Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Urthogie


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

Urthogie
Final (7/19/0) ended 22:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Urthogie's contribs, and I was actually surprised about his knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I also enjoyed his "this user wishes to do the right thing" userbox. :-) I told NicholasTurnbull today that I was trying to find a "diamond in the rough" user. I think I've found my diamond in the rough. WikiFanatic 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I graciously accept, although I don't expect to be granted adminship yet based on my short time here and some blunders I made in my first days of contributing. --Urthogie 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) First Post! Support -  Lord  ViD 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Whoops. Last edit for now Support. WikiFanatic 23:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I trust in his impartial use of sysop rights; familiarity with policy is a vague concern, but I'm not discomfited. --Mgreenbe 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Bling-chav 13:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Yid613 23:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Yep, you bet ya this Wikipedian is all but talented. --Young XenoNeon (converse) 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Someday you'll be ready. Even if you don't Succeed, don't give up.--Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He has less than 1300 edits to articles since he came here in September 2004 with only about 200 edits before December 2005. That seems very low for over 1 and a half years. Also recent edit warring, a 3rr block, and his impatience over a page move has made me oppose. Otherwise he's probably a good editor, but I haven't seen the rest of his edits. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The 3RR block is what did it for me. — M o e   ε  00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose 3rr is a big no, try again in a few months --Jaranda wat's sup 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Eek as above. Pschemp | Talk 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Cannot have edit-warring admins. NSL E (T+C) 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Review of this user's talk page reveals a shaky comprehension of Wikipedia policies, including 3RR, what constitutes spam, and removing AfD tags. Intentions overall seem good, but needs a while longer to have understanding that is required of admins. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Controversial as above. Olorin28 02:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per a.n.o.n.y.m. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per 3RR block. Seals the deal. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: doesn't appear ready at this time. Jonathunder 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, user needs a bit more time to familiarise himself with some fundamental principles of Wikipedia such as building consensus and assuming good faith. Consensus must be built through discussion, not revert warring. User has shown some improvement since the 3RR block though, and is now actually participating in discussion at Talk:Islamist terrorism (the recent AFD tag removal worries me though). Provided there are no more problems like this, I'll be happy to support in a couple of months. - ulayiti  (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Anonymous editor. J I P | Talk 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, while I hate to make the optional questions a factor in an oppose vote, I have to say that the responses to 4, (not anymore) 5, and (to an extent) 6 show that this user isn't too well-versed with Wikipedia policies and procedures yet. Think carefully about how policies are applied and how to approach other people. Also, hopefully this user won't get into any situations that result in a block. --Deathphoenix 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think he's just misread question #5 (I did that too). Questions #4 and #6 just show that he'd be quite careful with admin powers. Which I think is a good thing to do at first, when you're just learning the ropes. - ulayiti  (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How did you misread 6? Also, what policies do I seem fuzzy on, so I can improve in those areas(I fully reread 3RR during the 24 hour block period, and I'm quite sure I understand policies here at this point)?--Urthogie 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, read carefully you see I said I'd warn them first. There is a policy against gaming the system, so I don't see how this suggests I don't understand 3RR.--Urthogie 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4, not so much. I read your response to mean that you think bv is just another test4. I struck out 4 as a reason. I don't think it's too possible to misread question 5 because I worded it carefully to say that the person is obeying the letter of WP:3RR. That person hasn't broken the letter of any Wikipedia policies. As for question 6, all I'll say is that vandalism isn't the reason for speedying an article under CSD A7. I worded these questions rather carefully and after some discussion. In addition, I wanted to point out that the responses to questions aren't the only reasons. I could easily just state that your being blocked recently are a good enough reason, but I wanted to give you some feedback regarding your responses to the questions: that you need to be a little more familiar with policies and procedures, and these questions are supposed to show that. --Deathphoenix 15:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, barely going over 24 hours is against the policies of wikipedia, namely Gaming the system (AKA WP:POINT).--Urthogie 15:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify the position to speedy deletes, I wasn't saying you should delete a page for having been vandalized! I was saying pages that were created just to be vandalism, should be speedied.(See WP:CSD)--Urthogie 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) That's actually a guideline, not a policy. That question, where a user is breaking the spirit of the law, not the wording, calls for a longer response. As I said, that question was worded rather carefully. Also, I know you meant the page was created as a vandalism. However, that isn't an A7 criteria. A vandalism page is a G3 criteria (or maybe an A6). My question was asking about an A7 speedy, not a G3 or A6 speedy.
 * If you're questioning my voting oppose on the basis of your responses to these questions, I will strike out the optional questions as one of the factors of my voting oppose, because my comments on your responses to my optional questions was supposed to be helpful feedback, not "criticism". Would you like me to strike out my comments on your responses, or leave them in? --Deathphoenix 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you were talking about a certain part of the CSD policy(I've read all the policy and guideline pages, but I'm not used to the popular abbreviations, which I'll start learning now that I see I should). It is in fact a guideline, which is why I would warn them and give them another chance before enforcing it, so they weren't taken off guard.  I'm sorry for coming off defensive, it's more that I want to learn about anything I don't know on Wikipedia, moreso than fend you off.  And to be honest, you have made me aware of some things I need to look over again, like CSD and also the popular abbreviations at Wikipedia.  So thanks, and sorry if I came off as defensive.--Urthogie 15:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems, that's the purpose of my feedback. Maybe your next RFA will come out a lot better after you get some more experience. :-) --Deathphoenix 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Sounds like a good user, but 1,300 edits over 1.5 years means low activity, and I'm not too keen on edit warring, as has been mentioned above.  smurray  inch e  ster (User), (Talk) 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Not yet. --King of All the Franks 01:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now, lacking experience (as previously mentioned) and the 3RR block doesn't make for a good admin just yet. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose ditto to UkPaolo. Plus, I'd really like to see a much higher use of minor edit summaries. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: Recent 3RR block is too bad. Without it I would support.--Jusjih 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Caused mini-debacle at WP:SFD recently by nominating a stub for deletion, declaring towards the end of the discussion period he now wished a rename (and actually, rescope, without being in the least clear about this) and then after a short time declaring the existence of a consensus for this, where manifestly there was none.  And finally, unilaterally attempting to implement this, leaving most of the articles at the category redirect he'd just created.  Alai 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 49% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Urthogie's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.



Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Speedy deletes, protecting/sprotecting pages that are being heavily vandalized, giving 24 hour blocks to users who vandalize several times in a row, or break the 3rr rule. I also plan to help with requested moves as well as keep up with requests at the administrator's noticeboard.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. As far as things that pleased me, I was very happy about the result of a contentious discussion about the term Self-hating Jew. You can find the discussion, which we finally came to an agreement on, here:.  I spend a lot of time on hip-hop related articles, and sometimes I find that people like to just add tons about their favorite rapper or DJ.  A lot of the work that I do is summarizing the encyclopedic value of an important page and then giving seealso and mainarticle templates to pages with more info for sections that are too long (example: ).  I've found that removing content(as long as you do it politely) can add to the encyclopedia as much as adding new content, sometimes.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A.It's extremely stressful when you're the minority party. However, if you put in enough time and effort, wikipedians are reasonable, intelligent people who can relate to your point almost every time.  If not, a compromise is often a pragmatic solution.  Throughout the whole thing its important to assume good faith, and not make personal attacks.  I always base my opinions firstly on policy, and secondly on what I think to be true.  In addition to being knowledgeable about every important wikipedia policy, I have also helped make addition to policy and guideline pages.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test1}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A.When a user is testing out wikipedia, their first edit. For the second one, when a user has vandalized multiple pages.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A.I would enforce it as it was enforced on me-- and block them for 24 hours(making sure to warn them first)
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A.Speedy deletes are for obvious cases of vandalism-- AFD for cases where reasonable doubt could exist, or there is a lot of controversy over a deletion.
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * A.You make sure that the article explains that people hold opinions, rather than expressing the opinion in the article.
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * A.Hmm....sometimes it's too much like a popularity contest instead of a discussion of merits.

Questions for the voters
 * I wasn't expecting to get nominated for adminship at this time, because I still need more time here(that's why I didn't nominate myself), but my question is: if I keep up a steady improvement, how much longer would it be before you'd vote a support for me? This question goes to all voters.--Urthogie 08:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Two or three months probably. J I P | Talk 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.