Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moosehadley


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

Moosehadley
Final (1/9/3); ended 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by the candidate''' Kraxler (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hello everyone! I've been participating in the anti-vandalism side of Wikipedia for a while now, and I feel that I am prepared to take on more responsibility. I feel that I can maintain a proper neutral stance for conflict-resolution, and I'd like to be able to take immediate action should a significant threat to integrity warrant it. I actively engage in conversation with vandals and editors, and I'm open, willing, and quick to correct any of my own mistakes. I have been blocked from editing once, however if you review my user log, you'll see that this was a miss-click on another admins part, and it was quickly reverted by the same admin.  Moose  hadley  23:53, 1 April 2015 (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: I would like to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, help editors resolve conflicts, and monitor high-risk pages.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I feel one of my best contributions would have been a time that I was able to get protection on several pages that 4chan had intent to "raid" before any significant damage had been done.


 * 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: On one occasion, that I can particularly remember, another editor and myself disagreed on what content should have been included in an article. I spoke to the other editor and suggested that we both refrain from making any further edits, then we both went to WP:DRR for outside advice on the subject.


 * Additional question from 78.26


 * 4. Can you expand further on question #1? What do you intend to do as an administrator, regarding "monitoring high-risk pages", that you can not do as an editor?
 * A: Sorry I wasn't clear enough; I meant that as in monitoring articles that are at an extreme risk because of recent events, or the 4chan thing I mentioned in my 2nd question. Monitoring the page, then being able to take action quickly if vandalism floods in. Such as temporarily semi-protecting the page. Thank you!


 * Additional question from Rlendog
 * 5. Thank you for volunteering for adminship. There seem to be long gaps in your editing history.  For example, one tool shows only a single month with more than 2 edits between February 2014 and February 2015.  Is there a reason for these gap?
 * A: Those gaps were due to personal medical issues. Admittedly, I did fall 'out of the loop' for a while following that. But those issues are now being properly treated and controlled, and I believe they won't be an issue in the foreseeable future. Thanks!


 * Additional questions from Biblioworm
 * 6. How many warnings are needed before an admin can block a vandal?
 * A: Four warnings are needed in the majority of cases. In rare cases, a single 4im warning could be issued before blocking, but I personally can't think of any case where this would be the first option. Perhaps Sockputtery, but it would need to be pretty serious.


 * 7. What is your opinion on admin accountability? Should admins be obligated to directly (i.e., not "beat around the bush") and civilly explain their action when questioned? What action should be taken if an admin fails to do this?
 * A: Absolutely, I feel admins should be held accountable for their actions, and total transparency is required to hold the integrity of a neutral encyclopedia. Should an admin fail to explain their actions, I feel a vote should be taken for de-adminship on that particular user. Thanks for the questions!


 * Additional questions from Kharkiv07
 * 8. Hello, and thanks for volunteering! You mention that you'd like to be able to protect pages you're watching, but you only seem to have ever made 8 RfPP requests, only one in over a year and some denied ones before that. Do you think that you have the needed experience to apply page protection?
 * A: Primarily because most of the vandalism I've seen is one-shot stuff. But I do feel that at this time, I've gathered enough experience to judge when a temporary or indefinite protection is warranted. A short burst of vandalism on an article that hasn't seen any more vandalism for a few hours doesn't warrant protection, but should be monitored. However, heavy or persistent vandalism over a long period of time does warrant protection of some kind.


 * 9. You don't seem to have much experience at places like AfD or UAA. Do you think an admin should work in areas they're unfamiliar with?
 * A: I feel that administrators should participate in all areas, but in unfamiliar areas, an admin should take some time to observe others before attempting to take any kind of action.


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 10. Can you explain your rationale for this revert on David Pugh (Conservative politician)?
 * A:

General comments

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

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

Support

 * 1) Moral support and Thank you for being an enthusiastic Wikipedia contributor!  I hope that you are given some thoughtful feedback during this RfA process.  If you follow that advice, you should be in a better position if/when you decide to run again, after a reasonable amount of time spent regularly contributing!  --Gaff (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Moral support. No harm in being bold and nominating yourself right now, but you have no experience in the content area of Wikipedia (and all anti-vandal edits are semi-automated). While maintenance is a necessity, the #1 goal of the encyclopedia is to produce good quality content. Come back with some articles under your belt and the result may be way different. Not gonna nag on the gaps in editing history because I too am guilty of that. Best of luck, Buggie111 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I think it's too soon. You seem to be very dedicated to anti-vandalism, and that's very valuable, but you seem to have no experience whatsoever with any other areas. You have no votes at AFD, and very few CSD tags (think I counted less than 10). What little activity you show in other areas seem lacking, such as this SPI. The vast majority of your contributions that I spot-checked are automated, and you have essentially no content experience whatsoever. As far as I can see you've never created a single article or even a redirect. I don't think administrators need to have 10 FAs under their belt (I certainly didn't), but creating at least some basic content is what puts you in the shoes of the people whom you're supposed to be helping by being an administrator. I would recommend expanding your activities to other maintenance areas of Wikipedia, work on some content and maybe try again in maybe six months to a year. If there was a "counter-vandalism only administrator" with limited permissions you'd be a no-brainer but unfortunately that's not the case. There's nothing particularly negative about your contributions, I just don't think they're enough for the mop right now. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 01:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Another Moral Support Thoroughly reading WP:RFAADVICE and looking at previous RFAs as well as other people's RFA standards will help you prepare in the future for your next RFA. In the meantime you're not quite there yet. I would particularly look at content work and custodial areas such as AFD, CSD, and even ANI where you'll need to not only identify issues but also work with others in applying policy based rationales and solutions through dialogue. Mkdw talk 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. It looks like the candidate could be quite promising in the future. However, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that the candidate's edits are almost completely non-manual. I'm not looking for a lot of content creation, but I would recommend at least a bit of non-automated experience in other areas. I also see a lack of solid experience, given the large gaps in the candidate's editing history. (I'm sorry that you having health problems, though.) If you take the advice in this RfA to heart, there's a better chance that I'll support if you ever run again. -- Biblio worm  02:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I completely agree that admins shouldn't be all-purpose and should focus on the areas that they're familiar with. However, those areas are far too narrow for you. Moreover, a large part of what you're requesting (primarily fighting vandalism) can be done without the admin permission. I'm also all for semi-automated edits, most of mine are, but near all of yours are and I think some content creation is a good thing. Finally, I'd like to see more collaboration within the community, commenting on discussions and being an active editor, a very important quality for an admin. I'd try to diversify, at least a little, and come back.  Kharkiv07 Talk  02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral Support per WP:NOTYET.  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  03:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose with regret. Moose, thank you very much for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. I do feel, like some of the other opposers, that this RfA was a bit too soon- I'd be happy to support when you get more experience, both generally as an editor and specifically in admin topics. Again, though, your contributions are extremely valued and appreciated. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank and congratulate you for the ballsy move of a self-nom and answering the questions so briefly . --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support per . Thanks for your enthusiasm and see you again a year from now! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, but thank you. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but I'm pretty sure you would be quickly out of your depth the minute somebody disagreed with your tool use (which does happen). You need to get some content work behind you - GAs, DYKs - not everyone agrees but I personally think that improving your writing skills to create quality content will also improve your ability to communicate and resolve disputes. Read up on Advice for RfA candidates carefully and get somebody to co-nominate you, but I would advise you that you're looking at about 12 - 18 months before you'll be successful in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral Support don't take the failure here personally. You are still a valued member of the community. Try to take the advice here to heart and it may help your chances in a future RFA. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support per WP:NOTYET — I hope you still make edits to Wikipedia, but if you fail, please know that you can try again within the next year or so when you are ready. Looking forward to seeing more progress. Cheers.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   04:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support Sorry, but this RFA was started too soon. Please take the advice from other voters seriously and I am sure you will pass next time. You may try again in 6 months to a year though. Jianhui67T ★ C 09:49, 2 April 2015 (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.