Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoothingR

From 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.

[edit] SoothingR

Final (8/9/3) ended 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SoothingR (talk • contribs) – I'm nominating myself, because I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards. I can really get exasperated sometimes by my own lack of abilities to deal with vandals and their so-called "bad-faith" edits..no to mention the "good-faith" edits by new users. I personally believe that I have shown the community that I have proven myself to be a good editor. I'm somewhat the guardian of Nightwish, and have participated in almost all articles concerning this group of people. I also welcome other users a lot, and try to push them into the right direction by leaving notes on their respective talk-pages. I have over 2700 edits, been here for more than three months and a half and participate a lot in RC- and New Page-patrolling. SoothingR^(pour) 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, I do. -- SoothingR^(pour) 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the rate at which this RFA-debate is developing more and more into a discussion over some poorly chosen words of mine, instead of my contributions. I withdraw my self-nomination. -- SoothingR^(pour) 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Looks to be a very good user, who would make great use of admin tools. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
2. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Wha..? Support, of course. FireFox 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. His wording above was unfortunate, but looking through his contribs I see no reason why he cannot be trusted with admin priviliges. Remember, adminship is "no big deal". Dan100 (Talk) 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Granted, his contributions are good. In the future, I'd advise him to re-read important things before posting them, so that misunderstandings like this one don't happen. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, given his contributions and answers below. --G Rutter 14:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, am happy with this editor's contributions, clean ups are good. --Alf ^melmac 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, see no problems here. Croat Canuck 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Three months is quite short. Also your comments "I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards" is a bit worrying. Many articles do not make the standard because they are badly written, and need a clean up rather than deletion. Astrotrain 22:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, lack of experience with policy and process. Radiant_>|< 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose based on comments made in self-nom. We need admin that make bridges, not one that burns them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. The self-nomination speaks for itself, so to say. Sorry, no. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC) vote changed per 13:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   I urge those who voted oppose due to the statement in question to read SoothingR's words below and reconsider their votes. It was a poor choice of words, that's all. Raven4x4x 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose Even taking into account the revised statement, the poor choice of words in the original is a sign that more experience is needed. If an admin said that in closing an AfD debate, it would cause unfortunate distress for many. I'll be glad to support in three months. Xoloz 19:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. This guy's approach to improving Wikipedia seems to rely too heavily on the "delete" button that he's trying to get. In addition to his deletionist comments above, here is an example of him attempting to speedy an article that clearly doesn't qualify under CSD (and eventually was cleaned up nicely) and here he is marking a User page for speedy deletion (carelessly, if not deliberately). I'm also puzzled by his comment "...no to mention the "good-faith" edits by new users." – which tools is he after for dealing with those good faith edits? His comment regarding "the huge number of almost ancient vfd-discussions that are still awaiting their closure" is strange; we have eliminated the backlog on AfD; the oldest one currently open is from 8 days ago, not "the first half of 2004". We don't need a trigger-happy deletionist to "wipe Wikipedia clean", "deal with" new users, and block the authors of articles that meet CSD, as he promises to do in his first answer. I'd rather go with a candidate who wants to save articles and guide new users. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   I have no problem with you opposing to my request, but please stick to the facts. Though I admit that trying to get UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1564 speedied was a mistake, I did not put up an userpage for speedy deletion; if you just take a look at the history, you'll see that I was only trying to get a non-notable band speedied. Friday userfied the page later on for reasons that remain unknown to me. Also, if you think that I haven't been guiding new users enough, I encourage you to look through my edits again. I take a big hand in welcoming them and pushing them into the right direction. And regarding the tools-question; good-faith edits are not necessarily good edits. Testpages, userpages in the mainspace and creation of an already existing article are not things we want on Wikipedia, though most of the time they were not intended to cause Wikipedia harm. And there are still vfd discussions wandering around here. Here, here, or maybe here..well there's a whole lot of them here. So please, you can have your opinion on me..but I would appreciate it if you actually wouldn't let me come off as a 'careless' and trigger-happy deletionist for little reason. -- SoothingR^(pour) 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, many newbie good-faith edits are harmful, but the rollback button should never be used for that purpose! And as Splash has pointed out already, those older VfDs are closed, they just haven't been marked as such. Feel free to take the initiative and mark them all as closed using the standard templates, indicating that you were not the closing admin. You are allowed to do that. As for treating newcomers, greeting them is nice, but your plan to block the authors of speedied articles is extreme overkill. Once they figure out what's suitable for an encyclopedia, many of those newbies go on to become great contributors here. A gentle comment on their talk page usually goes a long way. Not every problem requires a shotgun. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   On the vfd-issue; if that's the case then I'll get started on the subject today..I'll drop that point in my 'Questions for the candidate'. And for my plan "to block the authors of speedied articles"..I take it that you have misunderstood my point. The suffix "if their record as a wikipedian and the guidelines of wikipedia do require that." means to add that I will not block users for making an article that can be deleted through CSD. I was trying to say that I will - if I still make administrator - punish users with bans, if that reflects the severity and amount of their vandalism. And my plan with new users is not just greeting, I'm also giving them advice and help, if they require that. -- SoothingR^(pour) 14:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The thing about VfDs from early 2004 is weird. They just haven't been templated is all, and the debates were usually just copied to talk pages and deletion log archives. First draft of answer and redraft both indicate a need to swim around rather more yet and establish proper familiarity with common processes before offering promises about them. -Splash^talk 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
7. strong Oppose user accepted his own self-nom - clearly inexperienced. freestylefrappe 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   Are you serious?? How on earth is that grounds for not granting adminship? Dan100 (Talk) 14:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   Inexperience and lack of familiarity with the process have always been grounds for opposing adminship. Minor mistakes, while not grounds for denying adminship by themselves, are often indicative of such inexperience. Owen× ☎ 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is ridiculous. Not only do almost all self-nominations accept their own nomination, but the policy requires this. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate says, in the section on self-nominations, "note that you accept the nomination". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose. User sounds controversial in the self-nom reasons. Hedley 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above. User seems a little too controversial to be granted adminship this soon. Next time be a little humbler when introducing yourself and dealing with other users. Aucaman^Talk 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Statistically you meet my normal approves, but can you elaborate on "I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards". Do you advocate deletion over other forms of cleanup? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   In regard to you and to the ones who chose to oppose because I wrote "I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards"; I meant with that, that I would like to remove vandalism. I didn't mean that I would like to bite the new Wikipedians, or just speedying any poorly written article I come across. If you take a look at my edits, you'll see that I have spent plenty of time trying to improve articles, I could you give you plenty of examples..however my 3 October cleanup of Cannabis Cup might be my best. I seriously do not see how I'm trying to burn bridges. In fact, I'm helping them to be built. So, Xaosflux, my answer would be no. I prefer to cleanup, to take it to the talkpage, and perhaps to merge..but only when all other means seem useless, I delete. -- SoothingR^(pour) 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral. A little too early for my tastes. Also, if the above comment was simply a poor choice of words, perhaps the candidate should take more time reflecting on his writing, especially in a request for adminship. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral Self-noms aren't good, and the nightwish comment sounds like WP:OWN, but from a skimming of the contribs, he seems to be on vandal patrol alot. Come back later. karmafist 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I have no time now to go through SoothingR's contributions and cast a vote but I want to note that I was impressed with SoothingR's response here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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'm eager to resume my work as a vandalfighter, by speedying articles that meet CSD..and blocking their authors, if their record as a wikipedian and the guidelines of wikipedia do require that.

I'm also concerned by the huge number of almost ancient vfd-discussions that are still awaiting their closure. Just use the search-function and search on "Votes for deletion", and you will get what I mean..articles from the first half of 2004.. I would like to take a hand in fixing them.

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

A. As I stated above already, in Nightwish. I really love their music, and therefore I've gone and tirelessly tried to improve this article time and time again. I'm particularly pleased with the creation of my {{Template:Nightwish}} and my december 5 cleanup, which really gave the article exactly what it needed (IMO).

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. When users complain to me about edits of mine which they feel that I have not done properly, I always try to remain mature..and always ignore attacks at me as a person, if they're there. I take their points into consideration, and see if that changes my opinion. If it does, I kindly apoligize. If it doesn't, I try my best to explain why I didn't change my opinion...I try to refer to as many applicable Wikipedia policies as possible, so that I base my arguments on valid points.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.