Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 23 November 2006

ST47

Voice your opinion (13/3/1) Ending 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) – I am applying for adminship after 4 months and over 8000 edits, not because this means I am entitled to the role, or because the wiki needs me, but because I think I can expand my contributions to the wiki. My service is not necessary to the wiki; I am only online when there are several other editors active. But with admin tools I could help improve Misplaced Pages, and would not harm it. WP:CSD has an infamous backlog - over the past month I've spent a great dead of time on newpage patrol and may have finally memorized the important criteria. Vandalism is also...bad...and I can fix that. Requests for unblock and AIV are areas without a long backlog, but that are much more critical than CSD, as they directly affect users. Requested moves and protected edit requests are feared areas, it seems, and RFI and the various ANs are also in need. I currently and active at WP:ABUSE, and that wouldn't stop. I'll use Special:Unwatchedpages to add a few thousand pages to my watchlist to prevent vandalism. I can help, I want to help, and I have the experience now to back it up: with over 750 project edits and almost 3000 user talk edits I've seen what has to be done. I run a bot, User:STBot, who is a really cool guy once you get to know him. ;) The biggest concerns last time were that I didn't know policy, which now I'd say I do(c'mon, quiz me :P), experience, which I'd say has been addressed, and lazy of article writing, which I said further down that I just suck at. As for the editor review, stress, major/minor edit usage(for reverts(which I fixed)), automated reversions of good-faith edits(also fixed to my knowledge), and time since the last RfA(2 months then, now it's almost 3). Ask away, I'll answer whatever you ask. ST47Talk 21:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First RfA can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ST47

Editor Review can be found at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/ST47

Quick Stats:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I can help in many of the backlogged and needed areas:

• Protected edit requests seems backlogged, and also seems like something I could help to fix
• WP:CSD is another area that tends to have a backlog and is a more obvious area of the wiki, as deletions are in the public's sight
• Unblock Requests I think I understand how to do this, and it seems to be one of the most important areas of the wiki, as we don't want to have people banned who shouldn't be
• Requested moves I could keep an eye on this and fix anything that cannot be fixed through the conventional pagemove
• WP:RFI is another area I could help in
• WP:AIV is sometimes backlogged while I am online
• WP:AN and resolving the issues that appear there
• WP:ABUSE where I already live
• I run a CFD bot that also does some specialized tasks
• Newpage patrol, welcoming committee, username watcher

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am of course pleased with the edits I make, but TBH...I can't write. They say writer's block, I have writer's concrete wall. I've tried to sit down and contribute to FAs and such, and I just don't know what to write, so that's really it, the everyday stuff that I can do.

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: Not really, once I tried to speedy a page that I shouldn't have and made some people mad, but I apologized to the user and no harm done - I try not to hit save unless I'm sure that I'm doing what I want to, and I don't really get stressed over what happens here, I like Misplaced Pages as a way to relax and chat with some people while helping out - I enjoy volunteering - it gives you a sense of accomplishment.

Addendum: I was asked how I would handle conflict as an administrator - I can think of a few situations:

• Edit wars - protect the page(if it is severe), watch for 3RR, and I'd try not to get involved, if I did, I'd seek a second opinion.
• Unblocks of people that I blocked - nothing - I'd want another administrator
• Wheel wars - third opinion
• People angry over deletions, blocks, reverts - I'd respond calmly and explain what I did/why

Optional question (in four parts) from Joe

4. I am profoundly troubled by the diffs Crzrussian adduces, the first two of which evidence what is, to my mind, a plain misunderstanding of that which A1 means to reference; whilst a consensus may not exist for my very narrow construction of A1, I don't imagine one to exist for your (ostensibly) broad construction, and I think it well settled that, as regards speedy deletion, one ought to err on the side of caution. I've four (somewhat-)related queries, then:

a. Do you think you were correct to have tagged Raw and So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12) as {{db-a1}} and would you, qua admin, delete either page should you encounter it as it was when you tagged it? If you've concluded that your tagging was inappropriate in either instance, I wonder whether you might think speedy nevertheless to have been appropriate and, if so, under what criterion or criteria?

b. A discussion arose recently at WP:AN as to whether an admin undertaking new page patrol ought straightaway to delete an article he/she finds to be speediable or ought instead, as any editor, to tag the page and await the review of another admin in order that no page should be deleted prior to its being deemed worthy of speedy by two editors. The former practice, FWIW, appears quite common and almost surely is not disfavored by the community, but some think that, insofar as we ought to be exceedingly careful when undertaking speedy deletions, a page should probably not be deleted where it has not previously been tagged for speedy by another editor and surely should not be deleted where the criterion under which deletion is contemplated is one that tends toward the subjective (e.g., {{db-nonsense}}, as against, for example, {{db-attack}}). Do you think there to be a consensus for either of the two views here and, in the absence of such a consensus, how would you, qua admin, deal with pages that you think, upon your encountering them, to be eminently speediable, the absence of a tag applied by another editor notwithstanding?

c. Your personal views apropos of G1 aside—I am confident that, as an admin, you'd act consistent with the wishes of the community, even where you may think the community-favored practice to be other-than-ideal—how stringently would you impose its constraints on deletion were you to encounter an article tagged as {{db-nonsense}}? Consider, for instance, an article of the sort mentioned here by Prodego, one that explains why the sky is green, backed up with pseudo science, such as that "reflections from lettuce cause it to be green" is 7 sentences long and well written. Such an article would almost surely be {{db-nonsense}}d by a new page patroller, and I wonder whether you might, having encountered the page tagged as nonsense, delete or not and what thinking might underlie your decision.

d. Your personal views apropos of A1 aside, how stringently would you impose its constraints on deletion were you to encounter an article tagged as {{db-nocontext}}. Consider, for instance, an article as follows: The SK Telecom Open is a golf tournament contested annually in South Korea and sponsored by SK Telecom (this is based loosely on this DRV, which focused more on the nature of a similar article as G11able). Do you think such an article would merit deletion under A1? Joe 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See ST47's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support; first support on an RfA at last! _JD 16:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Congrats ;) ST47Talk 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Support at long last. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support per nom, but answer to question 3 is not as good as I expected - you will come into conflicts when you use sysop tools - it is just a matter of time. And we need to know whether you've a strategy ready to cope with these conflicts when they arise. Kimchi.sg 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your input - I've put some more stuff up there, any other situations you can think of? ST47Talk 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Support: mais bien sur! Dedicated vandal fighter, will not abuse the tools. haz (talk) e 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I see only dedication. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support. This is a dedicated editor who has done great work in vandalfighting, *fD and other processes where administrators are needed. I'm confident that the candidate will make a great admin. --Rory096 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Ixfd64 20:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support: Another great user who can make full use of the tools to improve Misplaced Pages. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support A very dedicated user. --Siva1979 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Well reasoned answers, good record, appears ready. Agent 86 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - a good Wikipedian with lots of experience on Misplaced Pages. –- kungming·2 20:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
12. supportHe has devoted alot of his time to wikipedia. Cocoaguy 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — "Stats for the lazy:" frankly that seems rude; I don't see any contributions from you, I'd be willing to consider changing from oppose should you provide some contributions you have made; Remember: We are building an encyclopaedia not trying to fight a war with vandals. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your comment! While I agree that we are building an encyclopedia, the people who do the encyclopedia-building don't need adminship, those tasks are usually given to vandal-fighters - some people say that candidates must show a need for the tools. However, I'll respect that you thing that vandal-fighting isn't the center of the wiki, and how about some(not as many as some people) comments at WP:AFD and I do a lot at WP:CFD and the newpages log. ST47Talk 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Can't trust him/her per CrazyRussian's below comments - Switched back to oppose! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. In addition to concerns below, I think you're inexperienced with process. I'd say over 3/4 of your edits are welcoming users or doing re-cat. While this is not a bad thing, I'd like for an admin to have more substantial experience in the processes within Misplaced Pages. I'd say give it another three or four months with process and article contributions. --Wafulz 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I don't think I do any re-cat on this account, though if you count my bot that's probably true. As for the welcoming - there's certainly not THAT much of that either, but I agree that welcoming isn't necessary for adminship. ST47Talk 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Absolutely-Not Oppose Notorious WP:BITEr! Tags newbies' contribs within seconds of creation, repeat declined-CSD offender. I have no confidence whatsoever in his reading with deletion policy, and I find his behavior with newbies strongly reprehensible. Finally, and unnecessarily, "sign your posts if you enjoy life" is not exactly confidence-inspiring. This user is immature. I cannot entrust the tools. - crz crztalk 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Because I will certainly be challenged, here are some diffs (picked among many others):

   Gross failure to under stand deletion policy:

   BITing: #2 above,

   - crz crztalk 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. A bit iffy per MatthewFenton - and this diff gives me pause for thought. Not the most intelligent revert I've ever seen, to say the least. Moreschi 19:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Uhh - what's wrong with that revert? ST47Talk 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   You reverted from one vandalized version to another vandalized version. Moreschi 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   Ahh, I see what you mean - I was using VP at the time nad didn't see the vandalism - sorry :( ST47Talk 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

   I scoured your edits and didn't find much communication (aside from assorted warning templates) or much in the ways of actual article contributions. Not enough to merit an oppose, but not enough to convince me of a support either. I'd say give it a few months. --Wafulz 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)