Fastilysock (usurped) (talk | contribs) →Optional Questions by Doc Quintana: rm header |
→Optional Questions by Doc Quintana: Answering question by tedder |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
;Additional optional questions from [[User:Tedder|Tedder]] |
;Additional optional questions from [[User:Tedder|Tedder]] |
||
:'''5.''' In what instances would protecting an article be a bad idea? |
:'''5.''' In what instances would protecting an article be a bad idea? |
||
::'''A:''' I have always thought protecting a page should be a "last resort". Edit warring is counter-productive, but if only a handful of editors are involved, I am sure that a consensus mediated by an admin could easily be achievable. For example, more than a year ago, I got a little "riled up" because I thought the protection of a certain page was unnecessary. I thought so because there was a certain "edit war" going on between a handful of editors (I believe it was 4). Noticing that they were all experienced editors, I thought that a consensus could be achieved without needing to protect the article. Eventually, a lot of people agreed, even the admin who had protected the article (however, by no means was it his fault - he was just answering the plea for protection from another editor). I sincerely, and perhaps optimistically, believe that protection can be avoided when dealing with experienced editors. However, I do believe that in cases with inexperienced editors, they are much more difficult to convince and achieve consensus with. However, that is why semi-protection exists. In conclusion, I do believe protections help with the structure of Wikipedia, but should be utilized in grand edit wars, when inexperienced editors are involved or when consensus is unachievable for the time being. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml"><font face="helvetica"><font color="#008000">'''''[[User:Raaggio|Raa]][[Special:Contributions/Raaggio|<big><big>G</big></big>]][[User:Raaggio/Guest Book|gio]]</font> <font color="#000090">[[User talk:Raaggio|<small>(talk)</small>]]'''''</font></span> 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} --> |
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} --> |
Revision as of 03:53, 8 April 2010
Raaggio
(talk page) (0/1/0); Scheduled to end 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
Raaggio (talk · contribs) – Hello everybody, I would like to offer myself as a candidate for adminship. I have been a member on Wikipedia since late 2006. I usually contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in conjunction with all the other excellent editors in the project. As part of the project, I usually contribute to professional wrestling-related articles although I sporadically contribute to articles of various other topics. If not full-scale editing, my contributions usually include moving, fighting vandalism, reverting unsourced material, etc. I, however, usually choose to discuss changes and seeking consensus on talk pages rather than being bold and editing myself, because I feel I am much more useful in reasoning and in consensus-seeking discussions. I am currently a rollbacker and have been for quite some time, but I never thought of running for adminship. In reality, I thought adminship was completely unnecessary and I could contribute to the encyclopedia as a "normal" editor. Be it as it may, I have encountered various occasions where the tools supplied by adminship would help me with day-to-day editing. Thank you for your consideration and happy editing. Cheers, RaaGgio (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Like I stated above, I believe I am much more useful in consensus-seeking discussions so I predict I will use my time to participate in WP:ANI, WP:AFD and other parts of Wikipedia where the focus of discussions is consensus-seeking. In regard to mainspace editing, I plan on mostly protecting articles during edit wars, answering and analyzing the calls of fellow community members for page protection, article speedy deletion, etc. I would also love to work on the backlog of various parts of Wikipedia and help as much as I can. I would really enjoy to be there for the community whenever needed. RaaGgio (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I do not want to sound redundant, but I have to restate that I am much more useful in consensus-seeking discussions. I do not believe I have had any "major" contribution, because all the consensus and contributions have been in conjunction with other diligent editors of Wikipedia. I just enjoy being able to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of creating this fantastic encyclopedia and fulfilling the goals of supplying the world with endless amounts of information. RaaGgio (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 would not necessarily utilize the term "conflict", but I have participated in heated (yet friendly) discussions with other editors, but I am sure that 99% of the time a consensus is reached. The fantastic thing about Wikipedia is that mostly everyone wants to contribute and at the same time learn from other editors and that is why consensus has been so easy to achieve. When I began on Wikipedia, I violated WP:FU with about a dozen pictures because I was unaware of the guidelines, but today, I can undoubtedly say that I know, understand and enforce almost every guideline in Wikipedia. RaaGgio (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
- 4. When is IAR appropriate?
- A: Pardon if this is a long statement, but I just find IAR one of the most interesting parts of Wikipedia. The beauty about Wikipedia is that it is structured on these guidelines, but they aren't law. Therefore, in consensus-achieving discussion, an editor who has an argument of "why not to obey the rule?" is equally as viable as the argument of "why to obey it". A lot of people mistake IAR for an excuse to disregard the guidelines, but in reality, it is just a tool to promote consensus-reaching discussions. I believe that IAR should be utilized when the article benefits from it. A small is example is this recent edit where I added a template toWWE Raw's infobox that would automatically update the number of episodes weekly. However, I pointed out in WT:PW that because the change happens at 12:00, and the show ends at 3:00, there are 3 hours that violate WP:CBALL (because I am speculating that the show will air as planned). Another user pointed out that the template does wonders for the article and therefore it was a perfect situation to just "ignore the rule". I agree with this situation and others that are similar because an article can benefit without having to follow every guideline to every detail. Nevertheless, the guidelines are very important to me as an editor and I seldom use WP:IAR, but it is still one of the most magnificent aspects of Wikipedia. RaaGgio (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Additional optional questions from Tedder
- 5. In what instances would protecting an article be a bad idea?
- A: I have always thought protecting a page should be a "last resort". Edit warring is counter-productive, but if only a handful of editors are involved, I am sure that a consensus mediated by an admin could easily be achievable. For example, more than a year ago, I got a little "riled up" because I thought the protection of a certain page was unnecessary. I thought so because there was a certain "edit war" going on between a handful of editors (I believe it was 4). Noticing that they were all experienced editors, I thought that a consensus could be achieved without needing to protect the article. Eventually, a lot of people agreed, even the admin who had protected the article (however, by no means was it his fault - he was just answering the plea for protection from another editor). I sincerely, and perhaps optimistically, believe that protection can be avoided when dealing with experienced editors. However, I do believe that in cases with inexperienced editors, they are much more difficult to convince and achieve consensus with. However, that is why semi-protection exists. In conclusion, I do believe protections help with the structure of Wikipedia, but should be utilized in grand edit wars, when inexperienced editors are involved or when consensus is unachievable for the time being. RaaGgio (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Raaggio: Raaggio (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Raaggio can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Raaggio before commenting.
Discussion
- Raaggio, please answer the above questions and opt-in here. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
- Oppose Hate to be the first one, but this clearly shows you have no understanding of how deletion works and from your 4000 edits you have hardly any contributions at all to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm afraid that you need more understanding of admin type areas before you have any chance at RFA. Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is very embarrassing, but it wasn't intentional. You see, I have Twinkle in my monobook.js and I accidentally clicked mFd on that page. If you check my history with what I do with my user subpages, you can notice that I always use the deletion request tags. It is very embarrassing that I did such a mistake, but it was just that, a mistake. After doing it, I realized what I had done, but mistakes happen to every one of us. I am truly sorry, but I definitely believe that I have a very well understanding of the admin type areas and Wikipedia guidelines. RaaGgio (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - The above diff is worrying, but I'm honestly more concerned about your sugary sounding answers to the questions, particularly question 4 where you completely dance around what IAR really means. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral