Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rgoodermote

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] Rgoodermote

Final (8/23/6); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rgoodermote (talk · contribs) - Rgoodermote is a very helpful Wikipedian, and is one of the kindest I've come across. My friends were getting in trouble for using Wikipedia as a MySpace-type thing, and when Rgoodermote came across them, he wasn't threatening at all, or being even in the slightest sense malicious. He was very courteous and kind, and reminded them that Wikipedia isn't to be used as that (see User talk:Cuyler91093/Archive 3#User:Awesome93 for his first post to me). Since then, he's also fought vandalism, warned users to not vandalize pages, and helped many new users get started (see Special:Contributions/Rgoodermote for the complete list of contributions). He has adopted my personal friend, User:13aquamarine as well. I believe that Rgoodermote will be a great administrator because he will then be able to have the tools to more efficiently get rid of vandalism, and will have the power to block or ban users that consistently vandalize pages. Also, his friendliness is one that you see maybe once or twice (if ever) in your lifetime. I'm proud to have run across Rgoodermote, and I hope you support him in his journey to administratorship. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After a long bit of thought I have found what I will say.I Rgoodermote am intent on making a difference, Wikipedia is a project on a grand scale that is seen by many and I intend on keeping it clean. I have spent time thinking about becoming an administrator and what I would do if I was an administrator. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia which main goal is to have comprehensible, reliable and clean articles. My goal is to keep to the standards of Wikipedia and fight back those who try to destroy Wikipedia. But I do not feel the need to call all of those on Wikipedia vandals. I believe that the only way to help new users to turn is to show kindness and to be a little lax. But become stern when necessary. I intend on being a kind administrator who intends on listening to the user and trying to divert the user's energy to a more constructive facet instead of using the block function for every tiny thing. Rgoodermote  19:38, 6 January 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: There are various things I would like to do, but I am really interested in anti-vandalism activities. I intend on clearing out backlogs related to WP:AIV and Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention and the other various pages that tend to get backlogged. In the longterm though I will be using the tools to continue my personal fight against the continued threat of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the tools can be used to speed up how I fight vandalism and make it easier to help out new users in their attempts to join the project and learn how to edit productively. In the end I want stop vandalism, help new users of Wikipedia and help the community as a whole.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I spend my time fighting vandalism so I have really never made articles and I have no idea what my best edits are. That I think though is my greatest contribution, why you ask is fighting vandalism my greatest contribution you may ask. It is important and a necessity to Wikipedia. I keep the project clean of filth and test edits while at the same time keeping the site accurate and proper. In turn this keeps the well meaning editors from deviating away from the articles point and keeps the article grow into a good article and maybe a featured article.
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: I have been in conflicts before, when I first joined Wikipedia I was like any new editor I tested out Wikipedia and the editing process. I made several test edits See Here. As well during my time here as an anti-vandal editor I have made mistake reverts during days with high amounts of vandalism. Only three times have I ever miscalled all three times I have had small discussions with the user, only two times did I get almost get in trouble and out of the three only one has been called an edit war (stopped before breaching 3RR as I did not want to be blocked). In all incidents I have seen their views and then admitted to my mistakes and asked for forgiveness while at the same time extending the olive branch of friendship. I do not intend on getting into any conflicts and if I do I will always ask for a third parties opinion on the matter.

Questions from Avruch

1. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A ban is the permanent or tempoary removal of a person from website or location. To ban means they can not view. But on Wikipedia a person can not be banned because it would in turn possibly hurt other people. This goes double for Anon blocks. A block is the removal of ones ability to something. I.E. to bloc ones movement. This means that on Wikipedia you are still able to slow or stop an action with any collatoral damage.

2. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

If that were the case I would simply ask a third party for their opinion. It is better to ask some one who is neutral than to fight it out.

3. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

This is again one of those things I need to ask some one else for help with. If I feel that it violates any guidelines on WIkipedia it would probably be best ask some one neutral as to make sure that any decision I come to does not violate any guidelines or insights a conflict.

4. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

WP:NPOV, due to this policy I will not answer any thing that has to do with an opnion. Wikipedia is not a place to be advertise your opinion, it is a place of fair an neutral information.


Question from Trusilver

Q. I see that you have you done a lot of work with recent changes patrolling and antivandalism. Under what circumstances would you feel it appropriate to block a user who has not yet been given a "final warning?"

This is an interesting question but I feel it to be appropriate that the user is not an anon should have at least Warning 3 and 4 before a block and this includes diff as for the reason behind why there was skip. This ensures that the user is fully aware of their actions (the diff makes it easier for for the admin to figure out the situation), the other reason is established the user continues to show activities that go against the project especially after release from a block. As for an anon I would not block an anon if it lacked levels 2,3 and 4 with the exception of recent release from block. This is to ensure that if it is a shared network all parties currently on Wikipedia know why they can not edit and as well tells the vandal that it is not alright to be doing what they are doing and what will happen if they continue. As for the difference behind my treatment changes with anons an users with accounts. If you block a user with an account there is not that much for colateral damage but if you do the same for an anon you have the chance of blocking innocent users who want to help. So by making it clear to the anon their actions are bad you do not run the risk of a misunderstanding. But after all that I believe the only time. The basic times to block a user without warning is if they threaten suicide, threaten a school or other government facuilty, threaten to bring a lawsuit against Wikipedia or a user or users and if the person is someone like JB or Willy (longterm vandals).


A yes/no question from Stwalkerster

Q. Is your password secure?
A.9+ characters long, caps used, normal lettering used, symbols used, numbers used. I would say yeah it is extremely secure.
I only wanted a yes or a no - to ensure it was kept secure :P Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought a simple yes or no would leave little the imagination, you can think your password is secure but you never really know. It took me almost 3 weeks to brute force my password and after that I figured with the system Wikipedia has to detect bot attempts (the generated word that occurrs on bad password)that it would be near impossible to break. Rgoodermote  20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. You have done a lot of things that I like in an admin. Mostly your admin-related tasks. If you could use the edit summary box more, go to your Special:Preferences Editing tab and check the last box, it will tell you when you haven't used it. I also suggest more article writing, but otherwise, very good. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Article writing is so not necessary for adminship. Speaking as an admin (I've been one for over 18 months), I almost never deal with articles. Unless he wants to specialize in BLP or other article-related tasks, he doesn't need article experience. In writing my nearly 80 articles to date, I've never needed to use my tools. It's all where you work. I usually only deal with WP:TFD, so my admin abilities are never used in editorial disputes. Opposing a mainly anti-vandalism user on the grounds of not writing articles is like denying someone a boating license because they can't ride a bike. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps it's a little more like denying someone a driving licence because they haven't passed a driving test? Think about it ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Or more like denying someone a driving license for a car because they haven't passed a driving test for a bike. Dorfklatsch 10:52, January 7, 2008 On second thought, that analogy doesn't work very well. Let's settle for the compromise that some think the "admin license" should be handed out only to users who have demonstrated skills in a wide and well-rounded range of areas, while others have no problem with handing the sysop bit to specialists. Dorfklatsch 11:30, January 7, 2008
  3. Support, per RyanGerbil10 above me. Rgoodermote would be great for administratorship, and with some training and help from other admins, he could become one of the best. One job of administrators is to fight vandalism, and Rgoodermote is committed to fighting vandalism. I believe that giving him better tools to properly do his job would be better for all of Wikipedia. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Very very weak support, bordering on moral support. Although I have no problem with specialists having the sysop bit, I also agree with Malleus fatuorum in the oppose section that basic writing skills should be demonstrated so that people (=we) can trust you to correctly evaluate many of the issues you would be confronted with as an admin. Being an admin regularly entails much more than just setting a block for blatant vandalism (or so I'm being told). Write an article or five, and people will be much more inclined to trust in your capabilities to correctly use the sysop tools. Dorfklatsch 11:34, January 7, 2008
  5. Support, writing a great article is desirable, but it won't help you fight vandals. Likewise, you don't need to know how to write a great article to put vandals to the sword. Lankiveil (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
  6. Moral Support. I substantially agree with RyanGerbil10 that article-writing per se is not crucial for adminship, as the two things are more or less entirely unrelated; vandal-fighting is far more likely to give rise to a regular need for the tools. However, I think that an admin who focuses on maintenance needs, at the very least, to have some experience of XfD or FAC discussions, or something else which involves discussion and a more sophisticated and subtle understanding of policy. The mechanical, repetitive nature of vandal-fighting means that it isn't enough, on its own, to allow me to determine whether this candidate has the good judgment and discernment to be a capable administrator. Edits like this show that the candidate is on the right track and that he has some understanding of WP:RS and other policies and guidelines relating to content; however, I urge him to get more involved in XfD and policy discussions, or in collaborative improvement of content. It doesn't have to be article-writing, as I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea; how about helping out with the backlog of unwikified articles, working on portals, or becoming a good article reviewer? Any of these things, along with some participation in XfD debates, would allow me to judge whether the candidate has the requisite grasp of subtleties to make a good admin. If he acts on these suggestions, I will give him my full support at his next RfA. WaltonOne 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support My only concern are the candidate's use of edit summaries. On Wikipedia, communication with every edit is extremely important, no matter how insignificant or minor an edit seems. Edit summaries make sure everyone who might contribute to a particular article or project is on the same page. I also strongly encourage him to get involved with WP:AFD discussions. Other than that he meets all of my standards and I have no doubts that Rgoodermote will make a great use of the tools. Best of luck to you, cheers! Mr Senseless (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    PS: As someone who wants to work with maintenance and vandal fighting, holding his lower count of main-space edits against him is just not fair. We need sysops who will perform those types of tasks just as much as we need ones who only work in improving or writing articles, and Rgoodermote has shown dedication and trustworthiness in relation to the project.
  8. Good work against vandals. Acalamari 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. I'm concerned with lack of edit summary usage (only 46% on major edits) and some parts of your editing: only ten edits to the template namespace, and very little article writing experience. Sorry.   jj137 ♠ 22:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment, yeah I know and I admit I have been concerned about that. As of lately the summery box has become my best friend. Rgoodermote  23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, so I think it's important that every admin has solid article writing experience, if for no other reason than to understand the problems that regular editors face when trying to develop articles. I'd probably have supported if I'd seen more evidence of doing the basics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose Good vandal fighting, but lack of mainspace editing. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Vandal fighting is important, but so is building the project. Jmlk17 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose with regrets. You're doing great work here, but I'm disturbed by the lack of article-writing experience. A bit of encyclopedia-building work will provide useful insights on how editors construct articles, approach issues and interact with other editors. Majoreditor (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Will make a good admin after some more article writing experience. Epbr123 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Needs more writing experience. Will make an excellent admin soon. The Transhumanist 12:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - per Jmlk17. Rudget. 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - lack of mainspace edits is not really a concern for me, however is answers to Avruch's questions (#1 is basically wrong, while #2-4 seem to indicate a lack of confidence in his own discretion as an admin) are. I think he needs a little more experience, or at least a little more confidence, but seems like a likely strong future candidate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per aboves. More time is needed. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Sarcasticidealist above (answers to Avruch's questions demonstrate a lack of understanding and self-confidence). Also, the lack of article writing bothers me. With more time and experience I feel that this editor would make a good administrator. --BelovedFreak 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose - My main concern is simply a few of your answers, as well as your edit summary usage. A little bit of cleaning up, as well as a little bit of reading, and I will gladly support. -Mastrchf91- 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Strong Oppose.
    • Very little editing to AIV, UAA (81, 17)
    • Answer to Q3, conflicts are bad. You say you try to avoid it, but you also say you almost got blocked for 3RR
    • Avruch's first question is dead wrong
    • Avruch's fourth question is a horrible answer, NPOV applies to articles, not RFA
    --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah that was the reason for my dislike of conflicts. The conflict involved a misinterpretation of a warning that was intended as humor. I later did admit to being wrong. My ruling has been, be honest, admit it and you get more than closing the door on your skeletons. Rgoodermote  00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Just commenting on one part of your oppose: how is 81 edits to AIV low? I didn't have much more than that when I passed RfA, and I'm sure I had less than 17 edits to UAA when I became an admin. Acalamari 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I would have more but most vandals stop after the first warning and most usernames are caught by the bots before a user can get there. I really wished I had more though Rgoodermote  19:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    81 edits to AIV and 17 to UAA are too low? Yikes. Grandmasterka 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per ST47. The answers to Avruch's questions are puzzling, at best. It shows you still need to read some important guidelines and essays to get a better idea of what adminship is all about. Also, admins have to be ready to make tough decisions at any given time, so you should try and answer future RFA questions by providing your own personal analysis on the scenarios presented as much as possible. Remember, anyone can click on the block, protect, and delete links, but RFAs are made to study your knowledge and rationale over their use (and misuse.) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong oppose - Per above concerns, but most importantly the answers to Avruch's questions, shows a lack of understanding of core policies, do not feel this user could enforce them. Tiptoety talk 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per ST47, with moral support. I believe you're well meaning, and appear to be on the right track, but your answers to those questions makes it clear that you are unfamiliar with policy. Write a few articles, bone up on policy and you should definitely succeed in a few months. faithless (speak) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Some good contributions, but as uǝʌǝs pointed out, answers suggest that user doesn't understand policies well enough. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. While I hate editcountitis, and I definitely feel that writing lots of articles is not a prerequisite for adminship, I don't see enough experience to get a feel for how this editor will use the tools. Most of the mainspace edits are reversions of obvious vandalism with Twinkle, which are important but don't give me a feel for this person's judgement. Most of the user talk page contributions are also automated warnings issued by Twinkle, which also doesn't give me a feel for how this person will interact in stressful situations. The answers to the questions, especially Avruch's, reinforce my feeling that more experience is needed. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose the answers to Avruchs questions suggest a lack of understanding of important aspects of wikipedia sufficient at this time to preclude adminship. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Sorry, needs more Mainspace experience and better understanding of block/ban policy. Not yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Hmm. 1230,— edits in the mainspace are not really enough and just one article is not enough, too. Sorry. :-( —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Lack of experience as argued by others. Separa (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. I think that this user is going to make a spectacular administrator, but not quite yet. I would like to see some experience article building and I would like to see that edit summary percentage go up to near 100%. Other than that, this user is civility personified - three months from now I will happily give my support. Trusilver (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sorry. Your answers show a slight lack of understanding of adminship, and your answers to Avruch's questions are a bit avoidy. Your first answer doesn't offer any insight into what you think a block and a ban to be in a wikipedia context, and the next two are especially avoidy (hint, the second one should include discussing it with the editor directly), and the answer to the last one is not a trick question. NPOV relates to article content. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah I thought that would a rise. I am sorry but I like to explain myself. The first one ony asks for the defination it does not ask me Wiki Terms. It simply asked me what I thought they meant and the typo I thought was a bad impression. As for the other two. Yeah I did get it but because I do not like confronting users without a third party to help me out I will always first ask some one who is a third party and then ask the user. I will never bring it to the WP:ANI though. As for the AFD. I again do not like going against the will of others without backup. It comes as a fear of getting in trouble. I will always ask for a third party before discussing with the users. As for the last one....sorry I really thought that was a trick question. Rgoodermote  00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I thought it over you are right I do need to learn more. But I will not ask this to be closed. I want to see everyones opinion before I try again in 3 months or so. Rgoodermote  00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd be willing to support you whenever you run again if you work on higher edit summary usage and more article writing (and more edits to different namespaces). That would really help.   jj137 ♠ 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Indented duplicate vote. Avruchtalk 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral -- I see potential in this user. I'm not going to hold his lack of article writing against him, because dealing with vandalism is an important admin function as well (of course, I'm a bit biased). Give a little time, and I see plenty of "supports" in your future. Jauerback (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: For now. I see great potential in Rgoodermote, however, I would like to see more non-mainspace edits and experience elsewhere in the encyclopedia. A great editor otherwise, and I would throw my support in a few months once that has been accomplished. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Excellent user; however, some areas could still use polishing, and I'd like to see a bit more article writing and more varied editing. Good job so far, though! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - I can't make up my mind. Advantages: Very civil user, vandal-fighter with the 29 scars to prove it, no big concerns, lots of edits. Disadvantages: Poor use of edit summaries, not a lot of encyclopedia-building, not much experience at XfD. Try in another few months. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 9 January 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.