Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TCN7JM

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

Closed as unsuccessful. This request is a rather difficult one to close. I see and understand both sides and was really uncertain about how to close this request. However, I'm not much a fan of plain counting, I consider the comments made here. Also, for me all !votes made count as long as they are made before the closing. There might be cases where 'crats intentionally keep requests open for longer. I've closed this as not successful as we're already below 70% of support here. Back the time when Only or even myself became admins here, being three months around was enough. However, that was like ages ago. While WP:CFA has not been changed over that time, the community has changed and may does no longer agree with it. The criteria are only a guideline here. In my point of view the consensus here to grant the mop is not strong enough. I think after some more time you've better chances to pass an RfA on this project. -Barras talk 23:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCN7JM

TCN7JM (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TCN7JM, and I'd like to offer to serve as an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia. One of the main reasons I'm running is to help fight vandalism; there only seem to be four or five active admins, and I've encountered more than one occasion where vandalism from one or more users is just rampant and there's no admin around to block them and delete any nonsense pages they started. I feel I know how simplification works, and I have some experience with it in my contributions. Along with that, I've created just more than 40 articles in my 1150 or so edits. Finally, I have experience in administrating Wikimedia wikis; I have been an administrator on Wikidata since May. All in all, I think I can handle being an administrator on this wiki, and I think I can be trusted with the mop.

Candidate's acceptance: This is a self-nomination. T C N7JM 02:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support no issues, familiar with their work on wikidata and en.wikipedia. --Rs chen 7754 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has clue, no issues, and indeed we will probably need more administrators, especially after end-2013 when we perform another round of desysopping. Chenzw Talk 02:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support no concerns, already has bit on other wiki, no sense not to have another active admin around here. Enfcer (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. He's a trusted and experienced user, should be fine with the mop. Also, there are only a few active admins and there have been many times An admin was needed but I cant get one! (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see anything that would indicate that this user would misuse the tools. Good vandalism fighting and article creation work. While the opposition brings up valid concerns, I'm not convinced that being on less than a year is a problem. Besides, he's already an admin on another project, so I can see that he already has experience. He'll make a great addition to the admin team. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Glaisher [talk] 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no issues in his edits. Surprised that we're having objections to this over "only" being here for six months. I became an admin here after less than three months! Only (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did that during an era where we were too lax in making people admins and subsequently had to strip rights a few times. Would rather that not happen again. (not to say you aren't a good admin) -DJSasso (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of those we did strip from were already admins on other wikis? Few, if any, I would think. I can only actually recall one de-sysop action from that "era" now that I think about it. Only (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Baseball Watcher 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. 1,000 changes in six months is not enough, and what the editor is doing does not require extra powers. I have nothing against the quality of what this editor does. But, for the umpteenth time, being an admin is not only, or even primarily, about dealing with IP vandals. And I do disagree with the idea that this wiki needs more administrators! We have many more admins than we have regular contributors to article content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's only about dealing with vandals, but the wiki gets a lot of vandalism, and I feel I would be talented in helping get rid of it. I wouldn't have replied to this comment, but I am not really picking up what you want me to improve on so that you would support me should I need to run a second time. Is there a certain area you feel I should gain more experience in? T C N7JM 06:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those admins are actually active? --Rs chen 7754 07:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) (see my comment on your talk page Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I would have to agree partially with Macdonald-ross here. I generally prefer to see a year worth of editing from an editor before I say yes. Anything less than that and we tend to get people that get the flag and disappear. We have more than enough active admins at the moment. And quite frankly we are almost down to where we should be for a wiki our size. We are over bloated with admins at the moment so I personally don't feel strongly enough of the need to promote them at this time. The quality of their work is not being questioned however. Just not enough time to see if they should be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My views align with those of Macdonald-ross and DJSasso, except I don't believe someone should not be promoted because 'we have enough admins'. I do believe that the user is not active enough, for a long enough time. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DJSasso on this one. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem quod DJSasso Thrasymedes (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To closing 'crat: note the time on this "vote" as after the "ending" time. Only (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter anyways. He falls below the required 75% even without this !vote. So not likely to be closed as successful. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for adminship actually contradicts itself on the point of 75%. Under counting votes it says "A rough consensus of about 75%" and under A Successful Request says "at least 75%". So without counting the late vote the vote is at ~71% which is in the rough neighborhood. The closing crat has a challenge ahead of them to either count the late vote or not, and in determining rough consensus, since the guideline is in conflict with itself, to use the more strict of 75% or better or the other of about 75% Enfcer (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CfA page is vague on a lot of things. I think some agreements need to be made on it regarding wording and differing opinions on time of activity. T C N7JM 22:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I must say, I'm a bit confused with the opposes over lack of activity. By my math, I'm averaging about 200 changes a month, which is about seven changes a day. I've also been here for six months, which is twice the length that the criteria for adminship (which I'm aware is only a guideline) says is preferred. If people are going to oppose because I haven't been here long enough, then perhaps that page needs a change. T C N7JM 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page mentions a minimum. Like in other words don't even dream of applying before then. Generally most successful (but not all) people who run for admin are here a year or more. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sure isn't implied. T C N7JM 15:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really in the end that's just a page to give people an idea. It still comes down to consensus either way or we would just auto make everyone admins that hit that criteria. But again, my !vote isn't personal. I generally don't support anyone below a year unless they really blow me away. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree funnily enough. I've said that before that if the minimum criteria isn't what the majority believe should be the minimum criteria then it should be re-written. That said I didn't subscribe to the exact figures anyway when making my decision... Kennedy ^(talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this isn't a complaint against your very rational oppose votes. This is me proposing that a page that lists what is believed to be the criteria at which people will have a chance at passing an RfA should be changed if this many people believe something different. T C N7JM 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that an admin would be familiar with the way things are done on this wiki. While a person might meet the criteria, they still have to show the community that they can be trusted, that they know the processes and procedures. I would expect them to show involvement in some of the discussions, eg simple talk, Rfds, GA and VGA promotions, DYK nominations. When a person is showing that level of involvement and understanding, someone, maybe even me, will support the granting of extra tools.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the things you've listed, the only thing I've yet to take part in is the GA/VGA process. I myself have gotten one DYK, and I've taken part in numerous RfDs and controversial discussions, including multiple concerning banning other editors, one of which ended up going crosswiki. T C N7JM 12:36, 2 December 2013 (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.