Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wackymacs


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

Withdrawn as per a request by user on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

" would like my RfA withdrawn, if this can be done. Thanks! — Wackymacs 08:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)"

Wackymacs
Final (18/8/6) ended 08:15 November 5, 2005 (UTC)

– I just found this on his user page: "Since then I have made over 2000 edits, uploaded images, edited dozens of articles and soon hope to get administrator privileges on Wikipedia." Edit count shows around 2700 edits since March 12, 2005, talk page is flooded with "thank yous," so why not? Renata3 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! — Wackymacs 18:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Nominate and support. Renata3 17:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Idorunet 20:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for a very fine contributor. Shows a willigness to strive for 100% criticism-free performance. --hydnjo talk 21:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support and please do use edit summaries Tedernst 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Lemme get this straight, his 60% use of edit summaries means... he'll abuse admin tools? Heh, how very asinine. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support positive editor. Martin  23:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A pleasant, positive and helpful editor, likely to be civil in any use of admin tools, see no reason to oppose. &mdash;Morven 01:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I also feel that adminship applications should not be used to enforce rules of conduct beyond the five pillars, so I find the edit summary discussion to be entirely irrelevant to the nomination.--Eloquence* 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support per Eloquence, who captured my thoughts exactly. I suspect WP:POINT is in effect below. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Switching to neutral.
 * 1) Support. We need more admins. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-1 07:07
 * 2) Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Doc (?) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC) seems good enough - and has promised to use edit summaries in future --Doc (?) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support How could I be more eloquent than Eloquence? --Rogerd 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support just because I want to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --JAranda'' | watz sup 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good edits, level-headed on talk pages. I'm sure as an admin they will be more diligent about edit summaries. Turnstep 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * More Support Then Ever Given Before, this user got rid of another user, that is the biggest prick on wikipedia. I gladly support!!!!!!! Dutch Highwayman
 * (note: this is Dutch Highwayman's second edit ever, account just created - Turnstep)
 * This is of course Private Butcher. I am deeply going off the deep-end, I apologize for creating this sockpuppet, I am somewhat schizophrenic, I can't control this. I want this account blocked instantly, and I am going to issue my complete apology at my userpage. I don't know what's going on with me, I am being completely serious about this all, I am completely falling apart. This has all grown to too much for me to handle. Once I issue my apology, I will leave wikipedia, of course I do this once every few weeks, but now this time I will be gone from all wikipedias, and will not return, until sometime in 2006. I need to put my life back together, I've grown sick, and fell back on old addictions. Dutch Highwayman 23:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no reason why edit summaries would make such a big difference?! It's utterly stupid! On that note, I better start using edit summaries pronto!!Spawn Man 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yes you should if you ever expect to replace Jimbo. --hydnjo talk 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * hydnjo, what bothers me even more than edit summaries (which, by the way, are still under 85% for the three day period since he made his promise!), is the gleeful way in which he rushed to suggest removing Private Butcher's "Oppose" vote a mere 21 minutes after PB announced he was leaving WP, and embracing the "Support" vote of an obvious sockpuppet . Owen&times; &#9742;  20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Who the heck's Jimbo? Spawn Man 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Jimbo="The Outlaw" Jimbo Wales founder, benevolent dictator and god emperor of the Wikiverse. Image-tagging and lack of edit summeries are STUPID reasons to oppose someone. It makes editcountitis look sensible by comparison.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The edit count is not that bad. Besides mine was even lower, yet it is over 85% for my last 100 edits. And I will keep trying to get it up. Voice of All  T |@| Esperanza   08:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose scant use of edit summaries. freestylefrappe 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Durin note on image-tagging.  Need more time to learn finer points of Wikiprocess. Xoloz 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per others. Privat  e   Butcher  20:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I said "as per others" that means both of the users before me reasons. Don't bother me, I never claimed this user would abuse admin powers just because they don't use that many edit summaries. I expect atleast 75% as it is. Therefore I will not change my vote or opinion, I know this user won't abuse powers, but I don't find this user deserving. Of course many users that are admins aren't deserving (I won't say any names). Privat  e   Butcher  19:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per Freestylefrappe. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For mine, edit summaries alone are not a reason to oppose (tho' I agree they're important). However, the combination of few edit summaries, lack of care with images, and advertising your RfA on other users' talkpages (or, in one case, harassing an oppose voter) lead me to one inescapable conclusion ... oppose.  Sorry, dude. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per comment on fuddlemark's talk page. I don't personally believe that ANY comments should be made by an admin candidate about people's voting.  Trying to get someone to change their vote is extremely questionable.  Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per Ral315 above, and OwenX's point here. I find the user's argumentative approach to Oppose votes quite worrying, not least the way he argues with Fuddlemark well-considered comment, below, that his argumentative approach to Oppose votes is actually "kind". No, it isn't. Let me note preemptively that I would not like to be asked to consider withdrawing this vote, or to receive any message about it. I have already thought about it quite carefully. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. If he makes such a bad impression in his nomination, how will he deal with the responsibility of being an admin?  r  speer 05:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Difs I've looked at are good; edits across namespaces are fine. But eeewww, you need to pay attention to edit summaries. Thus a neutral. Willing to have my mind changed. Marskell 23:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Neutral (for now) there are the edit summaries - and recent speedy tagging for things like 'advert'. I might be persuaded to support if the candidate promises edit summaries, and indicates that they have read, understood, and would comply with the WP:CSD --Doc (?) 23:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC) I've had the assurances I required - and I'll trust they'll be adhered to. --Doc (?) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Good guy, but needs to groom his Wikiskills a bit more. Will Support in one month if things improve.--Sean Black | Talk 01:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Please work on your edit summaries. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) edit summaries are VITAL Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From above: "...yes I will most certainly use the summary edit box 100% of the time. — Wackymacs" shows a concern in an area that some have found lacking and a promise to put it in his past. I don't know what more this candidate could do given that this issue has not been put to him before now. If this is a gotcha thing well then, ya got 'im. --hydnjo talk 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per the Private Butcher/Dutch Highwayman issue, plus a discomfort I have with the nominee's response to hydno above where he wrote "But if you do really want me to brag and be someone I am not... then yes I will most certainly use the summary edit box 100%". I'm troubled by this because it reads to me as if he's saying "well, if you want me to say it, I'll say it".  While I think the 64% edit summary rate over the past 500 has been perfectly fine, the fact that he promises 100% and doesn't deliver reinforces my concerns listed above.  I really hate doing this, but my gut feeling is no longer what it was. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral He seems like a nice guy, but he needs to work on his editing skills, most notably citing sources. For Apple Macintosh, an article he largely contributed to, he only cited one source on a huge article. TDS  (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome of this RFA, please improve your use of edit summaries. Overall use is 59% overall and the last 500 edits at 64%. --Durin 19:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect you need to be a bit more careful about your use of the fairuse tag. On many of the images you have uploaded, no rationale has been provided despite the instruction to include such. Further, I found one image in which I think another tag could have been used more appropriately. I'm referring in particular to Image:Sirhenryblackwood.jpg, which probably qualified under PD-art-life-70. For comparison, see Image:Mona Lisa.jpg. This was the result of a cursory review of your image contributions. --Durin 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will try to use the edit summary box more in the future, Hopefully I'm improving in that area gradually. Sorry. I have fixed that specific image you mentioned, I must have missed it. Thanks for mentioning it. — Wackymacs 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You've already received at least one oppose vote because of your scant use of edit summaries and your response is that you will try and improve... gradually? How about trying to impress your voters with a more positive response. Edit summaries lie entirely within your own fingertips. --hydnjo talk 20:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I made that comment before the Oppose vote was entered. I cannot say that I will, because that will be an overstatement of myself. I think that my response was sparingly positive, it was certainly not negative. But if you do really want me to brag and be someone I am not... then yes I will most certainly use the summary edit box 100% of the time. — Wackymacs 20:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then I'm going to support your nomination. That was the only thing holding me back. --hydnjo talk 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To those (now two) of you opposing on the grounds of my comments on Wackymacs use of image tags; I strongly encourage you to review the rest of the candidate's contributions. What I did was cursory review of a small segment of his total contributions. He very well may be outstanding in other respects, and who among us is perfect? He's obviously already shown a willingness (and ability) to correct the minor errors. --Durin 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Image copyrights are the most complicated procedure on Wikipedia and if you are not a lawyer you could end up spending tons of time trying to figure out what tag to use. And fair use is the most complicated of them all. Who has not screwed up (at least once) uploading an image? Renata3 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, editcountitis is bad enough, edit-summaryitis is just plain silly. Martin  19:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether you agree with it or not, there is strong rationale for editors to use edit summaries. Please see User:Durin/Admin_criteria_comments. There are a number of people who feel edit summary usage is an important quality in an administrator. --Durin 20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure thats exactly right, for editors, but does it make any difference whether he does/doesnt leave edit summaries whether he's an admin or a normal editor? Plus he said he would do better, also, if he's an admin then rollback summaries are automatic! The way I see it he is being punished for something unrelated to his abilities to use admin tools, which is definately not what the RFA process is for. Martin  22:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Punished? No. Requested, yes. RfA contributors making votes in good faith are free to use whatever criteria they so desire in making their votes on RfAs. As I outlined on the page I mentioned above, it is important to some contributors that admins use edit summaries in all their functions. I understand you do not like this criteria. You are welcome to disagree with it. Please do not criticize others who do find it important. --Durin 01:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, he has come to realize that it is important to the community that he use the edit summary. Having come to that realization he has committed to follow through and strive for 100% adherence. I don't know how we could ask for more than that. --hydnjo talk 01:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to add a note about Support number 17, it is related to the user User:Private Butcher who has recently left. Private Butcher made some rude comments about me on RedWolf24's Talk page, and I noted on Private Butcher's talk page that he shouldn't go around being rude about people he doesn't know. I did not tell Private Butcher to leave, I just told him that he is rude and should be careful. This also leads me to think I can remove Oppose vote 3 because Private Butcher has left Wikipedia. — Wackymacs 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Wackymacs has asked me to elaborate on my reasons for my oppose comment, above. First, though, I'm rather disappointed by Wackymacs' characterisation of my (and others') points as "unfair", and his request that I "explain" my vote (I'll choose to interpret that as "elaborate", later).  I don't believe I make unfair votes or comments on RfA, although if I've done so I'm more than willing to be corrected.  Certainly, describing those you wish to win over as "unfair" isn't likely to achieve the desired results.  Elaborating, now.  "Harrassing": I believe your response to User:Private Butcher was disproportionate to his "crime". You also posted to User:Freestylefrappe's talkpage to try to get him to change his vote, on the grounds that – if I'm reading correctly – you really want him to.  Edit summaries: not using edit summaries is something I find quite irritating, but it wouldn't cause me to vote oppose (maybe neutral, if I was in a bad mood ... and I am).  Images: well, you have a point.  There is more than "just one" objectionable image, but not for months. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I noted very kindly to Freestylefrappe to reconsider his vote based on what others have done with the reason as he had. Of course it is his choice, and I think it is only fair to reconsider it as Neutral based on his reason, but it is of course his choice and not mine. I was also kind to Private Butcher, and did not harass him what so ever, as you can see in my note to him, I was warning him that he shouldn't be rude, as he was. He apologized to me himself, so I don't think he thought he was harassed, so you still haven't explained that. Thanks anyway. — Wackymacs 19:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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. I will most likely use the ability to delete pages, and block users in my work here at Wikipedia, because I already add speedy delete tags to articles, and contribute to AFD in my spare time, and already do RC patrol now and then for any vandalism. I will also make good use of the rollback button for easily reverting articles, I already revert vandalism but when you're not an administrator it is a more tiresome task.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Yes, most notable are the Sinclair Research Ltd, Xanadu House and Apple Macintosh articles. I created the Xanadu House article before actually registering here at Wikipedia, a long time ago back in early March 2005. Since then I have been working on getting that article to featured article standard, which is why I began contributing to the Article Improvement Drive collaboration. I came across the Sinclair Research article not so long ago, and saw what a state it was in, as a result I began improving it, and am very proud of it (though it still needs work). I nominated the Apple Macintosh article for AID, and it succeeded, and was improved. I added many sections, and also worked a lot on other Apple/Mac related articles. My goal here, mainly, is to get every article on Wikipedia, in any subject area, to featured standard. I join in on the peer review process, as well as the featured article candidates voting. I help in every way to improve articles, wether this involves cleaning them up, wikifying them, adding context to them, etc. I have wikified hundreds of articles, and a month or two ago was involved in the Nuttall encyclopedia project, and created over 100 quality stubs there. And it goes on...I have contributed to AFD and often add the speedy delete tags to patent nonsense/spam articles created by anonymous IPs, I also greet new registered users and anonymous users and also warn vandals not to vandalism wikipedia. Other articles I'm proud of include cleaning up some pretty notable subjects, including Department store and Pepsi-Cola. At the moment I'm working on improving Emergency department to featured standard.


 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Very minor conflicts, over how a sentence should be worded, or what an article should be named. Various users, including Jimbo Wales also spoke to me about copyright issues with images, I agreed with them and as a result tagged and added sources to all my images I had uploaded. I obey the rules here at Wikipedia, and am nice to any users, wether they be a vandal, or a fellow registered user. I have not been caused any stress here, and If I am, I aim to stay cool, and also cause the other person no stress.


 * 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.