Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Veesicle


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

Veesicle
[ Final] (15/11/11); Ended Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:14:13 (UTC)

- Well, I've been a Wikipedia editor for a few months now and as someone who agrees with the concept of adminship being not a big deal, I thought that I would volunteer to assist with the various janitorial duties that can only be done with sysop tools. I have something like 1600+ edits and enjoy repetitive tasks (what can I say, I'm boring) and whilst I probably do not meet up to the high standards that some users set on sysop tool requestees, I would hope that those users would give me a chance and would be willing to put myself open to recall on the provisio that at least five editors in good standing ask for me to give up the tools (if adminship is no big deal, giving it up shouldn't be either). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yep. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 8 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: CAT:CSD and WP:IFD in particular, they are often backlogged and contain copyvios, BLP violations, etc, that I think should be removed ASAP. I'm not so much interested in the blocking side of things, although I realise that the tools come as part of a package and if I'm allowed access to one tool I'll be allowed access to them all. I've participated in a fair few AfDs, and I spend a lot of time browsing the discussions, although I don't comment anywhere near as much as I read as the discussions are generally going the way I want them to anyway and comments from myself are unneeded. I have tagged quite a few articles for speedying, but obviously that won't show up in my contributions :)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: This question is a bit unfair on a WikiGnome like myself, but I suppose turning this copyvio into this was quite pleasing. I spend a fair bit of time reverting vandalism to articles on my watchlist, and sometimes RC patrolling. I am not a hugely prolific contributor; however, I think that the mainspace edits I make are good ones and although I may not make huge use of the sysop tools I would use them I think usefully.


 * 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 haven't really been involved in conflict here on Wikipedia, yet. I once reverted a removal of a comment by banned editor Daniel Brandt at Talk:Daniel Brandt, something that I regret as I have since become more aware of the trouble he's caused for Wikipedia editors. I think I've probably done some silly things in annoyance to something someone said here, though I don't recall anything specifically and I would apologise if I thought I'd caused anyone any bother... when I first started reading more into policy discussions, discussions on AN, etc, I found myself getting quite frustrated with people I disagreed with but these days I'm far more laid back about it all. It's just an encyclopedia, after all.


 * Optional questions from User:Gwernol


 * 4. Reading through your contributions I found the article you created Caïman Fu. Can you tell me what the applicable policies and guidelines are that an administrator would follow when considering if this article might be subject to deletion? Please explain why you believe the article meets the relevant criteria. Thanks.
 * A: Well I think the most obvious guideline is the one for notability which I'm pretty sure the band meets because:


 * It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.  (some minor info at:  ) and a multitude of possible sources here although as they are linked from their own site I will have to check their reliability. These of course should be added to the article, and I'm going to link them at the talk page, but as my French is a little rusty (and this is a band which is primarily French speaking - therefore mostly French sources) and I don't want to rely on automated translators I was going to wait until I had the time to go through them properly first (my Easter break started today). I'm pretty sure they meet criterion #1 also but I'm having a hard time finding archives of Canadian music charts online. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support. Edit count is fine, and I see no indication that this user would abuse or misuse the tools, so he should get them. --Rory096 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Rory. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support this is starting to get ridiculous. Please see User:Cool_Cat/Adminship_survey_summary to see what I mean. We need more admins, we can't find the ones we need. Anybody who has a strong set of areas, even if not all areas, should be strongly considered to be brought into the fold. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Nothing against him/her but edit count; there is no indication that s/he would abuse the tools. { Slash -|- Talk } 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, editor will not abuse the tools. Ab e g92 contribs 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. He has been a solid contributor to article-space for long enough that we can trust him with admin tools. Oppose voters: remember that the "project" is to build an encyclopedia, not to rack up large quantities of introspective comments in "Wikipedia talk:" space.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This user has given us no evidence that she will misuse the tools, and assures us that if she does there will be a mechanism for them to be removed. Wikignomes could be the answer to the backlog problems in areas such as CSD.--Xnuala (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Mindless support per rspeer. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Someday, people are going to realize just how big the backlogs are and will support candidates like this. No reason to believe he'll abuse the tools. Grand  master  ka  00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) --dario vet  (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Despite low edit counts, the user knows the stuffs here, and willing to do janitorial works which has a huge backlog as of now. I hopw thw uaer won't misuse the admin tools. All the best.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Tony Sidaway 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I find the opposition on the basis of "too few" edits, when he's had 1600 or so, unconvincing.  If that's the only thing standing in his way I see no reason not to hand him the broom.
 * 13) Support Adminship is no big deal. I see nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Frise 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I like her attitude, she seems to be mature in her approach (including her approach to criticism, see below re archiving) and has good edits (just not stacks of them). I'm sticking my neck on the line this time and advocating that we promote her. --kingboyk 16:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, edit count's really not that bad.-- Wizardman 04:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Two problematic statements stand out to me. First, you write that you don't comment so much on AFDs because usually the consensus is already clear by the time you see them.  I scan the AFD list frequently, and I make it a point to comment on AFDs that have not yet received sufficient attention.  Tens of AFDs are relisted after the five-day period for lack of interest until then, and failure to focus AFD contribution where it's needed shows a lack of sensitivity to the backlog needs.  Second, I'm not willing to give adminship to maintenance specialists - I'd like to see some contributions to articles, WikiProjects, mediation, or other fora where your voice can count. YechielMan 06:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per low overall experience. Addhoc 10:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough Wikipedia edits for my liking. Sorry. Captain   panda  15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose You are not ready, participate in the project more, try again in a few months. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Overall just too little experience in various areas. Come back to RFA in a few months. --- RockMFR 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Just a lack of experience, come back in a few months for your bucket. HornandsoccerTalk 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Not that trust seems to be an issue, but I'd just like to see more experience overall. Experience hopefully brings with it knowledge of policies. --  LeCour T:C 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - seems like a growing editor but I can't support this lower level of experience notwithstanding the reasonable attempt at insightful comment by Autocracy above - we must have some cut-off in terms of experience on the project versus plain desire to clean-up as an admin.-- VS talk 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose A good editor making good progress but its too early at the minute.  Te ll y a ddi ct  14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose First, you nominated yourself. I oppose all self nominations for the Admin postion as I feel the fact you need to nominate yourself for the position indicates that the Wikipedia community has not put its full trust in you and identified you as a suitable candidate. Secondly, your experience with the project seems week, not enough edit counts or administrative type work. Come back in a year and you might be ready Rackabello 05:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note (again) to Rackabello - Self-nominations are permitted under the rules and many editors do nominate themselves when they think they are ready - hence the chance for the rest of the community to decide by !vote.-- VS talk 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for lack of Wikipedia experience. Just because we have a need for more admins to help with backlog doesn't mean we need to lower our standards. (This is not a direct comment about this user, but in response to the supports that "We need admins, this one will do!") MECU ≈ talk 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Two concerns. One, I dislike admin recall, for reasons that I really should write up so I don't have to keep telling people who ask. And two, you have to keep better archives, not just "click on the history". That is incredibly annoying for someone who wants to reference a particular conversation. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can go through my history and archive things properly right now if you like - there's not a huge amount there. I tried archiving, but just confused myself and removed everything 'cause it seemed easier. As for the recall; judging by RfAs I'm expecting that some people will oppose because I don't have enough edits or experience or something like that... I thought it might put their minds to rest if they knew I wouldn't really mind giving up the tools if people thought I did that bad a job with it. What exactly are your concerns with it? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that you can easily fix up the archive issue; the point is that you didn't know to do it. As for admin recall, see the page I just wrote on it. Oh, and recognize that this is only a neutral because you're on the borderline of support anyway. Just baaarely enough edits to show that you really understand Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to do anything, Amarkov. The history tab exists for a reason. Keeping archives as subpages is optional. Picaroon 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. On anything like Wikipedia, very few things are mandatory. That doesn't mean that they're all good, and I consider not keeping some better archiving system than "look through the history" bad. It doesn't have to be subpages, but it has to be more than that. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't really matter now as I went ahead and made an archive in all of a minute ;) And I'm a she, for future reference. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. English needs a gender-neutral pronoun that actually makes sense in all contexts. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral not enough project-space activity and a generally low edit count, for an adminship candidate. I'd have to second Amarkov on the archive issue. — An as  talk? 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Seems to be good intention user but lack experience in both mainspace and the project namespace, recommend withdraw. --WinHunter (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - Per above. Also, Wikipeda count is low. Real96 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Good attitude and good work ethic, so it's purely down to experience on this one. Involvement with admin-related tasks needs to increase alongside contributions to the encyclopedia - nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome - new page/recent change patrols; user Talk page contributions/vandal warnings and, as above, XfDs are always open for a policy-based opinion, so don't worry if all of the other contributions have voted one way, gauge your response with the policies and guidelines and show this in your contributions. (aeropagitica) 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - A good contributer but I do not feel quite has enough experience yet to be an Admin. Once more experience is gained in contributing to the encyclopedia and been involved with Admin related tasks, I would support this candidate, good luck! Camaron1 | Chris  11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I appreciate your willingness to help Wikipedia, but I prefer you get more experience around Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral I would really have liked to support, but I just do not as yet see enough experience. I would anticipate supporting next time.--Anthony.bradbury 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral No obvious problems; would support if endorsed by a WikiProject. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral - Very experienced in terms of years but not in editing. I believe your a bit too early and maybe if you apply in a couple of months, I'd be the first one to vote for you..-- Cometstyles 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral. Let me first note that I have few concerns about your edit count and none about the fact that you're a "maintenance specialist". However, I am neutral because of this edit, where you seem to express support for the idea of banning editors from starting their RfA comments with "support" or "oppose". Without a satisfactory explanation as to why you would support imposing a ban on what amounts to a personal preference (editors aren't required to type "support" or "oppose"; it's a custom rather than policy or guideline), I cannot yet support you. (I realise that you probably won't be able to reply in the remaining 10 minutes of your RfA, but I also don't expect my comment to affect the RfA's outcome.) -- Black Falcon 01:24, 15 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.