Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Serpent's Choice

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.

Serpent's Choice

(31/15/5) Ended 08:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination, although a little under a month ago, Quarl graciously provided a standing offer to nominate me for adminship. Citing editcount and time-on-project, I declined, advising that I'd prefer to try my hand in RFA near the end of January. Unfortunately, Quarl has been inactive since the first of the month.

I have been with the project since 2 July 2006, and have accumulated over 1500 edits. I recognize this edit count is lower than many successful RFA candidates. In part, I do not use AWB or similar tools to facilitate speedy edits. Each of my contributions is a measure of my personal time and commitment to the project. Serpent's Choice 07:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted as self-nomination. Serpent's Choice 08:09, 22 January 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: All things in time, and each in their measure. I recognize that there are a great many administrative tasks available, some of which require more familiarity with the tools and the project than others. In time, I hope to sample them all, assisting where my time and skills can best apply. My first focus, however, would be AFD (and, by extension, CSD and prod). I am a regular AFD participant, entering discussions where I feel my opinions will be valuable to the debate. It concerns me to see backlogs of 150-200 articles becoming more common. Frequently, these articles either show a consensus for deletion that a non-admin can not attend to or have long, complex debates that seem to be the last to close (and where non-admin closure seems a sure ticket to DRV). Once I feel more established in adminship, I foresee work on other research-oriented administrative duties, such as page-move processing, unblock request research, and a more active role in DRV and the other XFDs. I don't mind the rote processing; as it stands, I stub sort in my spare time.
I'm not looking for the tools specifically to fight vandals, however. Because of my AWB-less approach to editing, others are far better suited at RC Patrol than am I. I'm not averse to the blocking or dispute resolution side of adminship when needed (and I've cleaned up my share of complex vandalism, including quite the mess involving Lydian articles), but I'm not asking for the mop in order to have the power to block.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of each of my contributions. When I edit articles, I strive for quality. Much of my intermediate work is either in a sandbox or off-wiki; when I can avoid it, I do not like to present my work half-done. I have had major influence over relatively few articles (see my userpage for a list of sorts) simply because the research needed to reference articles appropriately is not a fast process. Recently, I'm fairly happy with my reworking of fairy painting and shared universe, although I hope to revisit the latter further. I also take particular pleasure in saving deserving articles from AFD, such as my current work at retrocausality or Public Netbase, which is a complete rewrite of an unsuitable (and copyvio) article that was deleted by prod.
Regarding policy familiarity, I was heavily involved in a general cleanup and slight modification to WP:NPA. I'm pleased that process went as smoothly as it did, and I look forward to more policy discussions in future, whether as an admin or otherwise.
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: Obviously, I've had disagreements with other editors. I think anyone seriously working on the project has; it is the nature of wiki. But outside my online presence, I'm in a managerial role. Often, I have to deal with angry people who have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line under circumstances I often cannot control. I know the value of calm discussion, even with people who seem irrational. I worked to establish consensus and satisfy concerns at WP:NPA. I found compromise and middle ground at centauroid creature following this related AFD. I'm sure there are other examples, but the disagreements do not stand out as clearly in my mind as the other aspects of my work here. I'm not under illusions that this community is always cordial. I've seen the vitriol and diatribe, too, but my real-world experience has given me the perspective to avoid being "caused stress" by something I read on the Web.

Optional question from User:BigDT

4. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A: It is important that speedy deletion within the speedy deletion process ("on sight", in the words of WP:CSD) sticks closely to the listed criteria because that minimizes the possiblity of human error on the part of deleting admins. Of course, several of the criteria leave some room for administrative discretion (G11, A1, A7 in particular) -- from an AFD I remember seeing, there was some debate about whether a housing development could qualify under A7. When in doubt, dealing with an article through prod or AFD does no harm.
Applying a slightly broader interpretation of CSD for articles undergoing AFD that have demonstrated a clear outcome may be acceptable. Under these conditions, other people have seen the content and been able to make determinations about its nature. For example, an unquestionable hoax article, once identified with reasonable certainty, damages the integrity of the project and might be a valid G3 at that point, although I would not typically CSD a hoax article as G3 directly. This is a recent deletion performed in exactly this manner.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

5. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.
A: This question addresses what are in my mind two separate issues. The first of these is spam in the traditional sense: accounts which drop links to an external site into every conceivably related article (or sometimes not related) for the purposes of advertising and SEO. In my mind, these are the easiest situations to deal with from a policy standpoint, although the cost in manhours is significant. This form of spam is vandalism; it seeks to compromise the integrity of articles and provides no benefit for our encyclopedia. Like any evaluation of vandalism, it is important to judge whether EL inclusion is actually spamming rather than good-faith edits. But many of these spam accounts (User:Arunjesche1 as a quickly located example), leave no question as to their nature. Ultimately, heavier-handed approaches like sitebans are the only recourse for the most dedicated spammers.
The second, more complex question relates to the purpose of external links in general. My philosophy on external links is that they are valuable when they provide direct context for the article topic in a manner that does not satisfy the requirements of references. As WP:EL notes, official sites and material in greater detail than WP covers are ideal choices for external links. Although the guideline also suggests links to reviews and interviews, I prefer using such sources to develop the article more fully, citing them as references. When there are more such sources than reasonably needed for references, it is an editorial decision about which to include. Wikipedia has no obligation to link to all content about a topic; it is not a web directory. I also feel that a "directness test" is important here. An external link to the official site of an online game is appropriate and valuable in that game's article. It is highly suspect in broader topics like online game or even computer and video games and universally unacceptable at unrelated topics.
Sites like YouTube and Google Video are no different from any other, save that the likelyhood of copyright problems are greater. It is the onus of the editor advocating inclusion to demonstrate that copyright is not an issue with these links.
General comments
  • See Serpent's Choice's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Unless specifically requested, I will not respond to comments to Oppose. Adminship is "no big deal", but RFA is a serious matter because it measures the trust and respect that the community has for a candidate. That must be earned, and the first step to earning that respect is offering it in turn. I have a low edit count and little counter-vandalism. I know that some editors may wish to oppose me on those, or other grounds. Those are valid opinions, and I do not feel it is my place to dissuade others from them if they feel these are honest objections. However, I do encourage "additional optional questions" and will answer any and all to the best of my ability (although my responses are likely at odd hours). Serpent's Choice 08:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See edit summary usage for Serpent's Choice here.
  • See edit count and breakdown using Wannabe Kate and Essjay's on the talk page.
  • Random diffs are available on the talk page.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. I've liked what I've seen out of this candidate and a quick survey of the contributions shows good involvement in AfDs and other admin processes. Grandmasterka 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support. I will look past editcountitis in this case due to some evidence of good experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for a fair balance between mainspace and wikipedia space. He is also active in articles for deletion discussions. Finally, I would like to make a point of giving this editor my support because of his relatively low edit count (compared to others vying for adminship). There is too much concern about "low" edit counts — 1,500 is a damn lot! − Twas Now 08:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support trustable and reliable user. I would have to stress that your somehow low activity is the major issue here. ← ANAS Talk? 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, seems trustworthy and experienced enough. Kusma (討論) 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I looked through your edits, they looked good to me. That coupled with the answers show that you'd probably help more than hurt with the admin buttons. And for the record, I disagree with the reasons of both oppose voters. - Bobet 13:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, your edits appear good ones to me. (And to speak only for myself, I like your answers to the questions.) I think you would make a good administrator. Seraphimblade 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Nothing wrong with this user. yandman 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Majorly (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Seems like a good someone to trust with the buttons. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per above, although please get your talk edits up. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support Your edit count is a bit too low for my liking, but as Adminship is not a big deal, you're minimally qualified in my book. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SupportGreat contributor, has done a lot of helpful things. No real problems as far as I can see.Ganfon 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support. While the low edit count may be of concern, in going through your contributions (including those linked on the talk page of this RfA discussion), it seems we should look to the quality rather than the quantity. The nominee seems to always offer reasoning in support of any position (s)he takes in XfDs and other similar forums, and is an active participant across many of the namespaces. A need for the tools is apparent, and the nominee certainly appears trustworthy. Agent 86 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per user we can trust.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak "good faith" support. I really have to grit my teeth since I'm an edit count guy, but lookign through all your edits, they are clearly very constructive. You've contributed strongly to AfD and to the articles you've edited, and you've done enough that I feel comfortable giving you the tools.--Wizardman 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Always friendly and reasonable in every interaction I looked at. For example, responded very well to this IMO. In addition, a serious contributor to the encyclopedia. And tons of policy and XfD experience. Some opposes focus on edit count, which is not a reliable measure of someone's experience and is easily gameable. After a pretty thorough look at talk and contribs, I'm convinced this user won't abuse the tools. delldot | talk 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Serpent's Choice's work on AfD shows an excellent knowledge of policy, a willingness to research topics over and above the call of duty, and a very professional and responsible approach to controversial issues. Tevildo 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: I trust Serpent's Choice. S.D. ¿п? § 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support low number of edits but reviewing them I do trust the user's judgement. James086Talk 07:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A remarkable editor whose XfD activity shows a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines and a talent for ferreting out sources for articles that might otherwise remain in question. Edit counts? Quality is preferable to quantity, in my opinion. Serpent's Choice is a valuable contributor, and I see no problem in giving him the admin tools. Shimeru 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support a good editor who satisfied my guidelines.-- danntm T C 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Good edits; in perusing them I don't see anything that would indicate untrustworthiness. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support quality beats quantity every time. User is active at AfD and would make good use of the tools fighting the backlog there. Eluchil404 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A good and trusted editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I believe this user can be trusted with the mop. Also, 1,500 non-AWB edits is far more acceptable in terms of garnering experience than 15,000 mindless AWB edits. Proto::► 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nomination.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom. —mikedk9109SIGN 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Despite the low edit count, I'm quite impressed with this candidate, particularly the depth of his AfD comments. The non-admin closures there have been good and I'm actually comfortable and confident enough in him that I think he'd be able to tackle all but the most controversial and acromonious of closures without problem. My one piece of unsolicited advice is that if you ever do decide to start counter-vandalism, please do so as an editor first to get a feel for actual blocking practice at WP:AIV.--Kchase T 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Edit count matters not. This user is definitely trustworthy, I believe he's got what it takes to be a good admin. – PeaceNT 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. for your activity level I can't see a large need to grant you the powers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - answers to questions are a bit weird, almost as if you consider yourself too important to respond. Also, why are you telling everyone how important your day job is? And do you seriously believe that 'argument by reference to a big number' is persuasive? However, my oppose is mostly because you have less than 100 article talk and less than 100 user talk, which indicates that you have not gained sufficient experience in consensus building. Addhoc 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Very few edits and I am particularly baffled about the excuse that "the research needed to reference articles appropriately is not a fast process." Not to to toot my own horn but look what I did to the Michael Jordan article in a 24 hour period from January 15th [1] to January 16th.[2] Here is a breakdown of the user's edits using interiot's tool.[3] Quadzilla99 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. I'm not convinced by the above oppose votes (this is, of course, only my opinion), but I do feel you need a bit more experience before becoming an administrator. I'd anticipate supporting you should you reapply in a few months. --Deskana (request backup) 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'd like to see some more experience in different areas. Michael 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per lack of experience in areas vital to being a good admin (various talk pages, mostly). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Modest Oppose Self-nom aside, editcountitis aside, above comments aside, I think that you could use a few more months here before we hand you the key to the toolshed. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. You have some projectspace participation but little community interaction evidenced by low talkpage activity of all kinds. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per the commenters above, needs more experience. Yamaguchi先生 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose don't like responses to the questions, and like the commenters above, I feel that he is too inexperienced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose 1500 edits is lower than what I have, and yet I'm no admin. Also, per above, the question responses sound like they come from an inexperienced person. Diez2 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose But please do not be discouraged. If you address the above concerns, you will have a good shot next time you run. IronDuke 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per edit count. Jorcoga Hi!10:25, Saturday, January 27 2007
  14. Oppose per above; sorry, I think you need a little more time. Trebor 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I'm going to pretend that the candidate has double his actual number of edits, based on his method, but it's still not enough. He needs more experience, and he needs to familiarize himself with administrative tasks outside the deletion process. YechielMan 03:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral This user seems to be a active and good editor, the only thing what concerns me is the edit count but except for that he/she seems like a really good candidate. Tellyaddict 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regretfully Neutral. In addition to the above concerns with tone I would be inclined to oppose a user for admin powers with SP's level of experience. Still, my personal dealings with SP have been very favorable and he is an excellent editor. I'm always happy to see him active on an article and he has shown himself to be a very "project first" type, even in a situation where others might be inclined to let their conflicts of interest or personal feelings color their judgment. I think that in some time SP will make an excellent admin, just not quite yet. NeoFreak 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very weak neutral only because of a lack of experience. The bulk of your Wikipedia-space edits are within the last month, which is kindof lowish. As others above have said, I will support next time. --BigDT 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Keep editing Wikipedia, and come back in a few months when you have a lot more experience. Hopefully be able to support you by then. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Netural per Arnzy. Carpet 02:31, 23 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Serpent%27s_Choice&oldid=1088715499"