The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn.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

Imdanumber1[edit]

(10/9/5) FINAL; Ended 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) - Working as a Wikipedian is a very special hobby of mine. The reason why I have been here for so long is because there are so many articles here to work on, improving articles especially within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, although I haven't edited every single article here. However, I hope to further my ventures elsewhere if granted admin status. And being a partially full-time Wiki editor, I'm just here to serve the Wikipedia community. Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination, therefore, I am more than proud to accept this nomination. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for people taking part in the discussion: I might as well make the most of this process. Regardless of your opinion — Support, Oppose, or Neutral — please try to include a detailed piece of constructive criticism regarding my editing habits. I know for a fact that I can improve, and I would greatly appreciate it if you all could provide me with a quantifiable list of ways in which I can make better contributions to the project as a whole.

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: The backlog list is long, but I'm up for it. If I do get chosen to be an admin, I would start off with a relatively low level of involvement in administrative work. I don't believe it's appropriate for an administrator just learning the ropes to engage in controversial actions, particularly since a new admin is granted the same level of access as significantly more experienced administrators. I would like to work my way up the ladder. That being said, I can foresee my involvement in the following:
  • CAT:CSD. Seeing articles and templates and other types of pages are added there everyday, this backlog is never ending. I can see myself reviewing the criteria for its speedy deletion.
  • WP:AIV. Same as above, although dealing with vandals. Disruptive users are a big problem for Wikipedia ever since we started in 2001, although I wasn't around back then, it is perfectly okay to assume so.
  • WP:AFD, as well as other sorth of XFDs. I wouldn't close uncontroversial XFDs, but mostly ones with a clear consensus to delete.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have to say that I don't really have any favorite articles, but the articles I edit heavily are the ones that I take an interest in real life, particularly ones within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, where I have received a lot of help from others, both non-admins, most notably Pacific Coast Highway, User:Tinlinkin and the now-gone Marc Shepherd, and admins, such as Alphachimp, Cecropia and Larry V. These users are sort of a mentor to me because they have been at my side and come to my aide whenever I needed it. I can trust these guys for any help I would need with my run as a Wikipedian.
I also run a bot called Danumber1bot (a portmanteau of my user name and the bot suffix required for most bots). It was active during January, and replaced deprecated templates with a universal template with a call for ParserFunctions. I never really had problems with my bot, except for one where it didn't have a bot flag, probably because it was speedily approved and was never given a trial. This problem was fixed by the now-gone Essjay, a few weeks before he had to leave Wikipedia. However, my bot has not been active since, and probably, I may get it up and running again sometime soon.
All in all, I take pride in all of my work, as I know that what I do is an improvement to the community.
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 been having problems with a certain user since January. Although I don't want to point fingers, he was new to the Public Transportation Wikiproject, joining in December 2006. I never really had any problems with him until the next month. He systematically nominated several templates for deletion without seeking consensus from the WikiProject. Although there is no specific policy to let others know that you want something deleted, he really should have introduce your concerns to the WikiProject before bringing them to a broader audience. Problems persisted with this user for another two months, where it came to a point where I actually got blocked from editing because I reverted edits he made that seemed controversial. It really crushed me badly, because as much as I tried to help this user out, he has always been in the way, and I got the short end of the stick. I tried an RFC but to no avail. This problem has persisted for a long time. It even led to me leaving Wikipedia for good but I eventually came back a week later. Problems were ongoing with him because he continues to make unilateral decisions without consensus. Problems continued with him because he made several moves and edits where things got to the tip of the iceberg where consensus was never made in the first place. I don't want to be a crybaby, but the only way that editors will get along with others is to respect and listen to others and not bully with policies and guidelines.
I believe the most mature thing to do is to try not to engage into an argument about edit warring that would involve no improvement, and seeing that I haven't had a problem with this certain user for about a week, I will make sure to follow this standard rule of thumb of mine in the future to prevent such issues like this.
4. Can you explain your actions here? I tag a section as needing references. You revert and warn me. We go back and forth a few times, and you warn me again. You report me for blocking, and obviously it's soon removed as a content dispute. Why should we trust you with the power to block when you don't understand when a user can be blocked? --NE2 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. The problem between me and you is that you choose not to listen to anyone but yourself. And if you continue, you're going to have a hard time working with other users. I see your talk page histories and they don't look good. You have been blocked for WP:3RR too, you have been warned by others about your behavior regarding your editing and you still don't get the point here. If you're want to learn how o be a most valuable editor, then you need to listen and respect others. I fear that your behavior is what is driving others away. While your intentions are good, your approach isn't. You don't know how to reach consensus within the project. You make unilaterat edits on a topic while the discussion is in process. If you're going to take part within Wikipedia, then you need to learn that we work together and we are willing to accept any idea if we find it feasible for the article. And if we don't like your ideas, then we hae to say so, and you can't go ahead and make the change when it was opposed. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question: why did you report what is clearly not vandalism (adding an unreferenced tag!) for blocking? If you saw someone else put a similar case on AIV, would you block? Comment on content, not on the contributor. --NE2 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Tinlinkin

5. If you are promoted to administrator, how would your current dispute help you (or not) if you encounter opposition to your administrative actions? If you are still fired up from the present conflicts (shown through your responses in this RfA), how would you be able to keep a cool head and be civil with other users? Do you think the disagreements that you have now will escalate once you are given the tools? And do you think you would create a conflict of interest if you use the admin tools more on NYCPT articles than other articles?
A. A good question. I believe that the best thing to do is to try to disengage from the argument, although it has been really rough for me at times. I do keep getting fired up from issues brought up from Wikipedia and the Transportation project, as you know, and it is really difficult to try to lead the user down the right path when he doesn't listen. All in all, I know the mind of an administrator. People get under their skin, and although they want to at times, they can't block them for that. But if I do become an admin, I will try to have a changed perspective for other users and only use the blocks for vandals who blatantly disrupt WP listed at WP:AIV and those who violate 3RR rules. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Some editors have expressed concern that becuase you have not engaged in many XfD discussions, you do not deserve to participate in XfD deletion closures. How would you respond with that view? You must have at least read the rules for deletion with scrutiny and observed the deletion process, DRV, and deletion patterns if you are proposing to help out with XfD closures. (Be honest how much you have read up on deletion debates and policies.)
A. Unfortunately I know that I haven't been taking part of admin-type tasks that don't require an admin at times, such as closing XFDs where the decision is to keep. If I do get chosen as an admin, I'll definitely take part in these types of tasks, and if I don't, I'll still try to take part in the uncontroversial types of XFDs. Also, sometimes no one can tell a true XFD form an unilateral one, where it is obvious that the XFD is bad-faith and an act of a vandal. I remember a case like this once that happened last Summer, where some user proposed a Subway service page for deletion, claiming is existence is a hoax. Taking part o tasks like this will be a dramatic step-up for me, a step-up that I will pursue to become a great Wikipedia editor that I will be ready for.

Thank you for those two queries, TLK. I hope that they are answered fully and can evaluate yours and others opinions of my RFA. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Imdanumber1 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Response. I didn't use ((uw-tpv1)) to warn him about TFDs, I used that warning because he removed my comments on TFDs (he did this a few times) because I believed he should have brought up his concerns on the TFD to the project (the templates he wanted to delete were part of a scope of a WikiProject) before bringing them to a broader audience. Hope this answers your concern and feel free to bring up any additional questions. Thanks, --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism warning issued here is somewhat concerning. Addhoc 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove his comments; I reverted his improper closure as a "mistaken nomination". --NE2 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Imdanumber1, despite the arrogant user name (just messing before you NPA me), seems to have a reasonable amount of edits reasonably spread between the namespaces. Support. Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I'm easy on jokes. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - No big deal, won't abuse the tools, no major problems as far as I've looked at, etc., etc. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - has been a stable editor and has proven that he can handle the admin duties.. --Cometstyles 16:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I'm impressed by the Q1 answer, I think you should particpate more in admin related tasks (like RC patrolling etc) if(and only if) this RfA fails. — The Sunshine Man 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support You've been doing a great job with NYC transportation articles and from one Brooklynite to another, you have my vote. Good Luck ;) QuasyBoy 17:44, 26 Mya 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - A trustworthy editor with initiative is offering his services as a sysadmin. I think we should take him up on his offer and make him one. He learned Wikipedia "on the job", and I'd expect he would do just as well with the admin tools in the same regard. The Transhumanist    22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: Even though his count is a little low, I think he will make a good admin. --Random Say it here! 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I started off hesitant, but have thought about it and want to change to support. I do hope that you will remember that admin block functions need to be used only when necessary. If you find yourself fired up at this editor you have battled with, probably best to talk to another admin or the community about it. I think that you will make an excellent admin. Good luck! —Gaff ταλκ 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Default support. I'm baffled that some still oppose based on a perceived lack of need for the tools. There's basically nothing that makes me question this user's ability and willingness to use the tools well, and that's all that matters. Period. —AldeBaer 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I trust this user not to screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with his persistent miscategorization of non-vandalism actions as vandalism? --NE2 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per No big deal. I don't see any problems. --TTalk to me 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I don't understand why this editor needs the admin tools. He seems to be doing a fine job without them and he should have deleted the acceptance line. I think he should continue to work on transporation works and not have to worry about all the extra admin duties that may cause him stress, evident by the 3RV violation.--William Henry Harrison 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    William Henry Harrison has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. —CComMack (t–c) 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose This is due to some of my findings in reviewing your interactions with this user here. From what it looks like you were having an editorial disagreement over some articles relating to roadways. In the midst of this, you posted a "blatant vandalism" warning on the user's talk page. This is not what this warning is for. You threatened the user with a block if any more "disruptive edits" were made. As it stands now, I doubt that any admin would block for this. However, if you become an admin, I worry that you will abuse your blocking powers in the middle of an edit war. Maybe some time down the road I will support your RfA, but this heated disagreement seems too recent. —Gaff ταλκ 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This user has been uncivil in the past, in cases where he too was blocked for 3RR. But seeing as consensus is the building block for Wikipedia, this is primarily why I have been on his back constantly. I know I'm not so perfect either, but I am willing to help others go down the right path seeing that other users helped me get out of the ditch. I realize that as much as I have had a dispute with this user, it wouldn't be reasonable or correct to block someone who annoys you, as much as one would want to sometimes. I guarantee that if I'm granted admin rights, I wouldn't abuse them to produce upheaval for any reason, ever. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay...I can see that you had/have conflicting opinions with this editor and that there is a lot of push/pull going on. It makes me a little uncomfortable that in the midst of this, you request admin tools. It seems like you might be requesting this to have power to block and editor you disagree with. To your credit you have made a huge contribution to the transportation articles, so I am not going to oppose you, but will remain neutral. —Gaff ταλκ 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, there are certain administrators who all feel the same way. Although they want to at times, they cannot block someone who annoys them. That said, the powers I'll receive if granted to me will never be for that point of view. I will always try to assume good faith for others, as it is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia in order to keep a neutral point of view and to assume that others truly have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, even though we may disagree with others sometimes. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Harrison; I don't see a need for the tools either; seems to be constructive otherwise. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who needs to edit Wikipedia? He chose to be here to help out. Same principles apply to adminship. The Transhumanist    22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Wiki-space contributions are minimal; per DGG, if one wishes to close XfDs, one should have some experience with them first. Xoloz 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose; this user has a flawed understanding of vandalism: [1][2] and makes personal attacks and other bad edits: [3][4] In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the one being referred to in his answer to question 3. --NE2 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The only thing that is fueling up the fire between us is because he has been making controversial edits within the public transportation WikiProject, while I have been continuously advising him to seek consensus within the project. For example: He made a proposal to remove the disambiguation suffix from most of the New York subway station articles. Everyone has repeatedly offered clear, logical reasons as to why the suffix is necessary and why it should be kept; what more can we do to make our position clear? One problem is that he tend to make controversial, unilateral edits in the midst of discussions. For instance, you started a discussion on the name of the article on disambiguation suffixes, like I just stated. This was good; discussion is how things like that should start. However, he then went and made the change anyway, while we were still discussing it! That's not how discussions are supposed to work; you might as well have not even started the discussion. You have to let discussions run to their conclusions; you also have to take things less personally. Again, no one here has a vendetta against you or anything. However, if we don't like your idea, we have to say so. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I started making the change to follow normal disambiguation rules. Once people started disagreeing (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 7#Station suffixes (e.g. (IRT/BMT/IND Line name))), I stopped. --NE2 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you didn't repair what you did. Sometimes, we have to let things go, because the DAB riles didn't fil well within the project. Everyone was aware of the rules, and they chose to ignore them. Controversial edits like this disrupts Wikipedia. You need to learn how to work with others. When you have an idea that you would like to put into the article, you need to let other know about the idea and how it will influence the article by improving it. I have tried to tell you many times, but you continue to do what you do and it has taken a great toll on others who probably left the project because of that specific reason. It feels like you have taken over the project ever since you debuted there in December, and I fear that your editing habits will drive others away who have also tried to help you out but fail in the process. I am one of those people who feel the same way, and I don't know how others feel, but it isn't helping, and I ask that you change your ways before you drive others away by ignoring helpful advice. Remember, we are here to help each other, but we can't help you if you don't listen and drive others away. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - concerns about 3RR block, ongoing personal dispute and insufficient experience in the deletion process. Addhoc 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - over block issues and points raised by other users. And you're only 15 years old, I cannot trust admin tools for someone who is barely in high school. Biggspowd 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Age is not a valid reason to oppose. Yonatan talk 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Biggspowd. Like I said above, I know I'm not perfect, and I know I've messed up in the past, but I know for a fact that I can improve, and I would greatly appreciate it if you all could provide me with a quantifiable list of ways in which I can make better contributions to the project as a whole. I would ask that Biggspowd reconsider his opinion. Thanks. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I got the bit when I was 16. What does age have to do with anything? Adults can be even more immature than kids sometimes (see the ban list for a prime example). —Kurykh 05:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC
    Sorry, but I can't except someone in the early/mid teens being an admin here. They haven't finished high school, don't have a wide range of knowledge, are immature, and I can't trust an encyclopedia being run be teenagers. Would you have the CEOs of Wal-Mart be a bunch of 15 year olds? I think not. Biggspowd 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your characterization insulting. But no matter. Please show how I, a 17-year-old admin, am immature. —Kurykh 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The age thing is irrelevant to me and we don't need to get into that here. However this user does have a fairly recent 3RR and since the conflict is still brewing, I would think it prudent to oppose for now. I appreciate his willingness to improve but a little more space might be better. JodyB talk 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Any mention of being blocked, vandalism, or 3RR throws me off. Sorry. hmwithtalk 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. oppose The above. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The answer to 4 seems to contradict the answer to 3. It's hard to me to be convinced that someone who's argumentative in a RfA is going to be cool under other, more contentious, conditions. Also per hmwith. Orangemarlin 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Seems like a good editor, but not really sure. I really don't see the need for tools per William Henry Harrison but overall I am undecided. •Felix• T 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral see my comments above. —Gaff ταλκ 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You mention reviewing CSD and XfD, but your user count shows almost no activity in this. DGG 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - your answer to question 3 is a very honest and full answer, but it seems the dispute is still very recent. Also, your involvement in the XfD process, apart from this dispute, appears to be very limited. Don't think it would be a disaster if you got the extra buttons though. Addhoc 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I have been quite unsure of this user, but what swung me was just reading through various notes others left about him here, and the issue of the 3RR block. I'm not going to say "NO!!! due to it, since we ALL make mistakes, but the user seems to have somewhat of a civility issue at times, and that keeps me away from a support vote. Jmlk17 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning to oppose. Imo the three most important qualities for an an admin are civility, civility and civility. Hot temper is a big no. Even mildly hot temper is a no. Unlike others who may live and work productively in the same building, a janitor must have impeccable manners. From what I see, I am not sure that's the case here. Stammer 11:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I am humbled to hear that you consider me as a mentor. But the personal dispute is what keeps me from giving a full support. As I have more familiarity than others involved in this RfA with the two users in the dispute, I could offer an eyewitness testimony to what has been going on, but I won't do that here. Also, I do not have a preference for or against the views of either side. All I will say is both users have strong personalities, preferences, convictions, and visions, all of which are apparently in conflict with each other. I think the 3RR block is technically justified, but I would not hold it against you as much as others would. Otherwise, I think you have a good intuition of what is and what is not acceptable on WP, and you won't abuse the tools. Tinlinkin 10:16, 29 May 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