Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smcafirst 2


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

Smcafirst
(10/16/2); Originally scheduled to end 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Removed at 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC) since outcome was clear.

- This is my second time requesting for Adminship. I have been here at Wikipedia for almost 8 months, but I have been active ever since November 2006 (5 months from now) In fact, during the last 5 months, I have been editing on Wikipedia on almost everyday. As a local resident in the Golden Horseshoe, I also started a Wikiproject named WP:GHR, in order to improve road stubs in the Golden Horseshoe area. In total, I have involved in several Wikiproject, which are WP:EiC, WikiProject ontario Highways, WikiProject Meteorology, and in one of which, I am the creator and editor, editting my members' work, and wikify the articles if needed be. I also participated in WP:MOTTO, even though it is not a proper WikiProject. Frequently do I mark stubs, clean-up tags on articles that I think are short and lack of information. In many ways, I co-operate with others, and prevent vandalizing. During my spare time, I often patrol around in Wikipedia to monitor vandalizing, just like an administrator. In these past months, I made positive changes to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipediholic that made over 1500 edits in just 3 months, over 200 categories and articles in just 3 months. Most important of all, I marked stubs and wikify notices on articles for almost 500 times. Some of which are Steeles Avenue, and Simcoe County Road 8. I often drive 500 km, just to take a picture for Wikipedia, and often research until middle of the night, to write an article of something. Other than EN wikipedia, I also have another account at ZH wikipedia, which I made several articles and edits. I have been taking HTML Writing Class, Proofreading Class, and Chinese Typing Class, so that I could write bots, proofread others' work in a better degree, and contribute more to the Chinese Wikipedia community. I am also ready to expand my current project so that the WikiProject does not only include roads, but also other "geographic features" in the Golden Horseshoe. I also edit in various namespaces, including portals, mainspace, project pages, and user pages. Recently, I ahve been focusing to create navigational templates, so that all relevant articles would link to each other. In my contribution records, you might see lots of user page editing, actually, some of them are planning for articles. In the past, I have used userspaces to plan Castlemore Avenue, York Regional Road 71, and some other my wikiproject related articles. --Smcafirst (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, I can complete chores to make Wikipedia a better community and encyclopedia. --Smcafirst (Talk) 00:53, 6 April 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?
 * A: Some sysop chores that I would be counteracting vandalism, and help out at WP:AIV, and blocking vandals from editing Wikipedia. Another chore that I would like to do is to protecting heavy vandalized page. I would also help out at WP:AfD, closing discussions, and complete whatever the concensus suggest me to do. I would also like to help out my fellow Wikipedians.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: There are a few. In particular, List of York Regional Roads, Portal:Hamilton, Ontario WP:GHR (Despite it is a WikiProject), and List of Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe (Currently under construction) . For the two lists and the portal, I believe they are a compile of all the available relevant information in Wikipedia, and ultimately the web. All of these articles/wikiProjects/portals, I have put lots of efforts into them.


 * 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: In November 2006, I have been in a conflict of editing in the past with another administrator, RaccoonFox (His account got hacked into, and presently named as RingtailedFox) I had created some lists of Regional Roads (such as List of York Regional Roads) However, as an administrator, RaccoonFox reverted my edits into what I think were misleading names (such as List of York Region, Ontario roads). We finally talked together on a talk page, and compromised. He admitted the names are difficult to understand at times, and he let me to rename all of the categories into their proper names again. In the future, I will do the same thing, because I believe talking on a talk page, discussing conflicts, and compromise is a better way of editing than reverting each other's edits over and over again.


 * Optional questions from User:Gwernol


 * 4. When you come across a vandal, either in general editing or when you see a report at WP:AIV what is the right process for an admin deal with them? In particular, when do you warn them and when do you block them? If you decide to block them, how long should you block them for?
 * A: When I come across a vandal, I would, first of all, undo all the vandalism (like I always do), and check the IP vandal/user's contribution. If they had vandalize more than once, I would warn them first. I did similar cases with IP Address 216.209.122.141, about his/her vandalism of the article A.D.H.S. I would block them if they still continue their vandalize habit, and receive at least 3 warnings (depending on the seriousness of the vandalized page, whether they posted on sexual images or words, or other violence that cannot be tolerate; the moderate ones (like posting personal comments on certain article) could wait for 3 warnings before blocking them.) If I decide to block them, like I said before, I would block the ones who posted inappropriate comments (sexual images, violence phrases) for approximately 30 days hours for their second time of vandalism, and increasingly more (and possible permanantly) if the vandalism continues after he/she got unblocked. I would block the ones who posted personal comments on certain articles for about 15 days hours (that is, after 3 warnings), and increasingly more if the vandalism continues. In share IP Address (shuch as libraries, or school), I would give them relatively more chances (say 4-5 chances), before blocking them, just to make sure it is the same one person who vandalized. The blocking time of these addresses would be shorter, as it is a shared one, 7-15 days hours would be sufficient. --Smcafirst (Talk) 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) This is just my suggested way of blocking vandals, but the blocking policy would be still followed. I understand my blocking standard may seem different than what other admins would have done, but I would observe WP:BLOCK and also my own standard before blocking vandals. I believe vandals should not be blocked for such a short period (1-3 days is a VERY short time), and that's why I suggest this out. However, I would still follow Wikipedia's policy, enhancing my own suggestions.--Smcafirst (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. What criteria would you use to judge when to semi-protect or fully protect an article? Under what circumstances would it not be appropriate for your to protect an article?
 * A: In this case, unlike Question 4, I would follow Wikipedia's protection policy. To fully protect an article for high visibility pages, special pages, closed discussions, and pages that are repeated re-created. (Although all special pages have already been fully protected). I would semi-protect articles which experiences heavy vandalism, biographies, and any other requested protections by other users (like user pages). I would also protect pages that are experiencing on-going movement to an inappropriate titles. When it is inappropriate for me to protect an article is when a concensus is reached by other users. Basically, I would follow WP:PROT. --Smcafirst (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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


 * Please check my edit counts at the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Smcafirst 2, and edit summary usage using Interiot mathbot's tool
 * For detail contribution records, please check User:Smcafirst/Active Participant, and/or Special:Contributions/Smcafirst.
 * Previous RfA

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support. Seems simple. Over 3,000 edits, (not that 3,000 is a cut off point!) Seems to interact well with others, writes articles, decent WP space contributions, involved in projects... I see no compelling reason to not support. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support has improved since the last request. A much better user. Captain panda  02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Good answer to $UIT's oppose vote. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  11:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Clearly a better candidate than in the last request. Well involved, has plenty of helpful edits and contributions, and seems to know what his tasks will be if he becomes an admin. Camaron1 | Chris  11:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support seems good enough for me.-- danntm T C 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: This user's answers and Dgies' answers are basically the same and they have both been on wikipedia for similar amounts of time, so I fail to see why his RfA is passing and this one is not. Per above reasons.  ~ St ep tr ip   01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support very simple w/ so many edits.B4rr4g3 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I support every RfA. Adminship is no big deal. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support He seems like he wants to do the right thing on wikipedia, and he's got a fair amount of edits. I support. ---   ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  09:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) --dario vet  (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Due to your answer to question 1. Comment: You say you'll work at closing AFDs, yet you really only participated in one-- $U IT  02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually participated in a few, way back when. I will beginning to contribute more at AFDs, and I look forward to that. I am glad to help out at AfDs, and believe it or not, I started some contributions at AfDs recently. Also, I will not just work on AfDs, I will also help out in other projects of Wikipedia. AfDs is just one of the many.--Smcafirst (Talk) 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, I'm sorry but no, because you really don't have any experience on the chores that you intend on doing. In addition to the afd issue mentioned above, I looked at your contribs to WP:AIV. There were a total of 4 and none of the people you reported were blocked after the report. One of them was this, reporting a user that had vandalized an article 2 months earlier and was blocked for it (and had no edits since). Another was this, where an ip had one edit, which was adding "gsdfgsdfgdfgsdf" to an article. Similarly, since you consider those instances of vandalism serious enough to report, I'd have no confidence that you would only protect "heavy vandalized pages". You're supposed to have some clue on what you're supposed to do with the tools before getting them, so please familiarize yourself with the blocking and deletion policies and try again in a few months, thanks. - Bobet 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above and since this is the English Wikipedia. ER Talk 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Bobet. --After Midnight 0001 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Bobet. Although I commend your continued dedication, you still lack experience in those administrative areas in which you seek to help.  Don't worry; just stick around, and you pick up the skills you need. Xoloz 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose sorry you are not ready yet. Your answer to my question 4 is fairly significantly at odds with our blocking policy. In your last RfA you were asked to change your signature. Although you have, its still very distracting and too long. I notice on this RfA you are not using your normal signature, but creating one by hand that matches WP:SIG, so it appears you know your normal signature is not appropriate and are trying to hide the fact for the purposes of this RfA. Your user and talk pages include a copyrighted image (Bouncywikilogo.gif from commons) which breaks our copyright rules. You also created a redirect from template space to subpage in your user space (which I've now deleted). Add all this to the problem Bobet pointed out and it adds up to an oppose. You need more experience and you need to read and demonstrate a better understanding of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Gwernol 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why my signature is still too long. It is just like other users, where they include their name and their talk page link, and the time stamp. Other users that voiced their opinions above have the similar style of signature. Smcafirst (Talk) 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your real signature - the one you use everywhere except this RfA - looks like this in edit mode   Smcafirst | Chit-Chat |<font style="color:#FFF;background:#007F00;"> SIGN . That's about 350 characters long. Per WP:SIG "Long signatures with a lot of HTML/wiki markup make page editing more difficult. A 200 character signature, for instance, is larger than many of the comments to which it is appended, making discussion more difficult". Admins are, rightly, expected to uphold the rules, so the excuse that "others break the rules, so I can" isn't a good one. There are users who vandalize, but that doesn't mean its okay for you to. And again, I'm concerned why you don't use this standard signature when editing this RfA. Given you had signature issues on your last RfA, it realy looks like you're trying to hide something. Gwernol 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am changing my signature right before this RfA. Although in some posts, where my prior signature still appears, but from now on, I will stick to this signature. --Smcafirst (Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per your answer to question 4, which is at odds with the blocking policy. The most serious issue I see if when you mention that you would block shared IP addresses 'for shorter periods of time' - then give '7 - 15 days' as an example, despite the fact that WP:BLOCK states that "Dynamic IPs: up to 31 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 31 at most, to avoid collateral damage." While it is true they are guidlelines, I would be very reluctant to give a user sysop tools if they intend to block shared IP addresses for 2 weeks due to one user vandalising. A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I am not convinced that you understand blocking policy. I recognise that you have changed days to hours throughout your answer to Q.4, but the fact that this is a consistent change throughout indicates that you were thinking "days" when you wrote it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Although you are a great user, it has been demonstrated here that you have neither the experience nor knowledge to become an admin. I suggest that you try again in a few months, and in so doing become a greater asset to the project.  On the subject of blocks - 1-3 days is indeed a short time, but intentioally so.  The thing to always remember is that blocks are never punitive, and should only be dealt out to prevent *immediate* damage.  Hence we start of with short blocks, hoping that they have the desired effects, and can go up in block duration as repeat offences take place (it's not unusual to dish out very long blocks to shared IPs with a history of abuse (eg some schools)).  Thanks, Mart inp23  09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose You really have to think about what you're doing when you block or report to AIV (at least I do), and I agree with Bobet and Ale_jrb that you just don't have the experience to have those tools yet. You want to stop them from vandalizing, not punish them for vandalizing. I think you're on the right track and I'd probably support in a few months with more RC patrolling. -  Krakatoa  Katie  10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Sorry your answers as to why you want adminship seem rushed - indicating to me that you are not quite ready for even further complexity. I also think your edit count is not particularly strong or diverse enougth at this time - particularly wikipedia edits.-- VS  talk 13:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I am sorry. You are a tireless worker. But it concerns me that your nom was poorly written. There are many grammatical errors which should have been cleaned up before submitting it. What we do here is write. Therefore, it matters to me when you do not stop long enough to carefully prepare your own nom. I do not think you will abuse the tools. I just think you may need to wait a while longer, gain more experience in the areas you wish to work in and better prepare a nom. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Bazooka"> JB Evans 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way about my grammar. I understand that grammar skills are extremely poor, and that's why in my self-description, I have mentioned that I am taking proofreading classes, and which I believe have improved my writing skills a lot. (From what I see in the report card, in the first term, I got a B-, this term, I got an A-, and I have certain level of confidence that the score will be higher in the upcoming term. ) --Smcafirst (Talk) 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am not convinced that this user understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a social networking site. The userpage, especially the list of "best friends on Wikipedia", many of whom do nothing but collect signatures, is rather disturbing.  -- Cyde Weys  06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sorry, I know, "no big deal", but the nom statement and answers don't amount to what I like to percieve in admins. Nothing against the obvious project enthusiasm, the added responsibility requires more experience and deeper insight. <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the user's stance on blocking. 7-15 hours for a shared IP is a really long time, especially since most school-related vandalism could probably be stopped with a block of an hour or so. The comment about 1-3 days being a relatively short time is troublesome as well. It's my belief this user might use blocks as a punitive measure, so I'm going to have to oppose this RFA. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This candidate appears to be an overzealous vandalfighter.  Neither his overly busy user page nor any of the above discussion leads me to believe that the candidate has any appreciation of what Wikipedia really is.  Strongly suggest that the candidate put down the vandalwhacker for a while, join a WikiProject, and actually participate in the process of writing the encyclopedia for a while first.  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral leaning towards support. You say you would like to participate in AIV meanwhile you have only 4 edits/reports there. Most of your project-space contributions are in WikiProjects and the like, which you need not the tools to continue your work. You're an excellent user and editor, and have improved since your last RfA, however I'm not very convinced of your need for the tools. Good luck! :-) — An as  talk? 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning towards oppose. While you have improved tremendously since the last RfA, a lack of relevant AIV contribs makes me nervous, and Bobet's oppose vote makes me wonder. If you don't get it, go at it with the vandal-whacking and there shouldn't be a problem with your next RfA. HornandsoccerTalk 14:21, 6 April 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.