Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWH


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

CWH
Final (4/11/3); ended 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW v/r - TP 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have nominated this user for adminship since he has displayed concern regarding keeping the integrity encyclopedia intact on various talk pages and has reminded users to follow policy regarding sourcing when editing. He has edited numerous articles and displayed stringent standards regarding the sourcing, suggesting various routes of action to be taken. This user is civil to all users in general, no record of hostility, profane comments, and empty block log. He has also been editing for six years and displays a sound knowledge of wikipedia policy on correct sourcing and copyright.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add that he is a really neutral guy, and never displays antagonism towards other editors, he mainly edits China related articles and reminds other users to follow policy. Some discussions on the talk pages of China related articles became really unpleasant and require neutral admins to step in and deal with the situation. CWH also voiced his desire to delete poorly sourced articles.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination in the hopes that I can be of some help ch (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: My main interest is not administrative as such, but has been cleaning up existing articles in my area of knowledge, China, by adding reliable references, editing and re-organizing, and raising questions with those who have put in more time on the articles.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have done the sort of work described above, for instance, on Institute of Pacific Relations, China Hands, Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars, and Mao The Unknown Story, and Imperial Decreeamong others.


 * 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: I have been in discussions, but not conflicts.


 * Additional optional question from Phantomsteve
 * 4. RfA has been described as "a feculent sinkhole of hatred and rage", and adminship as "hell" - why do you want to become an admin? --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A:

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for CWH:
 * Edit summary usage for CWH can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Moral support Contributions seem to demonstrate a good understanding of policy. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I nominated him because he voiced a desire to delete articles with bad sourcing. He needs admin tools to delete articles, and also deal with editors who insist on breaking rules on sources.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because we need admin assistance to clean up and divide out the chaff from the sprawling hellscape of weak articles that, sadly, seem to make up Wikipedia's coverage of Asia and its rich and important history.  A lot of damage has been done to the Asian topics by nationalistic POV warriors, damage that most admins can't begin to grasp.  Us editors in the trenches need help.  This is one admin that won't tell me, as many have, "I'm afraid that I know next to nothing about China and its history so I can't be of much assistance..." and won't duck content issues— the number one concern for Asia topics.  We need help here, more eyes watching the store on Asian subjects. I would implore you all to reconsider.  NickDupree (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I give moral support, please keep up the good work and you'll probably succeed next time. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) A grand total of 11 Wikipedia-space edits in six years suggests to me there's too little for me to judge you on policy knowledge. You need to get active in the project namespace. Based on this, I do not think you are suited for adminship at this time. I also don't see a need for the admin buttons at all—adminship is a big deal, no matter what has been said about it in the past. There is no reason to give you the tools. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He has lectured people on numerous talk pages regarding proper sourcing policy, and stuff like WP:OR and other policies related to sourcing. Look at some of his talk page discussions for details.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Not enough participation. I checked user's listed articles and he seems to be the 3rd most active editor on them.  One article link goes to wikisource.  One goes to what is now a disambiguation page (yes the other pages split show his work, but still 3rd most active, also poor care with the nom statement).  Less than 3000 edits overall.  Nom statement seems overly terse as well (feel like too much is put on the voters to research the fellow...when he is closing discussions, he needs to be able to summarize things for others.  I would also like to see enough writing that is clearly his to see English ability (not saying I found mistakes, but an unknown).  He has also not optioned in for the month counts and the like.TCO (reviews needed)  13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * His english is fluent. He has not made any errors so far as I have seen on his many edits and talk page comments.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. User does not have experience in admin-related areas yet. Also, if you don't plan to work in administrative areas, why would you need the tools?--EdwardZhao (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. It's not very often that I participate here, but I stumbled over accidentally and this nom was at the top of the list. It seems clear to me from the user's contributions that, not only does this user not have a need for the tools, they probably won't know how to use them correctly. No experience managing files, no experience maintaining categories, very little interaction on user talk and Wikipedia talk pages, etc. I can understand an exemplary content editor asking for the tools just in case they need them, but this user hasn't even written a GA yet. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I think our standards are too high in terms of total number of edits - your edit count is just fine for someone who makes actual manual edits (as opposed to candidates who have 10,000 edits using AutoWikiBrowser or some such thing). However, one-sentence answers to the questions above aren't especially impressive, especially when you don't answer parts of the questions.  #3 asks not only how you have dealt with conflicts in the past (which you say you haven't had any, so that's fine), but also how you will deal with them in the future (which needs to be answered).  #1 isn't about what you have done in the past, but what is it that you would want to do with the administrative tools.  Would you process speedy deletions?  Close deletion discussions?  Patrol protection requests, undeletion requests, or vandalism reports? --B (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He wants to delete articles with bad sourcing. He mainly stays with china related articles, if a problem/vandal comes onto one of them he will deal with it. He does not get angry or attack people during discussions, we really need a neutral admin since some discussions on china related talk pages get really nasty.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Well, it actually looked quite promising for a moment, as you have no blocks and over 2000 article edits, but I have to agree with the other editors and say that your answer to Q1 shows that you have no experience in admin areas. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 14:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. No evidence to suggest any future use of admin tools. No participation in AfD.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He has expressed a desire to delete articles which are badly sourced. He needs admin tools to do so.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But policy doesn't let admins do this without proper consensus. --Rschen7754 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't expect essays, but the answers are severely lacking. Essentially per B. T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Quite simply, no evidence to suggest any future use of admin tools. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above, seems like a good editor, but not ready for adminship at this time. --Rschen7754 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) You don't need the tools to clean up, reference, or organize articles. You can do that right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think the work you do necessitates the extra buttons. I'm neutral rather than oppose because from your contributions I am fairly sure you would be a decent admin; there just isn't enough relevant experience to judge you on. —WFC— TFL notices 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) You're doing a good enough job as it is without the admin tools. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 01:39, 26 July 2011 (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.