Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Techman224

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

Techman224 (talk · contribs)

End date: March 22 Hello, I'm Techman224. I've been here for about 6 months now, and have been doing some maintenance work on this wiki. I've helped in quick deletions, reporting vandalism, helped with some policys and proposals, and done other maintenance work. I'm am already a rollbacker here and on other projects. I wish to use my admin tools to help out by blocking vandals and deleting pages that are not needed. I'll also help out in any way I can using my admin tools.

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination Techman224^Talk 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I withdraw Techman224^Talk 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you active or have substantial experience on any of the other Wikimedia projects? EhJJ^TALK 02:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active on the English Wikipedia, which I'm a rollbacker and soon, an account creator. I have over 7500 edits there. I've also participate in some discussions on Meta which are global. I also participate on the Mediawiki software and report bugs. I do go to the English Wikibooks and helped flagged some of their books and do maintenance work. Finally, I have done some Small Wiki Monitoring Team work sometimes. Techman224^Talk 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q:"What is the purpose of the block; when should it be used and when shouldn't it be used?" fr33kman ^talk

A: A block should only be used to prevent disruption to the project. This can occur if the user is breaking policy, like vandalizing, personal attacks, and inappropriate usernames. It should not be used where they are doing it in good-faith, or if you just disagree with them Techman224^Talk 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q:"What is consensus?" fr33kman ^talk

A: It is a way to discuss something to make decisions. Basically if no one complains, every one agrees. However, if there is someone who wants to change something, they discuss it. They tell what they think, and let others tell what they think. It goes on until everyone comes up with a change, and they implement it. Polls are sometimes used to see how the consensus balances. However, voting is not consensus, it just helps to build it and to see where consensus is in the discussion. Techman224^Talk 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q:"When is it okay to close an RfD discussion that you have taken part in?" fr33kman ^talk 02:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: If it's obvious, and everyone agrees, then it's ok to close it. However, it's best to leave it to a 3rd party admin. Techman224^Talk 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: What is wheel warring and what should you do if you are involved in one?

A:Wheel warring is when two or more administrators keep reverting each others actions. It is bad, and instead you should discuss it.

Q: When should a page be semi-protected?

A:Semi-protection should be used when either ips and new users have been vandalsing a page lots of time. Techman224^Talk 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: When should a page be fully protected?

A:Full protection should be used for editing disputes or when requested by the Wikimedia Foundation. Techman224^Talk 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: For how long per each type of protection?

A:Protection should be set for a few days, however if it continues after being unprotected, it should be set longer. And if it's like the George W. Bush article, then it should be set to indefinite Techman224^Talk 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. You seem intelligent enough to use the tools successfully, and your work has been good. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) (review) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as I believe granting the bit would be a net benefit to the project. This is a tiny project and you can't really do much damage as an admin. Also, you don't seem to be a MySpacer or social networker, and that has to be a plus Soup Dish (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   And for the record, if you don't use IRC my support would be a strong one Soup Dish (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   IRC doesn't mean a candidate is any more likely to abuse the tools than someone who doesn't. Most people actually use IRC to help combat vandalism. Cheers, Razorflame 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support - Edit count shouldn't matter. Is there anything to suggest that Techman224 would abuse the tools? The answer is clearly no, so you have my support. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Edit count doesn't matter, but administrators should have a good amount of edits in the mainspace, i.e. creating and improving articles. I haven't seen this from the candidate. Razorflame 02:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Which tools do administrators have that help create and improve articles? Soup Dish (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If you don't know the formatting of a Wikipedia, how can you expect to use the administrator tools effectively? Razorflame 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Quite easily. For example, Majorly does little article work here but he is, in my opinion, far and away the best admin this project has Soup Dish (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's because he's an admin and bureaucrat at Meta and an Admin on the English Wikipedia, where he has done article work. He has also done article work here in the past. Therefore, he knows the formatting. Razorflame 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that he hasn't written any articles, but how does that affect his ability to push the delete button? –Juliancolton (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   How is he supposed to know how pages are formatted so that he knows when a page is deletable or not? How will he be able to tell if a page is badly formatted? Furthermore, the answers to his questions are not very well thought out. Razorflame 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Presumably the guy can read, so one would guess he's looked at a few articles in his time. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose You've been here for 6 months, yet you've only made 501 edits. If you've been here for 6 months, I would have expected to see many more edits than this (at least 1,250). Also, out of those 501 edits, only 235 have been the mainspace, and most of those are vandalism reverts. Therefore, I have seen virtually no article creations or content improvements from you. This, coupled with the low edit count makes me oppose you. I do not trust you and I do not think that you have the experience necessary to be an effective administrator here. You've done a great job combatting vandalism, however, being an administrator is not all about fighting vandalism :P. It is actually much more work that it seems because people get on your ass more if you make a mistake. The answers that you gave to the questions posed by Fr33kman leave things to be desired. Your answer to the RfD question was clearly lacking and the other two answers, while correct, only touch upon the basics of the tools. Razorflame 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That is 587 edit if you includes deleted edits Techman224^Talk 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Still not enough, in my books. I'm sorry, I really wish that I could support your RfA, but I can't currently. Razorflame 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - You'd need more experience to be a sysop. Admins need decent experience with the deletion policy, the blocking/banning policy as well as dealing with difficult users, policies & guidelines to the wiki, and how to co-operate with the community. Merely reverting vandalism does not qualify you as an admin. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. weak oppose I have some concerns about this user's communication onwiki. He spent a lot of time tagging articles by User:207.255.52.175 as stubs, but never talked to the user on the user's talk page about the concerns with the article (there's also the fact that all the articles the IP was creating were copyvios from en., but I don't think it's everyone's instinct to check for that for such short stubs). I also noticed a revert of User:Æåm Fætsøn at (the now-deleted) Amy Lowell. It was a rollback, but no justification was given on Æåm Fætsøn's talk page which should definitely be done if reverting an established user (a manual revert instead of a rollback should probably have been used here too, though I can see why AF's edit might be taken as being inappropriate). Those are my concerns for now, Either way (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Echo Either way about the miscommunication and potential misuse of tools. Recently his EN rollback was removed for reverting good faith edits. Concerns above show a pattern that I cannot ignore; not at this time, at least. Maybe in a few months. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak oppose per the concerns addressed by Either way and PeterSymonds. --Fairfield Deleted? 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak oppose - You're a good users and do a good work. You're about 6 months active. My problem is, that you only have about 600 edits. Sorry Barras (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak oppose You should have more edits in 6 months. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 11:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Oppose - Sorry, I just haven't seen enough all round activity for a potential admin - please try again in a few months. Thanks, Goblin 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I could still care less about your edit count, but the opposes by Either way and PeterSymonds are convincing. –Juliancolton (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. I see that this is not going to pass. I've seen reasons where I don't have enough edits and there was some problem with me on the English Wikipedia. Although I can't change what happened, I can promise that I will try not getting into this again. I'll reapply when I get more edits. Techman224^Talk 16:16, 15 March 2009 (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.