Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Satellizer


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

Satellizer
Final (5/3/1); ended 03:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate (non-crat closure) Vaca  tion  9  03:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hello people, I'm nominating myself for adminship. I've got around ~9000 edits, which I admit is pretty low for an RfA; however I'm reasonably confident about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and that I'm reasonably active. I registered back in December 2010, but then I was still a newcomer and made a lot of mistakes; I won't call myself an "active editor" until around May 2012. I think that over time I gradually learned from my errors and that now I can apply those policies and guidelines as an administrator.

Of course, if you have any questions for me, by all means ask them below. :)  ~ satellizer ~ ~ talk ~  20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. There's no doubt that this RfA is not going to pass, and that I definitely need more experience before become an admin - thus I see no point in continuing this RfA. Many thanks to those who !voted here, your input has been greatly appreciated. (Can someone please close the discussion properly? I'm not sure how to close RfAs, and I'll probably just mess up.)  ~ satellizer ~ ~ talk ~  03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Mainly WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Those are the two administrative areas which I have the most experience and contributions; as a recent changes patroller I also often use those pages.


 * However, the areas of admin work which I will take either minimal or not take part in are deletions (especially WP:AFD); I also believe I don't have the necessary experience at WP:AN or WP:ANI; therefore if I were to participate I'll start out slowly and carefully, to not make mistakes.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Probably my contributions to WP:VG, where I am active. Some content work, along with reverting vandalism; although I'd say that I haven't made any outstanding articles.


 * 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: Not really. I don't believe I've had any major conflicts with any user(s) and I think I'm reasonably WP:CIVIL during most situations and discussions. No user has caused me much stress. Should this RfA pass as an admin in the future when dealing with conflicts I should, and will, of course be civil, keep my cool and assume good faith.


 * Additional question from 24.20.204.170
 * 4. What's the point of banning people when they can just create new accounts?
 * A: (Note: I've moved your question to the correct place on the RfA, as well as fixed the question number. ) Hi. Just for clarification, are you referring to a WP:BLOCK or a WP:BAN? Banning is formal revocation of editing priviledges; there are many types of bans, and they do not stop an editor's technical ability to edit a page. Blocking, on the other hand, is the actual method and is when an administrator blocks a user account or IP from editing Wikipedia. By creating a new account whilst blocked or banned is block evading and will not only result in the new account from getting blocked or banned; the duration of the original block/ban may also be extended. Hopefully I've answered your question.


 * Additional question from Nerdfighter
 * 5. After what warning level can a user be considered for blocking?
 * A: Generally a user can be considered for blocking after a level 4 (final warning) or level 4im (only warning) has been given. The latter should only be used for excessive or continuous disruption by the user or IP. Additionally, single issue warnings may also result in a block.


 * Additional question from Vacation9
 * 6. You say you want to work in AIV, so here are some sample users and IPs for you. Answer if, and why, you would block the user if they were reported at AIV. These are difficult scenarios so feel free to take your time.
 * A user who has made two edits, both adding "poop" to articles where it is not appropriate. User has been warned
 * A: That can be difficult. I wouldn't immediately ban the user; rather I would monitor the user's contributions; if s/he continues to make non-constructive changes, I may ban block the user as a vandalism-only account, as s/he has not made constructive changes.
 * An IP who has made several vandalism edits in the past, was not blocked but was warned, has just made another vandalism edit
 * A: By "in the past", how long ago was it? If a significant amount of times had passed, I would not block, but warn again. If the warnings were recent, and the warnings have reached level 4, I would temporarily block the IP.
 * A user who is repeatedly converting American English terms to British English terms (example: color to colour), has been warned, and is not stopping
 * A: per WP:RETAIN, existing national varieties of English should be retained, not changed, and repeatedly changing them can be disruptive editing. Has the user been warned multiple times? If the user has been warned multiple times, I would block the user. If not, I would warn the user again and monitor their changes to see if they continue.
 * A user who has made two strongly inappropriate personal attacks, but has not been warned
 * A: Are the two personal attacks the only contributions the user has made? If yes, I would block as the user has clearly shown they are not here to edit collaboratively and constructively; if not, I'd warn them sternly that any additional personal attacks may result in a block.
 * An IP who completely blanked an article twice in bad faith, and was warned before the second blanking
 * A: I'd say the IP has been insufficiently warned. I'll warn again, but not block.
 * An IP labeled as an educational institution's IP address who has made many bad faith contributions (being warned) over the past few years starts up again and makes three additional bad faith contributions, being warned all three times
 * A: Level 1, then 2, then 3? If the warnings have reached level 4, I would block the IP, and encourage the institution's members who wish to edit constructively to create an account, and use the template.

General comments

 * Links for Satellizer:
 * Edit summary usage for Satellizer can be found here.
 * Stats on talk page. Tyrol5   [Talk]  02:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Weak support - the answers to the questions are rather brief, and although I personally disagree with it, other editors are going to look for substantial content work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Why not?  I n k a 888  21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support - You've got the idea right, but I'd rather you really have more experience with actually handling it.  ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  23:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support Per the answers to my questions, the user seems competent and has experience in the areas he/she would like to work in. Article content is okay as well, but a bit more experience would be nice. The user also seems to have confused banning with blocking in the answers to my questions. Vaca  tion  9  23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By the confusion, do you mean question 6 a)? I meant that the user should be blocked; sorry, that was a spelling mistake on my part. Apologies.  ~ satellizer ~ ~ talk ~  23:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I was talking about. Thanks! Vaca  tion  9  23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support --May puppies fly before pigs do. (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! Would you mind including a reason for your vote? —  nerd fighter (academy) 02:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Seems a great person and editor, but not enough administrative experience. Maybe in five months or so.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 01:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Very gentle oppose. I want to cushion the blow since the fellow is young and well meaning and pleasant.  Some decent content contributions (the manga and games is fine, we don't all have to be Linus Pauling).  Just give it another year please at least (none of this 6 month stuff).  Concentrate on school and get some sports in too.  Not just slaving for the mop.  Main issues is the speedy  along with a sense of him being very young.  I'm also not crazy about the citing lots of linked Wiki-alphabet soup policies.  WP:OPP and all that.  Remember you will be dealing with some 40 year old that starts an article on his company and you need to be able to connect with the guy and cushion the blow when you delete his article (like Floq would).  Not make him wonder what strange world he has stepped into.  TCO (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, not now; should gain further experience as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Contribs do show a dedicated vandal fighter; I'm a little concerned that this editor has only 281 edits to admin areas (AIV/RPP/AfD). It's really hard to judge CLUE with so little to examine. I'm not going to ask a question, but will watch the answers given to other questions with interest. Killer Chihuahua  22:27, 23 February 2013 (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.