Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ethically Yours

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

Final (0/3/2); ended 16:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ethically Yours (talk · contribs) – Bonjour, Wikipedians. I am Ethically Yours, a Wikipedian from the sixteenth day of November, 2013. Wikipedia for me is paradise. I browse through random articles, and if I notice an article has the potential to become a good article, I dive in. I have contributed to articles on films, books, and multi-diverse species. I have also contributed to AFD process, the CSD nominations and UAA clerking. A few months back, I had a nasty back injury and was forced to stay indoors, with minimal movement possible. I thus could not contribute periodically and checked back maybe a couple of times a month. I am now completely fit and therefore I would like to extend my maximum possible cooperation now that I am okay. I have got two DYK's under my belt, a good CSD accuracy and decent AFD success. I feel I can be trusted with the tools. Here's hoping for the best, Ethically^Yours! 12:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE: The reason for my being inactive was a back injury while returning from New Delhi. I was advised to avoid possible movements. So you could say I was practically bed-ridden, and I am grateful that I am here today. Ethically^Yours! 16:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 feel I am quite well versed with deletion and blocking policies. Throughout my editing history I have reported numerous users for violations and recorded a number of CSD's. I also intend to participate in AFD closures. I may, if required, participate in other areas requiring administrative privileges.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Content creation would be the apt answer. I love content, and that is precisely the reason why I joined Wikipedia. I feel Wikipedia's motto is very much relevant in today's world. I have to travel a lot due to professional commitments, and have been to many counties and villages. People here in India, especially from the backward classes, are not fortunate enough to be educated. I consider myself as lucky. I therefore ensure that I do constructive editing to strengthen the world's largest encyclopedic database. Some articles I have created are Wave and The Siege (Books). Chennai Express is a film page I edited to make better. I also like to help others with articles, as I did with Shammi (actress).

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: No, I have so far not been in any major edit conflict. I am a patient person and I believe patience is the solution to all problems. If someone assumes good faith for an edit that I have reverted, I will give way for the edit to come up. However, if the problem is more complex and might lead to edit warring or violation of the 3RR, I would rather open up a constructive discussion on the user talk page of the concerned editor.

Additional question from Vejvančický

4. Is User:Ethically Yours you first account you use on Wikipedia? Have you edited under any other accounts?

A: This is my first account. I used to edit from a dynamic IP earlier.

Additional question from BethNaught

5. The page Shammi (actress), which you list as one of your good contributions, contains substantial close paraphrasing of the subject's autobiography. Although you did not create it, you did edit it and nominate for DYK, where it was rejected for close paraphrasing and poor use of English. Why did you take the actions you did and do you think you should have acted differently?

A: Apologies for the late reply, but the Internet connection here is not working as it normally does. If you check the page history carefully, the basic framework of the page existed before I took up the work. I had tried to edit it as quick as possible, so that it didn't become obsolete for DYK, as it stood a fantastic chance and the content was sufficiently long. I did not check for copyvios which I agree, is a fault on my part.

Additional question from QuiteUnusual

6. Following on from Q5, please compare these two documents: this, specifically the last sentence of the lede paragraph you added that begins "The hackers sent a statement to..." and this, a source that you cited in the article. Do you consider this to constitute a copyright violation, plagiarism, or an acceptable phrasing? Please explain your reasons for your answer.

A: I would say that plagiarism. Thank you for bringing that up! Such errors are often useful for rectification, and I would accept it. However, if the sentence would be reworked upon, then maybe I had to shift to indirect narration technique. The reason is that the single line was modified and thus not a direct copy-paste.

Additional question from Stfg

7. Hello, Ethically Yours. Looking at Buddhaditya Mohanty, from which you removed a CSD A7 the other day, and at its talk page. On reflection, is there anything more you might have done, both in the article and in the advice you gave to the creator on the article talk page? Any comment about the timing of the tagging in the first place? Regards.

A: I like to console new editors and I feel it hurts when your very first article gets tagged for deletion. For review, I created the template Vandal-rc that takes a much softer approach to first time vandals. I applied the same method there at the talk. I told the editor that the article would no longer face deletion as significant, local sources have been found.

• Links for Ethically Yours: Ethically Yours (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ethically Yours can be found here.

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

• I'm not sure whether I'm going to support, oppose or neutral (or not vote at all), but I think it's a bit silly to use WP:NOTNOW on people with 4k edits. 2k-3k is the upper end of where I'd apply NOTNOW. Remember, this is WP:NOTNOW is "not now" as in "you haven't a clue what you're doing", not "not now" as in "not now, but maybe in a few months". --Jakob (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it? WP:NOTNOW's nutshell says "please remember this does not mean we don't want you in Wikipedia, just that we have high standards for adminship and the community does not think you are ready yet", which pretty much sums my feelings up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry if this is going to sound blunt, but by obviously ignoring every single piece of advice about running for adminship, including the in-your-face template that I toughened up only last week, you do not inspire confidence that you will read and apply any policies, guidelines, or other instructions and advice if you were to be a admin. FWIW, some advice you should have read are here and here and if you had, I'm sure we would not be here. 3,000 edits to mainspace, hardly any in maintenance areas, and only 50 edits in the last 6 months neither convince me that you have a real interest in adminship nor that you yet have a compelling need for the tools. I would suggest that if you are now fit again, you demonstrate a solid number of contributions over the next 6 - 12 months then try again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm afraid I have to oppose per WP:NOTNOW for similar reasons to Kudpung. You say you have good experience in deletion policies, yet you have only !voted in 19 AfDs, none since April, and while a ~80% success rate would be okay, there's not enough data to treat that as an accurate indication of your experience. Similarly, your CSD log is in the right direction, but you haven't really participated enough to show that not having the toolset is a major impediment to what you can contribute here. I can't emphasise this enough - adminship is not essential for Wikipedia at all and if you stick to creating articles, particularly if you go to GA or FA, you will gain respect from your peers anyway, and not have to live with the grief and hassle that admins have to face, particularly if somebody takes exception to a blocking or deletion action you make. I wish you well and hope to see some good content from you in the future, and please continue your participation in AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although you've done abit of AFD'ing & CSD'ing you've barely contributed here at all, Clearly another WP:NOTNOW case!, you don't appear to have done more, As a friendly tip I suggest gain more experience with AFD'ing & CSD'ing and retry in perhaps a year or 2 :), Good luck for the future tho. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should not comment here, but if you don't mind, the above comment was a bit demoralizing in nature (.."barely contributed"). Regardless, thanks for the opinion :) Thank you Kudpung and Ritchie333 for your valuable suggestions. Ethically^Yours! 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize If I've upset you there - I simply try to be honest here but at times can be rather harsh, Hopefully I've made it better, Sorry, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Awaiting answer to question 5. BethNaught (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. If the user is otherwise a constructive contributor, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions clearly states that opposing just because the candidate is somewhat inactive is not a good idea. Based on my readings of previous RfAs, this user probably would have easily passed way back in 2004/5, and I've decided that I'm going to take a very lax stance when !voting. (It's supposed to be a no big deal, right?) Therefore, although I'm still reviewing the candidate, I'm leaning towards support. --Biblioworm 16:23, 9 January 2015 (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.