Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selmo 2


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

Selmo
'''Final (4/10/6); Ended on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:13 UTC

– It's been a while since my last RfA, which was opposed because of my conduct. I believe I have improved in this area; here is a recent example of stress. While profanity was directed at me, I was able to keep my cool, and before I had a moment to respond, he decided to cut some slack. So everything was fine from my point of view.

I'm at editor review at the moment. The two reviews I got were quite positive. I have applied for Esperanza's Admin Coaching to iron out with any other civility issues. Admins have to deal with more stress, after all. -- Selmo  (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination. Too early. I'm glad I'm making progress though. Withdraw per WP:SNOW

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 voters:
 * 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: RC Patrolling. And now that I can finally use VandalProof without it crashing on me, I have been able to be more effective than my last RfA in this field now that the application is working; I find my self reporting two vandals on average to WP:AIV. I haven't been super active on XfD, but I do comment there from time to time. I am more active in adding speedy deletion tags to articles.


 * I am keen on cleaning out the always backlogged WP:AIV. I always find myself helpless to stop persistent vandalism I encounter when I am RC Patrolling. Having the block power will help me intervene. Other things I've always wanted in doing is responding to WP:RFPP and clear out CAT:CSD.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Vancouver is my 1 featured article. The article improvement process is challenging yet fun. I found myself spending three months on that article. It certainly was hard work; copyediting, balancing POV, citing sources etc. Alas, on the day it was promoted, I felt like I truly accomplished something. My fellow editors on that article were also great to work with.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I've been working in this area straight after I withdrew my last RfA I decided to check out Esperanza, since I knew they promoted civility. From there, I looked at essays like WP:COOL, and WP:NAM. The advice they gave is pretty useful. I had a few minor disputes, which I was able to solve with the other parties.


 * Additional optional questions
 * 4. In August, you stated your "feeling[s] [were] shattered" and that you had tears in your eyes because a user gave you a warning template and administrators on PAIN and ANI had refused to intervene when you felt "slandered, belittled, insulted and har[a]ssed." I was wondering how do you feel you will cope with the attacks and nasty comments that administrators are often subjected to merely for carrying out their duties? Thanks. Sarah Ewart 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A Today, in such cases like the diff of my talk page, I ignore these personal attacks. If any user were to leave a rude messages for whatever reason, including administrative action disputes (say for example, I block someone for registering an inappropriate username), I'd consult dispute resolution (in this case, opening up an offensive username RfC).
 * 5. Hi, your recent example of 'keeping your cool' resulted from this edit you made to a Userpage: . It appears to restore a vandalism tamplate, which should not be on a Userpage, that the user had moved their Talkpage a month and 15 edits previously. Can you explain? Thanks, - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A When I was using Lupin's tool, I thought that page was in the mainspace. I was prepared to revert it myself when I saw that it was a mistake.


 * General comments


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



Discussion

Note to participants: I have changed Q1 after reading the objections. I have indicated that I want to have sysop tool to better fight vandalism. -- Selmo  (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Changed to Support, AGF. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I am satisfied now. TSO1D 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. DarthVad e r 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Rash at times, but this user is a fast learner and a excellent contributor. However, if you really want to a admin, you should dedicate way more time on the answers. I think your answers are too short and is not really convincing (read some of the answers from successful candidates to get a sense). Support anyways. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose for now. Your recent contributions look promising, but given the outcome of your previous RfA in September, I'd prefer you wait some more months before re-applying. Also, 3'000 edits are at the low end of the practical experience I expect an administrator to have. Sandstein 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have made a sincere effort in being civil. I am alway trying to improve in that area. -- Selmo  (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I did not get any further in reviewing your request than your answers. Your answer to question one does not indicate any need at all for admin tools. The question asks what administrative jobs you would like to help with, yet everything you mention in that answer (RC patrol, commenting at XfD, tagging pages etc) is done without a need for adminship. I strongly urge you to rethink that answer before too many people review this RfA. Should you do this, I will reconsider my !vote but otherwise I'm afraid it will stand. Sarah Ewart 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I'm going to let my oppose stand. I'm really not impressed with any of the answers or the nom in general. You've only been editing regularly for about four months and I'm just not at all convinced that you have enough experience or policy knowledge. Sarah Ewart 05:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've revised my anwser to your question anyway. Thanks. -- Selmo  (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above on the answers. Please notify me if you have changed your answers. --WinHunter (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The answers above describe a really good editor and if more editor strove to achieve the things to which you refer then Wikipedia would be substantially improved in a short space of time. The answers don't include anything about being an admin or ideas about how to use the tools in order to improve the project.  On this basis, the candidacy doesn't really take off.  I might reconsider if you can describe your ideas for which areas would benefit from the application of the tools and how you would go about doing so. (aeropagitica) 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, good editor but does not seem ready for adminship. Wait for a few more months before applying again. You don't seem to need the tools based on your answers. Not this time, sorry. Ter e nce Ong 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Neither requires nor seems temperamentally suited for sysop tools. A Train take the 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Q1 does not show any real need for the tools and a little too soon from the last RFA for me. &mdash; Seadog  14:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. It's way too early, and you really do not require the tools. Also, your last RfA wasn't too long ago, it's been too short for me. You have, yes, shown improvement, but not enough for a support vote. -- S onicChao talk 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per questions, the last RFA was three months ago though which is more than enough time, i remember the guidelines use to be a month or two after a failed RFA Jaranda wat's sup 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per not very many WP talk edits (lots of XfD would balance that, but you don't have lots), andoveruse of VP to revert things. Overuse of VP is likely to translate to overuse of rollback, which is not good. -Amarkov blahedits 02:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Moved to neutral)
 * Well, that was original research. Although it isn't vandalism, it still violates policy. Perhaps I should have used VP's feature to append needsource via [Rollback] (custom). I remember having more WP talk edits for WP:Vancouver. Unfortunately, my contributions were archived (via cut and paste) and speedy deleted. -- Selmo  (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that the things around it weren't sourced, either, I still can't approve of using VP to revert it. -Amarkov blahedits 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll use a manual revert for original research from now on. VP's edit summaries do indeed give the impression that I'm assuming bad faith. -- Selmo  (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Sarah. Dionyseus 05:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral no real need for tools. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 12:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral You have good intentions, but you have not outlined any need for you to be an admin. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Like others, I am confused by your answer to number 1. I urge you to revise that statement to show how you would use admin tools. TSO1D 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC) changed to Support.
 * 1) Neutral per above. 0L1   Talk   Contribs  15:49 16/12/2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. You're making progress, and that's great. However, I still think you should have waited longer before submitting an RfA again.  Nish kid 64  18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. You should rectract this RFA. Sharkface217 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a couple more days. Many of the oppose votes were simply casted before I revised question one. As far as time is concerned. Jaranda did say that i have exceeded the community guideline. Everyone does have their own standards, however. -- Selmo  (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per Nishkid64.--Kchase T 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per my original weak oppose, but without the WP talk stuff. -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 17 December 2006 (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.