Content deleted Content added
ill do it |
Dangherous~enwiki (talk | contribs) Change my reasons, to avoid unnecessary confrontations |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
#'''Oppose''' I hate to use this reason but it actually applies here: "per above." Get involved in some XfDs and vandal fighting and I would consider supporting your next RfA.[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wikipediarules2221|s]][[User talk:Wikipediarules2221|<font color="orange">2221</font>]] 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' I hate to use this reason but it actually applies here: "per above." Get involved in some XfDs and vandal fighting and I would consider supporting your next RfA.[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wikipediarules2221|s]][[User talk:Wikipediarules2221|<font color="orange">2221</font>]] 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' on the grounds of insufficient experience as a non-admin in the processes where administration is needed. --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' on the grounds of insufficient experience as a non-admin in the processes where administration is needed. --[[User:Slf67|Steve <sub> (Slf67) </sub>]][[User talk:Slf67|<sup> talk </sup>]] 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
#:<s>'''Oppose''' As per others --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#:<s>'''Oppose''' purely coz this user is the only user I can actually vote against - the other ones are miles ahead in the votes. It bug me when I vote for people and then they splash the news of their success all round the website. Sorry, no offence Steve, I've never encountered you before, but I'm having a huff and you happen to be the one who gets the brunt of this immature antisocial rant of mine. Good luck with the RFA.</s> --[[User:Dangherous|Dangherous]] 10:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#: Please pardon my being stunned by that statement (though at least the comment sounded sincere). I wonder, though, should a vote - that claims to have nothing to do with this RfA cantidate - count in determining consensus? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#: I'm implore the closing bureaucrat to remove Dangherous vote from this RfA as it in no way helps build concensus. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>[[User:Heligoland|<font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Heligoland '''</font>]] | [[User talk:Heligoland|<font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Talk'''</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|<font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Contribs'''</font>]] 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#::Forgive for bringing this up if I'm wrong, but this seems to be trying to make a [[WP:POINT|point]], and not well either.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| '''Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dlohcierekim''' </font>]] 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Never mind asking a bcrat to do it, I'll do it myself. Votes like that just aren't on. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(swiftmend!)]]</small> 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Neutral''' |
'''Neutral''' |
||
#'''Neutral''' for the time being. I'd like to see the user expand his self-nomination to explain what exactly he thinks he can contribute as an admin. "I'd be willing to help clear backlogs for a few hours a day" seems a little too vague. Perhaps the candidate can explain his history with such areas as well. [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
#'''Neutral''' for the time being. I'd like to see the user expand his self-nomination to explain what exactly he thinks he can contribute as an admin. "I'd be willing to help clear backlogs for a few hours a day" seems a little too vague. Perhaps the candidate can explain his history with such areas as well. [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:42, 14 November 2006
SteveBaker
(16/7/5) Ending 16:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
SteveBaker (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination SteveBaker 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self nomination - and (unsurprisingly) I accept it!
- 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 voters:
- 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'm willing to provide several hours per week working whichever admin backlog is the most pressing. Right now, I think speedy deletion and requested moves are the most pressing needs - but I'm prepared to be flexible if the demand is elsewhere.
- (In response to request for more information): I am not seeking adminship in order to get into Wiki politics or policy making or dealing with troublesome users. My sole interest is in improving the encyclopeadic content in as direct a manner as possible. I see backlogs forming in all sorts of areas where adminship is required - it follows then that there must be a shortage of people with admin privilages who can deal with this. The growth curve of number of articles is clearly outstripping the number of active admins - so more admins are needed who will deal with the more mundane day-to-day cleanup. Worse still, I see a growth in the amount of admin time that is spent in areas outside of simply organising the encyclopedia. I believe I can be of service in attacking those mundane areas of adminship that directly result in removal of junk articles/templates/images (of which there are far too many) or in aiding the reorganisation of articles that are wrongly named or otherwise in need of admin help. I'm not seeking high moral purpose here - just a means to fix things that I cannot currently fix for lack of admin status.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I did almost all of the work on Mini - taking it from a near-stub and culminating in a front page featured article. I'm also pleased with my work in transforming both Automobile and Computer from fairly disorganised articles that overlapped the content from other articles - to articles designed from the top-down to be 'gateways' to other articles that provide the majority of the content. This is surprisingly difficult because people become very attached to the long descriptions of things that are already covered (or should be covered) by daughter articles. Possibly the most pleasurable thing is creating new articles and watching them grow and flourish through the work of others. It's an almost magical thing. So a simple article like Tire code (which started out as a 10 line section in another article that I turned into a full article) has grown vastly beyond my knowledge on the subject.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Sadly, yes. One particularly nasty conflict was with User:Wiarthurhu - who twice ended up with indefinite blocks - but aside from that, all other conflicts have been mercifully mild and could be fixed with "don't feed the trolls" technigues - just stop talking and reverting for a couple of weeks - then go back and fix the problem - and usually, the problem goes away quite naturally. Fortunately, my interests have not been in the most controversial areas such as politics and religion. However, I do not seek adminship for these reasons. I'm happy to let mediators deal with that. I'm more concerned with doing jobs that directly improve the encyclopedia but which require admin privilages.
- 100% Optional Question 4. Why do you not feel the need to write a longer nomination? It's difficult to decide how to vote if you won't really attempt to sway me to by pointing out why you think you should be an admin. Right now, I'm not convinced you really do if you don't want to write a longer nomination. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- A: Well, I have not written more because there is nothing more to say. There are a bunch of basic housekeeping tasks that need to be done - Wikipedia needs more help (that much is clear) - I'm offering to help. SteveBaker 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Supplementary question from (aeropagitica):
- 5. Why do you want to be an admin?
- A: Wikipedia needs more admins - it needs more active admins - and (IMHO) it needs admins who will work in the mundane areas of pruning the crap - organising articles that are in the wrong place - that kind of thing. I believe that Wikipedia needs me. I just want to be helpful. If that's not seen as useful - please vote to oppose - I won't be offended. SteveBaker 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: Ignore all rules seems contradictory because there are so many rules...why would we make rules and then encourage people to ignore them? Well, the problem with rules is that rules have exceptions - and one can never adequately list all possible exceptions - so allowing people to break the rules provides an ultimate 'get out' clause. It's also a great sound-bite! WP:SNOW isn't policy - it should (IMHO) be taken strictly at face value - it prevents filibusters - aside from that, I have no problem with ignoring it. If an issue needs to be raised, I'd hope to have the courage to do so even if it doesn't have a hope in hell of making it into policy.
- 7. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: No. That is not the purpose of a block. I can't think of a single case where a PURELY punative block would be valid.
- 8. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A: I have contributed to several articles where this has been an issue. Insulated concrete forms for example. This is a subject that is pretty much only known to people who are in that business. The article is continually under attack from vendors of these things trying to put a solely positive spin on these things - and I have spend some significant effort to retain both positive and negative facts about these things. In the end, articles about businesses have to live under the same set of guidelines as every other article. The business has to be notable, the article has to be encyclopeadic and (most importantly) unbiassed. We have the WP:NOR policy to help us here.
- So - if presented with such an article for deletion, I would apply 'Notability', 'Lack of bias' and 'No original research' just as for any other article. This will eliminate adverts - and attack articles from business competitors - yet allow articles on companies like SGI, British Leyland and others that I have contributed to - to survive and prosper. WP's rules work perfectly well here - I feel no special need to single out business articles for any kind of special treatment. SteveBaker 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- General comments
- I tried to get an editor review - but as you can see Wikipedia:Editor review/SteveBaker has been there for several months with no responses.
- I've been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half and I have 3,100 edits - but more importantly, 1,700 within the main namespace.
Discussion
Support
- Support - I encountered this Wikipedian when he was working to develop consensus for the automotive barnstar. I found him open, helpful, and eager to discuss. - jc37 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - It would help your cause if you mentioned having a WP:FA Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In answer to question (2) above, I said: "I did almost all of the work on Mini - taking it from a near-stub and culminating in a front page featured article." - so yeah. I took an article through that entire process. It might interest you to note that I voted a strong 'oppose' to the FA status vote for Computer - even though that was an article I was actively working on...it has to cut both ways! SteveBaker 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I meant in a summary in yoyr nom statement. My eye must have skipped that part in your answer. 2. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In answer to question (2) above, I said: "I did almost all of the work on Mini - taking it from a near-stub and culminating in a front page featured article." - so yeah. I took an article through that entire process. It might interest you to note that I voted a strong 'oppose' to the FA status vote for Computer - even though that was an article I was actively working on...it has to cut both ways! SteveBaker 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well meaning, and meet my criteria. However, on a more serious note, you should consider withdrawing and spend some time becoming more familiar with the community. Best wishes -- danntm T C 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mike | Talk 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- T Rex | talk 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This is one of those cases where you have to ask yourself: Will Wikipedia benefit or suffer if this user is given the admin tools? I say benefit with little to no chance of abuse. Good luck. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Was undecided even after a lot of thought and digging through Steve's edits, but AuburnPilot's point was persuasive. Jcam 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Isn't going to abuse tools, so no reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support Wouldn't misuse tools, has experience and the Mini article is extremely beautiful. - Patman2648 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, without a compelling reason not to. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not prepared to see a candidate potentially suffer an unsuccessful RfA purely because someone is in a foul mood and has to find someone to vote against. I'm fed up of seeing two distinct camps here shoot down good article writers because they don't do much in the way of admin type chores and I'm fed up of seeing good vandal fighters and housekeepers being shot down because they don't write articles. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support - per Heligoland. Steve is an excellent contributor, and I am astounded by some of the people that have been shot down in RfA recently. SteveBaker will not misues the tools, he is a good contributor, and once he has a duty to commit to XfD and other administrative stuff I think he will, and with the same dedication he has to his current actions. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support a strong contributor who understands policy and will make a fine admin. I encountered Steve during the problems of User:Wiarthurhu (who is now subject to a community ban). Despite incredible provocation, Steve remained calm and dedicated to Wikipedia policies. Gwernol 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support - why not? He isn't saying he's going to change the world, so people are opposing? He's offering to help out with backlogs which require admin privs. 'Nuf said, really... All the same, I think you would make a better candidate given a few more months of solid contributing. Cheers, riana_dzasta 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support - experienced, friendly and has an FA. The only red links in the upload log are things moved to commons, and saved me from having to read yet another BS nom statement --T-rex 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I see good common sense and a good attitude and approach to the project, and that, in my opinion, is all you need to do the job properly. The points raised below strike me as irrelevant. Edit summaries? Short nomination statement? Little interest in the "community aspect" of the job? I guess next we'll hear that the candidate has failed on occasion to wear green on St. Patrick's day, and then the opposes will really pile in. --RobthTalk 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Not enough experience in admin-related tasks, such as XfD, vandalism, or requested page moves. Good contributor, but needs more experience in these areas. Also, I'd recommend for you to use edit summaries more often. --Wafulz 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- My failings over edit summaries are a bad habit - that I work to fix. As for experience - yeah new admins have to go through a learning phase - that's to be expected. If there is a pre-qualification period during which one is expected to work in specific areas - that needs to be better explained. SteveBaker 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I may venture a word of advice, you can set your preferences so the page won't save if you don't fill in the edit summary. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oooh! I hadn't seen that. I'll turn it on - thanks! SteveBaker 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you spent some time in the next three months working on admin-related tasks I would probably support another RfA- I prefer to see candidates with experience doing assorted admin tasks. It's one thing to say that you'll be able to handle the responsibility, but it's completely different when you demonstrate that you can handle it. --Wafulz 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oooh! I hadn't seen that. I'll turn it on - thanks! SteveBaker 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wafulz. I would like to see more admin-related experience, too. Michael 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems like a very good editor, willing to contribute and performing quality work. However, lack of interest in the community aspect of administrator status, edit summary usage, short nomination statement and narrow answers to #1, #3, and #4 are concerns. Would be a good candidate for deletion tools if such a thing existed on its own, but I'm wary about supporting administrator status as it currently exists. -- Renesis (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm surprised at the way this is going. As far as I can see - the only reason you'd want to refuse people admin rights would be if you think they'd misuse them. Nobody in the 'oppose' column here is saying that. Am I missing something about what you think this is all about? I'm one of those Asperger syndrome people (who are very common on Wikipedia!) - and I'm not good at picking up on sub-texts. Please be explicit about your concerns. SteveBaker 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right that the only real reason why you'd oppose adminship is worries about "misuse" of tools, but I think you are incorrectly assuming I'm worried that you'd purposely misuse them. You certainly meet the standard as far as work quality, but I am worried you don't quite meet the standard for many other aspects of adminship (not that you couldn't, but more that it seems you don't care to). In your case, its probably unfortunate that access to deletion and maintenance tools are connected to full administrator status, since you state that is the only reason you would like to be an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - you've explained the issue better than I could. I'm not too concerned about the other aspects of adminship - I'd like access to the tools in order that I can better do what I do for Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is denying that I'm doing good work - so why deny me the tools? Well, whatever. SteveBaker 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right that the only real reason why you'd oppose adminship is worries about "misuse" of tools, but I think you are incorrectly assuming I'm worried that you'd purposely misuse them. You certainly meet the standard as far as work quality, but I am worried you don't quite meet the standard for many other aspects of adminship (not that you couldn't, but more that it seems you don't care to). In your case, its probably unfortunate that access to deletion and maintenance tools are connected to full administrator status, since you state that is the only reason you would like to be an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm surprised at the way this is going. As far as I can see - the only reason you'd want to refuse people admin rights would be if you think they'd misuse them. Nobody in the 'oppose' column here is saying that. Am I missing something about what you think this is all about? I'm one of those Asperger syndrome people (who are very common on Wikipedia!) - and I'm not good at picking up on sub-texts. Please be explicit about your concerns. SteveBaker 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per concerns above. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to use this reason but it actually applies here: "per above." Get involved in some XfDs and vandal fighting and I would consider supporting your next RfA.Wikipediarules2221 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds of insufficient experience as a non-admin in the processes where administration is needed. --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose As per others --Dangherous 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral for the time being. I'd like to see the user expand his self-nomination to explain what exactly he thinks he can contribute as an admin. "I'd be willing to help clear backlogs for a few hours a day" seems a little too vague. Perhaps the candidate can explain his history with such areas as well. Metros232 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've expanded a little on that. I trust this answers your question. SteveBaker 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Inexperience as others have mentioned. RfA is in good faith of course, will reconsider in a few months. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Inexperienced candidate, as above. Why not go to Esperanza where they have a good admin coaching programme? You can also help by patrolling the new and recent changes pages, reverting vandalism found there, or tagging pages for speedy deletion, along with warning editors that this has been done and warning vandals too. Persistent offenders can be reported to WP:AIV for admin action. You can also help at the Help and Reference desks too. There are plenty of opportunities to gain experience in admin duties without the tools, in order for you to be ready for them when the time comes. Withdraw this RfA and work on these areas for 3-4 months. (aeropagitica) 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK - I guess I should take some of this advice. I'm not sure patrolling recent edits is going to help though - I can fill most of my free hours undoing vandalism in the articles on my watch list without having to look elsewhere! There really needs to be a single mouse-click button for 'revert vandalism'. SteveBaker 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, this has already been proposed, and there is currently a major poll going on about whether this feature should be enabled. The problem is, imagine how much fun the vandals could have with that button, so there needs to be a procedure to guarantee that only trustworthy and careful editors would have access to it. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK - I guess I should take some of this advice. I'm not sure patrolling recent edits is going to help though - I can fill most of my free hours undoing vandalism in the articles on my watch list without having to look elsewhere! There really needs to be a single mouse-click button for 'revert vandalism'. SteveBaker 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral: A year and a half is good enough for a self-nom, but, boy, do those summaries (32% main/61% minor) need some working on! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. 6% of the user edits is in Wikipedia namespace. Not impressive for an admin candidate. Once that area is improved, this should be a strong candidate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)