Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blakegripling ph 2

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


Blakegripling ph

[edit]

Final (1/11/7); Ended 22:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (non-crat closure per WP:SNOW by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠)

Nomination

[edit]

Blakegripling ph (talk · contribs) – I previously applied for adminship a year ago, although it seemed as though I lacked experience and I still needed to learn some more about Wikipedia policies. I decided to re-apply for adminship in hopes of being accepted, not because of the sheer privileges of being a sysop (to the point of abusing authority), but because I've seen cases of abuse by ill-minded users and I would like to volunteer further in keeping this community clean and tidy. It's OK even if I do not succeed this nomination, or even if I meet strong opposition from you users, but if the community gave me the right to be a sysop, then I'll be glad to take the position, and I'll only use my admin rights carefully. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As what I said in my previous nomination, I would like to volunteer for any AIV/issue mitigation operations here at Wikipedia, such as cleaning up or deleting malformed pages by vandals. The various attacks on me on and off-site has motivated me to become more vigilant, while keeping as civil in dealing with such arguments as possible.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I can't tell you of my best Wikipedia contributions, due to my sheer number of edits I did. But at least two of them had to be Michael V., of which I made (he was quite notable as a comedian, but the red link on one of the shows that reference him made me do it), and Dual SIM, of which I extensively rewritten, although additional citations could've scored me more reputation points. (Edit: I made a mistake at linking the Michael V. article, sorry)
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, especially those involving controversial AfDs whom I spawned so much discussion. I forgot the name of that person, though, but one thing I remember is that she posted a MySpace bulletin regarding that matter. Also of note is my efforts in reporting and enforcing User:Gerald Gonzalez's community-imposed ban - not all users or sysops knew of that matter, and it was a chore to have him dealt with properly.
Additional optional questions from Garden (yes, optional)
4. How do you believe you have improved since your previous RfA?
A: I think I did improve in some way, although as stated by one user who opposed my nomination, I guess I had to address some issues regarding how I tag pages or notify of any sock activity. I sincerely state that the user whom I posted at AIV was the one who committed long term abuse and incivility, and I could frankly say that due to his behaviour, Gerald was considered a pain among Tambayan Philippines participants, especially in the eyes of Ian Lopez, Bluemask and Efe, who's also an admin.
5. Do you have any more information on these "off-wiki attacks" that you tell of in Q1 that you can/are willing to share?
A: I've been bashed derogatively by a banned Wiki user on YouTube ever since I notified him in his YT account. He called me gay and other names; I tried to end the rather nonsensical argument as politely as possible, although he kept on whining at me back then.
Additional questions from MacMed
6. Would you ever delete a page with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it? Explain your reasoning.
A.

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/Blakegripling ph before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Whilst I personally have no issue with your nationality, it has spurred an opposing vote due to your incorrect English grammar. I notice from your user page that you're from the Philippines, have you considered contributing to the Spanish Wikipedia of which I assume is your first language? You may be able to contribute more effectively there and be granted administrator privileges after some time there. I'm not by any means saying you can't contribute here, I welcome you to, but it'll be tough to become an admin here with a less than optimal grip on the English language. 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it more likely his first language is Tagalog (Filipino)? Keepscases (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I read off the voluntary languages as opposed to the national language column, you're entirely right. Although, it's still possible that the user knows Spanish ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral support and then right back to the Dramaout for me (sorry, really felt like I had to say something here). I've seen Blake around, and he generally is a good editor, though I would recommend withdrawing per the concerns below. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Admins must communicate well. A good grasp of written English is a must. This — "various attacks on me on and off-site has motivated me" and this — "Michael V, of which I made" and this — "Dual SIM, of which I extensively rewritten" and this — "controversial AfDs whom I spawned so much discussion" and this — "of note is my efforts" do not bode well in this regard. Sorry. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, after all, it is the en.wikipedia -FASTILY (TALK) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. The candidate has a weak grasp on speedy deletion matters, as evidenced from their contributions: A1 with context, A1 with context, already prodded and a declined speedy deletion in the history, A7 for television series, A7 with claims of importance/significance, G5 on a tracking template for a suspected sock, A7 for college. I'm sorry but I cannot !vote to grant the deletion-button to a user that makes such basic and trivial mistakes time and time again, despite multiple notifications of declined deletions (see their talk page) and who is willing to tag articles without ever checking the history (or ignoring previous declines, which would be worse). Regards SoWhy 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, I do not think you are ready to take the reins yet. Per GMW, your grammar skills seems a bit underdeveloped, and your lack of concern over the result of the RfA concerns me as well. And per SoWhy, your grasp on handling speedy deletions seems to need improving. In addition, the answers you've provided above seem quite unsatisfying and lacking effort. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose – I was going to go neutral to avoid pile-on; I removed one of your speedy tags as mentioned in SoWhy's diffs (the TV series one), but I also see some good tags, but what did it for me was this report to AIV. Firstly, what did you mean by "edit pattern matches those of the banned user"? How can you make assumptions like that? If I'm missing something, please correct me – but it was actually removed from AIV as not vandalism. If you don't know what vandalism is, and make assumptions about people being socks of banned users, and of course don't understand what all the speedy criteria mean, then you shouldn't have the buttons. Sorry. Get a bit more practice in and come back in a few months. – B.hotep •talk• 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose – per the arguments above. I think you have good intentions, but your skillset is lacking. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry, but I don't see the need for the tools. Also, per SoWhy. America69 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The mind is strong but the body is weak. (But thank you for answering my questions.) GARDEN  says no to drama 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per all the reasons stated above. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. per above. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per SoWhy, as odd a statement as that is from me, and also per Bubba Hotep. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, per SoWhy and concerns raised by Goodmorningworld. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Moral support Longtime user with a clean blocklog and varied contributions. SoWhy's examples are troubling, However I'm not opposing because they aren't in the area that you intend to work in per q1. Hope to see you here again in three months or so, but please be a little more cautious at new page patrol - remember if in doubt categorise! ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do more work, and try to get a better hold on CSD, it's something every admin (or aspiring admin) should know. ceranthor 11:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. greater than 50% to the real work would normally mean instant support from me. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    note that this is a new account, with few edits, some to RfA. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with someone learning admin processes on the job. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral because of the CSD-related issues pointed out by SoWhy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral due to issues regarding CSD and AIV. I suggest working in those areas and becoming more familiar with them and how they work, then coming back in 4 months or so. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral You really remind me of myself year ago. I was once (and an some ways still am) an aspiring Wikipedian, not knowing all that went on here. I do know from your statement that your heart is in the right place. The problem is that you have had a few issues which were discussed above. I know that you will probably never give up after this nomination, and come back to try another RFA. In that sense, I am behind you all the way. I do believe that you will someday be successful, but you first have to sort out those issues. Try also getting involved in RFAs if you aren't already, so that you can see some of the good, bad, and the ugly of what goes on here. All in all, I think that you should also seek the help of an administrator who can coach you, and then let them nominate you when they see it fit. A good user who could help you is Balloonman. The reason that i'm not opposing you is that I can sympathize with you. When you do come back, I will support you all the way. Good luck with the next few months, and don't hesistate to ask. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (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.