Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva


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

Apteva
Final: (0/10/1) Non-Crat closure per WP:NOTNOW. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– Self - what is there to say? I edit Wikimedia projects mainly to fix things that are just plain wrong. There are still a few odd quirks that Wikipedia has that are not going to get fixed anytime soon, if ever. Apteva (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Deleting pages, restoring pages, protecting, and unprotecting pages, blocking users listed at Administrator intervention against vandalism (if justified), basically any admin task that needs to be done.
 * B: Simple things that require admin action, like editprotected requests.
 * C: Difficult things like repairing cut and paste moves. I tend to be analytical, and can do complicated tasks, if I write them down. I often cut and paste into notepad to see what I am doing.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Most of my edits are as an IPuser. I tend to research edits carefully and spend up to an hour for each edit.
 * B: In addition to over a thousand edits under this username I have done over 2,000 edits that are WP:RM related, as an IPuser, plus an uncounted additional 2,000 plus, also as an IPuser.
 * C: It is very satisfying to make a significant contribution to one of Wikipedia's 100 most viewed pages, even if it was mostly a cut and paste of someone else's creation.


 * 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: No one causes me stress, and I try to understand the thoughts of anyone who has a different viewpoint.
 * B. One of the principle conflicts that I ran into was with an SPA who tried unsuccessfully to make me go away. My only regret is that in the end they stopped editing.


 * Optional Question from Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. An IP editor frequently posts a picture of a kitten on many users pages and appears to be spamming, and hasnt stopped. In fact all of his/her edits are of this picture being posted on user pages. Would you consider blocking this user?and if so for how long? would your answer be any different if the user were editing from an account?
 * A: If all of their edits are non-productive, and there were complaints from the users affected, I would warn them appropriately and then block them. I don't like indef blocks, so it would likely be for what I would consider a standard length - a week, then a month, then three months. It does however depend on admin backlog - there are very few admins, and the easy way out is often taken, to simply block them, but the thing to remember is that you are blocking a real life person, and it is better to educate them and let them mature instead of just pretending that they will go away. IP accounts are treated slightly differently than user accounts, because someone else at that school or where ever could try to use it, so blocks tend to be shorter for IP addresses, but other than that there is little difference. Another factor in this case is that they are spamming user pages, and other than an annoyance to the individual users has little to no impact on the encyclopedia. Schools frequently have their IP addresses blocked due to constant vandalism. By the way, by spamming did you mean posting a Hello Kitty userbox with a photo of a kitten? If that was the case I would likely do nothing (unless, as stated above, there were user complaints - the purpose of admins is to do things users can not). Apteva (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Apteva:
 * Edit summary usage for Apteva can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Apteva before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. -t'shaél chat 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: I would like to see more experience in an admin. Try again in a few months.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Edits made under this account name are alright, but do not of themselves indicate enough experience in admin-related areas. Edits made as an IP cannot easily be assessed, given that we have no way of knowing which IP or IPs you have used. If this RfA fails, or indeed and especially if it succeeds, I suggest you make a habit of editing through your username. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One admin explained that they log in "if they are going to do anything important". While everything is "important", I have long thought about why I prefer to edit as an IPuser. It is 1. Because I have always done it this way. 2. To push the envelope of what IPusers are expected to do. 3. To be added later. I do not flip back and forth. I stay as one or the other for anything I am working on at the moment. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.  iMatthew   talk  at 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my style to withdraw from anything. I always stay the course, even if I come in hours after the folks at the finish line have gone home. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose, please do try again once you have a few more edits under your belt. Sadly, IP edits are difficult to verify. Good luck in any future RfA! --Taelus (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not asking anyone to evaluate any of my IP edits, just pointing out a fact, that about 80% to 85% are as an IPuser. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry, but I just don't think you have enough experience yet. Also per Anthony.bradbury. Thanks,  Little Mountain  5   21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough editing experience (under your own username at least). Also, if you want to be an admin, you need to better articulate the reasons why.  Your self-nom and answers to the questions don't demonstrate a very deep understanding of administrative tasks. -- L  P  talk 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of my interaction is with admins, actually, but in the future I will spend more time at RfA, AfD, CfD, etc. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per lack of experience in admin areas. Sorry. America69 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva - MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was an wp:attack that should have been rejected as such. Apteva (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, there's just too few recent edits (under 300 this year) to really say anything about whether or not I trust your judgment. Jafeluv (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) neutral A weak one at that. Ive been torn to ask another question or leave it as it is. Im going to stay status quo. I liked most of the answer, however; What i didnt like was educating the blockee through a block. The purpose of any block is not to punish but to mitigate damage. In this case its a disruptive only account. Regardless of wether its a user page, mainspace the account is causing disruption and has only existed as such. that said i think most of the answer is thought out well. But Im just not able to switch over to support. That said consider this a moral support. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not intending to educate through a block, but education requires time, and the hope is that the education would occur despite the block, if you will, as blocks otherwise just tend to aggravate rather than educate. You are right that the purpose of the block is to protect the encyclopedia from damage. There are a thousand roles that are required for the smooth construction of the encyclopedia and after I was half way through the answer it occurred to me that it was possible, but extremely unlikely, that a user box with a kitty photo had to be added to thousands of user pages and that that IPuser was just pitching in to help. Apteva (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Log in? -t'shaél chat 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.