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


The Utahraptor[edit]

Final (6/14/2); ended 21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW. ((Sonia|ping|enlist)) 21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

The Utahraptor (talk · contribs) – He has beaten me to vandalism a lot, second in speed only to ClueBot. T3h 1337 b0y 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this nomination. The Utahraptor Talk 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[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: I intend to continue to deal with vandalism by patrolling recent changes. However, if I am made an administrator, I will also keep an eye on Administrator intervention against vandalism and, if necessary, block the vandals that vandalize one too many times. I will watch for new, unencyclopedic pages, and if necessary I will delete them. In addition to all this, I will patrol Requests for page protection and protect pages that are experiencing a high level of vandalism. I understand that there must be quite a number of vandalism edits to an article before it can be permanently protected. I also understand that articles that are going through DYK and ITN may deserve temporary semi-protection, and if necessary I will grant it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: By far, my anti-vandalism work is my best contributions. I patrol recent changes and revert any and all vandal edits that I can locate. I also appropriately warn the vandals, and if necessary, report them to the Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have also begun to take part in the Welcoming Committee by welcoming new users. Also, as a recent changes patroller, I must make sure every new article is up to Wikipedia standards. If I find a largely unwikified new article, if it is a notable subject, I help make it more encyclopedic. If it is not a notable subject, I nominate it for speedy deletion, usually according to CSD. That is just my recent changes patrol work. I have also had experience copy editing articles. In fact, I took part in the Guild of Copy Editors May 2010 backlog elimination drive. I was busy with final exams, so I only got to copy edit eight articles. However, in those eight articles I copy edited 24,155 words, which is not a bad number when you think about it. I am planning to participate in the July backlog elimination drive, which will increase my copy editing skills even further. I sometimes participate in evaluating Featured Picture Candidates, and even have nominated a couple photos myself.
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, I have been in edit conflicts before. One such conflict can be found on my talk page in the section La Roux Edits. I reverted the edits by the IP address that was talking to me because they introduced improperly cited material to the La Roux article, saying that La Roux was actually a guy. I remained calm and asked them for their source. I also told them that uncited material didn't belong on Wikipedia. They gave me a link to this site. I told them it was not a reliable source, based on the name. They responded by providing a link to this site, saying that it was a reliable source, too. I then told them that it was not a reliable source, either. Since I told them that they need to cite material, they asked me for a source that proves I'm right. I told them that I didn't need a source for my talk page, and they asked for a source for that statement, too. So I told them that you don't have to cite that the sky is blue, and they pretended to be the "all-powerful admin" that was going to grant me administrator rights. I told them that IP addresses couldn't be awarded adminship, and there is no one all-powerful admin.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
4. You indefinitely block a Vandalism only account (named [this is made up] Bobby999) after it has been sufficiently warned (ie a vandal edit after a level 4 warning). The vandal comes back 3 months later under a new account, Bobby998, which is obviously similar to the original account. This time, the user has made 2 legitimate edits but since you originally blocked the original VOA, you assume these 2 accounts are related. How do you handle the situation? Thanks :)
A: This case would appear to be a case of sock puppetry, but since I don't know for certain, I've got to do some investigation. First I express my concern that Bobby998 is a sock puppet of Bobby999 by filing a report at Sock Puppet Investigations. To summarize the report, I explain why I think it's a case of sock puppetry; Bobby999 was a vandalism-only account that I blocked, and a few months later a similar user name, Bobby998, appears and begins contributing constructively. To make sure the two accounts aren't the same, I suggest that Check User be done on both accounts to verify that Bobby998 is (or isn't) a sockpuppet of Bobby999. After it is approved and performed, if Check User verifies the two accounts are of the same IP address, I block Bobby998 indefinitely because sock puppetry is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If Check User verifies that the two accounts are not of the same IP address, it doesn't mean it's not a case of sock puppetry. Bobby999 still could've switched IP addresses, but since there is no evidence of it, Bobby998 is not blocked and can continue editing Wikipedia. If Bobby998 eventually begins vandalizing, I deal with it like I would any vandal. If Bobby998 is indefinitely blocked and a Bobby997 appears, then I know it's probably a case of sock puppetry. The Utahraptor Talk 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow-up question from Amalthea: In which way did Bobby998 violate WP:SOCK?
The correct violation of WP:SOCK by Bobby998 is "Good hand" and "Bad hand" accounts. The Utahraptor Talk 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from wiooiw
5.Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A: Say there are two accounts, Rocketboy75 and Rocketgirl75, that both contribute to Wikipedia on the same articles and in the same ways. If an SPI reveals Rocketgirl75 is a sock of Rocketboy75, I feel a ban without warning would be in order. Also, assume that an IP address vandalizes Wikipedia immediately after being unblocked. A block without warning would probably suffice here, too, if the IP address has been blocked multiple times. If it hasn't been blocked multiple times, then a warning or two must be issued before another block. The Utahraptor Talk 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Looks like this user will make a good admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Moral support. You seem to be on the right track, but I think it's a little too soon. I noticed that you went back and cleaned up the articles you created earlier, which is good. Also, your CSD work is mostly okay, although you haven't really tagged many pages yet. I'm kind of ambivalent regarding your answer to Q3, which may have been going a little too far. Overall I feel that you need a bit more experience, so I suggest trying again at a later date. decltype (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, both you and the IP are wrong. La Roux is neither a guy or a girl, it's a musical ensemble consisting of a guy and a girl.Reply[reply]
  3. Moral support. Not quite the answer I was looking for. Keep up the good work but not quite yet. The answer I was looking for was an automatic (block evasion) block, and for bonus points, leaving a message on the user talk page explaining that if he wants to contribute wikipedia he must use the ((unblock|reason)) on the original account, explaining how he must convince admins that he will not vandalize and not create new accounts. I have more to learn A for effort.  – Tommy [message] 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Moral Support to avoid pile on. You seem on the right track please take the comments generated form this RfA to heart and come back in 3-6 months. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support. Not much for me to say, and this is the first time I've ever "!vote"d here, but I do support. dffgd 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Moral support. There are statements in the answers to the questions that are technically wrong; but the answers demonstrate obvious thoughtfulness. The canddiate's experience is a little thin, but the record looks very good. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Per talk page discussion listed in #3. I'm glad that you assumed good faith at first, but when that IP linked you to fake websites that were meant to attack you, you should have known that the user was acting in bad faith. They even admitted that they were just trolling you, and you still fed the troll. Also, in question 1, you said that you would ban vandals who vandalized one too many pages. As an admin, you would need to know the difference between a ban and a block. Keep up the good anti-vandalism work, and come back here in about 6 months or so when you've understood policies better. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I admit, I probably shouldn't have kept it going as long as I did. But everybody makes mistakes; I'll bet there is not one perfect admin on Wikipedia that has never made a mistake. The difference between a ban and a block is this: a ban is the removal of editing privileges on one or more articles. A block is the prevention of a certain IP or user to edit Wikipedia. I misused the word 'ban' in that question, I'll admit to that too. The Utahraptor Talk 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Oppose — Not enough experience for an admin, however, there is potential in the future. I think accepting a nomination for a rather new editor is a bad idea, especially when the nom is two one sentences long. —mono 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - At just over 3,000 edits, and most of those in the last month, this seems a case of WP:NOTNOW. I wish this candidate the best, but strongly feel it should take more experience than this to get the mop. Jusdafax 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose I think that doing some two thirds of your total editing in the current month has not allowed you time to become adequately conversant with wikipedia policy details. for example, in your comment above you are describing a "topic ban" which is not the sam as a "ban" --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - I agree that one month of heavy editing does not give the experience that speading out the editing would give. I think the lack of experience is shown in the answers to the questions. The original block v ban mistake, the topic ban v ban, and a editor who has a similar name to a blocked vandal that is editing constructively should not be subjected to a sockpuppet investigation. There is no basis to suspect other than a similar username. I do not think you are ready at this time. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose but with strong Moral support. Only 1 month of real editing experience, and that's nowhere near long enough. Candidate has done some impressive work in that time, and I feel sure that a future RfA will succeed after they get some deeper and wider experience in various areas of Wikipedia policy. I'd suggest giving it another 6 months and then think again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW; give it a little more time and you'll make an excellent admin. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. Per above and weak nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Regretfully oppose -- a bit too early, like the above editors said. If you keep it up and try again in 6 months or so, I think you'll have a good shot. Shimeru 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose You've got a great username, but this looks like a NOTNOW to me. You may make a good admin someday, but as now, you simply lack the experience. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Answer to question 4 isn't good, nobody cares (or certainly shouldn't care) if someone vandalises and comes back 3 months later with a new account and contributes constructively, by all means keep an eye on the account, perhaps check a few edits if it looks like there's something dubious going on, but only block if there's damage being inflicted on the encyclopedia. We don't undertake punitive blocks, we don't punish people or block accounts any more than is necessary. You'll get a feel for when to block and when not to block though, so I wouldn't worry too much. Nick (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Err, that is a rather peculiar interpretation of WP:SOCK. If a user is blocked (for vandalism or any other sort of disruption), they are not allowed to start editing from another account. That's called block evasion. The correct procedure is to request an unblock of the blocked account and proceed from there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting. Would my response in moral support #3 be wrong?  – Tommy [message] 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's technically correct, but the project is supposed to be led by the need for content and content creators, not a rigid application of the rules. WP:IGNORE is excessively quoted, but turning a blind eye to sockpuppetry policy if its rigid application is going to result in a useful, helpful new account from a previously blocked user from contributing makes sense. There are, of course, situations where a rigid application is necessary, if we've moved from blocks into bans, either community or arbitration committee, then it's the user and not the account that isn't permitted to edit, and when you're looking at someone who has been banned, rather than a simple account that was blocked for vandalising a half dozen articles, there's almost always a very good reason to block any and all new accounts immediately. There's also practical reasons for not enforcing unblock requests on a previous account, it's not unusual for passwords to be forgotten, no e-mail addresses used (unless we're now enforcing the use of an e-mail address with accounts, it's been that long since I've registered an account) so password retrieval can take place. Nick (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience in multiple capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Strong oppose per NOTNOW and accepting a poor nomination. Just the fact that you agreed to run with that nomination statement makes me oppose. —fetch·comms 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose - you shouldn't really have accepted this nomination. The opening paragraph line that has been written for you isn't brilliant in the slightest. Being a fast vandal-fighter is by no means a key to adminship. You need some more time to get used to the various areas which admins operate in. More experience will also render better answers to the questions. (WP:NOTNOW) All the very best, Orphan Wiki 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral This isn't too bad. Good work on the rollbacking, but also I would like to see a few more articles created. I am just not sure if this user understands all the Wikipedia policies, like every admin should do. Minimac (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral As per Minimac, you should probably get in some more article work as well as vandalism. Good job on vandalism though! Derild4921☼ 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ahhhh this is painful. Ban vandals? The only one person who may ban a person is Jimbo. I do appreciate your work but I'm on the fence, leaning oppose, may want to rewrite that in Q1.  – Tommy [message] 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Like I said, I worded it wrong. The Utahraptor Talk 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[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