Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cf38


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

cf38

 * Withdrawn by candidate. Final Tally was (1/6/1).  Merry   Christmas  from Sasha 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- I'm an allrounder, as I like to do everything to help out the 'Pedia. I'm an RC patroller, I revert vandalism on sight, I warn users, report them, tag articles, write or improve articles, add sources, participate in AFD's and I post welcome templates etc... to give a helping hand to the new users. cf38 talk  12:22, 21 December 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Not much until I go through new admin school, but I'd like to Clear backlogs, such as the ones at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:RPP, WP:LTA etc.. because they plague Wiki and I would like to help sort them out. Also, instead of putting a speedy deletion tag on pages I'd actually delete them if they met the speedy deletion criteria, I would sort out edit wars, and all the other repetitive tasks that plaugue Wikipedia, including placing  and protect articles and userpages from vandalism.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Reverting and warning vandals. I'm an RC patroller and I use WP:TW among other scripts to delete vandalism and spam. Recently, I'm starting to contribute to WP:AFD, so that is one in the making. I'm a member of quite a few projects, and I help out there when I can. If I discover a page that meets the criteria for speedy deletion, I'll tag it and warn the user. I also use WP:FRIENDLY to tag articles, and if I have the time and the vandal-defcon is low, I'll try to fix the article myself. So, basically my best contributions to Wikipedia are maitenance tasks.
 * 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: Yes, and it was one I'm not proud of. I was brand new, and since I support the football team Port Vale, I was going through the articles looking to improve them. I found an article on Joe Anyon , and added some information. What I did't know that was I needed sources, but I didn't know about them, so I got into an editwar with user:dudesleeper. I said and did things I'm not proud of, but I was naaive and new. I apologise to User:dudesleeper , because to tell the truth I acted like a little prat, and not the way I do today.

General comments

 * See cf38's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for cf38:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/cf38 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Coredesat- I'm sure that I didn't register in November 2006, but it was an I.P edit. cf38  talk  12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the edit I was referring to. --Core desat 12:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But I remember registering in 2007, not 2006. Strange. cf38  talk  13:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You Made 1 edit in November '06 and this must have been it, you then went away for a long time. Harland1 (t/c) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig- It's considered disruptive to delete your warnings, that's why I put it there. cf38  talk  14:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support. Good work with the vandal-fighting, CSD tagging and UAA reporting, which are always key training grounds for potential admins. However, the opposers have a point in that you need more experience in some areas - since most of your edits are semi-automated using Twinkle or Friendly, we can't judge whether you've fully grasped the more subtle and complex areas of policy. I'd like to see more participation in deletion discussions, for instance, or more contributions to the mainspace. Overall you're not quite ready yet, but I encourage you to submit another RfA in a few months' time once you have more experience. WaltonOne 14:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, not enough experience yet (registered 24 November 2006, but only one edit that month and none until October 2007?), but you seem to be getting there. --Core desat 12:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. All of your recent contributions seem to be either welcoming users using a script, or reverting vandalism; inaccurate reports at WP:UAA, not to mention this thread on your talk page, thus leading me to believe you do not understand key policies and that this nominated has been rushed. Qst  12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Lack of experience in actual mainspace contributions.  Your edit summary usage doesn't look low, but in looking at your mainspace edits, such as those to Ysgol Gymraeg Treganna, you make a number of edits in a row without any summary, which is confusing and makes you look inexperienced.  You also need to use the preview button more often when you're formatting images into an article.  The vandal fighting is great and much appreciated.  With a greater understanding of policy and more substantial mainspace contributions, I would support in a year. Darkspots (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sunderland06 saying he didn't quite think you were ready almost made me blanket-support, but I agree with Darkspots and (albeit less of a concern) Coredesat.  Daniel  13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I very much appreciate your efforts at RC patrolling, and you do some very good work in other areas too. But your general lack of experience at either in Wikipedia areas like ANI, AIV or even the Help Desk, persaude me to oppose your request. Although, I will only be too happy to support next time, if I see a marked improvement. Rt . 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose You're doing good work.  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you continue.  I agree that you need more experience before becoming an admin.  I'm not basing this on counting number of edits, but on a few relatively recent edits of yours I've looked at.  I could be wrong, and I admit I probably don't use the "minor edit" checkbox as often as I should, but I think reverts should not be marked as minor edits .  Also, regarding that same revert:  if you're not confident that something is vandalism, you probably shouldn't be using the word "vandalism" in the edit summary.  On the other hand, it's OK to revert vandalism without mentioning vandalism in the edit summary.  I don't know enough about names in various languages to tell, but as far as I know there's at least a faint possibility that that edit was added by the parents of a deceased child, in which case more sensitivity would be appropriate (i.e. not using the word "vandalism").  Also, here you seem to be criticizing someone for removing messages from their own talk page.  This criticism is a common error of newcomers and may be a failing in the apparently-contradictory or vague way this action is mentioned in policies and guidelines, but I believe there is no policy against deleting comments from one's talk page, though archiving is usually preferred (not sure if one is necessarily expected to archive warnings) -- anyway, posting a warning like that seems out-of-place to me and something a more experienced user would almost certainly not do.  There's a lot to be learned about how Wikipedia works before using admin tools. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my vote.  There are enough oppose votes already and I don't want to make cf38 feel bad.  I should have shown more sensitivity and just not posted. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Really not enough experience, and your best contrib is reverting vandalism? Harland1 (t/c) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Good experience in admin related areas, but more experience in article writing needed. Epbr123 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2007 (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.