Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simpsons contributor

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

Simpsons contributor

[edit]

Final (0/6/0) ended 19:04, 2006-08-3 (UTC)

Simpsons contributor (talk · contribs) – I’ve been a Wikipedia user since 19 November 2005, which is roughly 10 months. I have earned a barnstar for my work on the article photosynthetic reaction centre, which I began writing some time ago. With my work and that of many other Wikipedia users (AndyZ, Smurrayinchester, Durova to name just a few) the article was brought up to “good article” status.

The users were very helpful and worked very hard. We all worked together as a team and there were no disputes between us during the entire edit process. I believe I work well and am courteous and not argumentative when given suggestions about how to change things when I’ve accidentally done wrong. I also have no record of vandalism or blanking to my name and I’ve tried to clean up certain controversial and frequently vandalized pages such as: The Root of All Evil? and Jeremy Glick (author).

I’m applying to be an administrator so:

  • I can have access to the automatic reverter when cleaning up pages.
  • I will have the ability to temporarily block vandalized or continually reverted pages.
  • I will have the ability to temporarily block users from editing pages to encourage them not to revert or vandalize pages any more and to keep that page free of persistent reversions and or vandalism during the period the user is blocked.

Miller 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 would mostly keep my eye on pages of a political or religious nature and revert vandalism. There have been a few instances of me doing this in the past but so far this has only been a minor priority for me. I may increase the frequency of these actions if I become an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Without a shadow of a doubt that article would be Photosynthetic reaction centre. I began writing that article in February and write the “core” of the article myself. I put the article up for a peer review and as a featured article candidate. Although the article never became a featured article (perhaps because it was too short?) It was nominated by another user as a “good article”. Many users helped make the article what it is today and I received a barnstar for my contributions. My Dad was particularly proud of this – I told him a barnstar is Wikipedia’s equivalent of a Nobel Prize!
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 edited several articles that are subjected to vandalism as a result of their political content. One such article is Jeremy Glick (author). The small “spat” I had with the user (I.P. Address) started when he made this claim about me on the Jeremy Glick user page:
And George Miller is an "alleged" child molester. See, it doesn't have to be true to have effect! (How fast can the minions flush this?)
This is still visible on the talk page [1]. The “vandalism” in question was a minor NPOV violation.
He was a bit frosty with me when I first contacted him - as can be seen from the discussion [2] but I tried to remain polite and I apologized because he felt insulted by some things that I had said (I didn’t insult him on purpose though). One such “insult” was me telling him I might report him to an admin – he thought I was trying to “scare” him by doing this. I obviously wasn’t.
He seemed to be supporting Bill O’Reilly and slamming Jeremy Glick; no doubt a result of his own personal views on the issue. In the end he “gave up” and stopped vandalizing the page. I still keep my eye on this page for obvious reasons.
Comments
Username	Simpsons contributor
Total edits	1165
Distinct pages edited	165
Average edits/page	7.061
First edit	00:58, November 20, 2005
	
(main)	526
Talk	92
User	197
User talk	114
Image	63
Template	4
Wikipedia	168
Wikipedia talk	1
added by  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose very low use of edit summaries (7% for major edits) and there's content on your userpage that could easily offend. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Wikispace edits alone. Also, 7 edits per page? That's a bit much. AdamBiswanger1 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose i think this is a premature RfA. First the good points. I worked with Simpsons contributor on the photosynthetic article and made some major changes. He could have taken ownership but instead did work collaboratively to bring the article to it current state. I agree with Tariqabjotu that the user page shows a naive attitude with regard to the diversity of wikipedians who contribute to this encyclopedia. One reason for this might be he is quite focused on a few areas and has not really experienced the whole spectrum of the encyclopedia's community. This is also born out by the low number of edits. There were points where this user expressed a strong need for his article to be a FA. He stated: "I'm desperate to get a featured article to my name!". I'm not sure what this was about, but given the barnstar comments above i wonder if he places too much status on bangles and adminship rather than just enjoying the experience of contributing to the encyclopedia. In summary I think this candidate has a while to wait before being ready for adminship. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue. Why so many images uploaded with copyright problems? This indicates a lack of awareness with respect to copyright issues. Admins need to be familiar with the copyright issues, especially those that are uploading fair use images. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose apart from the reasons above, you've uploaded a fair-use image of someones head exploding (which is from the movie Scanners) and placed it on your user page.--Andeh 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose fails all my edit count criteria. Themindset 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: Inexperienced during his 9+ months so far. Needs more meat with edits, pages and summaries. AndyPandy and Tariqabjotu's concerns about his user page could also hurt this RFA's outcome. And to put in my 2¢: most of his WP edits concern the sandbox, page protection requests, peer review and featured article candidates. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
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.