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

Richard0612[edit]

(2/6/4) final - withdrawn by candidate Mønobi 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard0612 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing Wikipedia since December 2005 and feel that it is time I requested the mop and bucket. I am a WikiGnome, meaning that I work behind-the-scenes doing small but useful things. I frequently revert vandalism and warn users/IPs accordingly. I am active at XfD, both in nominating and discussing [particulary TfD, as there is quite a backlog of redundant templates and MfD]. I tag pages for speedy deletion and add sources where appropriate. I also help out at Account creation. This isn't to say that I don't edit articles, I do when I see something that could be improved or modified, I just feel that I am more useful doing cleanup work. ><RichardΩ612 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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: As above, I participate regularly in the arena of deletion, so this is where I would concentrate my efforts. I would be happy to help clear the backlog at CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD, and close XfD discussions [I do so now if a page has already been deleted or it is a snowball keep]. However, a while back I became a little overzealous with CSD tagging, tagging a few pages that, on second inspection, should not have been tagged. I replied to the user who pointed this out to me and said that I wouldn't do any more until I had reassesed my recent taggings. I have now done so and continue to CSD-tag with more caution. If I felt that a page tagged for SD was contentious, I would ask for the input of one or two other admins before deleting it. I would also continue my antivandalism work at WP:AIV, and at WP:ACC only in an administrative capacity. I already monitor WP:ANI, and would be more than willing to assist there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Again, I have no one single 'shining light' contribution, I feel that the work I do in cleanup, antivandalism and deletion is just as important, and have been listing redundant and useless templates recently in an effort to 'clear the crud'. I am a firm believer that although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore writing articles is of extreme importance, deleting things that do not belong, resolving dispute and helping new or inexperienced users is also important, after all, if no one deleted vanity pages or had time to help new users, nothing would get done. New users contribute a large part of Wikipedia's content; an encyclopedia doesn't create itself!
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: I haven't been in any major conflicts, apart from the regular userpage vandalism, see here for an example. I have had users asking why I put pages up for deletion and have always tried my utmost to keep cool. See [1] and [2] for further evidence. Per my reasoning in WP:HCS, I feel that a cool head and intelligent discussion gets you and the other party to a resolution much quicker than belligerency and heated argument. I also think that 'sleeping on' a problem, or even just pulling away from the screen and doing something else for a while gives you time to think of a solution that will benefit everyone.

Questions from Avruch

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

A: A block is a technical way of stopping damage to Wikipedia by removing the ability of a user/IP to edit and [optionally] blocking account creation. A ban is a removal of the right to edit either through community consensus, an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo Wales. One of the ways of enforcing a ban is through blocking. Any pages created by banned users during their bans are subject to speedy deletion [CSD G5] and any edits they make can be reverted. A user can also be banned from editing just one area or topic, but a block is universal.

2. 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: I would review the material and ask the user to elaborate on their reasoning if they simply said 'violates BLP' or something similar. I would start a discussion on the talk page to see if other interested editors feel it is warranted. If I can find any sources for the material, I would mention those in the discussion. I think that it is important to gain consensus for controversial actions, otherwise you might run the risk of starting an edit war. I would also refer the problem to WP:RFC if a talk page discussion fails to generate consensus. If other editors feel that the material ultimately should not be included I would very likely back down, it is not worth starting a lame edit war over something like this!

3. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

A: I have never seen an AfD where such an issue has occurred, and I would have most likely mentioned this on the AfD already as I am quite active there and regularly monitor the logs. If I had not done so, I would either ask another admin [or two] for extra input. If there were serious concerns about the article doing harm I would most likely delete the article with the prospect of taking it to WP:DRV at a later date if someone disagrees.

4. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: I was expecting this one! Well, I think the idea is fairly good, as it does relieve some of the issues about hierarchies and it being difficult to get admins to stand down short of an ArbCom ruling. However, the debate and drama around it seems to have been blown out of all proportion and threatens to overshadow the project. However, to avoid being seen as afraid of community trust in my abilities as an admin I would add myself to the category. My criteria would most likely be something along the lines of '6/7 editors in good standing and at least one admin request desysopping or reconfirmation'.

5. What do you think are the concerns that other editors will most likely raise during this RfA, and how would you address them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: As mentioned above, the one thing that I thought would come up [and has] is my overzealous PRODding and CSD-tagging of pages. I have looked thoroughly through the relevant policies and now evaluate each page much more carefully. I got ahead of myself and forgot to think before tagging, it won't happen again and I now mainly stick to XfD discussions anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0612 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Richard0612 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
#Support I like what is happening, more contribs would be nice, but seems like the candidate will not abuse the tools. Dreamy § 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Dreamy § 00:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support, I see nothing in your edit history that leads me to believe you'd misuse the tools. If this doesn't pass, I'd encourage you to try again in a few months with a higher editcount. Lankiveil (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Protest support - editcountitis over the sake of a few dozen edits does not appeal to me in the slightest. I don't see how the user would abuse the tools.EJF (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. OpposeSporadic log-ins, but does good maint. --Niyant (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, quite a few of your "proposed deletions" have stayed in wikipedia. If you were admin, you would delete articles that may have potential to grow --Niyant (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mentioned this above that I have looked again at some of my previous CSDs/PRODs and will act with more care in future [whether this RfA succeeds or not] and as deleting an article is a drastic step, I would take great care in doing so. ><RichardΩ612 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not, in many instances, 'assumed good faith' and the interpretation of IAR via snowball clause is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors. --Niyant (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per the above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose You only have 488 edits to mainspace, while 568 to Uset talk and 315 User. While this does represent a diverse editting expertise, you need more mainspace edits. Sorry. SpencerT♦C 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose; I'm sorry— I don't subscribe to editcountitis, but you have far too little experience just yet to be able to trust you with the mop. You're definitely on the right track, however. — Coren (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose As good as you are, I hope to see you come more often. Marlith T/C 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above. Needs more experience and I will support you in a few months if you are active enough. NHRHS2010 talk 13:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral pending answers to questions. User doesn't have too many edits (<2000) so need to use candidate responses to judge suitability. Avruchtalk 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Seems like answer to Avruch's first question is copied. Dreamy § 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. My answer wasn't copied, although admittedly I may have worded it similar to the policy. This is most likely due to the fact that there aren't many ways to word the answer. ><RichardΩ612 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. This editor's work is good, but there's a few things. First thing that keeps me from supporting is that he doesn't meet a whole lot of my standards. Fewer than 2000 edits, no mainspace article with more than 5 edits. However, he's been around a long time, a year longer than me, so I'm confident this user has a decent handle on policies and procedures. On the other hand, 18 of the 26 months since his account creation have fewer than 25 edits. Useight (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As I write this, User:Richard0612 has 1940 edits. A complaint of yours is that he has less than 2000... is the difference really factoring into your decision? An honest question. Guldenat (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Yes, actually, the difference of 60 edits is factored into my decision. He's close enough to 2000 that I'm neutral instead of opposed. I normally oppose candidates with fewer than 2000 edits, but this one is so close I went neutral. For me to support this candidate he'd have to do a lot more mainspace editing. I almost always want to see at least 1000 mainspace contribs, 500 at absolute bare minimum, but that would require some awesome quality to make up for the quantity. So, my real reason for not supporting is lack of mainspace edits. Useight (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has made 2115 edits, including deleted ones. –Pomte 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - per above concerns. Rudget. 12:01, 13 January 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.
Category