Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Raven's Apprentice


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

RFA Withdrawn by candidate

The Raven's Apprentice
FINAL (0/7/1); Ended 02:26, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

- This person has been helping with my page. When I asked him to stop he did. Also please check his contributions. Kosmo7895 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, though the circumstances of this nom are dubious. (See answer to question 3 below) and I'm most likely to fail due to the range of my contributions (see answer to question 2 below). --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I'm afraid I'll just be a normal user with a few extra buttons-- I'll speedy delete stuff I see tagged as CSD, look after WP:AFD, block the occasional vandal I come across or find on WP:AIV.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: It's difficult to single out any one contribution as my "best"-- As you can see from my contributions, I'm more concerned with maintaining pages than adding to them, and that too within a very narrow range of interests (Pokémon). But I strive to fix anything needing fixing that I come across.


 * 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 admit I'm not very good at resolving disputes, but I try to be nice and sort out the problem without resorting to RfC. I've been involved in two disputes recently-- one with Kosmo7895 (talk · contribs), my nom, who was a nearly single purpose account trying to perpetrate a hoax. Our dispute originally started with me editing his userpage to clean it up, at which I agreed to stop editing it. Some time later, I blew off the handle and added - to his page, and, since then, the debate spiralled into him making legal threats and claiming that everything on his userpage was true. The dispute ended with P3net's intervention. As of now, Kosmo has been blocked for sockpuppetry.
 * The other dispute was with a troll, 70.144.143.165, later BlackStarRock (talk · contribs) (confirmed here). See Talk:Rotom, User talk: 70.144.143.165, User talk:BlackStarRock and User talk: The Raven's Apprentice. Subsequently, the user began makng some constructive edits, but was blocked for sockpuppetry.
 * In the future, I intend going about solving disputes in much the same way, though I'd have to drag my opponents to RfC if the dispute gets too heated.

Optional Question from Anonymous Dissident:
 * 4. -- Please explain, in detail, the process of doing each of the following:
 * 4.1 -- Closing an AFD:
 * A: Wait until the article's been on AFD for one week. Examine whether or not a rough consensus has been achieved. If yes, close it as either "Delete" or "Keep", as valid. If not, close as "No consensus". Then, of course, either delete the page or remove the AFD tag, and use {{subst:Afd-top}} and {{subst:Afd-bottom}} on the discussion to close it and record the result.
 * 4.2 -- Blocking a vandal:
 * A: Whenever you come across vandalism/personal attacks/any disruptive action, revert use one of the warning templates on his talk page. If and only if the vandalism continues after several warnings, block him.
 * Thanks. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from WH:
 * 5. Why has your nominator been indefinitely blocked?
 * A: The block log simply says "02:07, July 4, 2007 Nick (Talk | contribs) blocked "Kosmo7895 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)" I imagine it was because he owned two accounts, Kosmo7895 (talk · contribs) and Kosmo the fighter (talk · contribs), as verified here. The second account has also been blocked by Nick as "Abusing multiple accounts: Sockpuppet of Kosmo7895". Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from DarkFalls
 * 6. What is your view on IAR, and when should it be invoked?
 * A:

General comments

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


 * Links for The Raven's Apprentice:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Raven's Apprentice before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as you candidly point out, you're not so good at resolving disputes and keeping your calm. That's a definite problem for a candidate admin. Pascal.Tesson 06:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this diff scares me a little bit too much (1). And your nom was indef blocked as a sockpuppetteer within two hours of creating this RFA page; feels suspicious to me.  Black Harry • Happy Independence Day  06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was with regard to this edit, which added OR to the article. How is leaving a comment scary? As for the nom, you'll admit that this is a lot of work just to nominate oneself from Adminship. (See answer to question 3 above.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Serious issues in trust, when accepting a nom from a sock. Resolving disputes is one of the most important abilities for admins, and lack of understanding towards the process makes a serious objection. -- Dark Falls    talk 06:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the disputes, I'll admit that is a shortcoming of mine, but one I'm actively working to correct. If that means I'm not ready for Adminship until I do, so be it. As for the nom, I don't see how that matters; he just assumed I ought to be an Admin, it's for the community to decide whether he was right or wrong. Yes, this nomination was made in ignorance of the rules, but that doesn't automatically invalidate it. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry but you can't argue with the facts. --Chr i s  g 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose With Moral Support Your candid answer to Q3 shows you are not ready for admin buttons at the moment. It also shows an ability to honestly assess your own strengths and weknesses, which will certainly help you in the future. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose I recommend withdrawing. A sockpuppet nominated you?  No support.  Jmlk  1  7  07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm........ Does a sockpuppet nominating an editor automatically mean the editor's worthless? While I don't think I can pass this RFA because of my poor dispute resolution abilities, this point seems.. irrelevant. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not putting words into Jmlk17's mouth, but you transcluded this nomination after your nominator was blocked (and after you were advised that he had been blocked). This shows poor judgement, or a lack of understanding regarding WP:SOCK. It's not the fact that your nom was a sock that counts against you - it's that you still went ahead and included the socks nomination. You'd have done better to self-nom in that instance. Sorry. BTW - yes this looks like WP:SNOW at this RFA but please do not be discouraged. Pedro |  Chat 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a sockpuppet nominating an editor can't exactly be a good thing whatsoever. Jmlk  1  7  08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - but please dont be discouraged. Keep up your work and try again later. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Want me to withdraw this one for you? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, per you and Pedro up north, and per WP:SNOW, I guess I'd better withdraw this until i get a better grasp of the rules. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 08:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * back to the question: want me to do it or you? Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Not wanting to be part of the pile-on of opposes but unfortunately your answers to the questions do not demonstrate knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Try again in a few months. --Hdt83 Chat 08:16, 4 July 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.