RenamedUser jaskldjslak901 (talk | contribs) |
→Support: support |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
#::Hmm okay. I still believe that it reveals too much personal information, but I understand. It's good to see that most of your issues are now gone. Regards. — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333">'''Hahc21'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
#::Hmm okay. I still believe that it reveals too much personal information, but I understand. It's good to see that most of your issues are now gone. Regards. — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333">'''Hahc21'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#Secret is a user who has been around a while, and I have full faith in his capabilities to be an effective admin here. He's a terrific article writer, and has shown he can work cooperatively with other users. Although he has been subject to some controversy in the past, I'm confident that those issues are resolved, and I believe that they would not hinder his ability to operate as an administrator. The main question here is: do we trust Secret to be an administrator? I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say '''yes'''. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[.beat|@301]] · </small> 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
#Secret is a user who has been around a while, and I have full faith in his capabilities to be an effective admin here. He's a terrific article writer, and has shown he can work cooperatively with other users. Although he has been subject to some controversy in the past, I'm confident that those issues are resolved, and I believe that they would not hinder his ability to operate as an administrator. The main question here is: do we trust Secret to be an administrator? I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say '''yes'''. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[.beat|@301]] · </small> 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' I am convinced that the issues mentioned above have been fixed, and I am going to assume good faith here with their future actions. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
Revision as of 07:21, 11 February 2013
Secret
(talk page) (4/3/0); Scheduled to end 05:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
Secret (talk · contribs) – I would like to take a short break from my current self-imposed isolation here on Wikipedia to nominate one of our best editors here for adminship. Secret has been a Wikipedian for 7 years now, and after a little more than a year from his previous RfA he’s ready to try again. Content-wise, he’s done a tremendous amount of work on American athletes, especially baseball players. The topic area is often beset by fanboys and vandals, and his ability to maintain his composure in those areas should speak to his current maturity and readiness for adminship. In terms of policy, he’s clearly got a high level of competence, and has made completely sure to brush up on everything one more time before this RfA.
I appreciate there may be some concerns with Secret, given the incident from 2009. I was obviously not around when it occurred, but after many conversations with him I’m completely convinced it was an aberration and has no chance of happening again. We really need more admins willing to step up and do some of the dirty work, which Secret is as ready and eager to do as ever, so there is nothing to lose from giving him back the admin tools to do it. I think the community will agree with me that Secret will be a huge positive as an admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Co-nomination - Blade sums Secret up well; he's an excellent editor who'd make great use of the tools. With over 40% of his edits in the mainspace, he is a prolific content contributor; likewise, he shows familiarity with maintenance-related aspects of the project, with 1600 edits to the namespace. While Secret's been through some rough patches in the past, I'm confident that those mistakes will remain unrepeated, and that he will continue helping us build this amazing project. m.o.p 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Short note: I accept this nomination.
Long Note: I thought about running for adminship for at least a month already, listening to the opinions of editors I trusted over the years. I was leaning back and forth whether to run, with both on Wiki and real life factoring in this rather tough decision. I felt in the past year I have grown to be more mature and deeply care about the project, which in the past, I mostly took it as a boring and additively strange hobby. My Graves disease diagnosis was shocking, especially after I had the classic symptoms for years and nobody bothered to check my thyroid levels until I had a severe health issue back in September. After being depressed for a month unable to do anything, I realized it gave me a new enthusiastic view take on life, and I started to focus on more my health, my school, my work, and here. If I didn't have the health or the self-confidence about myself nowadays, I wouldn't accept this nomination, considering my rather erratic behavior with RFAs for some strange reason. But I am ready to stand for this challenge one last time. I'm not seeking adminship just for the hell of it, I am seeking it because I know I can help this project with the tools. I know I always been considered an eccentric and flawed character in this project at times, and a massive workaholic at other times, and I did made my fair share of mistakes, but we all been though the same situation. If this RFA fails for whatever reason, I would take any useful advise so I can be a better editor and person in this project. Thank you to the nominators for your trust. Secret account 03:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: First and foremost this is an encyclopedia, thus I would primarily focus on improving the project through article writing. I have four core articles I plan on working this year, and maybe more if I could find the time. With the tools I bring much needed experience to the current administrative corps, considering I was previously an administrator until the unfortunate incident in late 2009 which had haunted me deeply, and rather not discuss it in detail. I would attempt to become a mentor to newer administrators, and train them on areas in which experienced editors are sorely needed, most importantly image and copyright cleanup and sensitive BLPs. With BLPs I would focus primarily on American sports topics, which is known to be prone to inaccurate tabloid fodder, and an area in which few administrators are active in. If I have some free time, I would tackle whatever administrative backlogs like I did in the past, categories like speedy deletion, requests for page protection and username violations. The key backlog I want to focus on however is articles for creation, which has tons of massive BLP and copyright violations, attack pages, spam and other "crap" in the declined archives that needs to be deleted. With AFDs, I probably won't be active in closing them like I did back in 2007/2008 except in clear cut cases, as I want to avoid a potential conflict of interest and WP:SUPERVOTE concerns. I am known to be on the stricter side in regards to policy based comments, especially with notability so I rather just comment. You can look at my prior administrative actions and comment.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Since my past RFA, I have written four good articles and expanded several other key articles, one of which, Jim Umbricht I plan to take it to WP:FAC soon, and another one Curt Roberts needs further sourcing for FAC. I have about 200 scholarly books mostly on Southern and baseball history that I bought primary to improve articles for the project. I'm currently working on the Babe Ruth article with User:Wehwalt, a core topic that we both hopefully could bring to featured standards. Throughout the course of this RFA, I will be working on the 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 been avoiding most of the noticeboards lately, so I haven't had recent conflicts other than the typical replies to an AFD or WP:ITN/C comment that I don't agree with, which is minor. Conflicts from years ago, of course but I don't feel that it's necessary to discuss it as they are longer relevant for the most part, or well-known like Mzoli's. I don't waste my time in noticeboard drama anymore unless it is a complete necessary. "Drama", as most editors name it, almost destroyed the community from within. Who knows how many highly qualified editors and administrators we lost because of minor issues that had nothing to do with the integrity of the project and could have safely been ignored. The main reason is when random editors, not knowing the circumstances of the incident comments and inadvertently starts adding fuel to the fire, and I'm not that type of person. Also I witnessed almost every serious incident within this project since 2005-2006, and one of the main causes involves a lack of consensus on the issue. I am not going to do anything that may be controversial to some editors without getting community consensus, as I feel communication is key. I might venture to the noticeboards occasionally to look at cases in which the contributor is clearly affecting the integrity of the project, commercial spammers, single purpose POV pushers and the likes. Yes I wasn’t anything but perfect during my time an administrator, as sometimes my health or my emotions got the best of me, here is one recent example which involved almost burning out because of a annoyingly long watchlist which I later trimmed but to alleviate any concerns I will be open to some kind of recall that can be proposed on during the RFA or my talk page.
- During my last RFA, emotions ran extremely high and I made a huge mistake of not closing it early, even while it had a chance of passing. Personal issues were arisen, social stigma came to play, and to simply put it, it wasn't a number of editors best moment in the project, including myself towards the end. I blanked for a reason and haven't seen it since, mainly because of the personal information involved in it, including other editors and to close up a rather dark chapter in the best possible way. Like I mentioned above, on November I was diagnosed with Graves disease, which is a severe hereditary thyroid disorder, which probably was behind some of more impulsive and instability I had shown in the project. When some of the incidents happened, I wasn't getting any help, and then I was misdiagnosed with a disorder and given useless medication for the most part. I had a total medication change, and now I'm healthy physically and mentally. It was diagnosed fairly late however. The two top health issues I have now regards focusing, and my eyes which is mostly swollen and permanent, neither of which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I rather stop with the personal information here.
General comments
- Links for Secret: Secret (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Secret can be found here.
- Edit stats are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- I am open to any questions given, but I do have my right to decline some questions and the bureaucrat removing any questions that involves rather sensitive personal information. Secret account 05:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Support
- I intend to co-nominate as well, but I'm trying to make a deadline, so it will be a few hours late. Rschen7754 05:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sensible candidate. Also, why his past RFA has not been oversighted? I see too much personal information there that should not be visible to everyone. If there is an oversighter reading this... — Hahc21talk 05:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think an RFA has ever been oversighted or deleted, and most of it was my stupidity of being too lucid so it's better to leave it blank and the history intact and I pay the consequences. Most of it isn't current anymore anyways considering my diagnosis change and I rather be honest in regards to that. Secret account 06:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Secret is a user who has been around a while, and I have full faith in his capabilities to be an effective admin here. He's a terrific article writer, and has shown he can work cooperatively with other users. Although he has been subject to some controversy in the past, I'm confident that those issues are resolved, and I believe that they would not hinder his ability to operate as an administrator. The main question here is: do we trust Secret to be an administrator? I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say yes. (X! · talk) · @301 · 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I am convinced that the issues mentioned above have been fixed, and I am going to assume good faith here with their future actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, per rationale at previous RfA. -- tariqabjotu 06:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, "Jaranda's or Secret's or whatever his name's propensity to create new usernames and/or storm out in a childish fit at every opportunity shows an immaturity I just cannot accept, and his repeated attempts at adminship, arbitership, OTRS rights, and even stewardship shows that he's far less concerned about doing what's right for Wikipedia than he is with getting himself into positions of power and trust. Absolutely not." I could not have put it better myself, Tariqabjotu. Eminence2012 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'd be willing to argue that this falls into WP:SNOW territory. This is a joke. Eminence2012 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I also find "I been avoiding most of the noticeboards lately, so I haven't had recent conflicts other than the typical replies to an AFD or WP:ITN/C comment that I don't agree with, which is minor" troubling. To me, it sounds like "I have been avoiding conflict so as to not jeopardize future RfA attempts." Eminence2012 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note, the above user is a blocked sockpuppet and I have indented it as such. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, "Jaranda's or Secret's or whatever his name's propensity to create new usernames and/or storm out in a childish fit at every opportunity shows an immaturity I just cannot accept, and his repeated attempts at adminship, arbitership, OTRS rights, and even stewardship shows that he's far less concerned about doing what's right for Wikipedia than he is with getting himself into positions of power and trust. Absolutely not." I could not have put it better myself, Tariqabjotu. Eminence2012 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, this user has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that makes it very difficult to recommend for they to be granted adminship status. Admin role is not akin to a trophy displayed on a mantle, but a role that demands immense trust in its holder. In turn it is the responsibility of the community to decline the nominations of users that do not meet the standards of trust. riffic (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - It seems this user is far too impulsive / easily frustrated, and while I feel for the user, I am not confident that the bad behavior and poor judgment would not return during a period of stress. I'm not sure exactly what happened in "late 2009", and I would ask, but the user does not seem to want to go into that. That also concerns me, as it appears the user is not willing to be completely open about what has happened in the past. And while I respect those wishes, it's also another reason why I cannot support this RfA. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)