Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr Tan


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

Nomination
'''(2/9/1); Originally scheduled to end 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC). Closed per Not Now at 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC) by Tiptoety  talk'''




 * Greetings, wikipedians, I am "Mr Tan". After editing for the English wikipedia for three years or so, I hope to contribute more extensively to the encyclopedia given my time that I spend here. However, my intention of offering myself for adminship is not to demand for self-rewards stemming from self-centerism and credit, but rather on a Humanitarian worldview. Wikipedia, being a free encyclopedia of which contributions from users depends a lot on their humanitarian worldview and hence the willingness to contribute. Hence if I were to become an admin, one of these aims of mine is to promote and cultivate such spirit amongst new users and help them in times of technical need.


 * On the issue of meditation and arbitration, my view is that I will be willing to step in and help whenever and wherever necessary. Still, considering that one's real life always take precedence over charitable/contribution worksuch as wikipedia, I will usually not engage into what many wikipedians call "Wikipediholic". If adminship might require a person to become a wikipediholic--such as engaging in article-edit disputes, I would rather not be voted as an admin on these grounds. As far as what I see from these years, editing in wikipedia is on an entirely voluntarily basis, and users are self-driven by motivation and passion to edit, not by compellation or perceived necessity.


 * Much of the time, I engage in editing articles–or at least as I interpret it–on a constructive basis on articles which might suit my interest--though my scope of interest will change from time to time. Still, my emphasis is that wikipedia is only a hobby which I engage in during much of my free time, especially during my holidays.


 * Nevertheless, I edit articles on a regular--if not daily basis, as evidenced from my contributions log record. I must say though, my years and experience in wikipedia has indeed helped me to mature a lot in life. Mr Tan (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept.

On these grounds, I accept my nomination to be an admin.

-->

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * Anything that will promote the benefit of wikipedia in general. However, I will generally refrain from blocking users, or bringing myself to the brink of revert wars over articles of interest. This will otherwise promote bad faith among users–but if I can settle a dispute without too much hassle, it would be my pleasure to do so. In other cases, I will generally back down on grounds of personal welfare and psychological concerns.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * To name a few, I wouldn't say that my edits were fantastic–I did receive a fair share of criticisms especially when I was newer here. Since wikipedia is more of a place where I spend my free time here rather than on a committed basis–which I see no good reason to, I do not have very clear recollections. Arguably, I would say that a good recent one would be Sultan Iskandar of Johor. Several years back, I also did contribute significantly to Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong'''--at the height of my wikipediaholism.


 * 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?
 * I do, but that was at least two years back. Naturally, in this case this was really something political between users over conflicting views of interests over an article. In which case I did get myself engage into revert wars--on one hand both me and the opposition user(s) were too adamant and reluctant to compromise, and the other, my inability to source and cite facts accurately and properly back then–this was probably due in part to my lack of experience in wikipedia–in these cases such political issues did drag me down considerably in real life.


 * As a rule of thumb, if there might be any minor differences in how the article should be edited, what I usually do is that I would rather stand down and rather compromise than to argue--even if the issue might be significant. My advice to users who get entangled in such socio-political issues is that it would be good if one may try to look and understand the edits/actions of another user–with time one might appreciate his perspectives. After all, no man is perfect in this Earth.

(PS: Users who might want to ask questions, please leave a notification message on my talk page. On my part, if the volume of questions posted might exceed my capacity, I seek your understanding to answer selected questions only. Thank you!)

Questions from John Sloan (talk)
 * 4. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
 * A.OK. From what I see and interpret, this is a very classical and chronic case of vandalism which I myself have also come across somewhere before.
 * From what I interpret most wikipedian admins would do, I believe that such vandal users would generally be issued a series of warning as posted in Vandalism. One step at a time, generally.
 * As for myself, I have never been an admin thus I might not be qualified enough before. However, from the case study which you posted to me, I feel that and also reflected how technical and mechanicalistic how wikipedian admins would generally respond to such cases--posting warnings closely by the book prescribed by the policies and guidelines, and ultimately leading to blocking them.
 * This, I must say, is not a healthy practice on both sides of the party--the issue of blocking or unblocking a user is only secondary in importance.
 * Firstly, as an experienced user--be it of any position in wikipedia, the realistic approach to take is to question the user of his true intent. As one can see, the commonality of such vandalistic cases are attributed to the fact that the majorty of these savvy and active internet users comes from Generation Y people like myself--young, naughty, loving to play pranks and last but not least rebellious.
 * So, my question is, will such a formula really work?
 * In my opinion, taking on such a technical approach will only paint wikipedia a more hostile environment dominated by what they see as arrogant users. On the other hand, the internet is none other than a faceless barrier--how would one be able to know who is on the other side of the net--nothing to know about his character?
 * My advice is that users should perhaps take a more reconcilatory approach towards these users--approach them like friends which you may meet on the Windows Live chatroom, and talk to them nicely. Introduce them to a few key rules--I wouldnt expect to force users to read a whole chunk of guidelines and policies and force them to understand--this would only merely serve to spoil the spirit of passion and volunteerism among users, evenvandal users. What matters most is that as vetrans, we should learn tro cultivate and soothe their explosive tendencies to create vandalism edits.
 * However, that does not necessarily mean that I condone such actions--blocking them out from editing totally would only serve to make them more recalcitrant. Wikipedia should, in my eyes, take steps to create guidelines on a more humanitarian approach on these users--though I do not rule out blocking. However, if one user might be blocked, he should not be deprived of editing his own user page and talk page--some channel of communication will be necessary in such times of personal crisis. Ultimately, what our aim should be is that we should not only see from encouraging new users to contribute to wikipedia with lots of strings attached. By adding on a humanitarian approach, only then we could encourage more new users to come to wikipedia and contribute out of passion. Mr Tan (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Thehelpfulone - The standard ones

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A:A ban is a prevention measure to deprive a user from editing wikipedia for a very long period of time, if not permanent. A block is only on a temporary basis.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
 * A:That, will depend on whether I am able to commit to wikipedia or not. As I had stated earlier, my participation in wikipedia is subjected to the drive of my passion and whim--although I do spend large amounts of time on it. However, I think for the present moment I would rather set that thought of recall aside.

7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
 * A:

8. When should "cool down blocks" be used and why?
 * A:

9. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
 * A:

Question from Wehwalt (talk)
 * 10. Can't help but notice that you haven't edited that much recently, relatively speaking, I think your edit count for 2008 was about 1,400. Still laudable, but are you planning to do more?  Less?  Will giving you the mop be an incentive for you to edit more?
 * '''A. That I cant say for sure whether I will do more or less. My position in wikipedia is that my commitment here is only on a basis driven by passion, which I can only accomodate during my leisure time at my own whim and will. But as a humanitarian, I do not have any qualms in contributing, so long as it lies within my scope of manageablity. Hence, even if there might be any incentives that might be offered, the issue of real life is always a priority over wikipedia. But again, allow me to pose this question: Does the regularity of edits really do matter in adminship--if it is a criteria, then, what is the purpose of wikipedia? Is it something of compellation, or voluntarism?

Question from Mr. IP
 * 11. Do you think the community should make changes to counteract declining public participation at Wikipedia? If so, what policies should we change?
 * A.

General comments

 * Links for Mr Tan:

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

Discussion

 * Are you the same Mr Tan involved in editing Zanskar and Arunachal Pradesh a few years back? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support WP:AGF --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I like your approach to answering the questions. Good luck, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. You've made a lot of contributions in articlespace, and a little in userspace.  Per Soxred's edit checker, it's been more than a year since you've had much of any participation outside of those two namespaces.  Although your RFA is about you, it's even more about all the innocents (if any :) who might be affected if an admin misunderstands policy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant work, Dendodge. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose insufficient commitment to the project to be made an admin at this time. Try getting back into it for six months, and then come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fine, but allow me to state my points and reasons clearly here--
 * As an amateur wikipedian, I am not so much poised on the capitalistic intent of getting voted into become an admin, but rather on more of a leisure-driven intent with a humanitarian intent to help out in certain areas. By and large, I usually keep out myself of interaction with other users and step down readily in any view of any disputes--lest to be dragged down politically--hence this accounts for my rather reclusive existence on wikipedia. But then, my existence on wikipedia is not based on the issue of commitment, but passion. But if adminship demands frequent commitment, I have no qualms not to be one. Perhaps you all might want to scruntinise some of my answers above this page to get a better grasp of my intent? Mr Tan (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I read your responses. But you learn by doing and by interacting, and if you aren't doing as much, well, I'm not minded to support you.  I'd like to, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm not very happy with your answers to the questions. Your answer to question five is just downright wrong. Sorry, but your level of policy knowledge is far too low for me to even consider supporting you in a RfA at the moment. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Answer to Q4 is a disqualifier in my opinion. We aren't here to build a social network and coddle "young and naughty" vandals; we're here to collaborate on a project.  We can have fun with it without bending as far as the candidate would suggest. Townlake (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This candidate has virtually no recent experience communicating with others. In the past YEAR, he has ZERO article talk edits, ZERO wikipedia talk edits, 13 TOTAL user talk edits, and besides his RfA only 2 edits to the Wikispace.  On top of that his over all activity is negligible.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Probably a really nice fellow in real life, but the nomination statement and the answers to questions lead me to believe that there is some difficulty in separating RL from this wikipedia dream world. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: few if any recent interfacing with the outside world make it difficult for me to judge how good this user is at communicating with other users. Also the answers to questions are unsatisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per quesionable answers to questions, particularly the ban/block one. flaminglawyerc 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Almost an Oppose Mainly per Balloonman, I think that some of the most important skills we need in an admin are in their communication with other users, and you haven't done enough of that for us to evaluate you properly. Also admins administer in accordance with policy, and I'm not sure you've got all the detail of that (BTW have a look at the template warnings, particularly the level 1 and level 2 ones, IMHO they are written gently and in my experience they do deter some vandals). But I'm sticking in neutral because you have made major contributions, you are an asset here and while you may not have some of the policies off pat I think you have the right attitude - lastly I don't think you'd mess up as an admin so I can't oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:25, 6 January 2009 (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.