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

Useight[edit]

Final (70/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useight (talk · contribs) - Since it's all quiet on the Western front, I think I'd like to take this moment to nominate Useight for adminship. I acted as his admin coach, the page of which can be found here. Useight has made two previous self-noms before, and both were failed on concerns on his application of the speedy deletion criteria and that he did not have enough experience. Since then, I believe Useight has grown to be someone who could really help us clear the CAT:CSD backlog and someone who is also willing to learn new ways to benefit the community. bibliomaniac15 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination and thank Bibliomaniac15. Useight 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My primary admin function would be helping clear CAT:CSD, which is very often backlogged, since I have the most experience there, and I would eventually spread my wings into other areas. I spend a fair amount of time monitoring and tagging new pages, so having access to the delete button would be a time saver. I'd eventually start doing some work at WP:AFD, closing obvious discussions, but I wouldn't want to jump into that one with both feet, so I'd start out slow. I'd also like to help out at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, but, particularly with AIV, I'd begin with obvious cases until I became more accustomed to using the mop.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my mainspace contribs have been among my best. I normally edit articles within WikiProject Video games, but have shifted focus to WikiProject National Football League during the season. After the season ends, I'll be back focusing on the former. Both of these WikiProjects are subject to vandalism and POV fairly often, so I pride myself in helping to keep everything neutral. Some of the articles I've created are: List of living supercentenarians, Nike Air Pasco, and I recently started 2005 San Francisco 49ers season (which still has tons of work to be done, but I'm going as fast as I can). I also do a lot of WikiGnoming, which may not be the most celebrated type of editing, but I don't want to see typos and spelling errors in an encyclopedia.
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 only become stressed over Wikipedia a few times, but my inadvertent block was by far the most stressful. The full transcript of what happened can be found here. Basically, when I was a new editor and had recently learned about tagging new pages, I tagged one ((db-attack)). The article was deleted and all contributors to the attack page were blocked, including myself. I calmly explained the misunderstanding to the admin that blocked me, the error was discovered, and I was immediately unblocked. Since then I have made sure to use edit summaries so other editors can quickly determine what I'm doing with as much transparency as possible. In future conflicts, I will act in the same manner, with a calm demeanor and a level head.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you think you will leave some portion of your estate to Wikipedia upon your death? Keepscases 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, I never saw that question coming. Actually, no, I don't expect to. Not that I have much stuff, anyway. I guess if Jimbo and I start hanging out, then I will. I'd prefer to leave my computer to my brother so he could have his own place from which to edit Wikipedia. Useight 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't mean to be rude, but what is the relevance of your question? bibliomaniac15 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keepscases appears to have a history of asking fairly off-the-wall questions of prospective admins. I'm not familiar with him/her, so I can't speak to the relevance of the question, but I thought that this might clear up some confusion (or maybe it just created more?). faithless (speak) 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. (optional) Could you provide a few diffs showing past interactions with vandals that would demonstrate competency when monitoring WP:AIV? Something beyond standard warning templates is what I have in mind here; I'm looking for efforts at correction rather than the typical level1 - level2 - level3 - level4 - block progression. Tijuana Brass 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure, here's the most recent. A few days ago I realized that two accounts were sockpuppets and mentioned it here. I reported the two socks to AIV here. I then mentioned here that I didn't think the puppeteer should have any administrative action taken against him. I then posted to his talk page here, giving the new user some pointers and letting him know that he can always come to me on my talk page. Useight 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Balloonman

6. Besides the Admin Coaching, what did you do differently to prepare for this RfA?
A: There are a couple of things. I slowed down my tagging of new pages to make sure I do each one justice and hopefully prevent mistakes. I also review the criteria for speedy deletion every couple of weeks to keep it fresh. I also tried to improve my comments in the discussions at AFD to avoid "Google said..." or "per nom", which don't really add any value to the discussion at all. However, my AFD participation has taken a backseat somewhat as of late as I have focused more on newpage monitoring and mainspace contributing. I have also been wandering over to ANI to learn what kind of incidents come up there. Useight 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Húsönd

7. In Q1 you say that you'd begin with "obvious cases" when clearing WP:AIV. Please define what kind of reported users you'd be certain should be blocked. Húsönd 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The most blatant cases would be those users who had received the full set of warnings, vandalized in between those warnings, and had vandalized after the last warning. Violators of 3RR should be blocked as well, but only temporarily, unless they were a multiple repeat offender. I personally would hold off on blocking POV pushers or other more questionable cases, letting another admin take charge there, until I felt more comfortable. I want to ease into using the admin tools. Useight 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question from Dragons flight

8. RFA was so much prettier without any noms [1]. Why did you have to go and ruin that by running? Dragons flight 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I love your question; I suppose you saw my comment here. A "silly question" requires a silly answer: to ruin the fun everyone was having on the RFA talk page. Useight 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not his fault! Hahaha it's mine! I nommed him at the right time! bibliomaniac15 05:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from Marlith

9. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith T/C 04:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I want it to be the resource. Right now, professors are telling students not to use Wikipedia as a source, that they should go to the library or check other websites. I want Wikipedia to be at least on par with those other sources, as reliable, as respectable, as trusted. I know that's ambitious, but I hope by the time three years of improvement go by, acceptance of Wikipedia as a resource will have escalated dramatically. Useight 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No problems. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, candidate failed last time due to perceived lack of experience. Reviewing Useight's contributions, I do not believe this is currently the case. Cheers, GracenotesT § 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Might as well, as we are pretty desperate. -Goodshoped 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Niiiiiice... ;) WODUP 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's also active in vandal fighting and username reporting. Good. Support. -Goodshoped 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good answer to my question, and I see specific improvement made since his last RFA. Also, I like the six character quick bio on his userpage. Tijuana Brass 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support I like the Admin Coaching and the answer to my question. I'd personally like to see a little more experience, but your guidance in your last RFA was to wait 3 months. You've done what you were asked to do, so you get the nod to support.Balloonman 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - seems to have progressed nicely since other RFA's. — Rudget contributions 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Yeah, sure, I think the user will make a great admin. Can be trusted, can keep a level head and is a competent editor. ScarianTalk 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support First two RfAs showed much more support than opposition, even if no consensus was reached. The sole issue with Useeight seems to be the CSD stuff, and it looks like he's learned from his past mistakes. faithless (speak) 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per rationale at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_2 when I supported, and I have only seen your efforts increase. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Keepscases 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support He has a very good edit summary. On top of that he had very good answers, he has my support. --businessman332211 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No red flags here. нмŵוτнτ 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (move to oppose, after more deliberation) нмŵוτнτ 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, supported him last time, will do so again. Wizardman 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I supported the last 2 RfAs so certainly support this one. Has shown familiarity with the various deletion processes through XfD participation and speedy taggings. Vandal fighting experience leads me to think he'd know when its appropriate to issue a block. His interactions with other users appears positive and what criticism there were last time seem to have been addressed. WjBscribe 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Good improvement since last time, will be fine now. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This is a Secret account 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. You've gained in experience since your last request, and I think it's time to give you the mop. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No indications of anything negative in the candidate's interactions with others, and (as noted above) experience in vandal fighting is good experience for an admin to have. No reservations. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks good. I see no concern with the multiple RfAs (particularly given the 3rd is not a self-nom). 3 months is not a hard and fast rule, and user seems to have improved CSD work in the meantime. IronGargoyle 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Just about enough experience. Epbr123 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Seems ready now. Húsönd 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support has grown. As has been said above, the multi attempts may just indicate enthusiasm. All the good reasons have already been stated. Dlohcierekim 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC
    PS, I was darn close to supporting the last time. Admits mistakes and is willing to learn. Has learned. Dlohcierekim 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, cannot see any reason not to support this. Lankiveil 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Strong support. Honestly, I don't give a crap about that "wait 3 months" so-called rule, Useight is as ready as he will ever be for adminship. Spebi 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, of course. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:25, December 2, 2007
  28. Support Sounds fine. Jmlk17 02:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support: I've seen this user around and is a great editor. Will make an excellent admin. - Rjd0060 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Again. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I have seen this user around. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Answers to questions deal with issues from last time. Daniel 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Looks good to me. --WinHunter (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Have seen improvement from last time. --DarkFalls talk 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I see no problems. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. support A good editor, can be trusted with the tools. The opposes belows are based on extraneous concerns. --Hdt83 Chat 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, looks good. Redrocketboy 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Seen this user around many times, but I don't understand why he still doesn't have the mop. NHRHS2010 talk 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support looks good. --Strothra 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I can trust him as an admin, good clean record. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support As per TenPoundHammer.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support User has consistently shown good judgment in my dealings with him. Good luck! GlassCobra 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Seems very trustworthy and responsible. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No concerns, should be fine. Neil ☎ 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good experiences with this editor. You'll make a great admin. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Solid contributions, and his eagerness to become an admin is hardly rare, or bad. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support A great attitude to match good skills required of an admin. Monsieurdl 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Doesn't raise any red flags. Bit eager to become an admin, if anything, but I'll take it as willingness to help around. ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Majoreditor 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I supported the last two RfAs of Useight, as I believed they were a good user. I still believe they are a good user, and am supporting again. Acalamari 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support as having made significant improvements over the past RFA's, great answers. Bearian 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support lots of good work at CSD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Absolutely. (Edit conflict) Maser (Talk!) 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support looks like he would be a good help at CSD and has benefited from the coaching. --Djsasso (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools. — Sebastian 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)[reply]
  57. Support He is a very good editor. No reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Sarah 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --A. B. (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Qualified, to say the least. --Sharkface217 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Per Kurt Webe, user seems very eager to help out! :) SQLQuery me! 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Seems ready, and enthusiasm is surely a virtue.--Bedivere (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. SupportReviewing every speedy deletion page is painstaking. That's admirable. --WriterListener (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. In response to Kurt Weber, all I can say is Go Patriots (oh, I support Useight as well) ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Experience is no longer an issue it seems. James086Talk | Email 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Ready for adminship.--Sunderland06 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support - Seems to be a very helpful member of Wikipedia and he'll be able to contribute even more as an Admin. TheInfinityZero (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I would be pleased to support this candidate. Auroranorth (!) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — Three RFAs in just over four months, two of which were self-noms? This user just seems a little bit too eager to be an administrator. That worries me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have severe problems seeing just in what way being eager to help out is something negative. Could you please explain it to me, ’cause your vote makes no sense at all to me. Jon Harald Søby 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer is: don't try to make sense of it. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:26, December 2, 2007
    Thank you, Kurt, for at least providing a different "oppose" reason than usual. Neil ☎ 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose You should wait 3 months between RfAs, to give you enough time to deal with concerns brought up in previous ones. нмŵוτнτ 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Remove oppose, see comment below. нмŵוτнτ 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason for 3 months as an absolute limit? In this case, Useight is only a week short of 3 months (it's about 3 months since the start of his last RfA)... WjBscribe 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As WJBScribe stated, there is a scandalous span of 2 months and 21 days from the end of the previous RFA to the start of this one. I know, it's not three months (there are a couple of grains of sand left in the hourglass), and I expect that Useight will be a terrible, terrible admin because of the highly valuable one week and two days he didn't have to take care of the concerns of his previous RFA (dear me, that's almost 10% of three months). Nonetheless, I strongly encourage you to check his contributions in the unlikely case that this "three months theory" is wrong. =] GracenotesT § 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2nd RFA began September 3rd, this one began December 1st. That's 89 days. I did wait 3 months between applications, and I believe I have learned quite a bit in the last three months and properly corrected the past concerns. Useight 18:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I looked and saw September on the last one, and November on this one. I wasn't counting actual days. That was irresponsible of me, and I take back my oppose. I apologize, although you have gone through 3 RfAs in a very short amount of time. нмŵוτнτ 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral for the time being (changing to support). I'm a little concerned that you answered that having a delete key would "save time" at C:CSD - unless it's a blatantly obvious case of vandalism, I don't agree that admins should do the combined task of tagging and deleting in a single article. There should be at least a two person oversight. I'm a little unsure about Useight's capability regarding other interests (due to unfamiliarity with him/her), so I'm adding in a question to see how this candidate responds. Tijuana Brass 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see what you mean there, the potential conflict of interest if one admin tags and deletes the article. Let me assure you that I will not delete any article in which in which I was directly involved. Useight 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer to the above question, so I'm changing my vote to support. Regarding speedy deletions, I still strongly suggest that you not make that call even if you're not directly involved, as it provides a second opinion (which is especially helpful if deletions are questioned, since you won't have made a unilateral decision). Tijuana Brass 06:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is no requisite for an admin to CSD tag an article. We should know if it is speedyable or not. If it is, delete it. If it's not, prod or AfD. Pretty cut and dry stuff. The CSD tag is to alert admins since you cannot delete with an unflagged account. Therefore, Useight was on the right track with that answer. Again, for what it's worth. Keegantalk 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's no requirement for what I suggested - that's why I didn't link to policy, but just gave some common sense reasons for why I choose to do it. It's advice from an admin who's spent plenty of time at C:CSD and has found it to be good practice. Tijuana Brass 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you make a fair point, Tijuana Brass. I was just carifying for brevity's sake. The problem with deleting a page speedily without a speedy tag is that the bot/user hasn't notified the creator, so make sure that you do in that case, Useight. Keegantalk 05:17, 2 December 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