Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NorthernThunder


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

NorthernThunder
Final: (6/12/4); Ended 07:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) - closed by non-bureaucrat Anonymous Dissident per WP:SNOW. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

- How would I describe me? NorthernThunder (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 intend to enforce rules to keep order amongst Wikipedians.
 * Can you elaborate more on exactly what types of admin work you would do if you become an administrator? What kind of tools (e.g. block) would you mainly use? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would primarily use bans or blocks to prevent disruptions to Wikipedia as well as clean up any work done by vandals.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have contributed as substantial amount of information mainly about Canada or Canadian-related topics.


 * 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 have not been involved in any significant past edit conflicts. If such an event happens in the future, I will deal with it in a purely civil manner to avoid conflicts.

'''Question from 21655 (Sorry, Seddon69, I got here first)
 * 4. 192.197.78.16 is messing up pages with racial remarks. What do you do?
 * A: First step is a warning. Second, they are blocked.

Questions from DarkFalls
 * 5. In what situation should fair use images be used? When shouldn't it be used?
 * A: Fair use images should be used when there is no free alternative and should not be used when it is copyrighted and explicitly prohibited by the owner of such copyright.


 * 6. Can a fact or data be under copyright? If so, why?
 * A: "Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the included items, not to the particular items themselves. In some jurisdictions the contents of databases are expressly covered by statute."

Questons from Fattyjwoods
 * 7. What is the difference between a ban or a block?
 * A: "A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question. Bans which revoke editing privileges to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not "partial"—may be backed up by a block, which is usually set to apply for the period which the ban itself applies."

Optional questions from Soxred93
 * 8. In what specific situation/s would you enforce an indefinite block?
 * A:
 * Sorry to jump in here, but do you mean issue an indefinite block or enforce an existing indefinite block ? Nick (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 9. Under what specific circumstances would you use a cool down block?
 * A: I would use it if I saw what seems to be vandalism due to what is an isolated incident that could be resolved after a "timeout" or cooldown period if, and only if, I believe such a block will resolve the issue.
 * I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policy on blocks. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Question from Sephiroth BCR
 * 10. According to your current answer to question one, you wish to become an administrator to "keep order" among Wikipedians. If this is the case, what does "order" constitute and how will you help create it?
 * A: I will assist other Wikipedians when issues arise and also help to prevent potential vandals.

General comments

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


 * Links for NorthernThunder:

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

Discussion

 * Bizarre :) Daniel (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support -> right size of the answer to the questions. And also, no usual twenty pages of how good and nice the candidate is :)  Snowolf How can I help? 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'll stick my neck out and support this one, I think. I've certainly never heard or seen the user do anything bad, and what's the worst that can happen. Nick (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also say I've gone through this users contributions and I see quality work in all the right areas, writing and sourcing content being the main thing I'm seeing. Lots of useful edit summaries on all the edits too. Nick (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Has the right attitude to adminship, sufficiently experienced, longevity shows dedication. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, looked through the contribs, and there's not anything alarming in there. No reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
 * 3) Moral Support This editor's heart is in the right place. -- Shark face  217  02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike your !vote, it appears. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that was rather uncalled for. Assuming good faith extends to RfA commentary as well (you know, because I want to avoid saying the word "vote" around here). Regardless of your feelings towards the admin candidate, do not resort to personal attacks, however minor. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 03:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you may be mistaking me for someone who gives a monkeys what you believe. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you'd remain civil in this discussion. I wouldn't support this candidate either, but that doesn't mean we can attack other editors just because they might support a candidate that we don't. &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point me towards this "attack" that you're accusing me of. I can lend you a dictionary if you don't have one easily to hand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not any one specific thing you've said, but your general wording and attitude conveys a sense of condescension, and is slightly disruptive. Let's just chill, alright? &mdash; scetoaux (T/C) 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. You first? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that being self-nominated is not a valid reason for opposing a candidate. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is. Now stop complaining.  Snowolf How can I help? 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hope that I live to see the day when support !votes are subjected to the same scrutiny that oppose !votes are, but I don't plan to hold my breath. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I was merely trying to ensure the arguments made in this RfA are constructive. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . Oppose- Laconic self nom, answers to main questions are disappointing and leave a lot to be desired, low wikispace work, barely any talk page activity. In fact, most of it consists of the candidate blanking their talk page after receiving warnings/notifications about images and speedy deletions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose needs more experience in places demonstrating an understanding of Wikipolicy/guidelines. Virtually no talk or project experience.Balloonman (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose glad you are being bold but based on your experience in the WP areas, your limited answers, and your 30% edit summery on minor changes I must oppose at this time.  Gtstricky Talk or C 01:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, largely on the answer to Q1. Administrators aren't empowered to use bans to maintain order on wikipedia. Not yet, anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose User needs to show a greater understanding of Wikipedia policies (e.g. usage of cool-down blocks). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose – I am sorry, your answer to question number one is the area I have the major concern with, followed by your response to question number 9. My personal opinion, is that blocks are the very last resort for any administrator, and “Cool” blocks rarely, if ever work.  In fact, again personal opinion, have the opposite effect.  Sorry, just not ready yet.  Give it a few more months, working within policy, and try again.  Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Answers to questions leave much to be disired, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of policy. Cool down blocks should never be used. Overall this RfA feels rushed. Tiptoety  talk 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - per Shoessss (almost said he was Pedro, that sig threw me off) a review of the blocking policy is necessary. Your answers to the questions and lack of participation in administrator areas that often require blocks indicate as such. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't feel that your answers to the questions are to my satisfaction. Also, ~ is helpful. Maybe next time. Good Luck :), Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
 * 10) Oppose. Not sure candidate has done any research at all into the RfA process. Editing experience looks okay at a cursory glance, but the short, dismissive (and in at least one case, wrong) answers preempt any show of support from me. Get a coach, do your homework, and we'll see you in a few months. Tan   |   39  05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Doing good work as an editor, but "enforce rules" and "keep order"? I think there's a misunderstanding of adminship here.  Shell    babelfish 05:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, Leaning Support Er, try actually INCLUDING an intro paragraph, and make your question answers slightly longer, and then I'll switch my vote. And while you're at it, I stuck in a little question there. Every admin should know how to handle this.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A little advice: don't blank your talk page all the time. If your talk page starts gettin' big, archive it! It's what I do.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - From a look through your contribs, you are actually a very good contributor to a variety of articles. I think you probably have enough experience to perform admin tasks.  However, I do not feel this RfA will pass unless more detail is added to your answers above.  I also feel that blanking your talk page on a regular basis is not conducive to the openness with which administrators are usually associated.  κaτaʟ aveno  TC 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral More experience needed in admin related areas. Epbr123 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 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.