Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 3

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.

Contents

[edit] No1lakersfan

Final (10/27/5); Closed by AGK § at 07:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC), per [1]

No1lakersfan (talk · contribs) - I am glad to present Willy (on here known as No1lakersfan) for adminship. He had a previous RfA in December 2006 which was unsuccessful. He has been a little inactive recently due to school, but that shouldn't be a problem because he has more free time now and should be editing more. He has approximately 10,400 edits and near perfect edit summary usage in all of them. He has worked a lot in expanding and helping out baseball-related articles (which is where I first encountered him), and tagged and assessed over 1000 articles for the WP:MILHIST drive last year. He occasionally will revert vandalism and report users to AIV if need be. His edits are very namespace balanced: he has over 7000 to the mainspace, almost 600 to the Wikipedia space, about 725 in the Template space, and about 140 in the Image namespace. I think know if we give him the mop, he will use it well to help out our encyclopedia, and will be a definite plus (it seems we almost always have a backlog at CAT:AB or CAT:CSD). All in all, I think Willy is overdue for the mop and will make a fine administrator.   jj137 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I do accept this nomination to become an admin for the English Wikipedia. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to become involved with vandalism patrols, to ensure that Wikipedia can maintain accuracy and credibility. I will also help out whenever necessary with potential backlogs such as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or in other areas that require administrative attention. I intend to make sure that my actions as an administrator are approved by all, so that I do not create edit wars or that jeopardize my capabilities as an administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As part of the Virginia Highways Wikiproject, I have written or made substantial revisions to many articles, such as Virginia State Route 143 and Virginia State Route 156. I have also worked with the U.S. Roads Wikiproject to devise an exit list for Interstate 64 in Virginia, as well as modify and revise exit lists for other interstates traversing through Virginia. I feel that these are significant contributions to the encyclopedia, as the articles were weak or missing certain pieces of information that I was able to add. The addition of such content also helps bring these articles up to the standards of the Wikiprojects that the pages are associated with. Finally, I believe that Woodside High School (Newport News) is one of my best creations, since I attended this school, and have access to resources to ensure that the information in this article is factual, and meets the WP:NPOV standards.
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: Recently, when working with vandalism patrols, I have ended up reverting pages by mistake. The user making the edit pointed this out to me, and I promptly apologized and made sure that their edit was restored. I also, by mistake, warned a user that did not commit vandalism. I explained my actions and apologized. I feel that by not attempting to start a fight, and by being civil, I will not make problems worse, and solutions can be easily found.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Malinaccier, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

4. What's the difference between a block and a ban?
A. From what I have seen when working with vandalism patrols, a block is a temporary punishment for committing trouble with Wikipedia. These are only meant to last for a few hours, or a week or two at the most. Bans are permanent, in that they would be issued for someone that continues to do wrong even after being blocked once or twice. This is a more serious issue and should only be done if there is nothing else that would control the user. It is also not recommended that IP addresses get banned, unless there is a very serous problem, since more than one person may use one.

Blocks are designed to help prevent continued damaging edits to Wikipedia. They are generally administered to users that continuously edit articles in a defamatory way (i.e. removal of content). If after being blocked several times the user continues to do harm to the encyclopedia they will then be banned from editing, in which they are permanently forbidden from editing articles. The same rules apply to anonymous IP editors, though it is trickier to ban an IP address since many users can use it.

5. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. POV forking is the deliberate creation of several different articles that are related to the same subject. Generally they are used to bypass the rules of Neutral Point Of View, and so that there are several different perspectives on the subject. This is wrong on all counts, because not only should there be only one main article per subject, but each article that appears in Wikipedia needs to have a neutral, unbiased tone.
If ever I came across something like this, I would take what I could out of each article, and combine it into the main article. I would also find the users involved with the forking and contact them about what they were doing and let them know why it is wrong. This would be their warning, and if it happens again they risk being blocked.
6. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
A: I think that Ignoring All Rules is not even a rule, because why would there be rules if we are not supposed to follow them? I feel that by not following the rules would create mass chaos, and the content on Wikipedia would never be credible. The rules help keep the articles unbiased, and work to ensure that they will at some point become of quality that would appear in a print encyclopedia. The rules can also be interpreted as guidelines for writing articles, and can help out greatly when one needs help with editing.
Ignoring all rules can be useful for new users, in that they do not have to go through a training process just to make edits to the encyclopedia. This encourages anyone and everyone to contribute to the encyclopedia to help it evolve into a better reference resource for everyone. However, the written rules serve as guidelines as to how to make edits to Wikipedia.
The snowball clause means that if there is no chance of a bad article passing AfD or some similar process, in that people would vote to keep it, then there is no reason to run it through that process. I feel that there are times that this does apply, such as if someone started an article just by copying content from another web site. However, if it is hard for any one user to determine if the article could be rewritten or reconstructed so that it would meet the standards of Wikipedia, then there is reason to apply the process to it, so that users can voice their opinion on what further actions should be taken.
7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?
A: If the duties of adminship were to start giving me great stress, I would try and step back for a minute, and catch my breath. I will not let my actions display the stress I am under. If I feel that I cannot handle a certain stressful situation I will seek help from another administrator, to help take some of the burden off the situation. I will take my own interventions to prevent doing anything stupid, so that I do not have to face later questioning or possible interventions for such actions. There is no need to bring unwanted attention to me, nor Wikipedia if I feel that something is starting to take control of me.
Additional question from Malinaccier Public (talk)
8. Label each statement as either having a neutral point of view or not:
  • Some believe that cells have a living memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. neutral
  • Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as... neutral
  • Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today. neutral
  • Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist. neutral
  • Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children. non-neutral
  • Abortion has been the subject of much controversy; many support the movement calling it pro-choice, and others oppose it based on the killing of unborn children... neutral
9. What are the general requirements for recieving checkuser rights? Who may grant checkuser?
A. Checkuser is generally an administrative power only given to administrators. This tool is only given to select users in order to fight sockpuppetry. This is a very powerful tool that if not used properly would jeopardize the privacy of the users that are involved. These types of powers are delegated through the bureaucrats, or the top-level administrators for the site in question.

Only stewards of Wikimedia and elected users of local projects are granted the rights to checkuser. They must also be at least 18 years old and willing to submit identifiable information to Wikimedia before being granted the rights. A steward must grant permission in order to use a checkuser on someone.

Questions from Majorly

10. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. I do not think that any irrelevant questions are stupid.

11. Why do you think that?

A. I believe that the questions asked are designed to give the evaluators a way to further examine the candidate and determine if they are ready for the position they are going up for.

12. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I do not play the violin, but with my limited knowledge I vow that I will not make any content-based edits to the Violin article.

Questions from Stifle

13. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be validly used on Wikipedia?

A. A non-free photograph of a living person may not be used on Wikipedia unless there is a valid fair-use claim asserted for the photo, and there is not a free equivalent available someplace else.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2 Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 3

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/No1lakersfan before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Dlohcierekim 03:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, seems level-headed enough, and no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
  3. Support as nom.   jj137 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per lanki...--Camaeron (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    Support per nom. A little concerned about answer to 7 though. Witholding your true feelings about a subject can sometimes be a hindrance, by expressing yourself you may get a little further. Rudget (?) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Meets my standards. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Good user. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. I think the answers to questions are mostly fine. Try not to use the word "punishment" when referring to blocks. Also, per nom. Avruch T 21:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks good. RC-0722 communicator/kills 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support This user has steadily matured through several years of consistent WP participation. He has been a good team player with our efforts in WikiProject Virginia articles. He has also made himself available to mentor new users, something many of us who are admins do not take the time (or perhaps have the patience) to do. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support This user understands the wiki project. He is here for the right reasons and is an exclellent editor. It is clear he will make a great admin.Thright (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Excellent editor. However, a few issues: Wikispace contributions confined mostly to Wikiproject spaces for editing. Minimal activity at WP:XfD, and other admin related areas. Candidate wants to work at WP:CSD, but has maybe tagged less than 3-4 articles as such. Sorry, I must oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    Also, per questions 4 and 6, I feel the user has a flimsy/tenuous grasp of some wiki-policy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Per Wisdom89 (excuse my lack of a good reason) Tiptoety talk 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose. Other than participating in Wikiprojects, the candidate hasn't really addressed the issues brought up in the previous RfA.--Tree Biting Conspiracy ♣§♠ !?! 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose More activity in the XfD areas and your next Rfa might be successful. ArcAngel (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I feel the user doesn't have enough experience here to handle the tools properly. Not that I feel he/she would misuse them, but I don't think this user is ready for them just quite yet. Dustitalk to me 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. oppose per answers to 6 and 8, and other concerns raised here. Candidate's failings appear to be primarily lack of experience and knowledge of policy, so are likely correctible. Argyriou (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose the answer to Q8,first item, is by itself enough to show the candidate does not understand NPOV. The answer to q9 shows in addition that he does not understand how checkuser is granted. DGG (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - the answers to the questions demonstrate a limited knowledge of some of wikipedia's core policies and practices (in particular q4, q8 and q9). Rami R 10:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Err, after reading Majorly's questions above I guess it should be expanded upon why this is a problem:
    The issue here (as far as I care) isn't so much the limited knowledge, but rather that you answered without researching first. There are many polices and guidelines, and it's not really feasible to remember them all. So the important thing isn't so much knowing the policy, as it is researching the policy before acting. An ignorant administrator who acts on his instincts can potentially cause a lot of damage. If you'll research the policies, and re-answer the questions, I'll change my vote. Rami R 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have researched the questions to the best of my ability, and those are the answers that I have found. If you could explain why they are not correct I would greatly appreciate it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Willy, the correct answers lie at WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goal, WP:BAN, the essays WP:IAR? and WP:UIAR, WP:AWW, m:CheckUser policy#Access to checkuser, and m:Stewards. If you review those and still don't see how your answers differ from how some of the opposers would like to see the questions answered, say so, and maybe someone will walk you through it a little more. WODUP (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. A good Wikipedian, and I thank him for his service to the encyclopedia, but I don't think that he should be a sysop just yet. Argyriou is right that he could gain more knowledge and experience related to performing administrative tasks, but it concerns me that after researching the answers to some of the optional questions, those are the best answers that he could give. Yes, some of the answers are hidden just a little deeper than others, but the big green box 1/6 of the way down the page at WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goal isn't terribly deep, and I would expect any administrator candidate with a shot at achieving consensus to know this. WODUP (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per WODUP. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Reluctant Oppose. This user seems to be headed in the right direction and mean well. However, sysops, in my opinion, need to holdt themselves to higher standards of wikipedia policy and guideline adherence, as they are the ones entrusted with upholding said policies and guidelines. I am afraid that I cannot support, at this juncture, entrusting someone with the flamethrower portion of the "mop-and-flamethrower" if they are not cognizant of the various policies and guidelines. The above questions are like an open-book test; the answers are all on wiki, and I would hope that a sysop, when in doubt (and we are all human) would be able to check the appropriate policy and interpret it reasonably before implementing a protective measure. Hopefully a little more time on-wiki handling the janitorial issues will round out this editors education. Sorry, and good luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. weak oppose per WisdomBalloonman (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Per WODUP. Rudget. 11:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Per Wodup. NHRHS2010 12:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Much inconsistency in answering of questions. Seems you have an answer then you change it. Familiarization with policies and guidelines is essenstial to gaining trust  — master sonT - C 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    The reasoning for the changing of answers is due to the fact that a certain user was not satisfied with them and felt that they should be changed. They felt that I should rewrite my answer if I was to get any more support.
    That...kind of misses the whole point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - Per Rami R and WODUP. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per WODUP. Joe 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per answers to Question 8. Calling Crick & Watson's interpretation as "erroneous" is not neutral; nor is calling Darwin's theory the "most widely accepted scientific explanation," unless the statement is cited and says who thinks it's so widely accepted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose too many niggly worries about this user. Recommend he withdraws his nom and runs again in some months' time, having addressed them. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Very weak on questions of policy. Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Avraham and WODUP. This user's answers to the questions are a little weak; I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. GlassCobra 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per the answers given. Maybe think about admin coaching GtstrickyTalk or C 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have already tried admin coaching, and the person that coached me said they thought I was ready for becoming an admin, and when I felt I was ready they said they would be able to nominate me. You may also wish to talk to the person that nominated me, as that person was the one who was my admin coach. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. While there is no evidence of malevolence or bad faith in No1lakersfan, I feel that in order to make the subjective decisions required of a (useful) admin, a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy is de rigueur. I am typically not an "editcountitis" sort of Wikipedian, but in this case 10,000+ edits doesn't seem to have delivered a strong policy background. The answers to the questions are rather weak (and, in a few cases, initially wrong). Statements such as "I intend to make sure that my actions as an administrator are approved by all" are curious. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free content policy. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose: As anothers. Paweł Alden or my talk page 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose I am usually reluctant to oppose so as not to discourage, and I was going to vote Neutral to avoid pile-on on the basis of what I see as a weak understanding of policy; however, when I see that this is not a first RfA, sorry, I don't think you are ready to have the tools yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral for now, but I'm tending towards a support based on the fact that he seems trustworthy and has helped the project along so far and abuse of the tools by him is unlikely. Once I see the answers to the questions I'll make up my final decision. Poeloq (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC). Sorry but the answers didn't convince me that you fully understand the policies questioned, but I still believe that you would not make a terrible admin. Therefor I remain neutral and wish you good luck, Poeloq (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry. But the oppose section has a point, and I therefore cannot support. Best of luck anyway, Malinaccier Public (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Withholding till questions are answered. Malinaccier Public (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Answers to questions do nothing to alleviate my concerns. Try getting an admin coach to develop knowledge of policy. Malinaccier (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have gone through an admin coaching program User:No1lakersfan/Admin Coaching, and the admin that adopted me said that they felt I was ready to be an admin. I was not sure if I was ready, but I took their advice. You may wish to contact this person to discuss how they can improve their coaching system. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - slightly vague answers, I felt. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral pending answer to my question. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Not-piling-on-Neutral - This user does mean well, but the answers to your questions really do scare me. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - has his heart in the right place, but the answers show lack of information. I'll surely support the next time. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (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.