Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clamster5

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

Clamster5

[edit]

Final: (12/7/6); ended 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Clamster5 (talk · contribs) - I've worked with Clamster on a number of pages related to A Series of Unfortunate Events, and she's always been very helpful and kind. I think they would make an excellent admin if she were to become one. Mrmoocow 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, Mrmoocow. ***Clamster 04:47, 27 May 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: One of the many tasks I do on Wikipedia is going through recently-created pages. Much of the time, I stubify and wikify articles, but I also often add speedy-delete tags to articles which meet those criteria. There are always seems to be a backlog for speedy-delete candidates, and I would work to clear that. I have some experience with AFDs and would definitely help out there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My first registered edit was on July 7, 2006, although I made numerous anonymous edits. I have made many large contributions to WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events (now WikiProject Lemony Snicket). Many, but not all, of my edits have to articles within this scope. I cannot take full credit for any page, but I have been making edits and improvements to A Series of Unfortunate Events since the beginning of my time here on Wikipedia. Additionally, I created and made major contributions to Houses in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Geographic locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Business locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events. I have also made large contributions to The End. As I do a great deal of reading on Wikipedia, I also tend to just edit and improve things as I find them so I have made edits to articles about many different topics.
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 admit there was a time when I got very overheated and fustrated about an AFD that I stooped soo low as to make a personal attack against someone with a different viewpoint. I feel horrible that I blatantly broke an important policy on Wikipedia. The AFD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Fourteen. The other user involved and I were both stubborn and our differing viewpoints led to to petty fighting. We ended up in a revert war, but were able to settle our differences with a mediation.
4. Could you clarify further about this revert war? Why did you continue reverting even though you knew you were breaking 3RR? --ais523 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A: The other user and I were just going back and forth, reverting the page to what we thought was the best setup for the page. We both ended up reporting the other for 3RR. It was a dispute that got just out of hand. Once again, it seemed important at the time, but now I just feel embarrassed that I blatantly broke policy and let a minor dispute get me upset.

Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison

5. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
A: Thats a little bit of a pointed question, isn't it? If someone answers it too enthusiastically, they could be labeled power-hungry and misinterpreting what an admin is. I don't think I would want to have complete control over Wikipedia; that would be a nightmare. But, if I could change things, I think new users should have some sort introduction or tutorial they have to read or go through before they can create articles. From what I have seen, a fair amount of pages that fall under the speedy-delete criteria are created by inexperienced users who don't really understand what Wikipedia really is.

Optional Question from Arknascar44

6. This is a hypothetical situation: Say that you are an administrator and a student. An IP address from your school repeatedly vandalizes an important Wikipedia article, and has been warned by several users countless times. Do you take action by blocking the IP, or do you not come down on them as hard because you know that the user is your school (assuming that sorting out the problem outside of Wikipedia is not an option).
A: If someone from my school were to continually vandalize an article after warnings have been placed on their talk page, I would certainly block the user or the IP, either indefinitley or temporarily depending on what the situation warrants. A vandal I know is the same as one I don't.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Clamster5 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. In looking over Clamster5's edits, I see nothing to suggest she'd abuse the tools. Another admin on RC patrol is always good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support you seem like a good editor. I recommend that in future you try to fill in an edit summary for just about every edit you make from now on - other than that, nothing seems to be too wrong. Good luck! ;) –Sebi ~ 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support she could use the tools. Everything she does seems to be for the good of wikipedia. I like how she stood up to the admin, it shows strength and this is what we need in an admin.--William Henry Harrison 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What admin did I stand up to? I'm unsure what you're refering to. ***Clamster 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you said--William Henry Harrison 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has since been blocked as a sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, looks like the tools will help this editor and I don't see any outstanding issues. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nominator, I support. Mrmoocow 22:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, will not abuse the tools. Abeg92contribs 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, No serious concerns except for the lack of "Wikipedia" space edits. --Random Say it here! 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, I don't see much problems here. More edit summaries please, good editor generally. Terence 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to work on remembering to put in edit summaries. Since I have been using WP:TWINKLE, which automatically puts edit summaries in for many edits, I think I have gotten better. 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, at first I was slightly worried about your edit summary usage, but I can see that you can learn from certain complications (i. e. the revert war), so that shouldn't be a problem from now on, especially considering the auto edit summary tool you've begun using. Secondly, I'm happy that you'll stand up to vandals and troublemakers, (as shown in my optional question) regardless of relations. This to me implies that you will carry out your duties as an admin without being swayed from adhering to Wikipedia policy for personal reasons. Therefore, I support your RfA. Good luck with your mop and bucket! Arknascar44 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, Your temper in the 3RR and the AfD are concerning. However there has been 6+ months of space between that event and now so I am willing to support you. Project work is important. The fact that you asked for nomination means nothing at all to me. JodyB talk 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support User has increased edit summary usage from the concerns about edit summaries so I will support. Captain panda 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - the AfD incident sounds worrying at first, but a reasonable amount of time has passed and I think this user is unlikely to abuse tools, unless someone can find more recent evidence of misconduct. Insanephantom 13:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Even though I have a few misgivings: mostly related to the AfD debacle (minor to some that I have seen) and your limited experience outside of your specific area of interest. I will support. It sounds to me that you have learned a lesson about handling a heated argument. I trust that you will be better at asking for a third party mediator or just taking some time to sit back and gain perspective if things get dicey in the future. —Gaff ταλκ 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose I'm concerned about your relatively narrow range of experience. In mainspace, almost all of your edits are proofreading, many of which should have been marked as minor--and even so, almost all are within one project. In user space, a great many of your edits are informing potential participants about that project. There's minimal participation in XfD, and none at all on WP talk about policy. There is some good vandal fighting, and I very much like your answer to Q.5. I hope to support your future RfA when you have a broader record here. DGG 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you be specific about which areas would you like me to gain more experience in? ***Clamster 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see very little work at XfD. I may be biased, because I spend most of my time there, but I think that's where one gets a working knowledge of policy & of other WPedians. DGG 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved my opinion to neutral. hmwithtalk 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too soon after the AFD incident. Admins but be able to keep a cool head in much more challenging situations than that, and losing their cool can make situations much worse - so I have to err on the side of caution. TigerShark 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – I also do not feel the AfD incident was "too long" ago. While it may have devolved into petty fighting like you stated above, you were clearly the instigator and you should have backed down when you were challenged. Being bold does not always mean being right. My apologies -- otherwise you seem like an excellent candidate, and I will fully support the consensus of the contributors here, whether it be positive or negative. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Especially given prior episode of ill-temper, more project-space experience is needed to demonstrate candidate can handle the mop. Xoloz 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Xoloz -- Y not? 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Admins losing their heads when they get angry or frustrated creates big problems. I don't trust this user with the tools, given how stressful adminship is. Daniel 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose generally due to the 3RR and AFD issue and narrow focus. Suggest you branch out, diversify your experience, and try again later. --After Midnight 0001 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral but leaning toward support. The dispute referred to in Q3, while disturbing, is too long ago, and Clamster5 seems to have learned from it. I have no reason to believe she will misinterpret speedy deletion criteria. I am a little annoyed by the mistakes in spelling and grammar. Certainly I would support a second application if I'm still around in a couple of months. YechielMan 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. You seem to be opposing on the grounds of spelling and grammar, but then saying you'll support in a few months? Can you please explain your vote a bit more, I don't quite understand it. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I should have written that I was not quite ready to rely on the candidate's experience - though normally it would be enough for me - and that I would support with more experience even if the spelling errors persist. Overall I don't see any real problem. YechielMan 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm going to remain neutral because of your edit summary usage, normally if it was satisfactory I'd AGF and support but yours is less than 25%, I cant support that, you have been asked before to leave one and have not which makes it seem as if you are unwlling to comprimise, also why did you ask another editor to nominated you for adminship, I understand you may have been nervous but we dont bite, self nominations are accepted. The Sunshine Man 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked another user to nominate me for adminship because I wanted to be nominated for adminship. I didn't want to nominate myself because I was afraid I might come off too pushy. ***Clamster 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Candidate has limited experience throughout the 'pedia. There has been some edit warring, and a little less calm than I like to see. If no further incidents occur, and candidate broadens her experience (and use edit summaries, please!) I will certainly reconsider the candidate in the future, with no prejudice. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I didn't say it in my answer to question 3, I would like to say that the dispute happened during November 2006. I was fairly new to Wikipedia then, and I would to reiterate that the edit war and talk page comments are now embarrassing for me. Now I would never allow myself to get that flustered over something that trivial. ***Clamster 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The "AFD incident" is from six months ago, and there was some poor behavior on both sides. However, reading it doesn't hurt my eyes nearly as much as the day-glow green font (which is barely visible against an azure blue background), so really I am not too concerned about the "AFD incident", but more about what DGG has said above. But, do remember not to nominate articles for deletion if you actually feel they should be merged. — CharlotteWebb 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not nominate that article for deletion; the user involved did. One of the things that made me angry was that he listed on AFD instead of placing merge tags on it. ***Clamster 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point (oops). Changed to neutral. — CharlotteWebb 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I noticed the fact that you asked someone else to nominate you. I nominated myself. It's nothing to be afraid of doing! =) My reasoning is that I'd fear that, possibly, you'd be afraid to take responsibility, which could affect you work as an admin. However, this is no policy, but simply my opinion. If you can prove that you're responsible, you could certainly have my support in the future, as you seem to be a great editor, and this was obviously done in good faith.hmwithtalk 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask how other users nominated by someone else were nominated if they didn't ask to be? (Sorry the wording is a little wierd) ***Clamster 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If your contributions really surprise someone, they think that you should be or deserve to be an admin. I've nominated someone, just because I noticed their hard work, time on the project, and responsible attitude. It makes it appear as if someone nominated you simple because he/she looked at you, and said to him/herself, "This user needs to be an admin." But that's not. You asked him. hmwithtalk 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Though I think you'd be ok for the job, I still don't feel like the AfD incident was all that long ago. I realize you're remorseful for it, but it still gives me an uneasy feeling. I'd probably support in a few months, but, right now, I just can't. --132 01:29, 1 June 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.