Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peregrine Fisher


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

Peregrine_Fisher
Final (13/16/9); Ended Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:17:57 UTC

- I've made about 7000 edits since May 2005 (my edit profile). I work mostly on comic book and television pages, where my knowledge is greatest. Peregrine Fisher 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self nomination. - Peregrine Fisher 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: For one, I'd like to fix page histories. I work on a lot of lists of television episodes, and individual episode pages are frequently made by copying and pasting from the list to the individual page.  The history is lost, and I'd like to be able to fix this.


 * I've also been removing a lot of episode summaries that are copied from other sites. It's made me interested in helping to clear up copyright problems.


 * Another thing I'd like to help with is changing usernames. I recently changed mine from Peregrinefisher to Peregrine_Fisher, and for whatever reason, the change has really pleased me.  I know only bureaucrats can do this, but being an admin is the first step.


 * Another easy but necessary chore I would like to perform is deleting speedy deletion articles.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm proud of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs), although it's not finished yet. It had previously been nominated for deletion, twice.  Another user and I have since been trying to get it up to good article standards.  It's not there yet, but it has really improved.  It's gone from this to this.


 * I'm also proud of what I've been doing to List of The X-Files episodes. There's a high standard to meet on the fair use requirements for images in a list like this, and I've been creating detailed fair use rationals for those images.  An example: Image:The X-Files season 1 episode 0.jpg.


 * 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 been in a few edit conflicts in the past that I'm not proud of. All I've been able to do about it is stop engaging in edit conflicts.  As an admin, I know that I will be representing wikipedia, and I will take even greater care with my edits to not contribute to conflicts in the future.


 * What's probably my worst behavior can be viewed at Talk:List of Smallville episodes. I never broke 3RR, but I ignored a consensus on season pages vs. episode pages.  The conflict was with User:Bignole.  In a nutshell, he was right and I was wrong.  That's one of the few times I've made edits that were against a consensus, and in the future I will follow the consensus, or work to change the consensus instead.

'''Optional Question from User:Wizardman
 * 4. Technically this is BigDT's question as he's the one that always asks it, but I'd like an answer to it myself so I know which way to sway my vote. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" an article. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete an article that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not?-- Wizardman 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like to give the benefit of the doubt to articles, so I would use a narrow interpretation of the speedy criteria, and not quickly delete an article, i.e. I would check its history and also if possible see if the article can be improved/stubified instead of deletion. - Peregrine Fisher 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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


 * Please take the time to review Peregrine_Fisher's contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, in which most administrative actions are handled, here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support-Per Needs article deletion option.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - shows a clear need for the tools and meets my criteria. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seen him around, strong contributor and shows a valid reason for having the ools. Viridae Talk 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Although I was pretty surprised when he didn't list any image related tasks for Q1, and instead put something about usernames.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should have mentioned images. I work with images frequently, and would continue to as an admin.  I mostly upload images, but I still see at least 10 a week that need deleting. - Peregrine Fisher 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, mostly relying on adminship being no big deal to dispel any concerns about need for the tools. A review of the contribution history (at least for the recent past) shows involvement in areas that lend themselves to admin activity. The nominee in his introductory statement should have made it more clear that while he may have had an account as long ago as 2005, almost all his edits were after June of last year. Agent 86 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support devoted editors make good admins. Merging histories and clearing CSD backlog are important chores, nothing wrong with them Alex Bakharev 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per above. If I had to pick a fault I'd have to say it was a low Wiki edits count, but your overall edits are quite impressive.  Good luck. Gan fon  21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Changed to Support Going out on a limb here, simply because the user looks as if they won't abuse the tools. Alex43223Talk 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Tentative support. It's okay by me if someone doesn't use the tools too often, which seems like it would be the case here. I would like to see more wiki-space experience, and I wouldn't count on becoming bureaucrat for years at the rate we're going, but you are experienced in article space, which is where you would focus your use of the tools. Seems like a mostly reasonable request to me. Grand  master  ka  08:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seen this user around, helpful and trustworthy. His dedication and experience meet my criteria, giving him the tools can only help build Wikipedia a better place. "Not seeing the need for admin tools" is a ridiculous reason to oppose. – PeaceNT 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Alex Bakharev, PeaceNT, and others. 1ne 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I don't see anything that leads me to believe he would abuse admin tools. Frise 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per Nom. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose. I see no reason you need the admin tools. Fixing page histories, changing usernames, and speedy deleting articles are areas that you don't appear to contribute to at this time. You also appear to want adminship purely for becoming a future bureaucrat. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose For someone whose sole real need for the admin bit (I'm ignoring the "I want to become admin in order to become bureaucrat" pitch) is to help with speedy deletions I'm quite unimpressed with contributions to AfD, in number as well as in content. Checking about 40 recent contributions, there is a preponderance to offer meaningless qualifers ("maybe one day", "find stuff on the web", "NN"), little in terms of actual research on the subject, and a tendency only to become involved in discussion when it comes to preserving articles that contain nothing but plot summaries or other OR, like this one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per Q1 and also only 171 WP-space edits. You have a reasonable major edit summary (87%), but your minor edit summary is too low.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  08:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Trialsanderrors. yandman  09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose does not have a clear need for the tools, Wikipedia namespace contributions are low in number and as Trialsanderros says also in quality. Eluchil404 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose : The editor doesn't seem to really need the tools; sounds generally uninterested / disinterested with the whole process; and exudes a certain, shall I say, blandness.  Gardener of  Geda  | Message Me.... 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Trialsanderrors. WJBscribe 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. You don't seem to actually want adminship much except as a stepping stone to bureaucratship. You also don't have enough projectspace contributions. -Amark moo! 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per above. Carpet 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose No compelling reasons to have the added tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose I don't think you have the proper requirements in the Wikipedia edits and the responses to your first question to become an administrator as of yet. Good job on your main space edits, but keep working on your Wikipedia edits and try again later. --Nehrams2020 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I'm really not convinced that the candidate knows how to take advantage of administrative tools. Speedy deletion is a very narrow slice of the administrative pie, and the candidate asserts no interest in cutting the rest of the pie.  Also, the quantity of edit counts does not imply quality.  I would like to see the candidate move an article into the "Good Article" category.  It may be in process, but until it's done, I don't intend to change my vote. YechielMan 03:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Oppose per above. Seems to not reall ynot the tools and seems uninterested in the process.-- Wizardman 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Needs to demonstrate a more appropriate mind frame.--Holdenhurst 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Nom statement and answers are too short for me. Question one is a bit vague. Also not doing enough admin "Stuff" (AfD vandal fighting etc). -- Selmo  (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose not satisfactory answers, specially optional question. Shyam  ( T / C ) 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I don't understand your answer to Q1 - why mention changing usernames? This is an RfA, and not all admins become bureaucrats. I wouldn't say it's a first step either. --Majorly (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe it's not relevant. I thought most bureaucrats started as admins. - Peregrine Fisher 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. Doesn't seem to really need the tools. I'm looking past the lack of wikispace edits, but I'll change my vote pending new questions/finds.-- Wizardman 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Support Neutral Not sure that you really have a need, and with that answer to number one... Alex43223Talk 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can see that I'm weak on my reasons for needing the tools. One thing I would like to say is that I know of a lot of List of episode pages whose individual episode pages need their histories merged.  List of Tru Calling episodes in one; all its 26 episode pages need their histories merged.  For example, Death Becomes Her (Tru Calling episode) has a sentence that says "Summary taken from here."  Each of these list pages link to 20 - 50 pages that need their histories merged.  I could just ask a current admin to do it, but I know these pages well and I'm motivated to work on them. - Peregrine Fisher 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how you would do this, and why you think it's necessary? ~ trialsanderrors 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Your answer to question one hints that you might be a bit too interested in getting these tools. Remember, Adminship is no big deal. I'll be neutral for now, assuming that answer stays up. Everything else checks out.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Sharkface, I also think your edit summary usage needs some work. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Sharkface217. Also, as Anas stated, please work on your edit summary. Cheers! S .D. ¿п?  § 12:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, use more edit summaries, don't really see the need of having the tools. Needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Terence Ong 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral, turn on the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary in your preferences and add useful summaries, increase your time at XFD's and try again in a few months. Don't be discouraged though!  The Rambling Man 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per edit summary usage and lack of experience at XfDs. Please come back in a few months, though, once you've gotten a little more experience in places where you would need the tools. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. Some of the oppose votes seem a little excessive; what I'm troubled by is this editor's desire to stop editting when conflict arises. Conflict is a regretable, but sometimes neccesary part of being here, and even more so for an administrator.  Admins need to be able to stand up to vandals of all stripes; they can't back away. --Scimitar parley 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral I think you need more familiarization to the customs to Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 04:27, 26 January 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.