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

Useight[edit]

Final: (30/14/7); ended 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Useight (talk · contribs) - After using Wikipedia as a reader for a long time, I joined in December and became an active editor in March 2007. I have since spent a lot of time cleaning up grammar, fixing punctuation, reverting vandalism, commenting on AFDs, and tagging frivolous new articles for speedy deletion. I have also spent more time than is probably healthy reading policy pages because I like to know all the details of a project. Throughout my time as an editor, I feel I have done quite a lot of work with my "broom" and would like to add the "mop" to my arsenal. Many of the tools would be beneficial to me, from the quick rollback feature to the delete article button. Useight 07:08, 18 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: I believe I am fairly well-rounded, so I'd be helping out in many various places. Since I thoroughly enjoy patrolling and tagging the new articles (especially at night), I would like to be able to help clear the oft-present backlog at CAT:CSD. I also spend a fair amount of time on WP:AFD, so I'd also be able to help close those, and there's always a backlog of a few days there. Other possibilities would be WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, but I'd mostly stick to XFD and CSD, while dabbling in the Administrative backlog and Wikipedia backlog. I guess my reason for this is that I don't like to see Wikipedia filling up with articles that don't conform to policy.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Many of my contributions to Wikipedia have been cosmetic, such as correcting puncuation and grammar, but I don't believe those to be my best contributions. I've contributed a lot to articles that would fall under WikiProject Video games, especially WikiProject: Nintendo. I've added information, reverted vandalism, removed POV, and so forth on those types of articles. These articles are often difficult to keep accurate and neutral, due to many so-called "fanboys" editing, but I pride myself in keeping the articles reliable. I just don't like to see errors and bias creep into Wikipedia -- it reduces its credibility.
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: The most stressful moment in my Wikipedia "career" is when I was accidentally blocked. The transcription of what happened can be found on my talk page here. In a nutshell, I had tagged an article as an attack page, and an admin blocked all editors of that page. When I realized I had been blocked for 48 hours, I e-mailed the admin to ask what the block was for, and after the mistake had been noticed, I was immediately unblocked. As for stress over editing, nothing has compared with that; however, I have had discussions with other editors about their's or my actions that seemed to conflict with the other, but there's never been any arguing and the discrepency has usually been due to a simple miscommunication. I've never had the stress of an edit war; I always keep the three edit rule in mind. In the future, I plan to deal with any conflicts the same way I always have: with a polite, cordial attitude while following policy.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Due to my analytical nature, I don't really like ignoring rules, except maybe the speed limit, but there are times in which a rule on Wikipedia should be ignored. In Wikipedia's case, I employ the cliché "Don't let the tail wag the dog." We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to go around spouting policy and procedures. As it says on WP:IAR, "Improve and maintain content" and "Use common sense". If you wanted examples of when to ignore rules, let me give you one from just the other day. After I warned a user several times that his continued actions would lead to a block, he blanked and then vandalized my user page. Another user reverted my userpage, which, while violating the comment at the top of my userpage asking people to not edit it, "used common sense" and "maintained content." I don't want to go on too long about it, just don't let the rules get in the way of constructively editing Wikipedia. Useight 07:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Ah, that part was confusing as I set up my RfA. I thought the date was supposed to go there, hence I put 7/18/07, but then I thought it was supposed to be the time, so I changed it. So I thought I had it right, but then the comment above was made. Maybe it's still wrong and it's supposed to be something totally different. It is vexing me, so if someone knows what it's really supposed to be, that'd be nice to know. Useight 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a tally - number of people supporting/opposing/neutral. WjBscribe 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense now. Thanks. For the life of me, I just couldn't figure out what to put there. Guess I wasn't supposed to put anything. Useight 09:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth that doesn't bother me. Nowhere is is actually pointed out that the thing is a tally of !votes. It's almost refreshing to have a candidate that doesn't know the minutiae of RFA! Pedro |  Chat  10:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, hence why I merely threw it out there for discussion rather than opposing/otherwise for it :) Daniel 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That tally is annoying, its never accurate. --Chris g 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion been done at WT:RFA before now! Can we not do it again here if possible (to everyone, not Chris G specifically)Pedro |  Chat  10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? 5% of my edit counts are updating RfA tallies... whoops! LessHeard vanU 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Your interactions with other users is very low, as half your talk edits are to your page. In addition only four reports at WP:AIV doesn't show a massive ammount of vandal fighting. However - You are reasonably active at WP:AFD, you have a very interesting /Help page that I have perused and seem to be very civil. Your handling of your accidental block was excellent - civility and calmness. I'm nervous about the amount of time you've been here and wether you can get a full understanding of Wikipedia in that time, but I see a well rounded editor and potential admin and WP:AGF that your contribution history will refelct your use of the buttons should they be given. For these reasons I'm offering my Support. Pedro |  Chat  07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per the comments above. This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This user could use a few extra buttons. --Chris g 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Yeah, I concur! Mindman1 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - can't see any real problems. WaltonOne 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Per Walton one. Politics rule 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support no real problems with this candidate. And I can understand the mistake with the tally box (it is right next to the closing date/time and has no description of what it means). BTW I'm the one who fixed it, but thats because I watch the RFA main page, and I saw the mistake. New England (C) (H) 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Seems to have enough experience of vandalism fighting to suggest he'd know when to block people. Contributions to XfDs and (at a rough count) over 1000 edits tagging for speedy deletion show an understanding of deletion policy. Discussion with other users show Useight to be calm and reasonable. Can't see any reason why he wouldn't make a good admin. WjBscribe 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Impressive work in your 2000 edits. I think there is plenty of reason to support. Captain panda 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see good potential in this editor and I don't think that the admin tools will be abused in their hands. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - no reason to believe this user will abuse admin privileges. ugen64 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Everything appears to be great, no major issues. The tally thing is fabulous - it means you havent spent a month studying RFA (which is a good thing). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support It's no big deal, right? the_undertow talk 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No reason to oppose. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 07:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support qualified for adminship. Him not knowing what the tally is for is definitely a good sign. —Anas talk? 10:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Daniel 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support- per Pedro. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support agreeing with (aeropagitica)'s reasoning. Acalamari 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support everything seems fine. SalaSkan 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I was thinking like Anas, I feel that the editor not knowing what the tally for is actually a goodthing, in some ways. Trusilver 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I had the pleasure of welcoming this user some months ago and I have seen him grow a great deal as an editor and learn from his mistakes. I expect to see many good things from this user in the future. Stardust8212 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support In my editor review, I advised Useight to wait a little longer before RFA, but I'm not too particular. He has a clue, and who knows if he'll even bother to ask again when we finally think he has enough experience? Shalom Hello 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support an excellent editor who does 'adminly' things. I love the tally thing - and definitely feel it shouldn't overshadow the debate. ck lostsword•T•C 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Not just because he voted support for me, but also because I believe he is a good editor. He knows what he's doing and, despite being fairly recent, he seems to go for quality over quantity editwise. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support like others, per Pedro. PeteShanosky 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, he has enough experience. Wizardman 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Knowing that someone who despised vandalism as much as he does was an admin. . . would make me feel a whole lot better. •Malinaccier• 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, as I do most of the time unless there are serious deal-breakers which I don't see here. —AldeBaer (c) 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, seems a reasonable candidate and no problems in their edit history. Tim Vickers 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I reviewed your contributions - and while your Wikipedia space count is low (below five hundred), I was assured to see most of it was in regards to deletions rather than sheer randomness. I feel safe handing you the mop and do not think you will abuse the tools. --Ozgod 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose You will obviously make a fine admin in the very near future. I found Daniel's diff above to be refreshingly comical, since more people should believe in the "discussion" side of this process. At the same time, I am uncertain I can support you at this time since it is pretty easy to figure out what that tally box is, even if its significance is marginal. To that end, I want to be clear that I am not opposing because of a simple edit mistake. I see this less a reflection of your abilities (which are solid), and more a reflection on your amount of time here. Like I said, if you stay on this track, you will easily have my support down the road. Hiberniantears 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may comment, in all respect, I have had lots of practice with other facets of Wikipedia, such as XFDs, reverting vandalism, etc, but this was my first time trying to navigate the instructions for applying for adminship. If granted the admin tools, I will be using them in areas in which I have more knowledge, rather than trying to figure out a tally box (which they don't use on AFDs, for example, to segregate "Keeps" and "Deletes"). Whether granted adminship or not, I'd like to apologize for messing up this detail. Useight 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, let me point out that I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, and a future admin. I am not opposing specifically because you didn't get a tally box right, but I do see it as indicative of a lack of experience. You have not been here as a logged in contributor for much time, and over half of your edits were in the last month. I just want to see a few more months before I support. Hiberniantears 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's perfectly fine, I'm not arguing with you. Everyone is entitled to their own say in a discussion. You're completely right in the fact that I've only been a registered editor for a few months, but I've done quite a lot in a short time. Thanks for your input. Useight 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how not understanding what the tally box was is indicative of a lack of experience. It might indicate that he/she has a lack of experience in RfAs but I don't think you need that experience to become an administrator. Tim Q. Wells 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was this [1] and this [2] which swayed me. I think experience would teach the ability to figure out what the tally box is on one's own. There's nothing wrong with needing someone to point something out to you (most of us depend on it at some point!), but after Daniel's initial post, I would have liked to see the candidate take a few minutes and look at one of the other RFA's to see what was in the box. It would have demonstrated to me a self sufficiency that comes with a little more experience. Hiberniantears 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Before Daniel made that comment, New England had already changed it to 0/0/0, so I couldn't fix it anyway. If you want to let this error outweigh my other contributions, that's your prerogative, and I don't hold it against you. I just want to point out that in the instructions for creating a self-nom, step 4 says, "Change the time on the RfA page to indicate the current time" and that's what threw me off. Useight 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Just not enough overall experience. Keep up the work, and try again in the future. Jmlk17 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - time being an editor is a weakness. I am not sure we gain the true measure of an editor with such a short observation period. I would certainly support when a few more months pass. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too little experience at this time, per around 4 mths with project and predominantly rather minor edits. Espresso Addict 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose While you've been very active for the last six weeks and have participated in several areas (and have had your user page vandalized at least twice, which gives bonus points), the time period is really too short for me to make a good judgment. I will support another try in a few months if you keep doin' what you're doin'. - KrakatoaKatie 00:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Too little experience at the moment, with resulting gaps in process understanding. A quick look through the nominee's recent contriutions found this speedy tagging. You only have to read the first few lines of Speedy "non-criteria" to see that DicDef is not a valid criteria. I would therefore be concerned with this user's main admin goal being to "help clear the oft-present backlog at CAT:CSD". The user seems a little too confident that they know the processes in the areas they contribute in, when there are clearly gaps in that knowledge. The user needs a few more months of working with these processes to make sure they know them. However, general approach looks good and I will be happy to support after a little more "seasoning". TigerShark 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Slightly lackluster AfD comments seem to still be coming up, and the "old" ones aren't old. That said, the bulk of his contributions in the AfD queue do seem to have been positive of late. I much prefer to look at experience in terms of output rather than edit count, but it does seem slightly odd that the editor hasn't been involved at all template namespace or wikipedia:talk namespace outside of his wikiprojects, and seems to only rarely use article talk pages. Would like to see more signs that the editor is capable of effectively handling complaints and steering discussions before opening him up to abuse from new users griping about his work on the deletion queues. MrZaiustalk 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Lack of experience indicated by above diffs suggests that the candidate is not yet ready to wield the mop with competence and confidence. This is simply a matter of time; wait a few months, and you'll be ready. Xoloz 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Disregarding the tally diff (we all make mistakes), just not enough experience yet. heqs ·:. 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. A number of diffs prevent me from supporting at this time. This inappropriate speedy tagging may not be indicative of a general trend, but it is too obvious and too soon (one week ago) a mistake for me to overlook. I was also unsatisfied with these two recent AfD comments. Though the "delete" recommendations are fine, the explanations provided are too vague to be constructive. Lastly, you seem to rely too much on Google hits as an indicator of notability (see, e.g., this comment). Google hits can be useful as a general indicator of online popularity, but by themselves can neither prove notability nor strongly suggest non-notability. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably didn't even look at any of my contributions or statistics, since I noticed you copied and pasted your power-hunger comment on all the self-noms, and didn't comment at all on any other nominees. Please consider that perhaps we'd like to help via administrative capacities. As it states on the RFA page under About RfA, it says, "Self-nominations are permitted." I request that you consider my merit a little more thoroughly, assuming good faith, before casting blanket statement votes, because this kind of statement could easily be turned around to something like, "Those who wait for someone else to nominate them lack initiative." Useight 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've considered it, and I don't buy it. It's not worth the risk. Kurt Weber 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely see where you're coming from when you bring up a possible risk factor, with the possibility of people nominating themselves in order to create chaos, but I think that risk would go down as the length of time and number of edits go up. I can't see someone investing the many hours as I have to amass over 2000 edits without using Twinkle, Popup, or any other tools just to delete some pages knowing that my account and IP would be blocked and the pages restored. Either way, I respect your vote and will not pester you to change it. Useight 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or so Kurt would have us believe: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber. Hiberniantears 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose - nice guy and good editor, however this tagging was a recent error, possibly indicating a confusion between trans-wiki to wiktionary and deleting a very short article. Would support in 6-8 weeks. Addhoc 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Not enough evidence on which to trust this editor (which is solvable by experience and participation in areas requiring judgment, such as meaningful XfD participation and responding to requests for comment). Aside from the one edit in December 2006, no edits until mid March. Then on 1 April he creates the first version of this RFA (deleted history), which nobody else touched before it was deleted. In short, no reason to trust, and reason to be suspicious is enough for me to not think a change in status to admin should be done at this time. GRBerry 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, I'd like to say something here. I created my account in December 2006 just for the sake of making one, made one edit, and thought nothing of it. As you can tell, I wasn't an avid editor then, I was focused on a difficult and very important semester of school. Mid-March is when I started getting some more free time and started dabbling around, mostly in just mainspace edits, until I discovered XfD, Contested CSDs, and other backlogs. Somewhere in the midst of it all I hit a link that I wasn't allowed to view (just like the one you have linked above). I tried to figure out how a person would become an administrator and I discovered RfA. That's when I made that page, trying to test how it works, and then got rid of it, knowing that compared to the other RFAs, I didn't have nearly enough edits (I only had about 100 at the time) and saw that others had at least 2000. Useight 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Not enough experience, answer to question 4 shows a lack of maturity and flexibility, and not enough editing articles and discussions. Orangemarlin 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. My first impression when I saw this is that I remember this user for leaving unconstructive comments at AfD (examples: [3], [4]) however his recent contributions to those fora have been more constructive, so I won't oppose. I have confidence that I will be able to support with a bit more time, as the above opposers state, it hasn't been that long at all since the candidate started getting stuck in to things. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I feel bad about that second one you pointed out. In my defense I'd like to mention that it was a good 1000 edits ago and the many, many articles called "List of Songs that..." can become exasperating. I randomly went through some of my AFD comments since then and a majority contained links to policy. While to err is human, I think I have much improved since then. Useight 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral There is no magical threshold for time or edits. But in order to promote an editor with such little experience, I think we'd rightfully want to see evidence that the editor had demonstrated really exceptional behavior. While wikignomery is truly and deeply appreciated, I have almost nothing from which to judge how well you understand policy or how you would respond to conflict. You're obviously on the right path, but I'm concerned with something like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture in Omaha, Nebraska. Why AFD a page like this when it's three days old and is being built by an incredibly productive and reliable editor? And when sources on its sister topics are so abundant? I think more time as an editor would be beneficial. --JayHenry 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Per JayHenry and KrakatoaKatie. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I don't see any major problems, but just a little more experience will help. Hirohisat Talk 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Too soon, but otherwise impressive. I will support next time (don't forget to update the tallies of other RfA's - keeps the count up!) should there be a next time. LessHeard vanU 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Not yet--not enough policy experience--I expect that the judgment in these will improve with further experience. DGG (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per JayHenry -Lemonflashtalk 00:40, 25 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