Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scharks

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.

[edit] Scharks

Final (16/10/4); Ended Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:10:49 UTC

Scharks (talk · contribs) - Sharks is one of those editors who help Wikipedia by both writing articles and fighting vandalism. The user has written 30+ articles and has greatly helped promote Yeast and Wine fault to Good Article Status. On the vandalism side, the user reverts vandalism edits as often as about 5 to 10 reverts per 50 edits. With sysop tools, I believe this user will be able to help Wikipedia better. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I revert a lot of vandalism through my watchlist, so being able to block vandals would be useful. I'd assist with backlogs, requests for page protection, speedy deletes, and I'm hoping to be more involved with XfD debates and subsequent closures.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I would have to say my contributions to the Yeast (before) and Wine fault (before) articles as mentioned above. Both articles were very poor before my edits and it was very gratifying to be able to put together solid articles on two topics that are not widely covered online. I also made a point of adding as many inline cites as possible, especially to the yeast article which currently has 50. I also enjoyed contributing to the {{Infobox Australian Place}} template, including the discussion into its configuration and presentation from start to finish. By working together we were able replace ~22 infobox templates with one generic template for Australian place articles. I particularly enjoyed helping to code the template using m:ParserFunctions. This was a great project to be involved in, and very successful too.
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'd have to say that the majority of users that I've encountered on WP have been civil and therefore I can not mention one particular example. Often if one goes back to the facts and can provide references for statements discussions can remain civil. I feel that compromise is a big leveller in conflict, admitting when you're wrong is important, and never entertaining people making personal attacks or troll-like comments.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
A: The five pillars are; 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, 2. Wikipedia is NPOV, 3. Wikipedia is free, 4. Wikipedia is for civil people, 5. Wikipedia rules are not set in stone. These are all pretty self explanatory. Basically the content added to Wikipedia needs to be factually correct with no personal bias, free for everyone, with everyone working together to achieve an encyclopedia the whole world can use. These are the exact points why I find WP so attractive and cannot resist contributing to it.
5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Wheel warring is the reversion of the action of one admin by another. It is essentially caused by a breakdown in communication between admins, especially when emotion or strong difference of opinion gets in the way. Keeping communication channels open over such issues should really eliminate the problem. It is counter productive for the Wikipedia project and something I'd never condone.
6. Who has the authority to ban users?
A: Pretty much ArbCom. Although Jimbo can as well as a WP community consensus.

Question from BigDT

7. What is fair use? When may Wikipedia use a non-free image under a claim of fair use? A year ago, you uploaded Image:Zygosaccharomyces bailii.jpg, Image:Brettanomyces.jpg, and Image:Lactococcus lactis.jpg under a claim of fair use. Do you believe that they meet Wikipedia's current fair use policy? Why or why not? --BigDT 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Back when I uploaded those images I did a lot of reading before I was confident that I was doing so under Wikipedia policy. I did so because I was keen to add an image to illustrate the topic, particularly because the images were low resolution and being used for informative purposes only with no free equivalent (good images of microorganisms are hard to obtain). The images were uploaded with full reference of the source and a justification of the fair use claim. I actually think the image tag on each of the images uploaded explains the rationale best. Under current policy I can't see a reason why they do not constitute fair use, although a year later I can see the issue of using fair use images on Wikipedia and I no longer upload images tagged as such.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Valuable contributor, civil, unlikely to abuse tools. --Fang Aili talk 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Has over 2000 edits in the mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Easy Support. Far more qualified than I was. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. Scharks is an excellent mainspace editor, but more policy experience would help. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 13:14Z
  7. Weak Support - good trustworthy user. My only quibble would be that I'd like to see more experience with deletion policy, particularly AfDs etc - that sort of thing makes up a large part of an admin's work. But this user's excellent mainspace contribs make up for that. Walton monarchist89 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. You know, we all bitch about not having enough admins to do all the work that needs to be done around here (lord knows I do), and for good reason. And yet time and again when someone who works hard on this project in ways slightly different than those most favored by the denizens of RfA comes along, we see the same old litany of nitpicks. So Scharks doesn't spend much time over at *fD, and he isn't a full time vandalism patroller. Reverting and blocking vandals isn't that tricky. Doing speedy deletions isn't that tricky. *fDs are tricky sometimes, but Scharks seems sensible enough to avoid situations where he'd be in over his head. As long as you care about this project, know your way around the place, and show yourself to be a sensible person, I see no harm in passing you the tools and spreading the workload around a bit more. Support. --RobthTalk 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Edit history looks good, candidates obviously has a decent head on his shoulders and isn't going to blow anything up. No substantial concerns have been presented to date by the opposition, so altogether Scharks seems like a good bet. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent editor, good user interactions (per talk page), obviously focused on the real reason we're all here (building a better encyclopedia). While some have noted limited XfD / project space experience, I think Robth has hit the nail on the head: all admins may have the same tools, but not all have to use them the same way. -- MarcoTolo 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, although you still lack of XfD but I'm absolutely impressed by your role as an editor. What I can say, too excellent. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks good user to me :). --- SAndTLets Talk 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Hope it works out for you --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support See fixed criteria on my user page Edivorce 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Another sensible and level-headed editor who would be good with the tools. Dragomiloff 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose regretfully. A valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is a need for the admin tools just yet. You said you wanted to get more active in XfD, but I have seen you have only participated in 8 TfDs and no other XfDs so far on Wikipedia. I suggest spending the next few months participating in XfDs (maybe AIV?) and keep continuing the article work. If you meet these conditions, I would undoubtedly support your next RfA. Nishkid64 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Another regretful oppose per Nishkid. You need experience working with XfDs if you wish to branch into closing them. I would also support your next RfA if you showed some intelligent contributions to XfDs. Trebor 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose while you are a good editor and show that you have a lot of great article writing experience and a great vandal fighter, you haven't shown that you know policy. Being an administrator is a lot more than reverting and blocking vandals. Try getting more XfD experience and also try reporting vandals to AIV when necessary. Don't let this discourage you and try again later. Darthgriz98 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Darthgriz98 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The candidate's low level of wiki-space activity suggests an unfamiliarity with process. It is also true that I do question nominator's judgment with respect to adminship standards at this time, based on nominator's own very recent RfA. The second factor is a minor negative indicator only. Xoloz 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per above comments. You haven't really shown your knowledge of Wikipedia's policy or your need for the tools. Sorry. :/ Captain panda In vino veritas 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I like your level of contribution to Microbiology and the Australian Place infobox, but I would like to see more XFD contributions. Please work on that and then apply again. --After Midnight 0001 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The first thing you mention in question one is fighting vandalism, yet you have made only 2 edits to WP:AIV. Also, as Nishkid64 mentions, your XFD participation is minimal. You seem to be doing a fine job as an editor, but to be an admin, I'd like to see you have more experience in the areas where you say you'll be using your tools. Dar-Ape 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Needs more experience in xfd. Dionyseus 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Lack of experience in any of the administrative areas listed in the answer to Q1. Everyone reverts vandalism. It goes with the territory. --- RockMFR 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, answer to Q1 does not convince me that you need a sysop bit Ashibaka (tock) 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. As above - NYC JD (make a motion) 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral While you are a good editor and show that you have a lot of great article writing experience and a good vandal fighter, you haven't shown, IMHO, that you know policy. Being an administrator is a lot more than reverting and blocking vandals. Try getting more XfD experience and also try reporting vandals to AIV when necessary. Don't let this discourage you and try again later. Darthgriz98 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Excellent contributor to the main space but showing no real need for tools especially with low participation in the project space. I'd definitely support in a future RfA if you start working on XfDs and the like. - Anas Talk? 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Great article writer, but you need more policy experience.-- danntm T C 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Darthgriz98 >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 18:44, 23 February 2007 (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.