Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyw7 4


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

Tyw7
Final: (0/8/1); closed by Kingturtle per WP:SNOW, 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hi. I am User Tyw7. I have been previously editing as User Troop350. I have made OVER 1000 major and minor edits on Wikipedia as both Tyw7, Troop350, and various anonymous IP address. I am also the current leader of WikiProject Software. I have contributed on and nominated two articles, Norton Internet Security and Norton 360, which are both now Good Articles. In addition, they are also nominated as Featured_article_candidates. -- Tyw7 ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  11:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:-- Tyw7 ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I plan to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia in any way I can. I mainly tackle the ongoing crisis of vandalism on Wikipedia.  Being an admin makes this job easier.  I intend to work mainly at clearing the WP:CSD backlog of nominated articles.  I might also care to work in Image maintenance/speedy deletion, since it kinda connects to my Commons activities. Have not as much interest in article namespace deletion. I WILL not with work with sensetive issues.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia I have to say are the articles Norton 360 and Norton Internet Security, particularly Norton 360. This is because both of these articles are now listed as Good Articles.  In addition, I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia.


 * 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 have so far not encounter any major conflits or disagreements with other users. I have had one conflict with the screenshot of Norton LiveUpdate.  However, I provided another better screenshot and the conflict ended peacefully.

I don't have any edit conflicts because on all of the articles, I worked together with another user, mainly User:TechOutsider, to improve the article. When I encounter any edit conflicts with another user, I would cancel my edit. Then I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.

Contributions and edit counts

 * Tyw7
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as Tyw7


 * View this user's edit count using Soxred93's tools


 * Troop350
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as Troop350


 * View this user edit count as the previous user Troop350, which I changed due to a comment on role accounts, using Soxred93's tools


 * Anonymous user 81.86.68.253
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Soxred93's tools


 * Anonymous user 81.98.179.137
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Soxred93's tools


 * Anonymous user 81.98.195.53
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Soxred93's tools


 * Anonymous user 81.98.195.128
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Soxred93's tools


 * Anonymous user 90.217.242.50
 * Click here to see this user's contribution as anonymous user


 * View this user edit count as anonymous user, using Soxred93's tools



''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tyw7 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, 1000 edits are far too few for anyone to judge your competence properly. I note that you've been told this sort of thing at your previous RfAs as well - I advise you to take criticisms on board and act on them before running again. Ironholds (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition your answer to question 3 is not satisfactory. It refers to disagreements with other users, not editing conflicts. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, and the biggest thing - claiming two GAs? That's fairly rich. I've looked at the article histories and almost all of the content has been put in by User:TechOutsider. You claim Norton 360 is the one you worked hardest on. I count four edits on one day, the effect of which was simply to move about eight words around. That isn't enough for a GA credit, and certainly not enough to be padding an RfA C.V. with it. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see non-neutral WP:CANVASSing here and here. The messages are neutral enough, the target audience is not. Ironholds (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I worked on the article to get it to GA status. I just said I worked on the article and norminated it to GA.  I fixed the issues that the reviewer decltype had.  I mainly worked on gramatical structures.  On the Norton Internet Security article, I provided the screenshot and edited the nis2009 section with information about Safe Web.  As said, I mainly worked on gramatical stuctures.-- Tyw7 ‍  ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, 1600 edits in total is simply not enough to warrant adminship. Also, based on your contribution history you never worked as a new page patrol or as a vandalism patrol. This is absolutely required as you indicate you want to work into those two sensitive area's of wikipedia. Blocking and page removal is not something trivial as it directly involves other editors. Without extensive experience in those sections you are bound to make many mistakes as they are more complex then they would seem at first glance. Not a bad word about your other edits though, as they are just fine.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check the anon IP edits! -- Tyw7 ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem with anon IPs is that we have no way of verifying which edits are yours, unless you've had a fixed IP address for yonks. The other concerns brought up are enough to tip people into oppose without editcount concerns. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had a fixed IP. There was so many IP addresses is that I moved countries and changed ISP providers.  -- Tyw7 ‍  ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My main issue is not really the edit count - Some editors had high edit counts and still got rejected at an RFA, while other editors had low edit counts and succeeded due to many quality edits. Again, I don't doubt you are a good editor. However, man simply cannot use admin powers in sections such as new page patrol and vandalism patrol. Even after being active almost exclusively in those two sections for nearly two years with nearly 50k edits i still don't believe that i qualify for administrative privileges there. Simply said: Those two sections are extremely fragile and can cause a lot of problems when not handled correctly.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then which sections do you think I can operate as Admin safely?  -- Tyw7 ‍  ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that adminship is not a goal. Being an administrator gives no extra status, it does not grant immunity from comments from any users, and does not allow anyone to operate outside the policies; Hence, admins are expected to uphold and operate within wikipedia policies at all time. In fact, adminship is more of a liability then a privilege as people will watch if you comply with these expected high editing standards. This is one of the reasons that some long time wikipedians who certainly could handle adminship don't want it. NOT being an admin gives a bit more space to swing your arms. If you want adminship you should have a proper reason or goal for wanting it. I cannot tell you why you want adminship - i can only give a basic indication if you could works succesfully in a certain section(In this case two sections i got experience with). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, as the others have said, far too few edits for anyone to judge you properly. You should also consider getting involved in projects such as vandal and new page patrolling before you renominate. Redfarmer (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose unlike the other opposers I do think that a thousand edits is enough to assess whether a candidate is yet suitable, though I think that few editors would be ready with that level of activity. However one of the first edits I came to was this. In future please try to criticise edits not editors.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Insufficient experience with article deletions (where the candidate wishes to work) is enough reason for me to oppose. You've participated in a total of 4 AfDs with !votes like these: 1, 2, 3. I haven't gone through the rest of your contribs in detail, but I'm opposing per the diffs I've provided. Ant  ive  nin  12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. In particular, I saw few if any deleted articles, which tells me you do not have enough experience reviewing articles and tagging CSD candidates. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
 * Guide to requests for adminship
 * WP:Admin
 * the admin reading list.
 * Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect  and unprotect  pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in more RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  13:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You're getting lots of good advice here, and I particularly like Dlohceirekim's. Note: people who aren't familiar with RfA assume that a lot of words in the oppose section means people don't like you, but that's wrong ... when people write this much, it means they see potential.  My only advice is: read all this stuff.  When you come back to RfA, things aren't going to go well if you didn't act on the things brought up during this one.  - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose:Not treating it as no big deal-not experienced enough. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Regretful Neutral. Since it seems that WP:Canvassing was brought up at your 2nd RFA, I feel obligated to mention that I received a friendly notice (that I personally do not think it is inappropriate per se). From what I've seen Tyw7 is dedicated to improve Wikipedia, and from what I've seen has only civil interactions with other users, so I will not oppose. My advice is for them to work on addressing the issues raised in their previous RfAs. That is, involve themselves more in the areas they want to use the admin tools, and improve edit summary usage. decltype (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2009 (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.