Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cubs Fan


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

Cubs Fan
Final (5/10/5); Withdrawn by candidate, 16:31 5 July 2008 (UTC)

- Self-nom. I've been active on the wiki for a litte more than a year, and I'm closing in on 4500 edits. I've never been blocked from editing, and I obviously haven't been banned. As a personal rule, I like to adhere to any rules given to me, so I follow the policies here on the wiki. Unless their edits are blatantly obvious vandalism, I'm willing to assume good faith regarding new editors/anon IPs. My own personal rules I adhere to the most are No personal attacks and Sock puppetry; no personal attacks is self explanatory. Sock puppetry, on the other hand, only helps in making the encyclopedia worse - by vandalising the wiki with one account while hiding behind the safety of another, a sock puppeteer only compromises the rest of us; I have no intention of doing that. In addition, I've recently started watching the Recent changes page, and have been granted rollback to help revert vandalism. I think with the admin tools, I'd be in a good position to help even more. And while I haven't really been active at Articles for Deletion (in my defense, I haven't really seen a need to be), I'd be more than willing to start voicing my opinions. I hope you'll be willing to give me a chance.

I withdraw my nomination.

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: I really want to help out at Administrator intervention against vandalism and Candidates for speedy deletion. With the admin tools at my disposal, I'd be able to (1) help battle vandalism more efficiently than with just the rollback feature, and (2) quickly delete articles that obviously do nothing but take up space; by that, I simply mean they serve no purpose to the encyclopedia as a whole.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think my best contributions are anything where I've added sources. Verifiability is an important part of the encyclopedia, and I can definitely contribute to that.


 * 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've had a few conflicts, but nothing that got blown out of proportion. An example would be a line I added to the Chicago Cubs article a while back.  Being a Cubs fan myself, I was absolutely convinced I was right that the Cubs had played at Wrigley Field since the NL's formation; only after re-reading my source did I learn I was wrong; they've had numerous playing fields, but have been in the same city since 1876.  Another example would be an edit made to The Bob & Tom Show.  Since the show airs on my favorite radio station in California, I simply assumed that they broadcast from the same studio (since they have information about events they otherwise wouldn't have access to), so I added that statement.  Again, only after finding out information did I learn I was wrong; they actually broadcast from Indiana.  As for how I dealt with it, I think I dealt with it pretty civilly.  I didn't explode and go off and attack the editors.  I simply went to my own source and found the information I was looking for, and learned I was wrong.  It happens all the time, and I'm not the kind of guy who blows his stack for something as minute as human error.  I'll deal with it the same way in the future.


 * Additional question from lifebaka:
 * 4. You've expressed interest in working with the criteria for speedy deletion, and though you have spent some time tagging articles for speedy deletion, I'm not sure you are familiar enough with the intents behind the criteria themselves.  So, could you please explain the intents of any three of the criteria?  Feel free to choose whichever you are most comfortable with.
 * A: (1) Patent nonsense is when pages are created that make no comprehensible sense, either through the order the words are put in, or when the letters are pressed on the keyboard with no intention of creating words at all. (2) Test pages are pages created by new users who aren't familiar yet with the wiki's policies and are just experimenting.  While testing is encouraged, it should be done on the sandbox.  (3) Attack pages are pages that are created with no other intention than to insult or degrade its subject.  Contributions should be discussed, not the contributor.

Optional questions from RyRy
 * 5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
 * A: I'd look at their contributions to see if they've done this kind of thing before. Depending on how much, if any, vandalism they've performed, I'd determine if they should be blocked or not.  If they have little of it, I'm willing to cut them a little slack, until it becomes clear that they're unable to contribute constructively.  If they can't stop their edit war, then it would protect the article (as well as pre-empt any pending vandalism) to block them.


 * 6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
 * A: I think the account would have to be blocked indefinitely. The admins know and understand the wiki's policies and guidelines to a T, and should conform to them under any and all circumstances.  An admin vandalizing the wiki is, I think, an insult to other admins.


 * 7 If an IP address is very disruptive, would you go to the point and block such an IP indefinitely? If not, why would you not block an IP indefinitely? Explain your reasoning.
 * A: I think it depends on the amount of disruption. If they're willing to make constructive contributions, I'd be willing to give them a little leeway.  But if it becomes blatantly obvious they have no intention of doing so, then I think it would protect the wiki to block them indefinitely.


 * Optional questions from User:Filll
 * 8. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
 * A.
 * 9. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
 * A.

General comments

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


 * Links for Cubs Fan:

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

Discussion

 * First, before questions get added, I'd like to suggest you take a look at the RFA cheatsheet if you haven't already. Cheers.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 07:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And now I add one... --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I would like to at least give moral support as you have not been blocked and do seem genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia, so I cannot in my look cite anything that necessarily makes me concerned, but do take others' suggestions regarding experience in good faith and never feel as if you should not try again down the road if this one does not work out. -- Happy editing!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Been here for two and a half years, a whopping 4300+ edits, no bans, blocks, warnings (as far as I can see), no evidence of POV pushing or disruption, no evidence of anything other than a good faith intent to improve the encyclopedia, in short, no reason why not. Naerii 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, nothing here to indicate that the user will maliciously misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
 * 4) Support, would trust that the tools would not be abused. Red  Thunder  12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.Very trustworth, I have not found anything in his/her past to say other wise. Gears of War Go 'Skins! 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Not nearly enough experience in the project space in areas you wish to participate. This means you fail my criteria.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I brushed through your contribs and took a look at your edit count. You have enough mainspace edits, but most of that is reverting vandalism and stuff - which Wikipedia does need in order to maintain its articles. But I just think an admin should have more experience, as Wisdom said, in the project space. With that said though, you seem to be a good guy and a Cubs fan. Some year they're havin', huh man? CL — 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) A good start with the encyclopedia, but would like to see you be more orientated with the internal processes, especially the deletion process given that you indicated that you intend to work in speedy deletions. Would also like to see more content-writing. Likely to support in future. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I think some material at WP:NOTNOW may apply. No problems that can't be fixed with some more time, and as Mailer Diablo says you're off to a good start. Pedro : Chat  12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - hardly any participation in Wikipedia space, other than scattered reports over at AIV. Not an overly-active user, looking at edits per month. Most mainspace work seems to have come from reverting vandalism. Not ready yet, but the start you have made is not bad. P.S. the admin rollback will help you no more than does the rollback you have been granted, as it is basically the same tool. It only started getting handed out to non-admins in recent months.  Lra drama 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose. The candidate needs additional experience in admin areas such as AFD. Majoreditor (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose As Mailer Diablo says you are off to a good start, but the lack of participation in the Wikipedia space worries me. The edit count is very spardic, one month you have 44, and then another month you have 688. It's a very spardic count. I've also noticed that often you fail to use the edit summary. WP:NOTNOW may apply here. Continue working on the comments abopve, and one day ytou will be an admin. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to comment that being here for one year and having close to 4500 edits is wonderful. You have put a lot of hard work into that. I was just wanting to point that out. America69 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Wisdom. 4000 mainspace edits is great, but that doesn't win you trust. The only thing your contributions show me is that you know how to use rollback, and I can't judge how well you know policy on that.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 15:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 15:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems a bit gung-ho with regard to blocking IPs (Q5–7). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Low Wikipedia space edits (29) concerns me, as does the low Talk space total of 96. I'd like to see more work at the noticeboards and AFD/RFPP before I could support.  MBisanz  talk 07:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You're a Cubs Fan, which is awesome right off the bat. However, it just seems you do not have too much experience in areas related to Wikipedia, which isn't bad at all. The encyclopedia is why we are all here, but I feel admins should have a little more experience in Wikipedia areas. :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral For me to support a persons Rfa I must trust them, and I don't trust you to use the tools in an appropriate manner. Nothing has been brought up that indicates you grasp policy, so I don't know if you'll use the tools correctly. Also, I have doubts you'll ever use the tools, but that isn't why I'm not supporting you. Have a nice day, and I hope you continue to edit here:-)-- SJP Chat  08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral If only for your lack of AfD activity. I'm sorry, but I find this vital in understanding WP policy, even if you do not plan to close AFD discussions. Best of luck. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 09:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I won't oppose, because adminship isn't that big a deal, but I agree with those above who have expressed at least a bit of concern about lack of WP space edits. I would definitely support you in the future, once that concern is addressed. S. Dean Jameson 14:58, 5 July 2008 (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.