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

Caldorwards4[edit]

FINAL (6/9/6); No consensus. Andre (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caldorwards4 (talk · contribs) - Caldorwards4 seems to be a very trustworthy editor. I've seen him work hard on reverting vandalism, mostly related to country music and retail pages. He seems to be quite the dedicated Wikipedian, and is quite swift at his reversions of vandalism too. He was also nominated before but got no support, in part due to his rather terse answers to the questions, but he seems to have become a bit more verbose in the past year. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. --Caldorwards4 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Trying to clean up articles the best I can. I usally work on the retail and country music related articles, trying my hardest to remove any vandalism, and rewrite any confusing sections as possible. I also plan on creating articles on any notable retailers or country music artists, songs, and albums missing articles. I am quick on catching vandalism of any nonsence or anything not true, also listing pages for deletion when needed and lastly I plan on taking part in blocking any users that are be disruptive and causing problems to Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my best contributions was my expansion of the J. C. Penney article. I rewrote, and added to the history section of the page.
My expansion of Buttrey Food & Drug, a page I created. I have been adding info about its previous operations, locations list, and more in the last several months.
Some other ones were providing information on notable malls that didn't have articles at the time such as Karcher Mall, NorthTown Mall, and Holiday Village Mall.
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: Yes, specifically a fued I had with an IP user last year on Albertsons related articles. I was removing stuff that to me wasn't real and it got me blocked. I had sent an email to the user who blocked me explaining my actions and talked it out with the IP user settle an negotiation.
4. Optional Question from Trusilver: In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban? In what situations do you feel a block would be appropriate? In what situations do you feel a ban would be appropriate?
An optional question from feydey (talk)
5. When uploading fair use images, like logos, what size would You consider to be representing low resolution?


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Caldorwards4 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Weak Support. Not overly impressed with answer to Q1, as most of the tasks listed there are things a non-admin can do. However, given this candidate's extensive experience and high editcount, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, adminship is no big deal. WaltonOne 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. You do not seem to have much need for the tools, however you are definately wanting to help, and therefore you are suitable for adminship. "Need" has no importance in RfA. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have no concerns or reasons to oppose. Acalamari 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A.Z. 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering this is technically not a vote, would you like to elaborate on that point? New England 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it is normally recognised that an oppose !vote should be detailed, but an unadorned support !vote means per nom. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I've seen you challenge A.Z.'s Support votes on multiple RfA's. Is that really necessary? --SXT4 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, I don't beleive this user will abuse the tools. --SXT4 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Impressed with edit history and vandal fighting. Clearly focused on our goal. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Very low project space edit count means we have minimal actions to judge your ability as an admin with. I am also concerned by the Q1 answer, where you don't mention anything that can't be done by normal users. Giggy UCP 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From Q1 "I plan on taking part in blocking any users that are be disruptive and causing problems to Wikipedia." (emphasis mine).--Chaser - T 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To be honest; I dont think your answers have improved much since you last RfA, as well as per Giggy. – Rlest 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose the answers to the questions don't show a clear understanding of Wikipedia's processes. New England 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Giggy and New England. ZapBoy (contribs) (sign here) 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of Bugman94 - see checkuser request. WaltonOne 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - unfortunately, I feel that the answers don't show a clear enough understanding of policy to cover the (comparatively) low projectspace count. This user is an outstanding editor, but doesn't strike me as appropriate for adminship. Keep up the good work, and get a little more involved in the administrative side of things, and I may support next time. ck lostsword•T•C 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Soory, by answer of questions, I don't think your ready. Politics rule 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The answer to Q1 is mostly concerned with activities that have nothing to do with adminship. Edit summary usage is also really low. Pax:Vobiscum 07:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Your last RFA pointed out your lack of communication with other users as demonstrated by the number of user talk page edits; that has not improved very much, plus you don't seem to understand the need to substitute the user talk templates when you do use them - see here and here. Your low use of edit summaries was also noted, and you have not improved there either, so you should set your user preferences to remind you to use edit summaries. I understand you want to help the project, but you must demonstrate your awareness of policy and procedure before you're given a mop, and you have not done that to my satisfaction. Please take our comments into your editing approach and style. - KrakatoaKatie 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose sorry. A clear lack of experience in project namespace, and your answers to the questions don't demonstrate knowledge of what adminship is ("creating articles on artists and songs"). SalaSkan 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as per all the above concerns. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I am on the fence right now. I would like to hear more in-depth answers to Q1-3. How well spoken someone is in their RfA is an indicator of how well spoken they will be in pressure situations as a sysop. Trusilver 04:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I am not sufficiently convinced by the answer to question one that the admin tools are best given to this editor. Article clean-ups and vandal reverting can be done by non-admins and blocking assistance can be given by reporting vandals to WP:AIV. (aeropagitica) 12:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per above comments. Weak answers to questions is a concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I would say support except for Q1. The answer is incredibly weak and shows no real understanding of what admins do. I'm sorry, but for now Neutral. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I can't get past the opposing side's points; I like the editor, but I dislike the knowledge, or rather lack thereof, of duties and such. Jmlk17 07:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I'd like to support because this editor is a very valuable and dedicated contributor, but there are a couple concerns. The edit summary usage is really, really low for an editor with that much experience, which makes things more difficult for someone trying to follow your logic. User talk edits is also quite small, only 162 that aren't to his page, but that isn't what prevents my support. The answers to his questions don't explicitely, or even implicitely, show his need of the admin tools. His head and heart are certainly in the right place, but I think he should be involved in more "adminly" things and have a more clear idea on what he wants to do with the admin tools. Useight 17:33, 21 July 2007 (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