Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chetblong


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

Chetblong
Final (4/10/4); Ended Fri, 8 Jun 23:10 UTC

- Hello I'd like to nominate myself for adminship for a two reasons. 1. Even if I don't get to be an administrator this time, I will learn in what ways I need to improve. 2. I want to become an administrator to help with the vandalism on Wikipedia by being able to block users that are putting vandalism on pages and to delete articles that are vandalism. ) Chetblong 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Deleting Vandalism by blocking users that have been given a final warning and have continued to vandalize Wikipedia. Deleting pages that are vandalism.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Let me think. I've welcomed quite a few people, I've deleted vandalism and warned users, I've helped improve articles relating to Windows and Microsoft. I like them all.


 * 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'm currently in a conflict about Criticism of Windows Vista, so far I've only added a tag to the article and given the reasons on the talk page using Wikipedia guidelines and rules. And to how I will deal with other conflicts in the future? I will not do anything to a page unless there is consensus with the rest of the editors.


 * 4. If/When you get to be an admin where will you stand on the issue Freedom VS. Order? Rate yourself from 0 to 10, 10 meaning that you believe in stalinist controls.
 * A: I would say 5 because you need some order and some freedom.


 * 5. Additional question from Soumyasch: You say you are currently in a dispute over the neutrality of Criticism of Windows Vista. I myself have been both an observer as well as a participant in the multipartite discussion, and from what I see, you have left the discussion. This means you left it unresolved, which does not give me much confidence in your ability to resolve content disputes. How do you plan to resolve it and other content disputes in general?


 * A: I haven't left that discussion, I plan to resolve it by working the issue out with the other editors and fix the Criticism of Windows Vista page to the liking of all the editors. I will do the same with every dispute I come across.

General comments

 * Why so much hate for chet? He seems like a really upstanding guy!  Cut him a break.

MaximusNukeage 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not "hate". Adminship is something that needs to be taken seriously, and editors need to thoroughly evaluate a candidate in their RfA. As of late, there have been high standards for adminship nominations. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Links for Chetblong:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chetblong before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Moral Support Going the right way. I am sure you'll be an admin some months down the line. But right now, it's too early, because there is not much that others can judge from your contributions. You can do CSD tagging. Also, you would get to know policy better if you participate in deletion discussions. Other than that, continue what you are doing. :) - Two Oars  17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support He seems like a nice enough guy. MaximusNukeage 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support Chet, I am so glad that you are running for adminship.  You sound like your heart is in the right place and you really want to do good things here.  Keep up the good work and I think that you will have an easy time getting admin tools down the road.  (At the risk of being accused of "edit-countitis", however, I do think it would be best if you gain a little more experience around here).  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support moderatley. I am a vandal fighter, and it appears this user is as well.  He makes planty of contributions a day, mainly welcoming and reverting.  I would support him strongly if he made other contributions other than that, but he gets my vote. '''Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - This user simply has not got enough experience with Wikipedia and has not made any notable contributions. An Administrator needs to be knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia and experienced in a variety of tasks. Users look to them for advice and help, and I'm afraid I don't have faith in Chetblong's ability to provide these. Fysidiko 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Because your edit count is fairly low, perhaps a better route for you to go in order to get feedback is to request an editor review, WP:ER, or ask to be adopted WP:AAU.  κaτa ʟ aveno TC 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, low edit count, not enough experience. Participate in some admin-related duties like xFDs and fixing image copyright problems will help a lot. From here, you can understand more about policies and guidelines. Terence 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Editor doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. Also, only one XfD contribution and three AIV contributions, I don't see any WP:PROD or WP:SPEEDY nominations in the editor's contributions, so I can't see that the editor understands deletion policies. PGWG 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose- not enough experience Thunderwing 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose based on contributions, or lack of them. I looked for substantial contributions to review, and couldn't find any. He's hardly done anything but welcome newbies, mess with his user page, and revert a few vandals. He clearly is doing his part to help Wikipedia so far, but he needs to branch out and gain more experience, particularly with article writing.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose based on the candidate's opening statement. If the candidate wants to seek feedback of how he is doing on the project, then he should apply for an editor review.  Miranda  19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. As Real96 mentioned, going through an editor review would have been the best way to get a thorough evaluation of your contributions on Wikipedia. As for your request for adminship, I don't think you're quite ready yet. If you intend on requesting administrator tools, you should have more contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, particularly at AIV, XfD, etc. Reporting vandals, participating in deletion discussion, prodding articles, or tagging articles for speedy deletion not only tells the community whether or not you're ready for adminship, but it also tells you if you are ready for the tools. As for now, I commend you for your great work on Wikipedia thus far, and I hope you can keep doing what you've done so far, and also expand yourself to other aspects of Wikipedia (such as AIV and XfD, as mentioned earlier). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose far too early. Gain some more experience, try some wikiprojects, and try again later.  Jmlk  1  7  22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I think this candidate should really read over the answers to the questions at the top and compare it to the thoughtful ones given by many other candidates. Everything else, experience, edit counts, articles, etc. then confirms my impression that this was done too early.  Orangemarlin 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose This user needs much more experience; as mentioned earlier, editor review would be a good idea. — Wenli 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support You may think you're ready, but you're not. You don't know how much you don't know. You should seek an editor review instead of RfA for an appraisal of your contributions. Krakatoa  Katie  17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Avoiding pile on I recommend a read of this essay I wrote to learn more about what we look for in a sysop and why you should broaden your horizons. Keegan talk 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support as there is no participation yet at XfD or policy pages. I suggest that you make use of WP:Editor review before you next apply for Admininship--it's a less formal way of getting similar feedback.DGG 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral to avoid piling on. I appreciate your offer and find much to commend you for but the edit experience just isn't there yet. But it will be in time. Keep up the good work!  Jody B talk 21:30, 8 June 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.