Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SpeakFree


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

SpeakFree
'''Final (4/9/4); ended 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about about my edits? 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– User requesting adminship to help with some administrative tasks, e.g. AFD SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Candidate withdraws per .— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (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: Helping with maintenance tasks such as closing AfD's. I've closed a few uncontroversial AfD's as non-admin. I don't think I will arbitrate in editing disputes much.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Creating 206 articles inclusing one Good Article (Hotel Polen fire). Until my Windows PC crashed I also used Huggle to fight vandalism and I also did some New Page Patrolling over the times.


 * 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've had some disagreements with users in the past but I've been generally diplomatic about it even though I have been disillusioned at some times. I do think my record stands for itself. None of my articles have been deleted yet and I have never been blocked on the English Wikipedia.


 * Additional question from Buggie111
 * 4. You state that your PC crashed. From where do you edit? Is it a secure location?
 * A: It slowed down and crashed, I have cleaned it up but there is some maintenance work left before I will use it to edit again. I'm using a Ubuntu PC now and I like its stability so I'm considering switching to that and ditching Windows altogether, though there are some programs I use which require it. I'm very careful with my PC's, I use NOD32 as antivirus on Windows. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Shirik
 * 5. I'm curious about this edit. I note that I currently do not oppose your candidacy. However, I would like to know what you think has changed in the past 2 weeks that you think you are more qualified/experienced now.
 * Whoops, I didn't realize I was viewing a deleted edit. The edit in question is a withdrawal of an RFA by the candidate on Dec 15, 2011, with the summary "I withdraw the request. This seemed a good idea yesterday but on second hand not. Guess I need more experience." -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I merely forgot to copy the template on this page. Being inexperienced with RfA's (yes I guess I have to get up to terms with it more) I thought "well no-one cared to respond" and thus withdrew my nomination. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * 6. I see some have suggested you don't have sufficient experience with deletion criteria, so I'd like to ask an open question to give you the chance to expand on your thoughts. Entirely optional, but would you have a look at WP:CSD and give us whatever thoughts you have concerning the various criteria? Are there any you think should be removed, any new ones we need, any that are hard to understand, any that you think are abused, etc? (I have no preconceived "right answer" in mind, I'm just interested to hear your take on the whole thing).
 * A: 

General comments

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

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

Support

 * 1) &mdash;Dark 04:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to use inline citation though, but it's not significant enough to oppose over. &mdash;Dark 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative support. I see some things I like (plenty of content created, generally sensible comments at AfD), a few pet peeves (e.g. an unreferenced article or two) and some odd things in their talk page archives (sending a CSD notice to oneself?) but no obvious red flags. As TParis does below, I will keep an eye on this RfA as it develops in case someone else finds something (good or bad) that I've missed. 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not active enough: user has less than 50 edits in 2012. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL it's nearly 61/2 hours into 2012 over here. ;) SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support &mdash; SpeakFree is definitely trustworthy. I can see him being a tremendous asset at AfD with his clear, concise manner of speech.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I can no longer support. There are too many concerns brought up in the oppose section. I still think SpeakFree will be a great administrator someday, but he just needs a bit more fine-tuning in the deletion process.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this editor has good potential. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Weak oppose Unfortunately, I must oppose. At first I looked at Road trip.  The candidate has greatly overused images in that article.  I didn't check the history to see if this editor added them, but they appear to be the main contributor to the article so I assume they were.  Then I saw this edit.  There isn't anything particularly wrong with it, but I can't tell what exactly is trying to be conveyed.  This didn't bother me too much.  I moved on to Greup, an unreferenced village.  Again, I wasn't bothered but I was wondering why the editor was creating unreferenced articles.  I finally came upon Paul_van_Herck.  I expect editors seeking adminship to be familar with WP:V and when I see unreferenced new articles and unreferenced BLPs, that concerns me.  I'll keep an eye on this RFA.--v/r - TP 04:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul van Herck's not a BLP since the subject died in the 1980s, but I do agree with your general point about unreferenced articles. 28bytes (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Many of my articles originated on the Dutch Wikipedia. There isn't a strong referencing culture on the Dutch Wikipedia (in fact some people there think it isn't necessary to add any references at all, see e.g. this discussion there). So especially in the beginning I took over many practices of nlwiki over to here. In my later articles I have been more aware of the requirement to reference my articles. Also I did not create Road trip I only expanded it with some non-American content and wikifairied it up with some more images. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch Wikipedia, and unreferenced articles here should be the (very rare) exception rather than the rule. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
 * 1) The self-nomination statement was unhelpful and undescriptive. One would presume that a serious admin candidate is requesting tools to help with administrative tasks. Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting was opened less than four hours after the creation of the article in question, which strikes me as hasty. In addition, I'm concerned that someone who wasn't familiar with the RfA process until only a few weeks ago is going to take the admin job poorly. RfAs, like adminship in general, can end up being very personal and I don't know if the candidate is prepared for the inevitable and unfortunate barrage of criticism that I suspect is coming soon. But I'm open to persuasion. Impress me. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  07:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was created about one hour after the shooting took place it is a typical example of WP:RECENTISM with live updating of the events happening by the minute and it after 5 hours was clear that it wasn't going to be very noteworthy in the long run, Unfortunately there was no consensus to have it deleted. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would hold that nomination against him. It has a valid rationale, and it's not like he was alone in that belief. I'm not saying I would go for deleting it, but I can respect his viewpoint on it. (No comment with regards to the other points, and I recognize that this was not your only rationale for opposing, but I just felt that needed to be said.) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. Concerns with experience and judgement.  Sorry,  F ASTILY  Happy 2012!! 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Needs more experience with the deletion process before being given the actual delete button. Looking through his CSD nominations, I see a number of A7s that were applied within a couple of minutes of article creation... this is far too quick, and is likely to discourage new editors from contributing.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I have no idea how the candidate will act as an administrator, as he has told us next to nothing in his nomination. I feel that he is too inexperienced to ve given admin tools just now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Based on this response to User:28bytes Pol430  talk to me 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was merely explaining what the practices are there, I do think all articles should be referenced now. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A clean block log, and an impressive number of creations and although (I've only  reviewed a random 100 of  them) they  are mostly  stubs or very  short articles, you  have demonstrated that  you  know what  content  work  is all  about.  Only  31 votes to  AfD (according to SW's tool), and  of  your 317 deleted pages, if one deducts the U1 and the files, there is little left  to  demonstrate a knowledge of deletion policy, and there have only  been a handful of manual  page patrols in  the last  six months.   If you  believe  you  really  need the tools, you  would have made the effort to  produce a far more compelling  self-nomination  statement or perhaps even asked someone to  review your work  who  might  either  have proposed you or suggested  what you might still need to do to get up to scratch. On  15 December however, you  withdrew an RfA transclusion; I'm  assuming  that  you  felt  you  were not  ready  for adminship at  that  time, and I'm  curious why  you  have changed your mind only  two  weeks later,  because I  don't  think you  are quite ready  yet  to  take on  the challenges of adminship. That  said, I have no reason to think you would abuse the tools and if you  can do  more work  in  meta areas over the next  6 months, such as for example, AIV, and demonstrate your knowledge by helping others, and without  any  of your creations or files being  tagged or PRODed,   you  will  be in  with  a chance and I'll most  likely  support your next  RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Issues concerning experience leaves me worried. Furthermore, the answers to the questions are vaque and in my opinion silly in a way that the candidate doesn't seem to be taking this seriously.  Recommend WP:NOTNOW.— cyberpower  ( Talk to Me )( Contributions )
 * I only answered with a joke to a silly statement (oppose: less than 50 edits in 2012). Of course I regard the job of an administrator as serious. But seeing the way this is going I think I might not be ready yet, So please consider this RfA withdrawn. Maybe I'll apply again at a later time. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose:User needs more experience.-- Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, for now. Candidate does not have many AfD votes. Godo answers to questions might persuade me to change my vote. Nice edit count/content creation, though. Buggie111 (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, I do not think that the candidate is untrustworthy, however the creation of unreferenced articles (even if they're not BLPs) is a bit of a worry (albeit not enough to tip me into the oppose column). Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
 * 3) Per my comments above.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, this user doesn't have enough votes and I don't think the candidate is untrustworthy. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (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.