Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Versus22


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

Versus22
Closed by candidate withdrawing at (11/11/1); 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am proud to recommend Versus22 – one of our top vandal fighters – for the mop. For a large part of his wiki-life, he has continually armed his vandalgun and went into battle, and according to this, he does indeed plan on using the tools as components for his gun. See also his recent editor review. He has always been a vigilant, helpful vandal-fighter, and has also made good arguments at AfD's, such as Articles for deletion/Kenneth R. Collins and Articles for deletion/F*INK. As User:Juliancolton said during the Camw and Mentifisto RfA's, "we need more anti-vandalism admins," and I think that Versus22 would make a perfect match into the fold.  Dylan 620  Wishes you a Happy Easter! 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Versus 22  02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Withdraw.

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 intend to work mainly in AIV, RFPP, and CSD. Occasionally, I will also participate in deletion discussions.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been at List of WiiWare games, protecting this encyclopedia by getting rid of vandalism. I also contributed to Check Mii Out! Channel (which is now merged to Mii), and Family Glide Hockey.


 * 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:


 * Additional questions from Juliancolton
 * 4. Could you please explain this (diff now deleted)?
 * A: I was frustrated at the time, that a familiar user was posting attacks/threats to various editors (like NawlinWiki) on a daily basis (until the abuse filter came). I then got frustrated because that user kept on coming back, and kept on doing those things. Then PeterSymonds came and told me not to do this anymore, and I then apologized and said to him I would stop. Since then (in the last month), I've just been using reverting the edits, and did not mention anything about that user or to that user, other than reporting that user to WP:AIV for their vandalism.


 * Additional question from I'm Spartacus!
 * 5. Two weeks ago you had all of your user pages deleted with the rationale Right to Vanish...goodbye everyone! Can you explain why?  And why we should entrust the bit to somebody who just two weeks ago was going to not just walk away, but vanish?

General comments

 * Links for Versus22:
 * Edit summary usage for Versus22 can be found here.
 * Promote Versus22 (bureaucrats only)

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Versus22 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted on the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * Support. i think versus22 is a pretty cool guy eh reverts vandals and doesn't afraid of anything Largedog180 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandal/Sockpuppet support stricken. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good vandal-fighter. PETA representative (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet/meatpuppet/troll?  - down  load  |   sign!  03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is interested, and doesn't want to dig it out themselves... J.delanoy gabs adds  03:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indented and struck !vote of permanently blocked account.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * People are 'permanently blocked' now? — neuro  (talk) (review) 09:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Support  - down  load  |   sign!  02:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support CardinalDan (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We need more vandal-fighting admins.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  03:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - from what I see, he does good work and would be a good admin. Camw (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I've always seen Versus to be a good, friendly and mature editor. I've seen no problems, and I am proud to support him. X clamation point  03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, while I am not sure what is going on above in this support section with the striking, sockpuppet allegations, etc., i.e. I hope nothing is amiss here, in any event Versus 22 meets User:A_Nobody in that his lone block was a mistake undone a minute later and as I do not recall us having any negative interactions. One suggestion I have is to perhaps have a userpage as I tend to appreciate knowing about an admin, i.e. what has that admin accomplished (with regards to GA/FAs and barnstars).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were all deleted when he decided to vanish two weeks ago.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I suppose it would be hypocritical of me to hold vanishing and returning against anyone, though.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – I know him also on Simple English Wikipedia, and s/he should do fine with the tools.  TheAE  talk / sign  04:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support What!? Not an admin!? O_o - Fastily (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Versus is a vandal fighter with a clean block log who has also done other work here. It shouldn't surprise us that anyone doing as much vandalfighting as Versus has become a target for vandals. I would suggest that the candidate ask for their barnstar page and other user pages be restored and semi protected.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support as nominator. Sorry I'm late, this went live while I was sleeping.  Dylan 620  Wishes you a Happy Easter! 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support - Good head on their shoulders, knows what they are doing. Opposes hold some weight, but they don't throw me over there. — neuro  (talk) (review) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I see nothing to show experience with content areas and the lack of an answer to question three needs to be fixed before any reconsideration is possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry, too soon after decisions like this. Retiring Vanishing one day, RfA two weeks later? C'mon. Tan   &#124;   39  05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose per Tan. One quality an admin doesn't need is the ability to swing from one side of the spectrum to the other in terms of dedication in such a small period of time. JPG-GR (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I've been reviewing your edits for about an hour now... and can't support---even with my more liberal view on adminship. You made over 17K edits last month alone---this shows an over reliance upon tools.  There is very little of Versus22 in any of your edits.  I can't find too much in the way of legitimate discussions---it's all done via various templates.  You indicate that you want to work with CSD, and area where I have a lot of concern, yet you have minimal experience there---in your last 500 deleted edits probably less than 30 are where you are requesting CSD and most of those are when the author has blanked the page.  So how about your participation at AFD?  In your last 1000 edits to the Wikipedia space, I'd guess that 750 of them are simply to report somebody to AIV.  About 100 of them are to AFD's.  Of those, I counted 6 keeps.  That's roughly 94% delete, and 6% keep?  So what about your article work?  There is none.  What about policy discussion? I couldn't find any.  Sorry.  Also when 2/3rds of the edits to your talk page are either vandalism or reversions of vandalism, it sends up a huge red flag---and while it may be unfair, you didn't answer question 3, I have to conclude that the reason you didn't answer question 3 is the result of repeated and ongoing vandalism... which should have been a deterent to running right now.  If you are currently be targetted on your own talk page to the extent that it is, you had to have some incling that those who were targetting you, might come here to be disruptive as well?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose A closer investigation suggests that the concerns about temperament, judgment, and conversance with policy that I expressed below are not unfounded and not insignificant (or, at the very least, per Spartacus, that the record provides an insufficient basis on which to reach firm contrary conclusions), and I cannot conclude with any confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm sorry, you do great work with vandal-fighting and other areas, but I'm still concerned about your temperament. In mid-March I had to warn you against using edit summaries that attacked Grawp, and you cited frustration. As an admin, you'll be dealing with some far more frustrating issues, and losing your cool in those situations won't be helpful to you or others. Retiring and unretiring so recently also strengthens my concern about temperament. I will happily support you some time in the future, but not until I see evidence that this issue is resolved. Good luck, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I am in agreement Tan's concerns about seeking adminship so soon after seeking the Right to Vanish. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, concerns about temperament and could use some additional experience in diversified areas as well. Without prejudice to a possible support at some point in the future, as I see lots of good faith work and positive contributions to the project in general. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Not enough experience for an admin. Somewhat incorrect temperament. What will happen if another user annoys you? Will you attack them? Remember, Murphy's Law.  Ceran  llama chat post 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I don't like that you evoked your RTV just two weeks ago. Peter's comment about your attacks on Grawp led on by frustration leads me to believe that you don't have enough patience to deal with conflict, which administrators deal with daily. iMatthew : Chat  11:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Sorry but per I'm Spartacus! and concerns over patience raised by PeterSymonds. An admin needs to be able to stay calm in the face of people like Grawp and worse. I do not think you have the necessary patience (yet) for the mop. Also, the retiring thing, while not a reason to oppose in itself, strikes me as weird. Regards  So Why  11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'm not convinced that your policy knowledge or experience as a whole are enough for you to be an administrator. Perhaps after a few months and some dedicated article work, I could support. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Although there is a bit to (re)commend the candidate, who seems, to be sure, a nice chap, I do not see that he demonstrates with a great consistency the deliberative disposition, cordial and collegial demeanor, and sound and mature sense of judgment the presence of which well suits one for adminship, and I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive; the case seems at first impression a close call, though, and so I can't yet oppose (I imagine that I'll consider the RfA further upon the candidate's answering question three and the optional questions that are sure to follow). I note, obviously tardily, that the nomination, which evidences, problematically, a breathless, reflexive, Manichaean attitude toward vandalism, does the candidate (at least to my mind) little good, and I encourage the candidate to distinguish his conception of vandal fighting from the bellicose one offered by his nominator if the two positions are different.  Joe 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose (not striking out, because incorporated by reference above). Joe 06:23, 13 April 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.