Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hereford

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Hereford

Nomination

(3/23/3); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Balloonman 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hereford (talk · contribs) – I have been active on English Wikipedia since May 19,2008. I am semi-active in the mediation cabal. I am very active in Requests for page protection. HereFord 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Per Self-non --HereFord 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: Protect pages, Deleting Pages, WP:ANI,Typical Administrative Duties. Nothing Special.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don`t know. I cant pick.
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 was wrongly blocked by User:Rjd0060 for being a sock-puppet but retained a calm attitude and was later found out to be a simple case of mistaken identity. You can find the conversation here.

Optional question from CrispMuncher

4. You nomination is very brief and contains little detail. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A:I want to be an administrator for the same reason as any other administrator wants to become administrator, because i feel that i could better help the project with the administrator tools. Yes i know that is very vague in its self. But with "the mop" i would use it as with the upmost precession and not make any major conclusion with out confirmation. Like if i suspect a sock-puppet i still will bring it up in WP:SSP before I or someone else blocks the user.
Was it a question that i left to little or the nomination statement, If you tell me which I will be happy to expand it.

Optional question ftom Iamawesome800

5. You say you want to participate in protecting pages so find 2 pages that need or recently needed page protection. Discuss why page protection would be the best way to address the issue, what type of page protection best fits, how long it should be, and what alternatives exist to page protection in that particular case.
A:Well if it is persistent IP vandalism of a Unreleased Game. (ex. Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon) Then the game should put on semi-protection till a set date of when more info of that game comes out such as E3, or 2-3 weeks, or the release date depending on the proximity of the release date. But that was one case.
So in general perspective. If its the Articles first time up for protection, provided that there is enough to justify the protection,would be 1-2 weeks of Semi-Protection if from IPs and unconfirmed accounts. Full-protection if done by confirmed users. Of-course the time is variable based on the amount of vandalism and who its from and how many time its been recently protected.
If the Vandalism is done by Sock-puppets or by one user a WP:ANI or WP:SSP (along WP:CU) should be filed so the user(s) can be block upon community agreement.
Optional question from Dank55
6. Followup to Iamawesome's question: you made this suggestion about page protection two days ago; what's your position now?
A:I was looking out for wikipedia to prevent a mess, but now i recognized it was a bad suggestion but if i was to have "the mop" I still would of brought it up on the talk page before I did anything.
Optional question from Dank55
7. Pick your favorite discussion of policies or guidelines, and tell us what you said in support or opposition.
A:Probably the new discussion Wikipedia talk:Protected editing rights I believe that editing protected pages should be left to Administrators because there is huge risk factor in given even confirmed users Protected editing rights. Becous for all you know I may get that tool then later go and vandilised every protected page i see. (but i would do that. :) )
Question from WereSpielChequers
8. Hi Hereford, I wonder if you could tell us what you understand the policy is on vandals blanking warnings from their talk pages.
A:I believe if the warning if over 6 months old and is the only one then it can be deleted. But only then and then should it be removed. But that is my opion i am unfimilar with any policy on that but if i was to find a policy on that then I would of-course follow the policy.
Ive just read the policy on it provided from WereSpielChequers, I do not agree with but, I will follow it. HereFord 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Stwalkerster [ talk ]
9. What do you mean by "typical administrative duties"? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:I dont know how to answer this.
10. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:A block is temporary, a ban is indefinite (like for sock puppets)
11. When should cool-down blocks be used? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:When an editor is angry and being disruptive.
12. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:Good idea but,w e should get rid of all in the title. It implies to be disruptive.
13. What areas of deletion do you plan to work in, and describe the policies that surround them. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:Just one that i feel i can understand both sides.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hereford before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. Weak Support Candidate is close to the current minimum for edits and tenure, though I suspect would have been a shoo in a couple of years ago with this record. I like the clean block log, and I especially like the very diverse edit history, - account creation, templates, and stuff I understand; seems to be doing bits of almost everything. Talk page and other comments all seems very civil, sadly your Question answers and other bits of this RFA are not at present as impressive as your contributions. WereSpielChequers 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support - agree with WereSpielChequers, a few years ago your experience would have been more than enough. However, I suggest you withdraw, and re-apply in 6-8 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Why not? It's not gonna pass. And if it does, this guy will probably delete the main page or block Jimbo, which will relieve the boredom around here. And maybe he will learn the joy of complete sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Sorry Hereford, I just don't think you're ready. :( Sam Blab 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)!![reply]
  2. Weak Oppose You've been here 4 months longer yet I have double the edits (no tools) and your article edits are only 15% of your total edits which is really low. Come back in a couple months.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive been here for 9 months.
  3. Oppose - I immediately recognized your name from this list I made yesterday of rollbackers who had the right removed, but in your case it was a mistake and you got the rollback again. I do have to wonder if you have edited before you registered your account in May 2007. I'm perplexed by the fact that of your first 40 edits, not one of them is a substantive article edit (one is a removal of deletion template, and two are to a template transcluded in articles). In that time, you asked for help on the help desk and looked for experienced folks to "adopt" you. I guess that's okay, but it kind of looks weird that you would not just start editing articles sometime in your first four days here. The concern raised above that you don't have enough article edits in general is consistent with this issue.
    Another issue for me is that you don't have good communications skills in English. Either you are young (probably, given your interest in video games) or you speak English as a second language. The "age and adminship" debate (I just noticed it while sorting through archives yesterday) need not be rehashed here, but I can see that your writing does not show me the level of maturity I normally expect to see on a viable request. I won't say "come back in a few months", not to be mean, but I don't know if you can improve your language skills in a few months for general admin tasks - maybe for specific things like vandal-blocking that don't require you to know English all that well. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was from my false block.HereFord 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I said that "in your case it was a mistake and you got the rollback again." Crystal whacker (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Answers to all questions (Q1, Q2 and Q3) are insufficient. — Aitias // discussion 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OpposeThough I see you making good edits, and dealing well with the anon who was unhappy about being warned (per your talkpage), but I still think a bit more time would be better. In addition, things like this edit[1] make me hesitant to support you as an admin at this time. I have made my mistakes before, breaking WP:DTTR with speedy notices, but Collectonian is a respected user, and leaving that notice requires you to view their talkpage, which should have made you realize they were a regular. Leaving them a templated warning to use the preview button is honestly a waste of both users' time. Also, the typo up top, about the mediation cable, please change that to cabal, it's bugging me.--Terrillja talk 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Doesn't seem to be taking the care I would expect to set a good impression for a self-nom. Proofreading lacking and answers don't show any thought going into them. This is like a resume for a job and carelessness here reflects general lack of attention to detail and a level of maturity which I do expect from an admin. Edit summary usage is minimal - can't figure out why edits were made without viewing diffs. I expect an admin candidate would get the basics right as a regular editor. I think you need more time to bake. Not ready yet. --NrDg 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Almost all answers to questions are inadequate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Answers to questions show lack of thought and reasoning—you need to show people why giving you the tools would be a positive thing for Wikipedia, and one-sentence answers do not do that. Richard0612 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - 9A shows the user is nowhere near ready to handle the mop. As an administrator there are much tougher questions asked, and the failure to understand how to answer one of the easier questions on this RFA was the dealbreaker for me. ArcAngel (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Answers to almost every question are insufficient, confusing, and/or wrong, especially the questions by Stwalkerster. Doesn't show the level of judgment/reasoning that I would like to see in an admin. Mr.Z-man 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Your answers to your questions are too short. One thing you can do what I saw is that one user who had a RFA did short answers and then below that, put in the longer answers. Techman224Talk 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose - Per User talk:Hereford/Vand. Grossly inappropriate, sorry. — neuro(talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently all the edits to that page were by Frogger, in which case I apologise for thinking wrongly. Still, oppose as terse answers to questions indicate a lack of policy knowledge. — neuro(talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but switching back to strong oppose per answers to questions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (10 and 11 are wrong anyway). — neuro(talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Your answer to Q10 scares me. Well, actually it's Q10, and Q9. And Q8. And just about every other question on here. Your answers are terse, your policy knowledge is minimal, and your nom is discouraging, to say the least. flaminglawyerc 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I just saw this on one of the Q's: [because] for all you know I may get [the tools] then later go and [vandalize] every protected page i see (but i would do that :) ). Oh dear. I strengthen my oppose considerably. flaminglawyerc 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Slightly Weak Oppose. Contributor is a good editor, and I can sympathize with not having very many edits in articlespace, but 15% is just too low, man. Answer to Q2 is not promising. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Not support - I don't think you'd intentionally do any harm to the project with the tools, and you do really seem to be making generally good contributions. However, I'm concerned at your lack of understanding of policies as evidenced by answers above (2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13), the issue raised by question 6 (this week), the low level of effort in even answering the questions, and a relatively low level of effort in WP:RFPP although you cite that as one of your "very active" areas. Then there is question 7, which isn't really funny in this arena; there's a time and a place for humor, and that doesn't display an understanding of when it is - and is not - appropriate. Since I feel the lack of knowledge would be disruptive and harmful to the project, I must place myself in this section.  Frank  |  talk  01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Your work is appreciated, but I can't find enough meaningful article contributions, and the answers to the questions are either wrong, don't answer the question or are bad jokes. Focus on improving some articles, take some time to reread the relevant policy, and install a spell checker to your browser.» \ / (⁂ | ※) 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not Support, as Frank has, and for the general same reasons. I don't think you would do harm, but the answers to 11-13 leave me wary. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I have to admit, you seem to have bombed out on your answers to the questions. You aren't proud of anything you've done on the Wiki? It seems doubtful that you'd get much time as an admin to do such stuff, so I suggest that you go and find yourself a nice topic, and invest in it. I'd have no problems with you coming through RfA again, but before you do, it'd be a good idea to spend a bit of time looking at other users' RfAs, just so that you know what is expected from candidates. See you in six months :) – Toon(talk) 01:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose The community expects detailed answers to the questions asked during an RfA, so that we can try to determine your ability to become an administrator. Your answers to many of the questions, and several which I find to be important, are undetailed at best. In question 1 you said that you would participate in Typical Administrative Duties but when asked in question 9 by Stwalkerster what that means, you admit you don't know, which is unsettling. Also answers to questions 10 and 11 are completely incorrect and indicate that you did not commit any time to researching your answers in policy and guideline pages. As suggested by some famous psychologist past decisions can be indicative of future actions (thanks random RfA candidate for that bit of info), and if you cannot be bothered to research your answers to administrative questions, I have my doubts as to if you would research the correct actions in situations where the admin tools are involved. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Working on the cApitAlizaTion would certainly help a lot; i think that you'll not be a good enough admin yet. Also, same thing with some of the above votes; detailed replies to questions are important. Ginbot86 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I'm sorry, I just don't think you're ready yet. LittleMountain5 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose unfortunately. The answers to all of the questions are inadequate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Answers to questions are insufficient, and in some cases, flat out wrong, like Q10 and Q11. Useight (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I've gone and "copyedited" your statements. I recommend that you expand all the answers to the questions, as well as your nomination, and use a decent spell checker. How about copying it into Microsoft Word, pressing F7 and pasting it back again? Good luck, Microchip 08 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barely tried at answering the questions, and, you appear to have a really weak grasp on how we do things here... I can't support, but, I don't see anything that really makes me want to oppose (i.e. I don't think you will go right out and delete WP:ANI as soon as you were promoted, or other such abuse... Wait, would deleting ANI really be abuse? :) ). I will check back, to see if you re-do your answers to the questions posed thusfar later. SQLQuery me! 23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Wehwalt had a very convincing argument for support, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 23 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hereford&oldid=1222495429"