Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reenem 2

Add links
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.

Reenem

[edit]

Closed per WP:NOTNOW (non-crat closure) at (4/20/3). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Reenem (talk · contribs) – Hello, Wikipedians! I am a veteran editor of Wikipedia, and am hoping that I can contribute in other ways. Although I have had in the past problems with sourcing information, which got me blocked twice, I am over that now. I am a regular contributor to this encyclopedia, having made 17,619 edits so far (See here for more info on that). I know that Wikipedia, a community of over 14 million and has relatively few admins to enforce the rules. As an extremely active and dedicated editor to this encyclopedia, familiar with the rules, and I feel that with my extensive contributions to this encyclopedia, I am qualified to assist. What do you think?RM (Be my friend) 03:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept my own nomination.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to help enforce Wikipedia's rules and restrictions, especially against obvious vandals. I already give out warnings, but I am hoping that the blocking tool at an administrators' disposal will be far more useful. I am pretty familiar with Wikipedia's rules, and I think I would do a good job enforcing them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Undoubtebly, to articles on military history, Israel, and Portal:Current events. The simple reason: I am an avid military history and middle east nut, and I especially take interest in current events and news. Wikipedia helps me to share this knowledge with the world.
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: Yes. I have had problems with sourcing in the past, which got me blocked twice. However, I am now far more cautious when it comes to sourcing and edit summaries. Whenever there is a problem, I settle it by responding on my talk page, and have learned from mistakes I have made. I have largely put my reference problems behind me.
Additional optional question from Airplaneman
4. I see that you don't always use edit summaries. In fact, you use them quite sparingly, as it looks like the stats also report auto-generated edit summaries (for example, when you edit a section). An admin should be able to communicate well, and I personally view not using edit summaries as not communicating well, something I try my best not to do. Why don't you use edit summaries regularly?
A:I usually source my info, but use edit summaries for others edits. Many of my edits are also minor, and not needing of an extensive summary, while I sometimes rely on the name of the sections to show where I am making an improvement.--RM (Be my friend) 04:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Airplaneman
5. Please explain in detail how you have improved since your last RfA. What have you done to address the issues raised?
A:I have learned to use sources less sparingly, and when that is not available, I use extensive edit summaries.--RM (Be my friend) 04:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
6. When, if ever, should an admin block a user who has not yet received four warnings?
A:If it is an act of obvious vandalism (IE obscenities, racism, obviously inaccurate information, etc.)--RM (Be my friend) 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. What's your view of the current four-warning system? Is it too strict, too lenient, can it be improved, etc.? Should it be stricter or the same or looser in regards to BLP articles?
A:Only for users who look genuinely new to Wikipedia. The same does not apply for obvious vandals, who, in my opinion, should be given two warnings. However, I will abide by the four-warning rule until policy changes.--RM (Be my friend) 04:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Dusti
8. Can you explain your recent lack of activity?
A:I think you should take another look at my contributions before asking that question.--RM (Be my friend) 05:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I misread something below. My apologies. Dusti*poke* 05:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Looie496 recently resigned as a sysop for using admin tools to circumvent community consensus. What do you feel should happen to sysops who show a clear disregard for community consensus?
A:Standard four-warnings followed by blocks.--RM (Be my friend) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Are sysops allowed to edit fully protected pages to add material they want to see included?
A:That should be decided individually and by consensus in my opinion.--RM (Be my friend) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. What is the difference between a block and a ban? When are bans placed, and how?
A:A block is a temporary restriction placed on a user to change his/her behavior. A ban is a community decision to stop a user seen as harmful to Wikipedia, and only after repeated blocks.--RM (Be my friend) 06:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Plagiarism is a recently hot topic amongst administrators. What would you do if you recently discovered another sysop was plagiarizing articles?
A:I would bring it to the admin's noticeboard and warn the sysop in question, and let the community decide if it was plagiarism or not. I am not qualified to decide alone.--RM (Be my friend) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


14. This is a fully optional question. Have you ever edited from an account other than this one?
A:Once or twice with an IP address (after forgetting to sign in).--RM (Be my friend) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


15. Will you opt in to the tool counter? (See discussion below).


General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Propose closer per WP:SNOW. Support !vote stands at 4 support and 19 oppose; that's a 17% approval rating. Three of the "supports" were moral supports, and one a weak support. Assuming no-one else opposes, this RfA needs 43 extra supporters to get above 70% approval. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Moral support. Reenem, you seem to be a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and in your 17,000 edits have probably done more to help build the 'pedia than many of us who will now opine about you here. I'd trust you to not delete the main page, and to helpfully block vandals when needed rather than have to rely on others. The trouble is the admin role has many other elements to it and like last year, we have very little to go by to trust your judgment in tricky situations. That's what people need to see to be comfortable with supporting you for adminship. Your question answers above, e.g. your desire to help enforce rules and regulations, are going to make some people here uncomfortable as well - they're a bit "off" to the culture of the place. I'd suggest withdrawing from RFA now, and getting more involved in the administrative aspects of the wiki even without the mop (this includes watching WP:RFA to see what sorts of candidates come through and how they are treated). Then come back in a few months once we know more about you in this area. Martinp (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support. Your heart's definitely in the right place. I just think you need a bit more experience. Keep up the good work with your contributions in the current events areas, and try to remember to always use edit summaries! (even for minor edits) -- Ϫ 05:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. Please don't be let down by the response here. With some more experience, you can get rid of those events of the past and possibly become sysop quality. Logan Talk Contributions 06:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support. Looking through recent contribs, the candidate is a very, very good content-editor. (And has nearly twice as many edits as I do, incidentally, and I'm an admin and have been here since 2006...) However, as far as I can tell, he doesn't have much experience with XfDs, say, or counter-vandalism efforts, or anything else that would allow me to judge what he'd be like as an admin. Although I don't think editors should have to jump through hoops to become admins, we do need (per Martinp above) some kind of track-record in order to judge whether the candidate knows what he's doing, and is capable of making the right decisions on difficult questions. I'd suggest building a stronger track record - for example, by commenting regularly on XfDs and illustrating a knowledge of policy - before coming back to RfA. WaltonOne 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral support I suggest you come back here later. I'm not sure we would give you the mop, as you are not actively involved in activities related to admin tasks. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 15:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - You write that you warn vandals, but I can see zero warnings or reversions of vandalism. (I also see you never used a tool and are not a rollbacker, which, while definitely not an issue by itself, makes me more sure that you do not revert vandalism except when you stumble upon it.) In addition, you rarely use edit summaries. I see little contributions outside of article space, so while you may be a decent editor, you probably do not understand what the sysop tools will be for. Additionally, you appear to still have some issues with sourcing articles correctly, as evidenced by your talk page and this diff (7 revisions), where you create an entirely unsourced paragraph and use exactly no edit summaries to indicate that you are rearranging content. Finally, your answer to question two is slightly evasive and leaves me wondering what you actually do consider your best work, so will you please list an article or two that we can actually judge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My best work?2010 Moscow Metro bombings.--RM I don't know what makes a warning official, but I have in the past gone to talk pages of violators and told them to cut it out, complete with the warning symbol. And please check the edit history of article you mentioned again: I provided a single edit summary and then made many minor improvements. The source was included in the summary.--RM (Be my friend) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find this and this where you have put a warning. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I don't run into vandalism very often, because vandals stick to small-topic obscure articles (and I think it's been a few times more than two), but I try to warn and also to notify administrators whenever I see it.--RM (Be my friend) 05:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waiting for the questions to be answered and the edit counter to be opted-into, but I'm thinking oppose right now. Over 90% of the edits are in the mainspace; there's very little activity elsewhere, especially in projectspace. In fact, there doesn't seem to be an edit to project talk space, and relatively few to user talk and article talk pages, too. I'd like to see a bit more activity in these areas, particularly projectspace—an admin is involved in the project's administration, and while a lot of contributions to mainspace is great, I'm looking for more. I also agree with Reaper Eternal above that, if you want to work in anti-vandalism, some experience with Huggle and rollback would really be beneficial; it's harder than it looks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose, I only see two warnings in your last 100 user talk edits, which goes back to May 2010. I also don't see any recent substantial contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. You said that you want to work on anti-vandalism, yet your contributions show otherwise. Nakon 04:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Strong Oppose per answer to Q10. Nakon 06:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I can't find much many vandalism warnings in your contributions or an edit to AIV [1]. Also, the lack of edit summaries and the block log worry me. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have asked questions as well, but feel compelled to add myself here. What's extremely concerning is how you removed all evidence of negative interaction from your talk page moments before transcluding this RfA. This tells me that you're trying to hide what you think are your low moments instead of addressing them straight-on in this RfA. An administrator will have to deal with situations much worse than what was removed, and being unable and/or unwilling to address issues is highly concerning. I also echo the comments from the above opposers. And a small typo you made in your self-nom: it seems you were blocked thrice, not twice. Until I'm convinced otherwise by your answers to the additional questions or general composure throughout this RfA, I'm stuck here. Please don't take the opposes personally; I am not here to put you down, and it would be depressing to see you stop editing because of this (something I've seen happen more than once. However, these comments provide points for you to improve and answer your question on whether or not the community thinks you're ready to assist with admin operations on this encyclopedia. Someone with the level of dedication that you have has extreme potential, that, if nurtured, may produce a strong potential administrator and editor in general. Are you up for the challenge? Airplaneman ✈ 04:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got nothing to hide, I freely admitted that I have been blocked, and I have had many problems, but my talk page is mainly negative. All the warnings and block notices I ever received were there, since I never learned to archive. The sheer amount seen might make a first-glancer automatically think that I am a bad editor.
  6. I'd prefer to see better references in BLPs than an IMDB external link. Also, I can't find any evidence of WP:AIV edits; I'd really need to see at least some activity there to get an idea when and why you would or wouldn't block someone for vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose You would be a good candidate for mentoring. Get more experience (e.g. rollbacker, reviewer) and try in 6 months. Sorry--Hokeman (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Sorry, but your block log is really worrying me. Maybe later when you've established yourself more as an editor. Logan Talk Contributions 05:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Switching to moral support. Logan Talk Contributions 06:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by that? Its been clean for a year now.--RM (Be my friend) 06:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per block log. I would also like to see more work in project space before I would support. Inka888 05:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per block log and answers to just about every question. SnottyWong spout 05:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry that this is ending in a pile on. I have serious concerns about the candidate's understanding of some of our most basic policy. The answers to the questions also do not instill me with a great deal of confidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Numerous concerns. Townlake (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Per above. Blocked less than a week year ago for disruption. Serious issues with policy knowledge, judgment, and maturity. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The last block was in 2010. Nakon 06:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still adjusting over from 2010. My bad. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I have opposed last time because of the block you had last year. At least that got out of the way. Sadly, I still don't see much improvement here. Your answer to Q6 is too vague (i.e. not enough information). Minimac (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I'm sorry to add to a pile-on, but after doing my own homework, I really can only reiterate User:Sven Manguard. Kudpung (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, but with moral support. Don't really want to pile on, but would like to make a few suggestions. Firstly, it's never a good idea for an admin candidate to remove stuff from their Talk page, especially not immediately prior to RfA. And saying it's because you never learned how to archive really isn't good enough - learn, and revert your removals and archive. You need to show evidence of significant activity in the areas in which you wish to do admin work, so for AIV, you need to show experience of dealing with vandals - we need to see appropriate use of warnings, understanding of what vandalism actually is and what it isn't, etc. And the answers to questions, I'm afraid, are just too vague/incomplete/inaccurate, and show you haven't really gained the knowledge from experience which is required. Finally, use edit summaries - always. Edit summaries aren't there just for when you don't add sources for a change - edit summaries and sources are two entirely separate things with entirely separate purposes, so learn about both and use both. I look forward to being able to support a future run when these problems have been addressed and you have a good amount of "behind the scenes" experience in admin-related areas. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and if I can make one more suggestion - I'd get rid of the "Stupid fucks" category from your user page if I were you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The userspace was brought up last RFA too......Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Airplaneman, Sven Manguard and edit summaries. Keep your head up and please take the advice well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - well meaning, but not enough knowledge at the moment - continuing to add unsourced material even after two blocks, not using appropriate edit summaries, and not having a useful talkpage archive are all signs of someone who is not quite in step with the community and would benefit from being mentored for a while to help guide them. I would also suggest asking the opinion of an experienced Wikipedia before applying again for adminship. SilkTork *YES! 09:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose – Doesn't seem to need the tools. I don't like the rhetoric about enforcing rules and blocking people; seems like he wants to be a Wiki-policeman. Hasn't demonstrated anything more than superficial knowledge of policy. His interpretation of the vandalism policy is, IMHO, not correct. (There's no need to stick to four warnings and then a ban. That's a guideline. It should be decided case-by-case.) Sorry, but no. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above opposes. Sorry, but I can't support you at this time. Please don't take these opposes the wrong way; instead, take everything that has been said into consideration and reapply in a year or so. Best, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per above opposes. My personal suggestion is that you attempt to be more rigorous about edit summaries, at least for major edits. More than 1/4 of all of your last 150 major edits have no summary. To me, this is a bothersome symptom. Good (clear and accurate explanations) edit summaries are among the most efficient ways to communicate with other editors. Many of us are perusing and monitoring a large number of articles and good summaries make all of our lives easier. I exercise the Golden Rule and religiously enter (sometimes lengthy) summaries as a courtesy to all the other editors. you don't have to be as assiduous as I am about this, but I don't see much improvement from your overall percent to your most recent activity. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I feel as if I may move to the Weak Support section of the benches above, however, waiting for answers to the above section. Reenem, in any sense, please don't let this get you down. I've had 3 failed RFA's and I'm contemplating my fourth within the next three months. Those people up there ^^ really do want to see you succeed, but we all have our doubts and worries, and in the long run... we're all here to support and build this encyclopedia. Keep your edit counts up, start using edit summaries (Even if you add "re" or "+" ... put SOMETHING in there because communication is KEY. Dusti*poke* 05:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Dont want to pile on here, query 10 needs more thought. Sentiments expressed by dusti are shared here. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral number of edits is good. Some work on audited content such as good articles or featured ones would give yu a good understanding of how the 'pedia works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (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/Reenem_2&oldid=1147965287"