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

Calabe1992[edit]

Final (2/11/1); ended 18:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Calabe1992 (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm Calabe1992, and I've been editing since early 2011. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to present my candidacy to the Wikipedia community.

Shortly after joining Wikipedia, I was introduced to Twinkle, and began mainly anti-vandalism work from there. After reaching around 2000 edits in mid-July, I was granted rollback privileges. Since then, I've made somewhere around 10-11,000 additional edits, and the majority of my work has been anti-vandalism work in Huggle, as well as username patrolling (I have 186 contributions at UAA) and some new page patrolling. I have also created a couple of pages and made some minor content contributions, but the majority of my work is generated from anti-vandalism.

Throughout my editing, I've found myself at numerous points handing issues off to administrators as I am unable to further handle them myself. I've determined that if the way a situation should be handled is questionable, it is probably best to ask for help from others. But even when the way to handle issues are very obvious (such as with pure vandalism), I have no choice but to wait for administrator assistance. This leads to the obvious issues, such as persistant vandals who I've had to keep tabs on until an administrator can find my reports.

I believe that access to administrator tools would benefit my ability to help the Wikipedia community defend against vandalism and similar issues. My philosophy of "ask if you're not sure" would continue, but I would be able to more efficiently deal with the obvious issues that I come across on a regular basis. I've learned to take constructive criticism from administrators and others for what it's really worth and better my editing as a result. This comes back to assuming good faith.

I hope that given my contributions and philosophy that the community will find this request credible and genuine. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly anti-vandalism and the issues that come with it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Obviously I've reverted a lot of vandalism and unwanted content, but I enjoy the opportunities I get to help out a new user who's making constructive contributions. I once received a request for help from a new user who had created a page about a trial, along with a bunch of redirect pages with involved parties' names that were supposed to point back to the main article. She somehow got the redirects all twisted around, and I was able to successfully unscramble them for her. It's contributions like these that feel the most worth it.
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: Absolutely I have been in conflicts, but I don't let them stress me as it's not a huge deal. At one point my rollback was revoked as I was not completely aware of a specific guideline and made a less-than-stellar decision, but I discussed with the revoking administrator and I was re-instated the next day. I took that opportunity to re-examine guidelines and change my editing philosophy to a less-direct approach; more along the lines of "when there is an issue, talk it out", rather then jump in and intervene.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. Why are you an "anti-atheist"? Why have you chosen to advertise this in your profile?
A: It's my personal belief. As many others have chosen to post these beliefs in their userpages, I have, but at the same time I'm indicating that I will not let this affect my behavior toward content or other users.
Do you believe the userbox is in line with guidelines here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially_divisive_words Keepscases (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notably the "Essentially" line. Not falling within the guidelines would be, "This user is not an atheist." Calabe1992 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Monty845
5. One of your userboxes is ((User:WiFiLeech/Userboxes/Lame Password)); if your RFA passes, will you maintain password strong enough to protect your account from unauthorized access?
A: Absolutely. I added the box because it's more lame to me, not generally.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support With the admonishment that full protection should be used sparingly. Monty845 16:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support- Give it time, but now now.--SKATER Is Back 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Purely from this recent experience, others will no doubt comment on your limited article work etc. This request to WP:RPP is of concern [1] together with this associated bit of activity on the article’s talk page [2]. The IP left a warning (incorrect as it happens) which you removed without an edit summary explanation and then reinstated before heading off to WP:RPP. No involvement was really warranted by the low level of disruption. If that is a representative example, you need more experience and should assess the full picture before reacting. Leaky Caldron 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From this edit, you'll see that I reverted myself. I felt that it wasn't my place to revert the edit, and instead requested assistance. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you reverted it. Removing another editor's warning - even though I was in conflict with them - was inappropriate. Asking for full protection at WP:RPP was just plain wrong. Leaky Caldron 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaky, I understand your point, honestly looking back I swore I saw more edits from the same IP. Advice taken. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also mention that I obviously would thoroughly verify history if I were the one to make the final judgment on whether a page should be protected. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, but you've only been editing for seven months, and editing seriously (my personal definition, which some disagree with) for five months. In this time it would appear that your work is almost entirely vandalism fighting, which is valuable to be sure, but I want to see more than just vandalism fighting under the belts of potential admins. That 48% of your edits are in the user talk space is indicative of this. In short, I don't think you've been around long enough, and I don't see you as being well rounded enough, for comfort. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - not very well rounded. 81% automated edits over 7 months. Leaky Caldron's cited RPP doesn't inspire confidence at this time either.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak oppose — I read through Calabe's introductory paragraph and answers, and my first impression was that I'd be supporting his candidacy. But the first link provided by Leaky Cauldron above shows that Calabe is probably going to need a bit more experience before he's ready for adminship. Page protection (especially full protection) should only be applied when other measures have failed to resolve the issue, and typically it's when multiple editors are engaged in disruptive editing, not just one. Once he develops a stronger grasp of administrative policy, then I can pretty much guarantee I'll support in a few months time. He seems to have the right attitude and is obviously very enthusiastic about helping others, which is exactly what I look for in an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose He seem to know what he wants the tools for; but, at one point he had his rollback rights dropped a month ago. In my opinion I think he's too trigger happy for admin privileges. Minima© (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With administrator privileges I would not be trigger happy, as my decisions would be the ones with the impact. By requesting page protection, etc, in the past, I have left the decision to other admins. That would continue to be my philosophy, if I didn't know what to do, I would leave it for others. Also, I don't intend for protecting pages due to edit wars to be something I will frequently do as an admin. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose WP:NOTNOW —SW— verbalize 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Firstly I agree with Unionhawk and Sven; you simply don't appear to be well rounded enough. Also there's the lack of work in the article space. As a Wikignome who's only created one article, my standards probably could not be lighter, but the highest number of edits you've made to a single article is only 18. What's more, only a negligible number of your edits have been to talk pages. Although the two articles you've made aren't bad, they're not enough to trump these concerns. Next, we have this incident in which you were given rollback, and less than two months later you had it revoked because you were edit warring with it "blatantly misused it in an edit war". And this whole incident took place in September— last month. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then there's the anti-atheist userbox and the answer to Q4, where you apparently can't see how expressing 'anti-<any belief or lack thereof>' is divisive. Sorry. Swarm X 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm, actually I was not edit warring with it, but I didn't make the best decision on how to deal with an edit war on a page I was not involved on. Had a discussion with the admin who stepped in and explained, and also went back through the guidelines. I do not use rollback in order to edit war. Calabe1992 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, comment amended. Swarm X 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose This user has not been editing Wikipedia for very long, is still learning basic policy, does mostly automated edits, and is still learning how to have disagreements on this site. He handles himself well but everything is still too new for him to be able to answer questions by others as admins have to do. Please stick with the site and try again after getting more experience, and try doing new and different things on this site. Wikipedia is huge and there is a lot to learn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Regretful oppose. We see a lot of vandal fighters come through here, and most of them, if they haven't done much of anything else, don't pass. It doesn't look like this RfA is going to pass, but this doesn't mean it's the end of the road for you. You're doing great as it is, you just need more experience. I recommend trying your hand at some content work and maybe even some AfD work for six months to a year before returning here. I know that this seems like a long time, but with time comes experience, and with experience comes a greater potential to succeed here at RfA. When you think you're ready for another RfA, please consider consulting somebody on this page instead of nominating yourself. Kindest regards, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose No substantial editing history. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Obviously good intentions, but the ratio of automated edits does not reflect well, and as Unionhawk says, the RPP issue brought forward by Leaky Cauldron doesn't inspire confidence either. It goes without question that vandalism fighting is a fundamental and valuable task, but personally I cannot support any candidate that doesn't have at least one content credit. However, I do believe these two things are related: if you had experience with article building and the issues concerning it, you might not have handled the RPP issue the way you did. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral While I believe that your intentions are good and I want to support, I feel that I can't because I don't feel that you are quite ready as you are making mistakes in several areas, such as in correctly tagging a new page for speedy deletion (See here), although I can see where you were coming from it shows that you do not fully understand the policies. Also, you should archive your talk page not just remove the content (See here. But you I do believe you have good intentions so keep editing and keep up the good work. Jamietw (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category