Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CorbinSimpson

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

CorbinSimpson

[edit]

Final (13/30/4) ended 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson (talk · contribs) – I nominate CorbinSimpson. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With the community's permission, I accept this nomination. Corbin Simpson 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Though number of edits isn't the highest, contributions are weighty and quality. The editor also respects other's opinions, as shown by his willingness to kill his old, psychedelic signature to make way for a simpler one due to concerns raised by other editors; question answers are well written; and again, number of edits doesn't matter that much, as it is the contributions themselves and their quality that makes a difference. Mopper Speak! 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, good edits from a good reliable editor that seems trustworthy with the powers of adminship. Seems to make sense to me. Gateman1997 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Experienced and trustworthy enough in my opinion. DarthVader 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Freeman has two speeds: Walk very fast, and backflip. In other words, that's a LUE support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)
  6. Support Great wikipedian. I know him in real life and he is all ways on/working on wikipedia. Give him the mop and see how he does. In my opinion he would do great. --Actown e 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Adminship is no big deal. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You sure about that one? If you were to give a new user sysop powers, would you trust him to use them correctly? To even know what rollback was? What if a bad admin comes along: is it a big deal if he reverted good edits for no reason? Is it a big deal if he gives Wikipedia a bad name because he knowingly makes articles worse? Without scrutinizing canidates properly, everyone would be an admin, and that can't happen. So tell me, is adminship "no big deal"? A joke? Or is it a position of responsibility? --NomaderTalk 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support He really deserves it with all his edits. Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (UTC) 19:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ForestH2
  10. Support per nom, my boy MOP, and, of course, Siva. Joe 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - quality over quantity. This user's edits are quality. Lankiveil 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Agree with users above. Sarge Baldy 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose The only thing I have a problem with right now is the relatively low editcount (about 1400). However, the contributions are really good. If you ever get nominated again down the road, I'm likely to support your RfA. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Full oppose after further review, per Jocturner below. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 07:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose I'll try my best to avoid the glaring lack of edits; I won't oppose you on those grounds (although I'm so tempted to). However, you admit in your answers that [you're] not really a big writer. I see many of your edits in the past month are to similar articles - on Japanese characters. I'd prefer to see more involvement in articles. I'm especially curious about this edit summary and this edit summary (unnecessary cursing) as well as this edit summary (I have no idea what it's supposed to mean). I also think you need to calm down here. You say in your answers that I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I will never use blocking, rollbacks, insults, threats, rough language, or incivilities when talking to anybody, be it IP, user, administrator, or bureaucrat. I'm not getting that impression. If I ever do, I will have violated the ideal of decency and etiquette which holds this place together. Exactly. I'd like to be available to users to perform conflict resolution expediently and calmly, Again, I'm not getting that impression. This seems to indicate that you have the tendency to lose your cool at times. We are all human, and that is understandable, but admins need to be able to count to ten before saying something they'll later regret. On top of that, this could be construed as vote stacking and you say that you'll participate in blocking and unblocking, but I don't see much current involvement in reverting vandalism and, especially, providing warnings to vandals. joturner 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of CorbinSimpson, I will copy what he posted to my talk page:
    I'll respond to you here. If you want my reply to appear on my RfA, you can move it there — I don't much mind either way. However, I'd like to tell the truth.
    I do curse occasionally in edit summaries. Edit summaries, to me at least, are self-reflective and notative; as such, I do say things in them that I do not say on talk pages. Nonetheless, I still don't violate attack policy with them. I do admit that I'm not surprised that you might not be acquainted with Alice's Restaurant. I can't excuse my rude and possibly uncivil comments on the AfD that you linked to...after all, "Excuses are the nails that you use to build your house of failure," or so the saying goes.
    I won't deny that I don't revert much vandalism. I'm always beaten to reversion on Special:Recentchanges, and only occasionally am I the first one to notice vandalism on my Watchlist. However, I do patrol Special:Newpages often, and mark or tag articles as they are created. I usually don't warn editors because I've found that if I actually focus on assuming good faith, I notice that many articles are not created maliciously. They're created by ignorant newcomers who deserve a {{welcome}}, not a {{warn}}.
    Actown is a friend and student who works with me fixing computers. He's the one that insisted I join Esperanza. My comment on his talk page was an expression of incredulity, as we had been discussing adminship earlier in the day. I am well aware of the policies on voting and vote stacking, and I am also aware that Actown may well vote against me if he votes at all.
    Thanks for your comments — they make me a better editor! CorbinSimpson 06:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I am familiar w/ Alice's Restaurant, but I don't see how it signifies in the edit summary. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the low main space involvement and also per Joturner abakharev 07:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. --Rory096 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Rory096. --Computerjoe's talk 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per joturner and also very low experience, please try again in three months and get some experience on AFD first. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose, does not warn vandals after reverting their changes. To quote TigerShark, the {{test1}} warning is more important than the rollback button. Kimchi.sg 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. The user is on the way to adminship, but not there yet. CorbinSimpson, if there are occasional civility issues now, wait until you have to deal with an editor who thinks you (are abusing your powers/are out to get me/have no life outside Wikipedia/etc.). RadioKirk talk to me 12:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Needs much more experience.--Jusjih 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per joturner -- Tawker 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Joturner. Also, this diff suggesting "a high level of corruption" suggests a lack of belief in consensus. --Elkman - (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose.Not enough experience.Bharatveer 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per joturner--Deville (Talk) 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Kimchi.sg, and due to fairly low edit count, and the general nature of the edits. --Wisden17 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above. Not enough contributions/experience.—G.He 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose as per joturner + inexperience. Nephron  T|C 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - the diffs that joturner have identified leads me to believe that promotion would be unsafe. - Richardcavell 00:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose the diff from Elkman demonstrates that this user doesn't understand what they are asking for. Jkelly 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per low edit count and This Edit leads me to believe user is not ready for adminship.  :) Dlohcierekim 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per joturner. --Terence Ong 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Low edit count. DGX 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Not enough experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: foul language in edit summaries make for a poor editing environment and do not well-qualify one for adminship, in my view. Jonathunder 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I think a little more experience is required. --Bhadani 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Per joturner and because of the low main space edits. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong oppose for poor judgment, "J'accuse" posturing, and unsupported conspiracy theories in the recent affair of User:Thewolfstar, all of it well illustrated by this post on ANI. It's rather long, but for anybody interested in more light on some of the candidate's views which don't come out in the Standard Questions, I strongly recommend a read-through. The diff posted by Elkman above is if possible even more illuminating. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Oppose per Bishonen and others. SushiGeek 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: I understand folks getting frustrated, but the answer is more careful and open minded discussion, not more furtive glances and rallying of the troops. I'm concerned that disagreeing with blocks might turn into overturning blocks and additional factionalism. Geogre 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Low edit count and somewhat unconvincing answers. Royboycrashfan 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose. Serious concern this user would abuse the tools due to past errors in judgement and association with users involved in the "anti-censorship" undercurrent. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The user has good intentions but could use some more practice before getting the mop. Still, I won't oppose so I prefer a neutral vote. --Tone 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, per Tone. Deizio talk 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, seems close to admin material, but frivilous use of strong language is worrisome. Would like to see a little more sensitivity. Still, not enough to oppose. If such comments are taken onboard and another request be forthcoming, i'll support then. Rockpocket (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Not admin material, but nearly there. Has good intentions.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	CorbinSimpson
Total edits	1477
Distinct pages edited	845
Average edits/page	1.748
First edit	22:25, December 15, 2005
	
(main)	748
Talk	102
User	113
User talk	221
Image	49
Template	8
Category	3
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	222
Wikipedia talk	9
 G.He 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I suppose it's unavoidable to assume that a good amount of time will be spent blocking and unblocking. I'd like to be available to users to perform conflict resolution expediently and calmly, and I also want to get more involved with the deletion process. I'd like to think that I have a neutral view of policy and that my interpretation of it is consistent with consensus, and that I could be a great help on clearing backlogs, specifically those which do not require new content. In essence, administrative powers are useful only for a small bit of daily life here, and they are restricted heavily by policy. As recepient of those powers, I would be obligated to carry out the duties placed upon me by the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Hmm. That's a good question. I'm not really a big writer. I've done stubs for the 1911 project, added a few infoboxes for a few different projects, tagged images, and cleared the backlog for kana articles. I'm very active fixing grammar, and have cleaned up a few articles here and there. I've also evaluated a few Good Article nominations. To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that I have as many edits as I do now — I tend to focus on making quality edits, rather than making dozens of small minor edits which do next to nothing for the encyclopedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have never been in any personal conflicts, or at least no problems which I consider uniquely mine. However, I have seen personal attacks, legal threats, all kinds of civility violations, and misuse of paralanguage. I've seen people banned right before my eyes. I've learned that the correct way to deal with any conflict is by discussion. Most editors are willing to calm down and talk about any edits or problems. My personal guideline is to watch paralanguage closely and assume good faith as much as possible. After all, people tend to type just as they speak, and I think we've all said stuff we don't mean.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I will never use blocking, rollbacks, insults, threats, rough language, or incivilities when talking to anybody, be it IP, user, administrator, or bureaucrat. If I ever do, I will have violated the ideal of decency and etiquette which holds this place together.
Oh, and I tend not to get very much Wikistress. I've been helping other people with problems for a long time, and dealing with stress acquired here is much easier than stress accumulated offline.
The above 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.