Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reaper X


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

Reaper X
Final (12/10/9); 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- I have been a Wikipedian for roughly a year and a half, producing about 7000 edits, half of them in the mainspace. I occasionally perform maintenance tasks; not a certain one, but a variety. These include sharing my views and posting notices at TfDs, AfDs, Main Page ITN candidates, RFPP and AIV. I do revert vandalism on a steady basis, and post notices or warnings on user talk pages. I have also performed RC patrolling. I am a morally conscious user, and I try to be polite and respectful as possible, even in the most lengthy and heated discussions. Somedays, my watchlist is dead for any action, and I feel that I can help contribute more to Wikipedia with a mop. -- Reaper  X  05:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  I request to withdraw my nomination.  -- Reaper  X  16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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 would definitely like to assist with the backlog of speedy deletion candidates, and get some of those sorted out quicker. I'd like to help process Requests for page protection, 3RR violation reports and vandalism intervention quickly too. Not to mention, these are just drive-by tasks I could perform when I log into Wikipedia at school. I will probably participate in other sysop tasks once I learn more about them. There's a whole bunch out there right? It's just getting familiar with them all, and I'll be slow and cautious until I know I have it right. Sysop abilities and actions have devastating effects sometimes I'm sure, and I don't like upsetting people.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: That definitely has to be Billy Talent, my first and only good article so far. I had always been interested in contributing to music articles, but this was the article that taught me to do it as per the Wikipedia spirit. Whether it was uploading and using free images at Wikipedia Commons, creating music samples and providing fair-use rationales, making all claims verifiable, and discussing and coming to consensus on certain issues. I also learned other tidbits like wikitables and writing good prose. Regardless, the fact that I pushed the article to a GA status is something I am proud of everyday. I hope to make more articles to be proud of in the future.


 * 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: Well, I'll use a recent example, and no names. There was a dispute at my hometown's article, St. Thomas, Ontario. The dispute was over the inclusion over one silly external link to the town's main newspaper. It erupted into a bit of an edit war, causing an admin to take notice and protect the page until it was settled. The whole time, one user argued hard against it's inclusion, even though myself and two other users felt it was blatantly obvious that it could add to the article, and it did not violate WP:SPAM like he claimed. The amount of discussion was irritating at times, causing me to temporarily feel a bit resentful of this one editor. Yet I decided it was not worth it, and I assumed good faith. I remained diplomatic about it, trying to clarify again and again that a) we felt that his reaons were not accurate or resonable because 1...2...3... and so on, and b) that we were not teaming up and/or attacking him. The lengthy discussion and my attempt to settle it through consensus even led to an RFC, but I think the discussion has gone quiet for now. One user also presented me with a Barnstar of Peace as a result of this. As for dealing with conflicts in the future, I believe being diplomatic, polite, and just talking it out is the only solution. I hate seeming like an ass, it hurts my moral conscience when someone thinks that about me.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 06:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4. Were you aware of the decision in Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
 * A: I knew that the burden of proof for including material that violated BLP policy was upon the users that added it, and so it would only be common sense to me that the burden lay on any users contesting a deletion of a BLP-violating article. I was not specifically aware of the Badlydrawnjeff decision, but as I understand it, it's sort of like court: contesting users are The Crown/District attorney: they are the ones who must present proof that the article should be retained, not the deleting admin. There must be consensus among the jury (the other users) for the article to be restored. That's only a comparison though, I know Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.


 * 5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
 * A: One step I would take is to get as much input from other editors as or more experienced than I am. I have come to be a huge believer in discussion and consensus, and I refrain from believeing my opinion is the opinion of any reasonable editor. I wouldn't take any action in restoring the article immediately, such a sensitive issue should not be dealt with until the dust from discussions has settled. It's amazing the things people point out when you give them time to think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper X (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Reaper X:

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

Discussion

 * For some recent examples of my speedy tagging, please see, and a few Wipers albums I created when I was fairly new, and tagged with db-author: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. -- Reaper  X  14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * G7 and U1 are the easiest of the criteria...the judgment comes in, as I stated, for the most frequently-used, primarily A7 but also G11, the latter of which probably has the widest latitutde. And – forgive me as I soapbox here – but as a recently-created admin I have developed a strong dislike for abuse of the A1 criteria.  No context is "blah blah blah" and something impossible to decide what it is; not "it's an album but hasn't been released yet." hbdragon88 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support He seems to have a good grasp of policy, is civil in discussions, and takes part in several administrative chores. From what I see, I think you should become an administrator. Maser  ( Talk! ) 08:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support Good editor, I see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools, also seems to have a grasp of policy (though maybe he should look at 3RR a bit more). Harland1 (t/c) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This user has been around more than long enough to demonstrate that abuse of the tools is not an issue. Whether those 7000 edits are properly allocated or not shouldn't be a concern.  Deli nk (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) support --.snoopy.  22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. He may have described how he was irritated, but as long as he didn't act irritated, there's no problem. Although I agree he should think twice about 3RR for now, speedy deletion candidate backlog could always use work. -- Qmwne 235  23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. nitpickers below aren't looking at the big picture. Being a sysop isn't becoming "elite", and the user doesn't have to have always been absolutely perfect. Reaper X has demonstrated the will to help this project, and I'm sure will not make any more mistakes than the next sysop. If we have concerns about their handling of a particular line of admin work, I'm sure s/he can refrain from acting their until they've been properly taught and have confidence.  Pump  me  up  06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) This is to counter the opposees, which I find extremely troubling.  Red rocket  boy  09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can discuss what you find so troubling? Remember, this is a discussion, not a pure number count !vote.  What is it about our opposes that you find so troubling?  Metros (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are picking things that happened months ago. If they must oppose, they should find some recent crime to justify it with, but not bring up stuff that happened in April...  Red rocket  boy  16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you find my oppose to be legitimate at least? I think my concern is more of a broad one then what you seem to be bothered by.  Metros (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, not really. Perhaps experience with 3RR would help, but in my view, it is not essential. It isn't hard to tell if someone has broken 3RR most of the time. If it's a difficult case, he can leave it and learn from whoever deals with it. As for the other things, I don't think edits = knowledge. I'll assume good faith that someone who's been here a year and a half with 7000 edits will know what vandalism is. Thanks.  Red rocket  boy  16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how others feel, but I usually see 6 months ago as water under the bridge. I usually support for three months and 3000 edits, so anything before the last 3 months/3000 edits (if truly in the past) is unconcerning . :)Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support - great editor, with edits in all the places to meet my standards. Some of the issues raised  by opposes may give me pause to support 100 %.  I'll give this user the benefit of the doubt. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - edit history and answers bear out a solid editor with a good learning curve.  bd2412  T 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Looks like a good editor. Stupid2 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I've seen the work he does in music articles - always civil, always patient, always well-researched.  His knowledge of the rules and goals of wikipedia is admirable.  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support - overall, a net positive (just). Contributions overall make up for the problems outlined below. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I see no evidence of work in the areas where the user wants to work the most with admin tools. S/he'd like to work with 3RR but I see no reports to 3RR.  3RR is one of the most complex issues an admin deals with and a lack of experience there would be a hindrance.  Since June (6 months ago) I see 6 reports to AIV including one which was rejected and one which was already blocked (although that was 3 minutes after it was blocked, so not a major issue).  Eight edits to RFPP since June including one that was already protected.  In addition, there is what Hbdragon88 said about the lack of speedy experience.  I have no doubts that this is a good, productive user.  I just would like to see more involvement in the areas which he hopes to work in as an admin prior to supporting him.  Metros (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that more experience in AIV would be nice, the IP report you pointed out as being rejected had had 1 short block and vandalised 9 times (varies depending on what you define as vandalism) since that 31hr block. Cheers Harland1 (t/c) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only count 5 instances of vandalism and 3 of them occurred on that day it was reported. It's a shared IP, so it's probably a different user using it after the previous block several months ago.  There was also no edits after the final warning that day.  Since blocking is preventative and not punitive, that was a clear decline from the admin since there was no vandalism going on anymore.  Metros (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes your right there were only 5 instances of vandalism and it is a shared IP, I should have looked at the contribs more closely, but 5 instances of vandalism from any where should mean some sort of a block, the best would be a soft block. So that those good editors from that IP could create accounts, but it would help to deter the casual vandal if they have to do that bit extra work. Harland1 (t/c) 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While there are some subtleties in how to handle 3RR reports, 3RR is actually one of the most clearly defined rules on Wikipedia and I think it's more important to have enough admins responding promptly to 3RR reports than to necessarily always have the most perfect decision possible made in each case. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. User page says, "My next task is becoming an admin, so I can have my hand further in the cookie jar". That's not what being an admin is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May I make it clear that what I mean by that statement is that I'm pursuing sysop abilities not for the fact of having them, but to have access to them and be able to contribute to a bigger variety of areas. I'm an all-around editor, and I love doing new tasks. Having sysop abilities would allow me to do this, and perhaps contribute to a greater magnitude here on Wikipedia. -- Reaper  X  04:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Probably | not the way to deal with a frustrating problem. -- Redmarkviolinist  (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit, not the way to deal with that. I'm surprised I even said that. May I point out that that was in April, and I have come to have more patience, and more faith. -- Reaper  X  03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  (change to neutral. User has a large number of deleted contribs.)_ Can't say I find "irritation" as a reaction to needing to settle matters via discussion to be a comforting thought. Discussion is essential to establishing consensus when there is disagreement. Also, I would certainly prefer more experience in the areas of interest. Nom is a good editor who is an asset to Wikipedia, but I would like to see greater experience and less irritation. Look forward to supporting in the future. Dloh  cierekim  21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Not experienced enough for my liking and I'm concerned with Redmarkviolinist's diff about how this user handles situations. He could have phrased it better, but alas, he did not. Oppose for now. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 06:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No fair use rationale on the image uploaded here, here, here, here, here etcetera, combined with the many red links in your upload log makes me doubt your capabilities with the non-free image policy. I understand that most of the images were uploaded in 2006, but the rationale issues should have been corrected once you realized their importance. Your userpage, as stated by Phil Bridger, makes me question your intentions of being an administrator. The comparison with the cookie jar shows a misunderstanding of the roles of administrators. The abilities to block, protect, look at deleted revisions etc., is not a prize nor is it to be used for your personal enjoyment. Sorry, but I am unwilling to support this nomination giving the outstanding issues. -- DarkFalls talk 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per DarkFalls as well as no intention of contacting the deleting administrator in the candidates' response to Q5, which is extremely worrying not only for deletions but for all administrator actions.  Daniel  07:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose While I like seeing admins who can deal well with difficult editors, I have concerns that this editor wants to work on clearing the speedy backlog, but doesn't always have a grasp of speedy deletion reasons. Besides the speedy example given above, which is in the wrong category, this diff on the Wipers Box Set article is also in the wrong category. In fact, I couldn't find any reason for speedy deletion of that article, and declined the speedy. Perhaps some more work on correct use of speedy deletions before a retry?--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There were a few Wipers albums I realized that I had created just for the sake of making them exist, back when I was still fairly new to Wikipedia. After a while, I remembered them and realized I was not going to contribute to them any more, so there was no point of having them. So I tagged them with db-author, as I noted above. Adding that tag to Wipers Box Set was a mistake, and as I indicated to the above user, I hadn't realized other editors had contributed. -- Reaper  X  19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose per above concerns. NHRHS2010  Happy Holidays  23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose also per above concerns. Jack ?! 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Metros and question 5. --Core desat 12:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral User has stated a desire to take WP:LSD but a glance at his/her deleted contributions shows absolutely no speedy tagging...at least that's what I see. The majority is comprised of NowCommons and PRODs.  Not that I expect you to know the CSD criteria by heart, but I think experience is necessary to distinguish the intricacies of A7 and G11, etc. the most judgment-y of the CSD crteria. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've seen the shortcut LSD, and I was a bit worried at first that the candidate had expressed an intention to EUI. Joe 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, nice redirect. -- Menti  fisto  14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - per oppose concerns. Although, I agree 7000 edits and a good experience in the mainspace is good, not much in the Wiki version, isn't. Rt . 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You have good edits and experience, but I see that you edited one page 200-some times. This shows that you have much more you need to grasp before you become an admin. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'd support, but I don't feel you understand policy well enough yet. Sorry! Master of Puppets Care to share?  20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) change to neutral. Actually, user has a large number of deleted contribs. This suggests an understanding of deletion policy. Can't say I find "irritation" as a reaction to needing to settle matters via discussion to be a comforting thought. Discussion is essential to establishing consensus when there is disagreement. Also, I would still prefer more experience in the areas of interest. Nom is a good editor who is an asset to Wikipedia, but I would like to see greater experience and less irritation. Look forward to supporting in the future.  Dloh  cierekim  21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how having such a large number really indicates that. Editing a lot of now-deleted pages doesn't suggest an understanding of the deletion policy at all. It really depends on the content of those contributions. My deleted contributions is full of user space edits on now-deleted user subpages, but although this may indicate that I know about db-userreq and CSD, it may not indicate a full understanding of the deletion policy.  Spebi  08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I was thinking those were articles that had been tagged correctly for deletion. Did yo see something I did not? :) Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Without looking at each individual article intensely, it appears that roughly 25% of the entries are legit prods/AfDs/speedys added by Reaper X (some broken redirects and a few A3s it looks like), another 25% were db-user speedies and the other roughly 50% are edits of other natures to eventually deleted page (so nothing on his part to cause the deletion). That's just a rough estimate, as I said, based on the first 50 entries in the main space category.  Metros (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I do like what I see from Reaper for the most part, but the opposing side brings up an issue which is too big to support. Jmlk  1  7  11:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Per Dlohcierekim. More experience in areas of Interest. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Edit summaries often too brief or missing. Also, I could be wrong, but I thought reverts shouldn't be marked as minor edits (example, and similar examples around 04:00 Nov. 25.) as well as concerns raised by others above. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I like seeing the +7000 edits, with +3000 of those in the mainspace, but there are two things holding me back. One is the oppose concerns, and two is the decline in activity I see in your contributions in the past 5ish months. Best of luck Sirkad talksign 22:37, 20 December 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.