Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKGhetto


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

AKGhetto
Final (24/12/5) ended 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

– I'd like to self-nom myself for Adminship. I've been registered since September of 2004, and admitedly haven't been as active as most. However, during the past year and a half I have watched and observed many of Wikipedia's inner workings, and ultimatly I feel contributed to the encyclopedia in nothing short of a positive manner. I feel I have already demonistrated trust from the community by using the AWB tool responsibly for quite some time. I view Adminship as a truly "mop & bucket" job, and am gladly willing to accept the challenge. &mdash;akghetto talk 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the self-nom.  &mdash;akghetto talk 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support - While only active for the past 2-3 months, that meets my criteria. I'm also proud to be the first to support! --ZsinjTalk 08:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - hasn't done anything to make me think he'd abuse admin powers, and WP:AWB experience should give him a decent idea of the importance of janitorial work Cynical 11:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Positive community member prepared to do some janatorial work. Meets my criteria. Essexmutant 13:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Per Essexmutant. Keep up with good work. --Tone 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A good user and keep up the good work. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support looks like a good user, who could use the extra admin tools Prodego  talk  15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support M o e   ε  16:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) "Adminship is no big deal" - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Ter e nce Ong 16:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. One way of gaining experience is by making edits. psch  e  mp  |  talk  18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) --Jaranda wat's sup 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support 100%! - Wezzo 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support will be good admin, no reason not to support. --rogerd 03:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support--Jusjih 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
 * 17) I Support You too -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 04:04
 * 18) Support --Ugur Basak 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Helpful at CFD.  --Kbdank71 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Unlikely to abuse admin priviledges. Gflores Talk 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Seems to be a good, well meaning user. Raven4x4x 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - if you scroll down, you'll see my silly mistake. Gave it some thought, and you check out o.k. In fact, lets just say better than some of my other support votes. Just saying, is all. --Rob from NY 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per Cynical. --Scaife   (Talk)  [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose not enough experience, only one month of power editing with several months of little to no editing. KI 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Kl. SushiGeek 06:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I don't think this user has enough experience yet. User has almost no edits that are not AWB-assisted. Most edits this month are AWB-related. Almost zero activity on talk pages.  jaco plane  17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose sorry, I require some more experience before I can support.--Alhutch 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Especially for a self-nom., I need a longer record (and more interactions) before I would feel comfortable conferring the mop. Xoloz 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Too little user interaction and experience outside of the main namespace. &#126;MDD4696 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: needs more experience. Jonathunder 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, will support at 4 months of power editing. SushiGeek 04:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote stricken, because you can't vote twice! ;) Xoloz 18:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose. come back in three months. ... aa:talk 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- Needs more experience/timeserved outside the use of AWB etc --  max rspct  leave a message  14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- too soon, but try in two months. Thumbelina 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Not enough contribution to support.  Sunray 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, and I feel bad doing this because I think you have the makings and attitude of a great admin. I just feel that you need a bit more experience with editing in the main namespace in order to best use the mop.  -- Samir ∙ [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px|  ]] T C 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral More than half of AKGhetto's edits have come only from one month, which is a bit worrying.  D a Gizza Chat  &#169;</b> 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Rob Church (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral due to lack of project space experience. Admins need to be comfortable with policies, and I can't infer that you are if you don't edit the Wikipedia namespace much. Stifle 11:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral this one gave me trouble. Not a lot of experience, etc. Makes me nervous when "adminship is no big deal" is used as a reason to support. User doesn't have enough experience where it counts to make me confident, but admitedly hasn't done anything wrong with a medium amount of experience so I'll stay neutral. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral He's been making a pretty decent comeback, but that long a slow-down in editing should basically require a restart for ensuring he still follows the rules before admin'ing. Staxringold 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral -I'll sit on the fence for this one. Put your things together, and you'll have power tools. Eventually. --Rob from NY 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 72% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 137 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 08:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See AKGhetto's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.



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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I've spent time on RC patrol in the past. Most recently I've spent a lot of my time over the past couple months at Special:Newpages tagging for CSD.  I also have been maintaining WP:CFD/Speedy & WP:CFD in general, closing out VfD & maintaining the results.  This all being said, I would expect to be able to use the admin mop to continue with these tasks yet being more effective.  Specifically, being able to delete CSD & CFD tagged articles & cats would be very helpful, and would be my main chores I would contribute to.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I was the founding member of WikiProject Alaska, and from that started a number of Alaska-related articles. Since I was born and raised in this great state, this is truly my passion and the contributions of which I am most proud.


 * 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 honestly can't think of many conflicts of which I have been a party.  I realize this question is designed to get a feel for how I as an editor handle attacks/conflicts, so with that in mind some examples to show would be some "newbie" type mistakes such as thinking I was doing good by moving some articles to UTF titles (whoops! - see my talk under Here's a copy... header, and my response).  Another change I made to an Alaskan article caused me to respond here, here, & here.  Also examples of my asking for direction from existing admins, and taking their feedback constructivly I feel    .  Once again, not a lot to go on, but it's all I can think of!

Questions from NSLE: The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A. Obviously since these are all hypothetical situations I am somewhat shooting from the hip here, in that there are a number of variables involved, but I'll do my best. Concerning the sockpuppetry, I would look at what the abuse is.  Is this abuse part of the outline of sockpuppet abuse on WP:SOCK?  That would definitely weigh in here.  For a well-known and well-liked editor, I'd approach them first.  Present the abuse and the suspicions of sockpuppetry, and see what happens.  Assuming this question one stop further, if they acknowledged the sockpuppet, the abuse continued, or more evidence emerged to support the suspicion I would weigh blocking, more warnings, guidence from other admins, and/or refering to RfC.  Obviously keeping in mind that it is very hard to prove sockpuppet activity (short of running Check User, but even then it's not 100% proof).  I would hate to do anything too rash on pure evidence/suspicions/hearsay, so I would need to be 100% sure in my mind before drastic actions like RfC or blocking.


 * 1) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * A. I'd state my case to the deleting admin, see if they objected to an undelete (before undeleting it). It should be an easy case to determine if it's nonsense or not.  Assuming no objections from the deleting admin and the undelete goes through, I'd probably try to expand the article myself, or if the subject matter was out of my league I'd properly tag it so as to have someone else expand it, preferably with a rough draft of an expanded article in hand when undeleting.  Once again, if it's tagged G1, it should be easy to make a case if I truly felt that strongly about the article and could source the alleged non-sense.


 * 1) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * A. In this situation, I would warn them again, refering them to WP:CIVIL and ask them to stop. I'd even take a step back by letting the vandalism of my Talk continue (it's just my Talk!) and try to make sure more serious vandalism wasn't occuring.  Assuming continuation of recreating CSD-eligable articles, I'd block for short time (1-2 hours) and add user to my watch.  I could even live with not blocking and letting the CSD articles stay around for a few hours as it's not hurting anyone, as long as it's just creating new articles (and not vandalizing existing ones).  If I did block for what would be their second time and if they still came back after the short block and were continuing to break policy, I'd get some more admins involved, and definitely consider a longer block.


 * The above 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.