Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/TheFearow

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions | Administrator
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

TheFearow

edit

Hey veryone, i'm TheFearow or better known (maybe not on here) as Matt. I'm from New Zealand, and I love the wiki system. I used to be mostly active on my enwiki account, with over 3K edits. I decided to come here as it's a smaller wiki with an actual community, and its possible to make decisions without being hunted by an angry mob. I do a lot of maintenance work, but I have written a few articles. I have done a lot of work on Larry Craig, as well as New Zealand and related areas. I am constantly finding things I need an admin to do, so becoming a sysop would allow me to take care of those myself. I know a lot about wikisyntax, mediawiki, and programming, as can be demonstrated by several things I have developed, such as the Ticker and my dynamic quiz system. Since all my systems end up complexish, ironiridis created {{WTF}} for me, which I use on systems that are still in development and not in real use or on pages about them that are not viewed a lot.

You can see what my opinions of admin tools etc are at this page, but to summarise it, I believe things should only be done after consensus (meeting the CSDs etc counts as consensus), and I believe in second chances. I do not like indefblocking unless necessary or obvious socks/VOA's.

No matter how this turns out, I will keep contributing heavily, and my work can only get better. I will happily request reconfirmation if any user in good standing requests it. If I make any mistakes, I will happily fix and apologise, as well as improve. If you oppose please tell me how I can improve, and if you support, tell me what i'm doing good so I can do more of it!

Thanks, Matt. TheFearow 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make an addendum; I will likely respond to all opposes, I have some of my best and most interesting conversations with people that disagree with me. If you don't want me to reply, just say so. TheFearow 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
42. TheFearow 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly that's wrong, because that's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was a bit broad, the more specific answer is 14. (Instead of being of the life, the universe, and everything, its a third, so only the life part). TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100%. If any user in good standing suggests I go for reconfirmation, I definately will. TheFearow 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly biographies and such, and I do see a lot of half-archived pages etc (tagged as archived but not protected, or the opposite). TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin will you continue to write articles or focus more on tech/admin tasks? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately continue to write articles. I will use my admin actions where appropriate, and luckily tasks that need admin tools only come along occasionally, although should be handled promptly. The admin tasks usually are important, but there are few enough that they can be handled without influencing article work. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression it was a guideline, as other RfAs have passed with less than two months work. I also believe I have done a lot of good work, and I can be more helpful as an admin. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without the consideration of past RfAs, from what in the official policy above are you extrapolating that the two criteria for adminship are guidelines? If the policy is unclear, perhaps it needs to be rewritten to reflect the community's wishes (guideline or mandatory rule). What are your feelings on this? --Jcart1534 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the header is worded, they appear to be guidelines. If they are not, that needs to be much more specific, and I would adivse a discussion on it as they have been treated as guidelines in the past as well as lately. I believe they should be guidelines, but not rules, however I do not mind either way. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the impression that you find Wikinews attractive because it is a smaller community, and you feel less like a "guppy in an ocean" whereas Wikipedia has grown beyond that. What opportunities do you see for us to recruit other Wikipedians into our community? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can imagine various ways to recruit Wikipedia members, and I believe the key ways would be to make ourselves more known, and target people who actively contribute to things such as w:Portal:Current Events and w:Template:In the News. The main part is showing how open we are, and how much of a community we have. Showing everyone that we're like the small village, whereas wikipedia is Tokyo. I also believe that many active users of Wikipedia would want to do some work on wikinews, even if it doesn't become their most active wiki. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
I would like to point out I have done a lot of writing - Idaho senator arrested for disorderly conduct, Hurricane Felix now Category 5, Hurricane Felix strengthens to Category 4, New Zealand ATM gives out double the money, Republican leaders accused of double standard after Larry Craig's resignation, John Key admits to visiting strip clubs, and I know there is more. I also do a lot of minor editing of articles and cleaning up etc. TheFearow 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you've made good contributions on these articles. But the first day you touched the article namespace was August 20th, which is 17 days before you applied for an admin position. I simply feel that's not enough time. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok. I have made one or two spelling corrections as an anon, but my first proper contribution was august 20th. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I do hope you stay true to your word and do continue to stay on here at Wikinews, I have to oppose your request do to the fact that you only started editing around a month ago. You do have the support and the trust of this community, I feel that you haven't been here long enough. Try joining the New Zealand cabal later. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Where's the signup form for that? On a related topic, I did sort of expect a few oppose votes due to my time here - I know it is a bit short however I am a fast learnner and I know a lot of the policies from enwiki. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some people may realise I am being hypocritical opposing TheFearow, while I was only around for about a month before getting my accrediation, but I have done some growing up since then. --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, Zachary, your first try for adminship (just shy of 1 month) did not succeed as people thought you were too new, even though they felt you would be a great addition. Your second Rfa did succeed, but you were just days away from 2 months. Jcart1534 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected, though my register date and the date I actually started making contributions are two different things. Registered on March 14, first non-userpage edit was April 2, and I became an admin May 20, so it was about one and a half months. Still shy of the two month "guideline", though. —Zachary talk 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume work means working on articles/maintenance/policy/etc, so it would be since first non-userspace edit. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Jcart1534 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the concerns highlighted above and also because I'm not happy with the nonsense that is {{WTF}} that this user seems happy to be associated with. As with brianmc, I would be happy to reconsider my views in a future RfA. Too new for adminship just yet. The user states their opinions about adminship at User:TheFearow/AdminToolOpinions. I feel this is entirely redundant since policy already sets out where action should be taken. I want admins to follow these policies not their own versions. Adambro 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{WTF}} is a joke - if you don't like it, i'd have no objection to it being deleted. Those are my opinions, which I would use if it was up to my discretion, or policy did not state what to do. I would follow policy unless there is a VERY good reason to do so, and if I ever did do something against policy I would happily explain my actions and discuss it further. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{WTF}} as a joke. I also put it on one of his tools. I'm sorry that your primary point of opposition is related to what is essentially a userbox. Also, I should point out that the policies state that any admin should exercise their own judgment. For example, the policy on speedy deletion has no provision for articles created that clearly aren't news, yet have meaningful content, like the series of biographical stubs we've been getting recently. We speedy them anyway. I am clearly violating policy when I do that, but to what end should we follow policy? Develop a news story about somebody's 11-year-old turning 12? I support the idea that someone should make their personal stance on the policies (especially when they fall short) clear and public. irid:t 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have noticed that common admin actions/traditions dictate policy, policies don't dictate actions. (With exception to core policies, like npov, privacy policy, etc). Some policies arn't fully followed all the time, some all almost totally ignored (cough, userbox policy. however that is mostly because it tried to change actions instead of document traditions, plus it was a compromise no one really liked, and most people probably are not even aware of its existence). Most policies have a bit of leeway in them as well. they often say you should do blah, you may do blah. In the end, I think common sense and good faith in all actions is what is important. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you - common sense is common sense - if something policy says seems rediculous, pointless, or wrong in a particular situation, bend the rules. As long as its helpful, done in good faith (although this is not necessary if its helpful), and doesnt violate very important policies, I agree with using common sense and/or IAR. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Comment Please reply to all criticism. Unless it's a five page dissertation, criticism is constructive and informative, and discussion is the key. :) irid:t 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update For those of you keeping score at home, we currently have 8 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals. irid:t 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to say - before someone closes this vote - that I'm happy with the result. The user is likely going to pass in 3-4 weeks time when they apply again; they'll be a tad more level-headed about it having spent time tagging things that need admin action (hint! hint! If you see something that should be speedied, flag it to say "I could have done that").
Part of the delay before you're likely to get your hands on the admin tools is getting to know the people who already have them. We do not want wheel wars. So, learn where other admins (and users!) have specific interests. If you get into a conflict on something you think they're biased on then do your best to see the other side. Ask questions before making accusations. We share a common goal - the success of Wikinews. We should be able to achieve that regardless of our individual political affiliations. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/TheFearow&oldid=1074691"