon candidates with only six months tenure. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think citing NOTNOW is a bit patronising to someone who clearly knows what they're doing. I've seen Supdiop around the site a few times making only positive contributions, but I would recommend that they withdraw as things clearly aren't going to go well for them at RfA at this point in time. I think Softlavender's behaviour has been poor: if Supdiop wants to transclude an RfA, let them. Threatening them with blocks (User talk:Supdiop#Your RfA) is aggressive and unnecessary; they're not breaking any rules by transcluding the RfA ("There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account") and you're both engaging in edit warring. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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.