Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/robfergusonjr


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

robfergusonjr
Final (0/5/2); Closed at 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per  Icestorm815  •  Talk  02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

- Robfergusonjr has been an active Wikipedia user since the summer 2005. Although he has less than a 1000 edits, he will be an excellent asset to Wikipedia. Robfergusonjr has a degree triple degree in history, English and information systems which will prove to be useful for the Wikipedia community. He has extensive experience in using Information Assurance principles in the civilian and U.S. Federal governments sectors. Rob (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I'm interested in taking part of RC patrol, vandalism fixing, and increasing the quality of articles. With a background in English I also look for grammatical errors like typos, subject-verb agreements, pronoun-antecedent agreements, logical unity of paragraphs, topic sentence, article coherence and unity, etc ... Vandals have on occasion hit some articles I worked hard on upgrading. For a change it would be great to reduce the effect of Vandals. Ultimately requesting adminship does mean getting access to admin tools: page deletion, page protection, blocking and unblocking, and access to modify protected pages. My primary concern in Wikipedia is to ensure the integrity and availability of information (Information Assurance) in the articles. As an Information Assurance professional I intended to protect and defend information and information systems by ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and availability.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions so far has been to Native American, such as Choctaw and Choctaw Culture, articles based on my personal and academic experince. My main focus on article contribution is to ensure that citations are used when needed and proper grammatical usage.


 * 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 not been in any conflicts with wikipedia users and will suppose I will deal with conflicts when becoming an administrator. Addresing conflicts will be based upon wikipedia policy Dispute resolution in six steps.

Optional question by User:Keeper76
 * 4. Most admin candidates that are successful have at least 3000+ contributions that are well balanced between mainspace and wikispace. What purpose do you foresee needing the additional tools for that you cannot accomplish without them?
 * A: I believe the quality of the article is more important than the quantity of edits. It takes time to develop a well researched article and implement it in a logically coherent structure. After adhering to Wikipedia policy & guidelines, then administrative action should be put into effect. One example for using admin tools would be to protect a “high profile” article from vandalism. One such article, just for example, is the Barak Obama article as I assume it is a target among his political opponents. Another example would be to protect intellectual property of an image by ensuring the copyright is not infringed.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ,  Rob Church, NSLE . They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.


 * 5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A-


 * 6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?


 * A-


 * 7. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?


 * A-


 * 8. Why do you want to be an administrator?


 * A


 * 9. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?


 * A-


 * 10. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?


 * A-


 * 11. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?


 * A-


 * 12. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?


 * A-

General comments

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


 * Links for robfergusonjr:

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

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. I'm afraid your contributions to date aren't sufficient for me to form an opinion on whether you would make a good admin or not. I'd like to suggest that you withdraw this RfA as premature and reapply when you have more experience. Don't let this discourage you, I think you may have the makings of a good admin. Ronnotel (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Admirable that you wish to help! But, sorry, sorely lacking in experience. Virtually no activity in Wikipedia namespace, and only 650 edits total. Not there yet. Give it a few months and come back and I'll re-evaluate. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I agree with the above sentiments, regardless of the answer to my question above. You are clearly here to help this project, and not hinder it, but you need more time and more experience to be ready for adminship.  Keep up the good work!  Keeper   |  76   |   Disclaimer  22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) per Ronnotel, Wisdom, and Keeper. Also, many of the things you mention in Answer 1 do not require admin tools. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful.
 * Please read WP:Admin
 * Please read 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.
 * My suggestion to any nominees with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in 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.Dlohcierekim&#39;s sock (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Simply not enough edits, not by an order of magnitude.  And what about these missing edit summaries (to return to a not-so-important aspect by itself, although a favorite on these pages, and an important indicator of editing quality in general)?  In any case, good luck!  --  Iterator12n   Talk 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Needs more experience, but will likely become an admin if he sticks around long enough. · AndonicO  Hail!  22:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Needs more experience, see Admin coaching. Spencer  T♦C 22:53, 20 February 2008 (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.