Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SorryGuy: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/5/5); Scheduled to end 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SorryGuy (talk · contribs) - User has been around since August 23, 2005, and has been consistently active for a while now. He does a good amount of vandalism patrolling/warning, XfD participation, and RfA "voting" (not just all supports either) as well as a good deal of article cleanup. There is always a lot of XfD and vandalism work to do (especially if anon pages creation is enabled), and the more hands the better. I definitely trust this user to use the extra permissions well and think that the site would benefit from having this user as an admin. Voice-of-All 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am surprised but also honored. I accept. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a short additional statement to Voice of All kind comments, though. While I know that I will not abuse the tools, I had felt it would be best to wait to seek them until I had been active for a few more months. At any rate, I would like the community to know that while my participation in the project in the past has been on-and-off, I plan on being committed to it in the coming year. If the community asks that I prove this before asking for the tools again I more than understand, but with Voice of All offering this nomination I figure it will at least be a learning experience. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The area which I expect to contribute most to is AfD. As it is, I mostly only contribute to AfDs that are labeled as six days or older. I do so as I feel those are the discussions which need the most input. As a result, I feel my understanding of deletion policy has become strong and as such this area will likely be the one that I contribute most to. Further, while I do not have a large amount of reports to WP:AIV, I have contributed to vandal fighting and as such feel that I will be able to check AIV and make blocks accordingly. Another administrative area I would like to help with is WP:CV although I have not quite done much work in this area yet. While I would also like to work in speedy deletions, I am not yet confident in my abilities here and as such will wait until I have studied the related policy more closely. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I have two contributions to the content building side of Wikipedia which I am proud of, although for different reasons. When I found Lord of the Rings in my early stages of Wikipedia, I was dismayed at how it looked. It was mostly unreferenced, had little flow, and was poorly written despite being over 70kB. I edited it down, referenced it, and added content that before didn't exist but which was needed. I also created subarticles for use in the main article. I went on to put it into WP:FAC where it past after a somewhat lengthy debate. As this nomination runs, I also have The Preuss School UCSD at FAC. In its case, I found it as a one or two paragraph stub. As a result, almost all its content is written by me. As such, it has likely been a more trying experience, but also a more rewarding one that has led to me understanding various pieces of policy that I before did not know as well. On the Wikipedia side of things, I am proud of my AfD contributions as well as my work welcoming users, although I have not welcomed users in quite some time. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: In general, I do not feel as though my Wikipedia experience has been a stressful one. I can not think of a time where I had any real conflict with another user. I do, however, understand that if this candidacy is successful I will likely have to be involved in these types of situations. In these situations, I feel as though I understand civility policy well enough to adhere to it. Of course, if I feel I can not, I am pretty effective at clicking the red X at the top of my screen. SorryGuy 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xDanielx

4. As you know, lots has changed since your big period of frequent activity around mid-2006 (WP:N being an obvious example). Do you feel that, for the most part, you are aware of major policy changes, and the more subtle changes in community-wide views? Have you noticed any particular changes that you have strong feelings about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Firstly, I would note that while I sporadically edited for a long period of time, I did follow the project pretty closely, or at least as closely as reading the signpost allows. Eventually some topics did pull me in at times. At any rate, I do feel as though I have reached a general understanding of the policies that have changed, although it has led me to having to read a few things again and in a few instances (using new templates, citing new policy in AfD) changes in my behavior. Personally, I would say the largest difference I have noticed is what I would call a de-centralizing of the community. I was around when such things as Ezperanza and Community Justice were in full-stride and at the time supported them. Besides that, though, I feel as though the project has largely remained the same. After all, it does stand for the same core values that make it what it is. SorryGuy 08:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Epbr123

5. Could you give some examples of your AfD contributions which you feel best demonstrate your knowledge of policies and guidelines? Epbr123 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Recently, I feel as though the deletion discussions found here and there are good examples. SorryGuy 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Rudget

6. - I see you've been here since 2005 and have so far not contributed heavily (5 or more edits) to any deletion discussions, either at articles for deletion, categories for discussion (etc.) or participated largely in Wikipedia discussion pages such as administrators's noticeboard or administator intervention against vandalism. Do you think this lack of experience will have a negative effect on your judgement when you come to those processes? Rudget.talk 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: In short, I do not feel as though it will have a large negative effect, no. While I agree that having that experience would be great, I feel as though I understand the underlying policy related to these topics. I understand that blocks from AIV are to stop disruption, that their length should be blocked based on the likelihood of repeat offense, and that infinite blocks should only be used for severe and continued infractions of policy. I also understand relevant deletion policies and how to apply them. As such, I do not think that will be a problem. SorryGuy 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 optional questions from Mr.Z-man

Please answer as if you were an admin.

7. A poorly sourced, somewhat negative article about a notable living person is deleted without discussion as a BLP violation. Another admin undeletes it with the reason "BLP is not a criteria for speedy deletion." What do you do and why? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: My precise answer obviously depends on the specifics of the article but in general: I would first see if the statements could be sourced. If so, I would do so immediately. If I was unable to do so, I would remove the statements, reducing it to a stub if it is called for. Depending on what content is left at this point, I would consider listing the article for deletion. If I felt sources could be found but as unable to do so myself I would likely remove the statements in question and consider listing it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Almost all of this action is as directed by WP:BLP. SorryGuy 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. A registered user is reported to WP:AIV as a vandalism only account. The user has been removing some sentences from an article about a subject you are unfamiliar with, using no edit summary, and is being reverted (with the edit summary "rv v") by the user who reported him. What do you do and why? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: This one would also be easier to answer with more specifics but in short I do not think I would block the user. His behavior does not match with any of the criteria for blocking at WP:BLOCK. I will assume good faith and say the user is not being purposefully disruptive. As such, I would likely ask both users to leave the article at whatever state it is in and discuss the attempted change on the article's talk page. I would of course have to take into consideration what sort of sentences were being removed, the number of times it had occurred, and the user's prior contributions. Another consideration, depending on the precise situation, would be WP:3RR. SorryGuy 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See SorryGuy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for SorryGuy: SorryGuy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SorryGuy before commenting.

• Questions raised about AfD and other participation seemed to be based at least in part on the text of the question concerning this above. I'd just like to point out that SorryGuy posted to AfD a number of times just in his last 100 edits. I wonder if the question is referring to 5 edits in a single discussion? That is pretty unusual, from what I've seen. Avruch^Talk 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Slightly tentative support. I had kind of an opposite reaction to answer 3 (relative to Kurykh) -- I think it's amazing that someone can go through 2,000+ edits without any substantial conflict. Gaining the tools generally means being involved with more serious disputes, but I'm sure SorryGuy's pacifism will be a good attribute in those events. I like what I've seen of his contributions, but I'll keep an eye on the comments of others in case I missed something important. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Pacifism is good, yes, but what I'm looking for is experience in conflict resolution, not just engaging in conflict. And in my opinion, you can't gain conflict resolution skills without being in a major conflict. —Kurykh 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support I've gone through a lot of your edits to get to this. Downsides are certainly your intermitent editing (which you have addressed above). You seem to have just one deleted contribution in a year and under 200 total but you did do some speedy tagging at one point. Very few AIV reports, but there we go, that's only one measure. Upsides, looking at some AfD contribution it seems good, and I applaud your policy of looking at the older AfD's to see if you can add value. Talk page is all civil (although I'm not sure I'd have archived months of sign-posts!). You recently consulted with an editor regarding vandal warnings (see here and here) and your cool head in that mildly heated exchange was impressive. Article writing is certainly there. So on balance although I'd have liked a bit more input (read edicountitis into that !!) I can't see you abusing the tools, which is the fundamental thing really. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  11:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per nom. Voice-of-All 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - as per answer to Q6. Rudget.talk 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Good answers. Just make sure to be an impartial admin, and to not blow up when facing the trolls. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. He's got XfD participation. What's the problem? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I think its silly to tell a proven trustworthy and reliable editor to "wait a few months." We need good admins now. There are huge back-logs to be dealt with and the more trustworthy admins we have a work the better for the community. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Seems knowledgable enough about the key policies and guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Will help give good deletion discussions Marlith ^T/C 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, can't see a good reason not to. Neil ☎ 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Per Pedro. Avruch^Talk 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, this is one instance when I think the quality of contributions outweigh possible "experience" concerns. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Appears to be sensible. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. SorryGuy appears to be an excellent candidate, as evidenced by his extensive article writing and *fD discussions. His answer to the first question shows an honest self-analysis of his strengths and weaknesses, and it further shows his good judgment by planning to wait until he gains more experience in certain areas before clicking the extra buttons. Good luck gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Answers to questions are good enough. Support. Bananaisgood (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Answers to my questions and question 4 are enough for my concerns. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Majorly (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak support, per experience. If not now, next time. Good luck. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:23, November 27, 2007
22. Support A good editor worthy of being an administrator. Appleskin (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment moved lower down as inserted out of sequence. Account's first edit was this one. Special:Contributions/AppleskinPedro :  Chat  16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23. Support I support SorryGuy for administrator Cheesecakeyum (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regretful Oppose Man, I would love to support, but I don't think you have enough experience quite yet. You are obviously growing everyday, and I will willingly support if the trend continues for a couple months or so. Jmlk17 04:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very weak oppose, leaning towards support per Jmlk. I want to support (that's why I made the oppose weak) because you are a good user (and I've met you in real life). However, the experience concerns concerns me. NHRHS2010 talk 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak oppose. I applaud your FAC work but I am concerned about the overall lack of experience. I note a rather limited stat at user talk pages which gives me pause. I believe I can confidently say that another couple of months with consistency and some additional work at AIV and such and I would happily support or even nom. Thank you for your offer. JodyB _talk 12:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Oppose per lack of experience, but you seem to be the right stuff. Greswik (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Je m'excuse I'm sorry, but your not quite experienced enough yet. Come back when you helped out more at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:UAA, etc. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Not experienced enough yet, and made less than 100 edits in the first nine months of this year. Good future potential for adminship. I'll support after a few more months of regular, positive contributions. Zaxem (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - Your answer to question #3 gave me pause. While your avoidance of conflicts as an editor is laudable, I'm not particularly keen to see tools granted to editors who have no experience in handling major conflicts. Adminship and conflicts are mutually inseparable, and an admin who has not had major experience in conflict, and by extension conflict resolution on Wikipedia may learn it the hard way and end up causing seasoned editors to leave. Might I request that you elaborate on your answer? —Kurykh 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said in answer three, I do understand that conflicts will most definitely come with becoming an admin. However, as I look back at my contributions throughout my time at Wikipedia, I can not think of an instance where any real problem occurred. Frankly, despite the fact that I have fought vandals, I do not believe my user page has even been vandalized. I will say that I am a firm believer in WP:CIV and that I do not believe that I have ever broken it (possibly because I apply similar principles across my internet usage). It's my opinion that it is the anchor of all communal behavior here. If I had to name the most stress I have had while at Wikipedia, it likely came as a result of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings. At that FAC and elsewhere related to the article there was considerable discussion about cutting the article and how to go about this. Besides this, though, I really can not think of a time I was particularly worried about anything on WP. SorryGuy 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not disputing your conviction to uphold WP:CIVIL or any other of our policies. I'm just uncomfortable giving tools to someone who has not gotten his hands dirty yet, so to speak. And I say this because it's a very glaring omission. I'm not going to oppose for this, but I can't support. —Kurykh 08:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral: Mainly per the concern raised above. Also, per your answer to question 1, you mention you would like to work on AfD's, while I don't see that you've contributed to AfD discussions all that much, thus, there is a chance that you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of content guidelines and policies. At this point, I don't see any reasons not to support you, however nothing is really jumping out telling me to support you. I am going to take a cursory look through some of your contributions before making any decision. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that my contributions to AfD have not been massive and again I was not expecting this nomination at this time, but what I have contributed to it I believe to be a good guide to my opinions and interruptions of policy and guidelines. As I said in answer 1, I usually comment on the older AfDs, which generally have not reached consensus. As a result, I feel as though they are particularly good examples of my views. However, please feel free to ask me any further questions on my views on specific guidelines. SorryGuy 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral per above points. If you come back in a few months, I will gladly endorse your nomination. --Sharkface217 06:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral for lack of experience with policy. Considering what you said just above, perhaps you should not accepted the nom until you yourself thought you were ready. DGG (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said above, I considered doing just that but decided that going through with it now couldn't hurt me and would only lead to fair critiques that allow me to improve as an editor. SorryGuy 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Neutral, leaning to support, primarily because of the candidate's response to DGG, above. That attitude is precisely why I think the candidate will get the mop before long - just maybe not this time around. Best wishes, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]