Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex43223

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

[edit] Alex43223

Final (30/18/5); Ended Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:07:26 UTC

Alex43223 (talk • contribs) - I am nominating Alex43223 for adminship. With 3400+, Alex43223 is a recent changes patroller who exerts great kindness. The user has even got the "Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" for their kindness. With extra tools, I believe this user could help Wikipedia even more. This user is also an experienced user adopter which helps newbies become better Wikipedians. Again, this user's kindness is shown by their adoption of other users. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Thank you for the nomination. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Well, there are quite a few things I feel I could be helpful with as an admin. First, vandal fighting is a must, and with that I plan to monitor WP:AIV and WP:AN/WP:ANI. Additionally, I feel I could be helpful with the backlogs of the many XfDs, including WP:AfD, WP:CfD, CAT:CSD, and WP:RPP. I also plan to monitor the unblock-en list, and copyvios on uploaded media. Other than that, I will be sure to be around to help with whatever is needed, and I'll be on hand for whatever tasks may be requested of me when they arise. I definitely want to make sure that I keep up my article contributions as well, helping out around Wikipedia same as I already do. I don't just want to have the tools for just that reason, and I definitely don't want it to look like a trophy, and I understand that it is no big deal. Additionally, I'll make sure to keep contact with other Wikipedia admins, to help me out at the beginning. Contact and mutual (community-wide) understanding between users (and admins) is essential.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I can't say that there are too many particular articles I'm pleased of helping out with, but moreoever there is a wide spectrum of articles that I am pleased to be involved with. Through WikiProject Bio I have tried to assist in a wide array of pop culture articles. I keep up and monitor articles such as Spice 1, of which I am in the process of attaining an entire discography of, including album covers. I also have edited myself and contributed a few clips (audio) that I have placed in articles, particularly JoJo and Hilary Duff. That is another phase in which I'm working on attaining some songs I can edit and upload. I spend some time on VandalProof and AutoWikiBrowser, where I vandal fight and update articles (easier- popups live on though). I have been getting more into this lately, as it is faster and you can get more done in time. I like to welcome new users, and try to retain civility around Wikipedia, as I think that is a major field that can determine the overall mood of many people to Wikipedia. I like to help new users out, and am currently adopting four users, plus one graduated. Lastly, I often WikiGnome around, fixing little errors from spelling to formatting, and am always welcome to assist users with any issues they have with syntax, formatting, etc.

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: There have been a few instances in the past when other users have caused me some trouble. Of course, most of the problems are from IPs, and there are many of those. Ther have also been instances in which a user deliberately adds false content or spam to an article, and I've come close to 3RR. Whenever this happens, If it is related to 3RR, I try to talk it out with the user in question. That's a must and a first. I'll also contact other users to see their opinion on the matter. Community input and concensus is what it's all about, and that I feel should never be forgotten.

Questions from BigDT

4. On your user page, you have a userbox that says, "this user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." For what purpose do you have these other accounts? How frequently do you edit with them? --BigDT 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A:I have two doppelganger accounts, which I thought should be known, and the other account I had probably about a year after I joined, just to see how the community treated new users. I haven't used the account since, and never plan to do any editing under any other accounts. I generally like the idea of having one, single account, so that all attribution (good, bad, and otherwise) comes to me. Responsibility is key on WIkipedia as anywhere, and generally sock-puppetry is wrong.

5. WP:CSD gives a list of occasions where an administrator may delete a page without discussion (a speedy delete). When, if ever, would you speedy delete a page for a reason not given on that list? For example, some administrators might speedy a political editorial (citing WP:NOT) or an image uploaded soley for a deleted article, even though neither of these cases is a criteria for speedy deletion. Are there any such cases when you might speedy a page under a similar circumstance? --BigDT 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A. In a general sense (for this question), I would not do anything against Wikipedia policy purposely. However, I can understand that there are cases in which some various things need to be deleted. Like you said, an image uploaded solely for a deleted article. Well, I would most likely contact the user, to see what their purpose was. If they did it by mistake, that would immediately justify it. Otherwise, unless the image was gross (totally obscene) and I saw that it served NO purpose to Wikipedia, I would have to list an IfD. Policy is policy, and that's what it's there for. Rare cases are just that, rare, and the community should be able to rely on administrators to make the right decision, based on experience. That's why they're given the ability.

General comments

• See Alex43223's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Unconvinced by opposition. Just because of low Wiki-talk edits, doesn't mean he doesn't know policy. That's for Wiki-space edits. As for vandal fighting, quick reversion of vandalism, good user warnings, and all around-experience, even with the little things (saw a help talk edit), he knows what to do with the mop and bucket. Imageboy1 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

   Support Yes. I agree with comments below. Good luck! Seventy ... dot ... 02:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

   Vote struck - sockpuppet of blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Support Agree with above user. He knows what he's doing, guys, just review his recent edits. User will not abuse the tools. That's the only question that needs to be asked. VD64992 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per above. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I'll always support a user who won't abuse the tools. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak Support I am loath to oppose solely on Wikipedia and Wiki-talk edits, but I'm unconvinced of your readiness for adminship. For now, I will support. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Great vandal fighter and editor. I mean how could I not support this guy, he gave me my first award. QuasyBoy 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Ridiculous. People who don't have at least 1000 edits aren't experienced enough and this person has over 3000, and HE isn't experienced enough? Editcountitis is something that really needs to be dealt with. Kntrabssi 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Alex has a long history as a vandal fighter. -- Selket ^Talk 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - though I too see a lot of per aboves in his AfD edits, this guy's trustworthy. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Michael 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, quite friendly, no reason to oppose.--Wizardman 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support from me. I would prefer more evidence of experience in policy, but this editor has demonstrated sufficient maturity and restraint that I believe he will err of the side of caution if he finds himself in a situation he is unfamiliar with. That is all I would ask, and expect, of a nom. Good luck! Rockpocket 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - A little green in AIV but looks like enough AfD experience to be productive. —dgies^t_c 07:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools. Alex's recent contributions show that he is more than capable of handling adminship tasks. Rje 09:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    Support. I'll always support a user who won't abuse the tools.Ander.s.bergheim 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    New account, hodgepodge (deleted) userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

15. Support - Anas ^Talk? 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support -Mschel 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support would like a little more article work, but I haven't seen any real problems with this user. If he's unsure what he's doing, he can ask. No big deal. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Although WP:AIV edits are a little low for someone who plans to be a regular there, I still think his past record shows that he won't abuse the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - no reason to oppose. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - User seems to understand the policies around the areas where he intends to contribute. I trust this user with the mop.↔NMajdan•talk 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Nominator Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Many opposes seeem based on edit count or variations of it. Let's examine an editor's behavior to judge how they'll use the tools; edit count is not a reliable measure. I see no problems with this user, so support. delldot talk 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Support civil nominator and I trust this user with the mop...--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Courteous and reasonable. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Lots of Experience and can be trusted with the mop..--Cometstyles 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Despite the low participation rate over time by the nominee, I am satisfied the candidate has the knowledge and trustworthiness necessary to serve in the role. None of the concerns below sway me otherwise. Agent 86 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Terence 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Useful user and helped me greatly. Deserves the tools. Bigman17 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
30. Support A kind user who needs the tools. Crested Penguin 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lack of wiki-space activity suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
2. He won't abuse the tools, but will he misuse them? I don't see enough evidence that he has experience with policies to be comfortable with giving him admin tools. Sorry. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. From the look of userspace, user seems to be obsessed with his edit-count; there is lack of wiki-space activities as well. Most of the edits are automated, using WP:VPRF. I am not sure if you are experienced enough to handle the tools. Keep up the good work with fighting vandalism though. Upping wiki-space activities would look very good. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose I agree with Nearly Headless Nick. But also, User:Alex43223/Bio makes me believe (via the image) that he believes Adminship is a trophy. I think trying again in a few months would certainly be welcome (should this not pass). --MECU≈talk 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I could be wrong but I'm not seeing any quality articles, something I do think matters for admins: how can they mediate content-based disputes if they don't know what the right version of the article should look like? Also per the headless ghost up there, and somewhat limited XfD participation - both quantity and quality - does not inspire confidence that this user really gets the policies that apply to deletion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Per Xoloz and general underexperience. Soon. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Sorry I have to say oppose to, although your vandal fighting is good the actual article edits and lack of non-vandalfihting edits are lacking, you only have seven edits to Wikipedia talk, I'd give it a few months and improve a little on the overall work and the you will probably succeed. The advertising you RfA on your userpage is not recommended and it seems you XFD debate comments are not very often. Good luck for the future.Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - basically a good editor, however the first article you mention isn't properly sourced. Also, you don't have that many WP:AIV edits to compensate for your lack of article writing. Finally, your article and project talk counts are low, so I guess you don't have much experience in consensus building or mediation. Would support if you re-applied in 2-3 months time. Addhoc 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per concerns above. Yuser31415 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Another candidate who claims that vandal fighting is a key reason for needing the tools, but has had hardly any involvement in AIV reports. We don't want people with the block tools who haven't got a lot of experience of the blocking process. TigerShark 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose I have similar concerns as those above. I particularly value editors with a good record of interaction with other users. Come back when you have built up your experience a little. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose lacks experience in substantive matters. Pete.Hurd 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
13. I agree with Xoloz'z objections. Also, edit summaries seem to imply that this user believes *fDs are decided by vote count, rather than argument. [1] [2] >Radiant< 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - I think Amarko said it well. I make no implication that the tools would be abused, but they could easily be misused through lack of experience. The tools are just too hard to take away once granted. Nothing aginst this user as an editor at all. Johntex\^talk 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per lack of experience in Wiki talk space. I see no evidence the tools would be abused, but I do see an apparent lack of policy discussion and understanding (as per Xoloz and Radiant). This is not good for an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
16. An intricate knowledge of policy and current practice (I cite NPA blocks as one example) are things administrators need to have in their repertoire. I'm not confident you do, sorry. Daniel Bryant 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Amarkov. But try again with a bit more experience, I'm sure you'll get it then. StayinAnon 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm only seeing 6 talk edits in the wikipedia namespace which doesn't demonstrate a lot of interaction on policy pages, so its hard to judge how well the candidate understands policy. AFD is an area he wishes to contribute but the limited interaction there tends to show a touch of "me too" and I'd generally like to see a more discussion. As recently as February had some issues with correctly tagging an image they uploaded [[3]]. I'm also concerned that, going back to June, I can only find a handful of minor edits to one of the articles that the candidate is pleased with (JoJo). Finally, answer 3 is a worry. If a user is adding false information or spam and refuses to desist than that can be treated as vandalism if they have been properly warned. 3RR shouldn't be an issue in such a case and I'm a little concerned that the candidate doesn't appear to know this. However, I'm also seeing lots of good wikignoming and plenty of civility. Not really prepared to support right now but I'm not feeling opposed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   I can understand your first accusations, all though I don't want you to get the wrong idea with what I meant by Q3. I do understand 3RR policy and vandalism policy very much so. What I meant, in a clearer perspective, is that I talked it out with the user (warning them, of course). Any violations of 3RR I would have reported, and any spam after warnings I would've reported as well. The point I was trying to reach with that was that you should always contact the user directly, before going any further, to make sure they understand policy. Any deliberate violatins, however, must be reported. Hope that helps to clear it up a bit. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   Additionally, if it's the tagging issue you're talking about, that came in February 2006, 7 months after I had been here and over 1 year ago. I have sharpened up on image policy since then. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks _ I misread the date on the upload. Sorry, but I'm still not inclined to support. As an aside, I just noticed editing this that your sig is 4 lines of markup. Please can you review WP:SIG and try and reduce this a bit - its very offputting trying to follow on from your comments. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

   I've shortened it up a bit. Thanks for the tip. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E |} 20:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral - leaning towards support. However, your edit count is low, and most wikipedia space contributions are rfa's. I think Centrx said it well a while back - it's like practicing a sport - sometimes you just need to get more experience. Patstuart^talk·edits 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - just a wee bit too soon. Shouldn't take you too long to get some experience in XFD's, AIV, etc. But that is necessary to be a good admin. Patstuart^talk·edits 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

   Pat, you !voted above :P Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

   I indented the second one of the duplicate pair as an indented "response" to the first one, given they basically follow on from one another. Revert/change as you please :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, I am thoroughly shocked at my hair-brainedness. Patstuart^talk·edits 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral you look like a good user, but I suggest you get more experience in the Wikipedia: space.-- danntm ^T _C 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral A bit more experience using talk would be great. Admins often have to engage in lengthy discussions, and it'd helpful to be sure you're comfortable in that role. IronDuke 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning Support. I feel this candidate would be suitable, but am not seeing enough evidence to prove that. The way the consensus is leaning, I'd go away from this, work hard on the issues that have been raised here, and come back again in a few months. Broadly speaking - demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and be involved in community debates, assist in administration of WikiProjects and get a feature article happening and you'll blitz it next time. Just suggestions... Orderinchaos78 05:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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.