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

WikiCopter[edit]

Final (3/18/2); ended 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW - HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (Originally scheduled to end 04:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

WikiCopter (talk · contribs) – Most of the info here probably will be included in my answers to the questions below, but here goes... I have been around for a year or two, and in that time have written two good articles, one of which has been nominated for featured article status, and am working on a few more good articles. I also actively participate in WikiProject Military History. I also have actively edited on WikiProjects Ships, Wikify and Aviation/Aircraft, and Operation Majestic Titan. I am currently participating in round two of the WikiCup. [more below here] Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:57, 7 March 2011 (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 have participated actively in deletion discussions for the wide spectrum of miscellany included in XFD, from stub markers to articles to redirects. Due to my experience there, I would like to actively participate in !voting and closing of XfD discussions. I would also like to take a limited part at the administrator's noticeboard, which in my opinion all good and respectable admins should frequent. Aside from these, I would like to use the admin tools as needed as I work on articles, deleting old userspace redirects and sandboxes, etc..
Hi WikiCopter. You say above that you'd like to be active in the "!voting and closing of XfD discussions" . Are you aware that the two are considered to be very different? A user either participates in a deletion discussion as an editor, by "voting", or as an administrator, by evaluating the consensus at the conclusion of the discussion then closing it appropriately. AGK [•] 7:40 am, Today (UTC−8)
Yes, I do. RfA FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you include the !voting thing in your answer, if the question strictly concerned the administrator tools? AGK [•] 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have not accumulated a large amount of high-quality content because my focus the last few months has been on WikiProject Wikify and its drives, which I helped expand and restructure. The best contribution I have made so far is Arado E.381, which is a good article and A-class article that is currently nominated for featured article (hint, go participate in the FAC).
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: No, not really. I have been party in a minor dispute (mainly because of my immaturity and lack of experience in the featured article candidacy system). I hope I will never be in a dispute again, and that I can live peaceably with other users (of course, that is impossible with any good and respectable admin that frequents WP:ANI).
To expand: The dispute mentioned here took place on WP:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battleship/archive1. I intend to deal with disputes in the future as they come up, ad hoc, since no two conflicts are the same. RfA FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from N419BH
4. Have you reached the Age of Majority in your local jurisdiction?
A: I don't really think this is important to being a admin, but no.
Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
5. How many delete votes do you think are necessary to close an AfD early per WP:SNOW, assuming the AfD was started one hour ago and there are no keep votes?
A: We shouldn't close a AfD per SNOW after only one hour, we need more time to build consensus.
6. Five users at an AfD think the best solution is merge and delete an especially crappy article. One user, probably an SPA, votes to keep for no reason. What do you do?
A: Delete. I want a reason.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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. For the record I share the concerns below. But feel that your range of contributions does come close to that of at least two current/recent candidates who garnered support, and therefore that a moral support is merited. This RfA will fail, but don't take it to heart too much. I would advise you largely keep doing what you're doing. Additionally, I would suggest that you spend a little of your time showing that you have the necessary judgement for an admin. For me, the best way to do that is to get more involved in AfD, showing that you understand how policy and guidelines should be applied (which involves a far more developed argument than "per nom", "per the above user" or "per the GNG"). At the moment we don't have much of a track record to go on to measure your judgement. Other suggestions include going through an editor review before a future RfA attempt, taking any advice that comes out of that, and to wait for someone to nominate you next time around (once you've gone through a constructive editor review you tend to be on people's radars). Best of luck, —WFC— 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I share the sentiments of WFC above. I have been dropping in on this user's talk page for a while and have had the opportunity to work with the user when he reviewed a GA nomination I had put forward. I have always found this user to be respectful and see that the user always puts 100% into everything he does. While, like WFC, I can't see this RfA succeeding, I wouldn't want to oppose it as I believe the user would make a good admin sometime in the future. Take WFC's suggestions to heart - they will help. Arctic Night 12:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support. Both WFC and Arctic Night make good points, and the candidate should mind them - and yes, I know that this RFA is unlikely to succeed. But I see an earnest candidate who seems intent on helping out as an admin, and there is no evidence to suggest that the candidate would misuse or abuse the tools. Yes, the answers to the questions were less than ideal, if you're looking at them from a "Don't piss anyone off" standpoint. But I'll take an honest answer over an inoffensive one any day. Good luck, and I look forward to supporting RFA 3. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Not enough experience, strikes me as too immature and rights-eager. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose I've come across him a few times, and I don't think he has the maturity I'd look for in an admin. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Though I didn't initially see a pressing reason to oppose, you killed yourself with those answers to the questions. While I had no impression of lack of maturity before, I do after reading them. You've completely shattered my confidence. Your nomination and answer to Q1 were great. Then Q2: "I have not accumulated a large amount of high-quality content..." Ahh! That's something you don't say in an RfA, explanation or not! Then Q3: "I have been party in a minor dispute (mainly because of my immaturity..." Facepalm Facepalm. That would also be something you avoid saying in your RfA. I appreciate you owning up to your mistakes, but some things are better left forgotten when trying to instill community confidence in yourself. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you should know how important those questions are. It's nothing but first impressions for a lot of people, and those answers make for a terrible first impression. Swarm X 07:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't get your point. If I say, for example: "I have never been in any sort of dispute...", then you would kill me for lying. If I say, for example: "I have been in one minor dispute..", you kill me for having one minor dispute. RfA FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 14:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Swarm, so you are encouraging candidates to lie and/or conceal major details about their editing history in the hopes that no one digs deep enough to uncover them? —SW— communicate 15:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Swarm refers to "mainly because of my immaturity" part of the answer. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Absolutely. Come on guys, don't try to twist my intent. Of course I'm not encouraging candidates to conceal anything. That's ludicrous and I'm offended that you would even suggest that. My point was simply that I didn't even have to look into their contributions because their answers totally shattered my confidence. Candidates should own up to past mistakes in a manner that gives me the impression that they've definitely moved beyond that stage, rather than simply admit that their immaturity has caused them problems and give some ridiculous justification that they're going to try to never get into a dispute again. I'll expand on WikiCopter's talk page if need be. Swarm X 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no idea why one shouldn't say "I have not accumulated a large amount of high-quality content" in an RfA. Obviously there are folks who will not support an RfA where there is not a lot of content work, but there are others who might, and the ones who won't are going to figure it out anyway; in q2 why not get it out of the way and highlight what you have done? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, it's more of the fact that the comment demonstrates a lack of maturity, as opposed to the fact that they don't have a lot of content work. A candidate should be making themselves look as ideal as possible. Not by concealing anything, but they shouldn't be saying negative things about themselves. You don't put your flaws on a resume, nor do you bring them up in a job interview. Likewise, you don't do so in an RfA, and anytime a candidate does this I seriously have to question their judgement. Swarm X 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Concerns with maturity -FASTILY (TALK) 07:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Per Swarm Pol430 talk to me 08:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose also per Swarm. Suggest closure via not now. Strikerforce (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Notnow would be highly inappropriate. Wikicopter may well gain some insight out of the responses or he could withdraw, or indeed it could be closed as WP:SNOW, but he has sufficient edits and knowledge that NotNow should not be used. . WormTT 13:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right. I linked the wrong item. My apologies to the candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Very strong oppose I was rather inclined to say "oppose" on the basis of lack of evidence of experience related to administrative issues, but before committing myself I searched for participation in deletion discussions, as that is an area in which the candidate has indicated an intention of acting. I found some. At best the candidate's contributions were trivial (e.g. "delete per nom") and at worst they showed really serious ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, both here and here the candidate says "Speedy Delete and Merge". For someone with such profound lack of knowledge of policy as that to be an administrator closing deletion discussions would be completely unacceptable. (I might also suggest that saying "the administrator's noticeboard, which in my opinion all good and respectable admins should frequent" is not a good way of gaining support. Do you really think that those administrators who do not choose to work in that particular area are bad and unrespectable? This is a very minor matter compared to the major concern I have mentioned, but it doesn't help your case.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per Fetch and Swarm. I cannot trust someone whose immaturity might lead to an uncalled for block in the "heat of the moment".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per JamesBWatson. I'm sorry but I have concerns regarding your maturity and policy knowledge. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose per answers to questions, particularly Q4 and Q6. It may not seem fair that you are denied adminship because of your age, but the answers to your other questions show a bit of immaturity. For instance, I'm sure you've seen typical RfA's before, most people don't give 5-word answers to the optional questions. —SW— confabulate 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. This user clearly means well, but I agree that he is too "rights-eager" and does not demonstrate much maturity. Such an editor would not make a good administrator. I think, WikiCopter, that the best way you can contribute is to become a more proficient content contributor. Editing exclusively in the mainspace garners you a lot of respect from the rest of the community, and is the most direct route to improving the project. If you try again in a couple of years (if, as I hope, you are still around then), you would be a better contributor; and then you'd be a shoo-in for RFA. (As a side note, I find such comments as "Very strong oppose" to be distasteful and do not think we need to be so harsh in dealing with an editor who is volunteering to help.) I hope you find my comments and those made by others to be helpful and can work on the areas we have highlighted. Thank you, also, for offering to assist with our administrative backlog, but I must oppose this request. AGK [•] 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I totally disagree with this: "the best way you can contribute is to become a more proficient content contributor." The best way you can contribute is to do what you're good at and what interests and motivates you. If that isn't content then go here and pick something that is. Content is obviously a hugely important thing, but don't let anything you do burn you out. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Based on statements in this RFA, candidate is not well-suited for this role. Townlake (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Reluctant oppose, mostly per SW. Admins need to be able to explain themselves clearly and fully when questioned about an action they've taken, and the terse answers to the questions above suggest a strong reluctance to do so. The "speedy delete and merge" AfDs linked to by JamesBWatson are also concerning. 28bytes (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose . In addition to the other comments and advice you've been given, two things in your talk page discussions give me doubts: there is not enough interaction to demonstrate how you would conduct a crisis or give advice to others, and there seems to be some misunderstanding among you and your colleagues as to our policy on ownership of articles. There is a lot of good information on preparing oneself for adminship, plus a couple of dozen excellent user essays - do read it all, but do also remember that experience is the most important thing, and which you still lack. Get it all together before you try again. and perhaps consider some coaching. Good luck next time! Kudpung (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose. Sorry, but WP:NOTNOW. After some months/years of gathering experience and learning, maybe then. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Reluctant Oppose. Your heart is in the right place but I have concerns about your maturity and experience. Also remember that admins deal with some crazy stuff and crazy people. As an admin, you will be threatened, ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned with frequency. While being over the age of majority isn't a requirement, possessing the maturity to handle yourself while under fire is, and I don't see evidence of your ability to handle that here. I don't see a lack therof, but that is because you haven't really told us much with your answers to these questions. You need to fully answer questions, preferably with a fairly detailed reasoning behind them. We want to know what you're thinking, not just what the answer is. I strongly encourage you to keep writing good articles, and get involved in some of the other maintenance aspects of Wikipedia, such as WP:NPP. While it isn't necessary for you to participate at WP:AIV, I would read the page and get familiar with some of the drama that occurs there on a daily basis. Good luck and we'll see you back at RFA when you're ready. (Have an experienced editor nominate you next time) N419BH 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose Per horrible answer to question 5, coupled with a general impression of a lack of both policy knowledge and good decision-making skills. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Seasoning and maturation needed. That said, I see some valuable contributions to the project and your heart in the right place. You would be a good candidate for mentoring.--Hokeman (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Right now I'm not particularly swayed either way. You have very good article contributions, however more detail in your awnsers would be nice. Your awnser to the quesion about disputes worrys me a little. Your dispute was because of immaturity, yet there is no dates or detail to pursuade me that this is firmly in the past. If you can provide more insight, and prehaps cleanup some of the awnsers, so they don't advertise an FAC. If the honsest details show a a good learning ability, then I am definetly not going to be stuck in this section! You're a great editor, just a few more details please. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Almost bang on 6 months after your first RFA, which was closed as a WP:NOTNOW, I can't see a lot of evidence that inexperience issues have been addressed. I do worry that you are seeing Adminship as a target. A total of 4,200 edits, which from what I've seen look perfectly reasonable have meant that I won't oppose, but I can't quite bring myself to support. I do think you should be a little more positive about your work though, explaining unsolicited what you haven't done is never going to be helpful. WormTT 08:51, 7 March 2011 (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