Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SFGiants

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

SFGiants

edit

Voice your opinion (5/16/9); Scheduled to end 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SFGiants (talk · contribs) - I have been editing on-and-off for about 1½ years, and I feel that I am ready to take on something more. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Maybe some RC patrol, XFD, reversion with the rollback tool, the like.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I haven't really made any huge contributions. I am more of a WikiGnome/WikiElf, which is why admin tools woulod help tremendously.
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: Suprisingly, considering that I have been a Wikipedian well over a year, the answer to the first question is no. If such a conflict did occur, I would immediately assume good faith, until the conditions made it impossible to do so. If it escalated past that, I would ask for a third opinion, possibly that of an admin. If it went even farther, the admin would probably hand down some blocks, and I might use RfC, but I would only use RfAr as a last resort, when all other steps have failed.

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

4. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, and if so, how would you apply this guideline when dealing with newcomers or vandals?--U.S.A. cubed 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think AGF is one of the golden pillars of Wikipedia. You cannot build an encyclopedia with the paranoid belief that others around you are undermining this goal. As for newcomers, I try to be as civil to them as possible in my dealings, to help them stay on and bacome constructive editors. The one thing I try to remember in dealing with newcomers is that I was once a newcomer. As for vandals, I try to do the same thing, but with special emphasis on trying to make them constructive editors: I peresonally have vandal-turned-editor friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFGiants (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

General comments

edit

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SFGiants before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. Support Won't abuse the tools. Good luck!--U.S.A. cubed 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Will not abuse tools, also informative userboxes are a plus. Abeg92contribs 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What userboxes? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This page, which is the first link from my userpage.
  3. Support I don't see anything in your userpage that makes me think you will abuse the tools, so here's a support. Frise 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. SFGiants has been heere long enough to have been around the block a few times. I see nothing in his history that indicates the tools will be abused. Adminship is no big deal, and the recent low edit count does not worry me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support - Weak answers to the questions (especially q1) mean this RfA probably won't pass; I can't see a clear need for the tools. However, I feel that zero-sum support is needed, to cancel out some of the !votes below which concern his user page. Bad user page does not equal a bad adminship candidate. Walton Need some help? 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I find myself amused, but displeased, by the candidate's user page. In addition, the candidate's signature, which resembles line noise, also puts me off. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had problems with line noise as well, but I fixed them by running a new phone cord from the network interface device to the jack near my computer. I think having the old cord running next to the microwave oven and the TV caused interference. Also, make sure you're using 8 bits, no parity, one stop bit. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin, may I ask how a user's displeasing signature would make them a displeasing administrator?--U.S.A. cubed 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even right, Kelly. You can't just oppose because of a userpage or signature. That has absolutely nothing to do how well an administrator they would be. Kelly, do you ever support anyone in their RfA? Can Kelly's vote be counted? Cool Bluetalk to me 12:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just asking a question that I was curious of, but I think anyone's vote or opinion, has the right to count, wether I agree or not with it.--U.S.A. cubed 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pretty much per Kelly Martin. Additionally, candidate has a best of 16 edits in each of the past four months... —AldeBaer 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew someone would bring that up. I have not had much time to make edits this year due to certain personal reasons, but those are cleared up now, so I will be active again. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: As said above, user page is amusing but not quite what expected from an administrator. Also as said above the inactivity issues. Also I am not quite pleased with the answers to the questions, especially Q1 and Q2.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per userpage and lack of recent contributions. Fix the page and get a months of recent edits and you will likely succeed. Captain panda 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Lack of steady amount of solid edits. Few edits this year. Signature is terrible and annoying when you accidently click on the middle character. Userpage and sig not noob friendly.--Dacium 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Lack of consistent regular edits and general lack of participation in the user Talk and policy spaces. Little-or-no admin-related work demonstrated in contributions. Performing duties such as new page/recent change patrols; warning vandalising editors and/or reporting them to WP:AIV or similar appropriate noticeboard when they persist; offering advice to new users who create articles that could be improved or speedily deleted. Show evidence of these and/or many other related tasks in your history when you re-apply in six months or so and I may support. (aeropagitica) 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I cannot approve a candidate whose statement and answers to questions do not show enough substance or confidence. TML 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Just not decent answers for the questions. I'm not an admin, and I get along pretty dang well without the tools, and I do plenty of reverts, deletes, and rollbacks. As for the userpage, I can find a joke in anything, so that's not an issue, and the signature is annoying, but not overbearing. What gets to me is the lack of consistent editing, and the lack of good, concrete answers to the questions. Maybe in the future I could support. Jmlk17 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) if you're dedicated to the project.[reply]
  9. Oppose. I like your userpage, it's witty. But your inactivity the past for months is a little iffy, not sure if you're dedicated enough. (there are programs, such as WP:TWINKLE, that have a rollbak function, so it's not really admin-only anymore)--Wizardman 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. This user does not need admin tools at this time. Not dedicated to the project. Sr13 (T|C) 08:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was a little too direct with my response...I meant to say that you haven't been active for a while, and this troubles me a little. Sr13 (T|C) 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm not a fan of edit counts but the lack of recent activity is troubling. JodyB 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Activity level is simply too low; and answer to Q1 are all activities undertaken by editors without tools. Pastor David † (Review) 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Kelly Martin, and per answers to questions. --kingboyk 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, straighten out that signature, and a higher number of consistent edits. --Phoenix (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Your username (while perhaps predating policy), is a pretty blatant trademark infringement. I know we have some admins whose usernames violate policy, but it sets a bad example to make more of them. —dgiestc 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tradmark of what?--U.S.A. cubed 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral with moral support. I'm not bothered about the user page, but I can't see a need for the tools and I can't see an editor with a clear grasp of the policies here. However, I can see a good dedicated user who wants to improve Wikipedia so I won't oppose. More activity (which you already know) and more edits in the Wiki namespace and I'll support your next application. The Rambling Man 06:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: 1000 times I agree with the The Rambling Man. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - The Rambling Man said everything I wanted to say:(..--Cometstyles 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. RC patrol, XfD participation and closures (in some cases), and vandalism reversion are all things that editors can do. However, the candiate seems to be a good editor in all other respects. The recent inactivity is what compels me to remain "neutral". Also, I'd highly recommend changing the signature as it could cause confusion regarding your identity. Make it as fancy or bland as you wish, but try to somehow preserve your username (SFGiants) in your signature. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per that rambling guy. Philippe 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: I'd normally vote Oppose given that the user hasn't displayed more than a dilettante's attraction to the project, but that there are editors who admit to shooting down an RfA on the basis of a user page or a sig looking funny is a damning indictment of Wikipedia practice and superficiality that I devoutly hope the project's detractors never notice. Still, voting Support in protest would be a WP:POINT violation, more's the pity.  RGTraynor  16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral good editor, but perhaps you should spend a little time getting re-acclimated to the community before running for adminship.-- danntm T C 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, a great person, but bot in great need of tools. Just in need of time! *Cremepuff222* 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I think you'd probably be fine as an administrator, but there are still some issues to be taken care of. It's not about your userpage, I don't care. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson doesn't even have one, but he's an admin. But you probably should get more accustomed to policy, and spend a little time making yourself more well-rounded. (Almost) Everybody has to go through it, around 1000-2500 edits. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SFGiants&oldid=1078795623"