Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramsquire 2

< 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.


Ramsquire

edit

Final (4/17/7) Ended 17:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor at Wiki for almost two years. Although it took me a while to contribute regularly, I have been a steady user here for about six months now. I enjoy assisting on peer review, RfC, and AfD's. I also patrol for vandalism on controversial articles and will attempt to cleanup articles that I see need it. As an editor I try to keep a neutral and unbiased eye on articles and their talk pages, and see the point all editors are trying to make with their edits. I believe that this attitude has assisted in resolving numerous edit wars. As an administrator, I would like to continue my work on peer reviews, removing vandalism, RfC's and AfD's. I would also like to continue my work on finding cites on fact tags, and also work on the backlog of cleanup articles. Finally, I would like all editors here to note the quality of my work here at Wiki, I believe my prior history shows that I would be a diligent sysop. I humbly ask for your support. Please note that this is my second request for adminship. Ramsquire 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my nomination.

--As the RfA has begun, I feel I should address one issue that has come up. But first let me say that I appreciate all the comments that have been already made. Now that I have said that, let me explain one of the things that have been noted. When I make an original edit, I will add an edit summary in most cases unless it is to correct an error I made. In which case I would click the minor edit button. However, if I am responding to another editor on a talk page, I would not add a summary because I did not think it was necessary. Now that I know how important adding a summary is, I have changed my preferences to prompt me to add one on every edit. I hope that this oversight on my part does not derail my nomination, as my edit summary should be 100% after today.--

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 will definitely look to clear up some of the Wiki backlog especially as it relates to articles needing clean up. I would also assist on administrative backlogs as well. In addition, I will continue to assist in removing vandalism from wiki, as well as reminding editors of biographical articles of WP:BLP. I will also use my admin tools, to continue to assist on RfC and AfD's as well as in dispute resolution.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:I am particular pleased with my entries on the OJ Simpson Murder Case page and on creating the article for the Trial of Clay Shaw. I have found my most satisfying work at Wiki on the JFK articles. When I first arrived here, they were filled with inaccuracies and bogus theories, but over the months, myself and other users have really transformed those articles into encyclopaedic entries. Right now I am attempting to do the same to the political articles as well.
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:I have not been in any serious editing conflicts. From time to time users have attempted to add original research to articles and I have had to delete them, and have been personally attacked for doing so. However, when a genuine dispute arises, I will usually try to reach a consensus with the other editors to avoid an edit war.
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an experienced user? --Mcginnly | Natter 22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Only in the most dire of circumstances. I would assume that an experienced user at Wiki would be familiar with most of the rules and policies at Wikipedia, so therefore any violations by that user of Wiki policy would be probably intentional. If said user is just blowing off steam or having a bad day, I would remind of the relevant policy and ask that they desist from disrupting the project. If they continue, then an admin would have no choice but to block said user. I don't believe an admin should play favorites with users who are violating the policies here. Ramsquire 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Moral Support Seems like a well meaning editor. But seriously, you should withdraw this RFA and focus building up your editcount and use of edit summaries, and consider reappling in several months.-- danntm T C 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - if all that the opposing comments can find to bring up are editcount, edit summaries, and not enough vandalfighting, then I don't see that we have any issues of trust here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely RfA's are judged against trust and experience? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know I am a little disappointed about the rank editcountitis and nitpicking going on here. I am not a newbie here. I have experience here. Much more than some current administrators. When I opened my account in 2004, at first I was an anon. Then I got an account. Then I stopped coming to Wiki because I changed jobs and didn't have as much computer access as I had before, and when I did I would do it as an anon. Since January, I have been a regular contributor to various articles, and no one has yet to point to one thing that shows that a) I lack experience and would make a bad administrator or b) that I have or will abuse the privileges. If I am good enough to be an admin in three months, why not today? Because I don't have a certain raw number of edits. That is editcountitis. I could have 3,000 edits in a month, by just replacing semi-colons with commas in random articles. However, I wouldn't do that because it is a cheap way to up your edit count. It seems like to some editors, that's the fast track to being an admin. Ramsquire 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ramsquire please remember WP:AGF. I opposed this RfA because even though you may have been contributing for two years, the lowish edit count does not really show this. Also with the edit summaries, you should really know this policy by now. Your last comment above about edit count really wasn't a good idea to write, as it isn't true - admins are made because there was concensus to do so. Otherwise, I do believe you are a potential administrator, particularly if you keep up the rate you are at now. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not questioning the good faith of any particular editor here and apologize if it seems that I did. However, I feel that many of the opposes are showing a lack of good faith in me. I do believe that there is a groupthink in play that low edit count means low experience. I dispute that. Sorry if my response came off as a rant against the consensus approach to getting new admins; it wasn't meant in that vein. I used that example of something that could be done to bloat my edit count, but would have no effect on improving the project. According to the admin nomination criteria, admins are supposed to improve the project and should show a history of doing so. I believe I have, if you disagree, that's fine. The criteria specifically implies that the number of edits is not as important as the quality of edits. If my edits are not admin quality or do not show I have the ability, I can accept that, but I am being told that "I lack experience come back in a month", as if I got here one month ago. I looked at the baseling requirements of other admins and they seemed to average out at 1,200 edits and/or six months of work here. I am close to one and blew by the second one. I don't see why I'm not good now, but will be good in January. In the interim, I'll just be doing what I am doing now anyway. If its good now, what can change?
    As for the edit count criticism, that is a fair one. I accept it and will be more careful with adding them even when simply responding on my talk page.
    Ramsquire 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Assume good faith... Jcam 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rather Weak Moral Support— I rather dislike bludgeonings; hence the support. I suspect you didn’t do your homework after your first run at adminship; hence the bludgeonings. With an edit summary usage of only 75% for major edits and only 58% for minor edits, you’ve obviously not been tuned into to recent RfAs, where folks routinely get raked for better scores than this. And with only 1094 Total edits (edits which we can't review have virtually no value) of which 340 are in the Main and 114 are in Wikipedia, you’re still highly unlikely to make it on this RfA. I’d encourage you to withdraw, ponder the messages you're getting here, and come to the WP:RFA page to comment on potential administrators for a month or three to get a sense of what the passing standards are. Williamborg (Bill) 07:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Just over 1000 edits is not enough. Michael 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify? Why not? --Rory096 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose A good editor, but not enough edits all round. Also please use summaries for every edit. --Alex (Talk) 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - edit summaries, edit count. Moreschi 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - a very impressive September contribution list, but there seem to be very few admin-esque activities (e.g.recentchanges patrol, afd comments) before September - even as recently as August the list is nearly dry. Keep going at actions like September, and in two months time (so three months at that rate total) I promise my support. Also suggest that edit summaries be used more frequently - you might want to set preferences to force them, because a combined 65% is really low for an RFA. --Mnemeson 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose due to edit count, malformed answers, lack of project experience. Themindset 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: I believe this user will make a fine admin before too long (contributions to controverisal political issues have been very civil and well thought-out). At this point, the edit count is a bit too low and the user does need to improve use of edit summaries. Suggest also a little more work against vandalism. Then the user should try again. Heimstern Läufer 19:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Good answers, but wait until you have a few thousand edits. That's all I can say. So far you have been making good progress, so just keep it up and you'll be fine in a few months (or whenever you reach 3,000ish edits). --Nishkid64 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I'm sure you're a stand up guy - I'll support you when you have more experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The core criteria are need and trust. Regarding need, I find the nominee's answers somewhat weak, but I'm willing to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt because adminship ought not to be a big deal. Where I hesitate is on the trust issue. Part of the trust comes from being satisfied the nominee has enough experience. Some of the subsequent responses by the leave me wondering how the candidate will fare under fire if given admin tools. I was not really impressed that the prior RfA was not disclosed in the nomination. Checking the last 20 or 30 contributions to AfD discussions, only one or two went beyond "per nom" (not to say "per nom" comments are bad per se). Any of those concerns by themselves might not be enought to cause me concern, but put together I am very reluctant to support. Agent 86 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not disclose the prior RfA because I thought it would automatically generate with this one. I will provide a link to it, though, since it has come up twice. Much of the information there is the same as the information here. Ramsquire 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose sorry but edits are just too low for me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Per edit summaries on AfDs, user clearly thinks that AfD is a vote, which it is not. --Rory096 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I don't think, nor have I ever intimated, that AfD is a staight voting process. I am fully aware that it is a consensus process. However, for lack of a better word, I use the word "vote", as if to say "If I voting, I'd vote keep or delete. Ramsquire 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opppose, While you have been more active since your last RFA, there are many areas of the project that you could use more experience. Keep up the editing, but look in to Wikipedia: areas that you may be able to contribute more at, such as the XfD's. — xaosflux Talk 01:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose My thinking parallels quite closely that of Agent 86 (of course, he expresses such thinking much more cogently that I). Even as I am certain that Ramsquire would not abuse the tools, I cannot, on the basis of his record, conclude conclusively that he might not misuse (even avolitionally) the mop and bucket, such that I don't believe that I can properly say that I am certain that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter, after all, is my RfA meta-standard). I think it is certainly likelier than not, in view of the candidate's ostensibly reasonable judgment and cordial demeanor, that Ramsquire would make a fine admin, but there's not much on which to base such an inference, and there remain, then, unassuaged doubts. Joe 05:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, you look like a good editor, but you need more experience in janitorial areas. --05:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose What's with the yelling? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Don't take this as a pile-on, but rather as advice to get more experience in the Wiki. I suggest a withdrawal and reapplication when you've managed to demonstrate that you have a good grasp of procedure etc. - TewfikTalk 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. More edits and I'll consider supporting in the future. Nephron  T|C 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral You seem promising and I liked your answers, but your current edit count is too low and your contribution flow too unsteady. Increase your pace and I will definitely support you in the future.--Húsönd 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You forgot to include a reference to your previous RfA for some reason. Pointers for improvement; edit summaries with good precises of said edits are essential; participation in XfA is a good thing, particularly when you can cite policy when you give your opinion; interaction with users in WikiTalk, articleTalk and userTalk spaces is essential; vandal-fighting is essential to the smooth running of WP too; participation in one or more Wikiprojects is a good thing; lastly, the primary reason for us all being here is editing articles - join the featured article debates and use your editing/research skills to work articles up to Good/Featured status. You can also get an editor review to help you strengthen your current weaknesses. All of this should take 3-4 months and ~2000 edits. Reapply for RfA at that point or perhaps someone will nominate you when they see your record of good works. (aeropagitica) 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral to avoid the pile on. I have no doubts about your sincerity but your edit counts are too low. Try applying again after three to four months. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning towards Weak Support. This is a good candidate who considers the value of contributions important. User is very honest in saying that they would rather build experience with an edit history full of quality editing than "cheap edits" as mentioned. I tip my hat to you for that. And, I thank you for your hard work. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, I agree with what Junglecat says. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Doctor Bruno  16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral." With regard to the expressed concern about edit summary usage, the candidate should consider configuring his Preferences to automatically prompt for edit summary when about to post without it, which is an available setting. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 10 October 2006 (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/Ramsquire_2&oldid=1108756550"