Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raaggio


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

Raaggio
'''Final (0/12/2); Closed by ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe at 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Hello everybody, I would like to offer myself as a candidate for adminship. I have been a member on Wikipedia since late 2006. I usually contribute to WikiProject Professional wrestling in conjunction with all the other excellent editors in the project. As part of the project, I usually contribute to professional wrestling-related articles although I sporadically contribute to articles of various other topics. If not full-scale editing, my contributions usually include moving, fighting vandalism, reverting unsourced material, etc. I, however, usually choose to discuss changes and seeking consensus on talk pages rather than being bold and editing myself, because I feel I am much more useful in reasoning and in consensus-seeking discussions. I am currently a rollbacker and have been for quite some time, but I never thought of running for adminship. In reality, I thought adminship was completely unnecessary and I could contribute to the encyclopedia as a "normal" editor. Be it as it may, I have encountered various occasions where the tools supplied by adminship would help me with day-to-day editing. Thank you for your consideration and happy editing. Cheers,  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   02:59, 8 April 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Like I stated above, I believe I am much more useful in consensus-seeking discussions so I predict I will use my time to participate in WP:ANI, WP:AFD and other parts of Wikipedia where the focus of discussions is consensus-seeking. In regard to mainspace editing, I plan on mostly protecting articles during edit wars, answering and analyzing the calls of fellow community members for page protection, article speedy deletion, etc. I would also love to work on the backlog of various parts of Wikipedia and help as much as I can. I would really enjoy to be there for the community whenever needed.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I do not want to sound redundant, but I have to restate that I am much more useful in consensus-seeking discussions. I do not believe I have had any "major" contribution, because all the consensus and contributions have been in conjunction with other diligent editors of Wikipedia. I just enjoy being able to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of creating this fantastic encyclopedia and fulfilling the goals of supplying the world with endless amounts of information.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific, please? Diffs and links to articles would be appropriate. tedder (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 would not necessarily utilize the term "conflict", but I have participated in heated (yet friendly) discussions with other editors, but I am sure that 99% of the time a consensus is reached. The fantastic thing about Wikipedia is that mostly everyone wants to contribute and at the same time learn from other editors and that is why consensus has been so easy to achieve. When I began on Wikipedia, I violated WP:FU with about a dozen pictures because I was unaware of the guidelines, but today, I can undoubtedly say that I know, understand and enforce almost every guideline in Wikipedia.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
 * 4. When is IAR appropriate?
 * A: Pardon if this is a long statement, but I just find IAR one of the most interesting parts of Wikipedia. The beauty about Wikipedia is that it is structured on these guidelines, but they aren't law. Therefore, in consensus-achieving discussion, an editor who has an argument of "why not to obey the rule?" is equally as viable as the argument of "why to obey it". A lot of people mistake IAR for an excuse to disregard the guidelines, but in reality, it is just a tool to promote consensus-reaching discussions. I believe that IAR should be utilized when the article benefits from it. A small is example is this recent edit where I added a template toWWE Raw's infobox that would automatically update the number of episodes weekly. However, I pointed out in WT:PW that because the change happens at 12:00, and the show ends at 3:00, there are 3 hours that violate WP:CBALL (because I am speculating that the show will air as planned). Another user pointed out that the template does wonders for the article and therefore it was a perfect situation to just "ignore the rule". I agree with this situation and others that are similar because an article can benefit without having to follow every guideline to every detail. Nevertheless, the guidelines are very important to me as an editor and I seldom use WP:IAR, but it is still one of the most magnificent aspects of Wikipedia.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Tedder
 * 5. In what instances would protecting an article be a bad idea?
 * A: I have always thought protecting a page should be a "last resort". Edit warring is counter-productive, but if only a handful of editors are involved, I am sure that a consensus mediated by an admin could easily be achievable. For example, more than a year ago, I got a little "riled up" because I thought the protection of a certain page was unnecessary. I thought so because there was a certain "edit war" going on between a handful of editors (I believe it was 4). Noticing that they were all experienced editors, I thought that a consensus could be achieved without needing to protect the article. Eventually, a lot of people agreed, even the admin who had protected the article (however, by no means was it his fault - he was just answering the plea for protection from another editor). I sincerely, and perhaps optimistically, believe that protection can be avoided when dealing with experienced editors. However, I do believe that in cases with inexperienced editors, they are much more difficult to convince and achieve consensus with. However, that is why semi-protection exists. In conclusion, I do believe protections help with the structure of Wikipedia, but should be utilized in grand edit wars, when inexperienced editors are involved or when consensus is unachievable for the time being.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Fastily
 * 6. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
 * A: My first ever discussions were about my failure to understand WP:FU at the beginning of my tenure on Wikipedia. Nowadays, I understand WP:FU and believe that it is the "right call" when dealing with images. Non-free images of living person should only be used when free alternatives aren't achievable. For example, although a free picture of X-wrestler may not exist, if it is technically possible that a picture be obtained by attending a live event, then a non-free image shouldn't be utilized. This is because free alternatives do exist, they are just not readily available. On a side-note, I don't believe images are necessary in articles, but they do add to them. But because they are not necessary, I don't think the fair use rationale should be used regularly.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
 * A: I believe warnings are necessary so a block could be implemented. A lot of people make mistakes, and a lot of people edit without reading every guideline. For example, someone may not know about WP:3RR and decided to revert an article three times. If he was never warned, then a block shouldn't be imposed on him. Warnings, lectures and discussions are much easier ways to deal with an editor violating guidelines. I assume that the editors will feel encouraged to learn more about guidelines so they can contribute to the encyclopedia. However, if the editor appears to be just another vandal and does not care about the encyclopedia, a block might be worthy. However, I, personally, would need to try and seek consensus first with said editor because if not, I would feel like I didn't try my best to promote the hospitality of Wikipedia's community. Be it as it may, I wouldn't object to others blocking vandals. I want to point out, that after much controversy and lots of criticism with utilizing the blocking tool, our founder User:Jimbo Wales decided on removing his blocking tool privileges stating that it was unnecessary for him to contribute to the encyclopedia. I think those words of wisdom were excellently stated. With all the admins in Wikipedia, blocking is not something I believe is necessary for me to contribute.   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 8. Photos from press agencies (like that of the AP) are predominantly prohibited on Wikipedia. Is there ever an instance in which usage of these images is permitted?  Explain.
 * A: I agree with the prohibition because I much prefer free-licensed pictures. To quote WP:FU, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't believe there are many cases where the omission is "detrimental" to the understanding of the article. However, if the consensus of the community is that the image from the Associated Press is necessary for the understanding of the article, then I would gladly obey consensus and agree with the adding of the image.   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Raaggio, please answer the above questions and opt-in here. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit stats on talk page. Thank you for opting-in.   7  03:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Hate to be the first one, but this clearly shows you have no understanding of how deletion works and from your 4000 edits you have hardly any contributions at all to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm afraid that you need more understanding of admin type areas before you have any chance at RFA. Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very embarrassing, but it wasn't intentional. You see, I have Twinkle in my monobook.js and I accidentally clicked mFd on that page. If you check my history with what I do with my user subpages, you can notice that I always use the deletion request tags. It is very embarrassing that I did such a mistake, but it was just that, a mistake. After doing it, I realized what I had done, but mistakes happen to every one of us. I am truly sorry, but I definitely believe that I have a very well understanding of the admin type areas and Wikipedia guidelines.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, The MFD was up 10 hours before it was closed as a U1 and since twinkle will take you to the MFD page it means that you must have seen you nominated the page at MFD. This means that a) you noticed and did nothing to fix the error or b) You didn't notice which means that you can't be trusted with powerful tools like deletion and blocking if you can't see a blatant error like that. Also, twinkle uses a different tab for xFD and CSD - XFD requires you to add a nomination and choose a venue while CSD gives you a list of CSD codes and a radio button to press. If you honestly couldn't tell the difference between then then you really can't be trusted with the tool. Sorry to be so harsh but I had to respond to your excuse and your response worries me far more then the actual error. Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had used Twinkle before, but because Twinkle is such an automatic tool, it is easy to make the mistake. However, the bad judgment call from my part was not commenting on the MFD page. The reason I didn't was because I thought the community would just vote the article to be deleted anyway, so there wouldn't be much of a problem. It was a mistake of mine, but in no way do I see it as a grave mistake or fatal mistake as you make it out to be. As you can see, since April last year, I added the userpage deletion request template to my user page so I could use it when necessary. Also, since last year, I have correctly utilized the template to delete my subpages. Perhaps the right thing to do would have been to address my Twinkle mistake on the AfD page, but I thought it wasn't "that big of a deal". If it is, I am sorry for not understanding the severity of the situation.  Raa   G   gio  (talk)   04:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The above diff is worrying, but I'm honestly more concerned about your sugary sounding answers to the questions, particularly question 4 where you completely dance around what IAR really means.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just assuming good faith a bit here, let's remember that the candidate was not asked what IAR really means, but was asked when its use is appropriate. Also, seeing that the candidate is not from the UK or mainland US we may also want to AGF that wording which could appear to be sugary coating to some may also be honest answers to others.   7  04:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Review of candidate's contributions to the Wikipedia namespace within the last year sees precisely 4 XfD contributions: 2 AfD contributions, both nominations that failed on procedural grounds: Articles for deletion/!!!Fuck You!!! (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling. There is also an additional MfD nomination from the user's own userspace (another speedy U1 delete), evincing a pattern with Spartaz's example, and a noncontroversial TfD nom. During the last year, I found no contributions to ANI. Given that these are precisely the areas where the candidate proposes to work, I conclude that he has insufficient consensus-building experience, and knowledge of procedure, in his proposed areas to be entrusted with enforcing and determining consensus.  Ray  Talk 03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Serious concerns with judgement, policy knowledge, breadth of exposure, lack of recent activity, and incorrect/questionable answers to questions 4, 5, 7, and 8.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, sorry. For a candidate who has identified AfD as an area of interest as an administrator (which must mean an intention to close AfDs), AfD experience is far too thin. We have to go back to early 2009 to see AfD participation, and the examples there are not inspiring. I understand that the candidate may have experience in consensus-building, but AfD closures require a sound knowledge and understanding of deletion policy. I'm just not seeing that here. I have no doubt that the candidate has been a valuable contributor within the purview of his wikiproject, but I just don't see the breadth of experience that would enable me to be confident of the candidate having the tools. If the candidate proceeds to make some solid contributions in a wider range of admin-like areas, I'd probably be happy to support in a few months. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Concerns about experience, activity, answers to the questions. In particular experience in varied capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Not enough experience in admin areas. Polargeo (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I should expand on this as it may be helpful to you. I have no problem with supporting a candidate with over 4000 edits, I will support a candidate with 2000-4000 edits in exceptional circumstances. However I am unlikely to support a candidate with less than 2000 edits over the last two years because wikipedia policies can change so much, hence part of my reason to oppose. More importantly I consider 394 edits to the wikipedia namespace to be low for an admin candidate, these edits would need to be exceptionaly clueful contributions to areas such as AfD etc., however, it is clear that the majority of these edits are to wikiprojects therefore you fall a fair way short of my minimum on experience. Polargeo (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per his nomination at this AfD, which appears to betray a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia deletion policy, AfD process, and poor judgement generally. I stand open to changing my position if I'm shown to have drawn the wrong conclusions about that nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't have a problem with the MfD issue, but I do with some of your AfD activity. In my opinion you just haven't got enough experience to be given the administrator tools. Big  Dom  07:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) As DustFormsWords pointed out this is too recent and shows too little understanding of wiki policy. I recommend installing wp:Hotcat and categorising a few articles rather than seeing uncategorised as a possible reason for deletion. I'm not so bothered at the questions, I see an assumption that all vandals should be warned as sign of inexperience rather than tolerance of the sort of behaviour that merits an instant block. Hope to be able to support in three or four months, if you learn from this process.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose With less than 5000 edits and upon reading the above comments being concerned about the AFD handlings, I even have my own, this RFA's article was nominated for deletion only an hour after it's creation, too early for an article to go into the stages of RFA, I don't think you're entirely ready, maybe come back in 4-7 months, handle AFD better and break the 5000 edits mark. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: I'd intended to vote neutral, because I think your answers above reflect a great attitude toward Wikipedia and the responsibilities of adminship, but I too am concerned about your understanding of deletion policy. Articles for deletion/Rosalie Cadron-Jetté is clearly a notable person: consider more precise notability searches (e.g. in Google News or Books) before nominating for deletion on notability grounds). With more experience at XFD and ANI I would be open to supporting next time around. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Overall I think it is too soon for you.  You've been here a while but could benefit from more experience in some areas germane to admin work.  However, Strong Moral Support to avoid piling on above.   First of all - XFDing one of your own userpages by accident is no worry at all.  I too did it when I first got the twinkle buttons and other scripts.  Secondly, your answer to IAR is okay by me.  You weren't asked what IAR is, you were asked when to use it and you gave an example.  Stick with it and broaden your experience and it'll happen eventually.   7  04:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral- I approve of your attitude and demeanour, but you probably haven't got enough experience yet- or a thorough enough understanding of deletion policy. You should definitely run again in a few months' time. Reyk  YO!  09:44, 8 April 2010 (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.