Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chetblong 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Chetblong

[edit]

Final (29/5/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chetblong (talk · contribs) - I have seen Chetblong at work (I mean at wikipedia) probably since he joined here. While he committed a few rookie mistakes during the initial days (including an adminship self-nom), he has since grown tremendously in his knowledge of the workings of wikipedia. He keeps himself busy mostly with work related to maintenance of the project - the kind of work the admin buttons make easier. Apart from article housekeeping jobs, he is quite active against vandalism and weeding out unnecessary junk with very well-reasoned reports. And very friendly and helpful to newcomers. I have not "admin coached" him but did "test" him with some questionnaire. His familiarity and understanding of policies seemed pretty good, and I think he can be trusted with a few more privilieges to further help with the maintenance. soum talk 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you for the nom Soumyasch, I humbly accept. --ChetblongT C 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know a lot more about the Wikipedia policy I have to say my previous self-nom RFA was extremely too early with only 300 edits, I neither should have been an admin nor did I know enough about Administrative duties to be an admin. I look back at my first edit with disdain because I didn't know a thing about what I was doing, not to mention I was adding information that I wanted to be true not actual info. Since then I feel that I have matured much more in Wikipedia policy. There are some days when I just looked at others contributions to see how they edited Wikipedia, which has also helped me to better understand Wikipedia policy.

Now before I answer any questions I'd like to point out a one thing that I'm sure will come up as an issue during this RFA. First, I started closing AFDs sometime last month however I was not completely in knowledge of which ones should be speedy kept, and there fore I closed these 2 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Redfield Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyHeritage) AFD's early with 4 votes for keeping the article. Therefore a Deletion review was opened where, as soon as I found out the policy, I agreed to it being reopened. I now know the the policy and therefore won't close WP:xFDs early without a reason verified by policy when I'm an administrator. And I don't intend to start doing something that I don't have enough knowledge of without first finding out what the correct way is and how not to mess up, like I did with the AFDs.

Also I'm not that great at giving long answers to questions, so if I don't give enough info below please ask me for a better explanation.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I intend to spend a lot of my time helping out with two main areas that I know most about, WP:AIV and WP:CSD. I also will help out with WP:AFDs, mostly closing consensus deletes or keeps but I will start to close AFDs where it is hard to find consensus after I know a bit more about the area. I think I almost know what I should do, but I would wait until March or April before I will start to help out in that area. I also intend to help out in helping with the backlog whenever necessary.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I like to revert vandalism, tag CSDs, and help with AFDs. I've created a few articles which aren't anything much to like. I tag articles with friendly and recently I'm helping out with WikiProject Arkansas. And I really like to help out newcomers whenever I see they are in need of assistance (cause I was a n00b once, so I know how you can't understand Wikipedia policy at first). I like most everything that I do so I can't really pinpoint what I like best.
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 was, it was a conflict about the Criticism of Windows Vista article and it was a conflict that I started. I was wrong but I though I was right at the time. However whenever I come across a conflict nowadays I try to find away to bring the two sides together, as I tried here but to no avail. I intend to continue this way during conflicts and not make rash decisions, just try to calm the situation down.

Questions from Thehelpfulone

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is usually done by a single administrator, after the user has either damaged or disrupted Wikipedia, and after they have been given enough warnings to fit the situation, or if they have a "bad" username. Blocks are also used with full bans, and last for the duration of the ban, and if an editor is blocked indefinitely, and remains so after a community decision, they are considered banned. A ban is a formal removal of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia, and is usually decided by the Wikipedia community, the Arbitration committee, the Wikimedia foundation, or Jimbo. Also, bans are either permanent or of a decided duration, and if a user's disruptive edits are limited to a certain subject matter they are usually given a partial ban instead of a full ban.

5. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A: It seems like a good idea and I'd be happy to add myself to that category as soon as I become an admin. Because I can create my own standard on who can ask for a recall, I have no need to worry that the recall is being done even if I haven't done something wrong.

6. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?

A: I would say that the user should not have had any blocks for the past year, has over 1000 edits (but not just to User talk pages), and shows a need for it (i.e. has TW installed and has been using it a lot).

Questions from Malinaccier (talk)

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A. If I thought the info about a LP was highly notable and verifiable, I would discuss the matter with the other admin and ask a few other admins what they think, I would not revert any admins actions without discussion first. And if I had any sources on the matter I would include them in the discussion to show that it wasn't just tabloid like info.

8. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?

A. In short, a POV fork is a fork from a main article, that is made to try to prevent the article fork from having to follow NPOV, and is only telling one side of the subject and therefore does not follow Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. If I ran across one I would first try and see if it could be improved in any way or if the content could be put into the main article, if not I would run it through an AFD.

9. What is your understanding of WP:IAR

A. In short, if a policy or guideline on Wikipedia prevents you from improving the encyclopedia ignore it. But if what you're doing is damaging Wikipedia then IAR does not apply.

10. A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

A. If an article is currently in an edit war, or if the article falls into any other reason to be fully protected I would fully protect it, otherwise I would semi-protect the article.

11. When should "cool down blocks" be used? Hint: It's a trick question.

A. In short, an admin should never temporarily block a user just to calm them down, because it would instead make the user madder than they already are. Quote: "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of 'cooling down' an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation."

Questions from The Transhumanist

12. What are the names of the articles you have created?

A. There are 2 articles, well really 3 but I didn't "technically" create Tyrone Luther Hadnott which is a very notable article and, when I get the chance this weekend I'm going to try to expand and improve the article but I haven't had the chance as of yet, the other two articles are named, Yellow goatfish which I decided to create one day last month when it was at the top of the recent changes page, and Harlow's Casino Resort I created in early September and I'm not that happy with it and I'm not even sure if it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, but no one has AFD it so I don't know, there just aren't enough notable sources to me. I intend to start writing more articles over time.

13. (Acknowledging that an article-specific edit count may not indicate this), what are the names of the articles you have edited most extensively?

A I don't think I edited any article "extensively" but I don't know which they would be anyway because I can't remember that much without writing something down. Perhaps Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge and Greenville Bridge? Added: I am now revamping Unita Blackwell I would say this will probably be my biggest extensive edit to an article yet.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Weak support Lack of article building and surprisingly recent ignorance of AfD policy (which he admitted to above), but nevertheless seems unlikely to abuse the tools. He accepts and learns from criticism, which IMO is the most important criterion for an admin (and one which many established admins could use more of). --Ginkgo100talk 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I think you could make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I see no evidence that you'd misuse the tools. Just be careful and read (and understand!) all the relevant policies before you go deleting anything. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Support, of course I do. I wouldn't have nominated him otherwise. --soum talk 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Lack of Wikipedia-space edits and mainspace edits, but apparently good work so far, so can't deny on that basis alone. Rudget. 12:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with Ginkgo100, he recognized he made a mistake regarding the AfDs and promptly apologized. Overall, I think he would use the extra buttons competently. Addhoc (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Have looked closely at contribs: CSD tags seem to be appropriately applied and AfD|closures now being done properly. A recent addition, but a fast learner. No evidence of problems so why not?. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Would be a good admin, good luck. Burner0718 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support Would be an amazing admin, takes responsibility, is very helpful, personal, and thoughtful. Good luck! ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Just remember ,Primum non nocere. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Changed to support. Thanks for easing my fears and answering my questions. Malinaccier (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak support Mainspace ratio is kind of low. Not low enough to deny. Alexf42 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support meets my standards. Courteous and helpful. Willing to take constructive criticism. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Honest. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools, found no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks alright by me. GlassCobra 07:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support Lack of AfD participation concerns me. I would like to see more of this, but all of your other contributions are fine. Razorflame (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Reliable. Axl (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2008(UTC)
  20. Weak support based on a very civil clarification and comment below my initial oppose concerns. Excellent response - I wish you well with the tools. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sure. Acalamari 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support As per Rudget,Razorflame and Alex.But the user's commitment is 100%. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Sounds good to me. Gary King (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Nice responses, I hope you get the tools. SpencerT♦C 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per answer to questions- sorry a little late! --The Helpful One (Review) 14:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Better than some of the current admins. Basketball110 proof that this user is crazy 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. While I take note of Moonriddengirl's (whose opinion in these matters I greatly respect) opposition, I like what I see in all other regards and expect that these issues can be addressed. Ronnotel (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems like a responsible Wikipedian, and I wish him the best of luck. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Best! --Bhadani (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Regretful oppose. I am concerned about the nom's understanding and application of CSD policy. Of greatest concern to me is this use of WP:CSD#A7 on February 9th: Sweetcorn icecream. The entire contents of the article when he tagged it were "Sweetcorn ice cream originated from Malaysia (Clarke 2004) is one of the strangest and most exotic flavoured ice cream ever made. Its existence has been very much debated by rachel. In each delectable spoonful you'll find juicy pieces of this signature fruit of paradise. blended with the purest ingredients, sweet, luscious corn create a tropical delight." WP:CSD#A7 says, "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." No argument on the quality of this article, but it was patently not an A7 candidate. Similarly, within the last several weeks, he tagged Dick chop and Laurie Ferron as {{db-nocontext}}. The former read "Dick chop is a shock video, made by Bme pain olympics, of a man who removes his penis and testicals." and the latter "LAURIE FERRON: best known for being a french model." A1 says, in full, that it is for "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." I can recognize the subject of both of these quite easily. I also see several instances of articles which he tagged for deletion under WP:CSD#A3 as "no content" within a minute of creation. WP:CSD notes that "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." The nom has made many good tags and seems to do generally very good work on Wikipedia, but does indicate that this is one of the "two main areas" that he knows "most about". I would feel more comfortable supporting with evidence that the nom knows it better. I believe that speedy deletions are often overly liberally applied—a complaint we see quite often at the talk page for CSD—and that anyone seeking adminship, particularly with the stated rationale of desiring to pursue them, should demonstrate full understanding of policy before receiving the tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't always tag articles correctly if I'm in a rush or if there are a lot articles being created that should be speedy deleted, admittedly I should have tried harder to tag them correctly, but as you know tagging for CSD is different from actually deleting an article so I don't hold myself to as high of a standard as I would if I were an admin. However I do understand the CSD policy and looking back (as hindsight is always 20/20) I would have put Sweetcorn Icecream through AFD, the Dick chop as well I would AFD, and Laurie Ferron I would tag as CSD-A7. As to the rest I don't know because I can't see my deleted contribs. I understand why you voted oppose, but I do feel I know the policy. Sincerely, ChetblongT C 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    #Weak Oppose (switching to weak support, see above). I've been going back and forth on this as I don't believe you would abuse the tools, in fact I believe you'll do just fine as an admin, but I'm just not convinced that you have proven the need for them yet. Chetblong, I don't agree with your sentiment above that "taging CSDs" is of a lower standard than deleting them, therefore it's acceptable to be less careful? I believe the potential is there for "rushing" with the buttons if that is what is already happening without the buttons. Again, that doesn't mean abuse, but it does seem to allude to a potential misuse based on misunderstanding or "rushing". Right now, it feels like drama waiting to happen. I hope I'm wrong, as your RfA will likely pass. Please though, go very very slowly with deletions, blocking, unblocking, and protecting pages. I would recommend getting more involved in WP:AN and WP:AN/I for now, at least reading (perhaps commenting? You don't have to be admin to comment there) to see what's currently going on in admin world. Also, I strongly recommend finding an admin mentor from the start to review your admin actions before any of them are questioned as possibly flawed. While I agree that 20/20 hindsight is good, someone else's eyes looking at your actions with an outside perspective is even better. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't mean for it to sound that way, what I meant was that I would be a lot more careful as an admin using my tools, not that it's acceptable to tag articles incorrectly just that I haven't spent enough time making sure that they are correctly tagged. I do apologize for the articles that I have tagged incorrectly and will try to correctly tag articles in the future. Also I will take your advice on a admin mentor (I already have a few in mind). --ChetblongT C 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Insufficiently experienced, at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. I share concerns about too few substantial mainspace contributions. User:Dorftrottel 19:32, February 15, 2008
    Also, A4 fails to make the most important distinction between block and ban: A block is directed against an account, whereas a ban is directed against the person. User:Dorftrottel 19:59, February 15, 2008
  4. Oppose per Moonriddengirl. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Just a tad bit lacking in overall experience right now. Jmlk17 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - I'm worried by the lack of mainspace edits, which I consider wholly necessary and preparatory for diffusing future disputes and edit conflicts. Wisdom89 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Why do you assume that he does not have the skills for "diffusing future disputes and edit conflicts" just because he chose not to be too active in mainspace edits? Why not ask him some questions on any aspect his contribs don't answer? --soum talk 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply which concerns, mainspace or AFDs? --ChetblongT C 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - User:Siva1979 often expresses his/her opinions in a short and vague sentence on RfA's. I, also, would be interested in Siva explaining and articulating him/herself better in this particular instance. ScarianCall me Pat 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per lack of mainspace. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning towards support. Mainspace is fine in my opinion, but projectspace experience is a little low. If I can get any evidence that you know policy inside-out, I would be willing to change to support. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'd be glad to answer a question if you'd ask it above. :) Yes 221 does seem a little low, but I've done quite a few CSD tags and I know everything pretty much about WP:AIV. As I said above I've just started with AFDs but I'm fairly confident that I know what I need to know, to close AFDs. If you'd like to test me above with a few AFDs, please do. --ChetblongT C 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here come a bunch of questions. Malinaccier (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've answered the questions above and I hope you change your decision. BTW nice trick question :). --ChetblongT C 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral You are really on right way, I would like to see more article or WP:AFD participation. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Great candidate, but I disapprove of the strong-arm tactics the community has used to force this "admins open for recall" notion. We already have that process (ArbCom), paranoid hysteria about "OMG rouge admin abuse" and grumblings about "X users, Y months, Z edits" are unnecessary. Bureaucrats, please count this as a support vote if it comes down to it. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (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/Chetblong_2&oldid=1140379359"