Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 1 July 2007

TheFearow

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/10/5); Scheduled to end 21:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

TheFearow (talk · contribs) -

I have been an editor here for over a year, but I have not really started editing until the last several months. During that time, I have amassed 1.7K edits, and still counting. I am an active vandal-fighter, and I often do NP patrol. I have been focusing on many cleanup tasks, previously wikify, and now DEP.

I also run a bot, DeadBot, and I am currently under consideration to be a member of BAG (which is closing a bit late). I am also an admin on mw:, as mw:User:TheFearow, where I help out with importing etc. I also have a good knowledge of how MediaWiki works, and I am semi-active on bugzilla.

I am also an IRC regular, where I idle in most channels, however I am active in #wikimedia-tech and #mediawiki. Before anyone asks, I would not take any wiki-related discussions to IRC - at the very most if I needed to contact someone on IRC I would ask them to get invloved on-wiki. I do not believe IRC is the venue for any wiki discussions, especially because we have no proof of previous discussion - no logs can be taken.

Thank you everyone for considering my nomination, and no matter what the outcome, I will take any and all suggestions given to me seriously, and try to fix whatever I have done wrong.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to mainly help out with CSD, PER, AIV, and UAA. These are areas that often get a bit backlogged (I consider backlogged for csd to be any attack/nonsense/copyvio pages, or over 50 other pages, and backlog for aiv and uaa to be over 5 reports). I will also try to help out wherever is needed, such as DYK and other important or high-visibility templates that need constant updating.

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

A: Well, I know I will get some opposers for this, but none of my mainspace edits. I can't write in the style needed for an encyclopedia. Apart from those, I would say my DEP contributions, and my contributions on mw:. On this wiki, I would have to say my vandal-fighting and NP patrol, as well as the DEP stuff mentioned above. I am also getting into templates, so I guess some of my templates could be considered good contributions.

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 have been in several conflicts, notably one about notability (what a coincidence), however that was a mistake of mine because I believed I had seen then on the evening news, infact it was a similairly named person. I also had a minor dispute on Camp Ramah in the Poconos because I believed it failed CSD A1. (I actually got tags mixed up, so it was partially my fault).

General comments

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TheFearow before commenting.

Discussion

• See Misplaced Pages:Editor review/TheFearow. Shalom 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have placed {{Rfa-notice}} on my userpage. I know this is not canvassing, however people have been held up for it before. If anyone objects (to that notice) I will happily remove it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's specifically allowed by wiki-policy.--Anthony.bradbury 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, not even moral. Experienced with wikis, willing to help out, and in an unappreciated timezone. I think a month is enough, and I know if he needs help doing something he's not familiar with, he can come and ask me (or any other admin). Also a sysop of mediawiki.org - he's not going to be abusing admin tools. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - a bit moral. Keep up your hard work, like you did last month, and Im sure that, if this RFA doesnt pass, it will sometime in the future. Good luck! Anonymous Dissident 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - That he is an administrator at mw:User:TheFearow, runs a bot, and has worked in Bugzilla shows me he has enough experience and I'm sure it will only help Misplaced Pages to give him adminship. And I'm sure he would do well in WP:CSD, WP:PER, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA. Tim Q. Wells 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Per no big deal and Tim above. ~ Wikihermit 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I recommended for Matt to make this request, and I stand by that recommendation despite some reservations about overall experience with deletions etc. He has shown a maturity and instinct far in advance of his one month of active editing, and his contributions - both human and automated - will continue to help Misplaced Pages for months if not years. I trust him as much as anyone to strive for a well-maintained encyclopedia. Shalom 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - sensible guy, willing to help out, won't do anything stupid. I see that there is some merit to the comparison between the Misplaced Pages community and a cult. If this RfA fails, TheFearow will at least know which hoops he should jump through if he wants to be an admin in the future. Gracenotes § 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
7. The only complaint you've been getting below is of requesting adminship prematurely – in a few months, if you keep the good stuff up you'll breeeeeze straight through this process (like last week, there was 3 or 4 successful RfAs in a row). Great editor, won't abuse the mop. (spebi · talk) 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support- Even though I take lack of experience as a serious concern, I've seen you around, and I think you would make a great admin. Eddie 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Timecountitis is even worse than editcountitis. 1700 edits is plenty of experience, especially if well-distributed across the namespaces. Walton 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support While he has not been here very long, how many of us can make 1700 edits per month? Clearly a dedicated editor, who will not abuse the tools.--Anthony.bradbury 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --Fredrick day 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm sorry, TheFearow, but I believe this is a premature request. Out of your 1500 edits, 1400 were made in June. You are on the right track, but this request is premature. As this is supposed to be helpful and constructive criticism, I'll give you a bit of advice. Firstly, try to get at least 3 to 4 months of solid, consisent work (it's the best timeline, IMO), with a total amount of edits at around 3000 for a "safe" request. You also need to show some need for tools, in most cases. Your administrative section you have most contributed to is WP:UAA, with 7 edits. See, if most of your edits were correct vandalism reverts, correct warnings, and a ton of reports to WP:AIV, I couldn't care less that you have 1500 edits; I'd care if you have less than 1000, because it doesn't show familiarity and knowledge of policy. These are some of the pointers I can think of... don't hesitate to ask me question, if you need to, or ask for more pointers, if you need them, because I believe you are on the right track, and you should become an admin in three months if continue at this pace. --Evilclown93_(talk) 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   I submitted this RFA because I read that adminship is not about whether the user will work, it's whether they can be trusted. I know that I have a low edit count, and I have only become active lately, however I don't believe that should affect your vote. Anyway, thanks for the comments, and I will take that into account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Evilclown. Sorry Matt, but he's right, at this pace in two months there's no way you'll fail an rfa.Ganfon 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, sorry. Premature RfA, more experience (and time) is needed in all areas.--Húsönd 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the same reasons that I have opposed your request to join the Bot approvals group. --After Midnight 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   I believe I answered your concerns there, if that was not satisfactory tell me what other edits you are referring to and i'll answer those. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you did answer my question, but that doesn't mean that I like the answer. Your response to me was (paraphrasing): you had assumed that the block had expired, since other people were communicating with the user. I think that it is pretty clear that there was a heated discussion about unblocking on that user's talk page, and I question your preparedness for adminship if you didn't perceive that. The alternative in my mind is that you were not sufficiently thorough, which also does not speak well for you. Either was, I must oppose. --After Midnight 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Sorry, but I'm concerned about lack of mainspace writing experience. Contributing fact-based material to articles is, after all, central to Misplaced Pages. Please, find a mentor, identify an article or two of interest and put pen to paper. That will prepare you for an adminship. Majoreditor 04:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Hasn't gained enough Misplaced Pages experience to be an effective administrator at this juncture. Daniel 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I'm sorry, but your time on wikipedia so far is short...6 months with 1500 edits. If you gain more experience, I think you will be fit for adminship. H irohisat 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Strongish Oppose per the perceived power grab - was made a sysop on the Mediawiki wiki on 27th June 2007, requested a seat on the BAG last week and requests adminship here. Not comfortable giving this user adminship at this time, regardless of skill or experience. Nick 11:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Evilclown Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose — User is not interested in building an encyclopaedia. Matthew 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

    So adding tags to Francis Travis means he doesn't want to build an encyclopedia? This is one of the stupidest reasons to oppose. ~ Wikihermit 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose Lack Of Experience, Dosnt Seem To Require Admin Tools. HarryMaxwell (Highlights|Contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I think you have the right approach and skills to be an administrator, but I just don't think your time here is long enough. Ideally, most people look for around 1½-2 years experience and 3000+ edits. Perhaps try again in a few months when most people get the idea that you have improved on your edit count and experience. Kind regards, E 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   One and a half to two years? Are you serious? – Gurch 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   1.5-2 YEARS? If everyone absed their votes on that criteria, we would only have a quarter of the number of admins, and about half as many crats. If there are crats with less than that, I don't think it should be a requirement for RFA. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

2. I'm sorry but I think more epxerience is needed before re-running for RfA, I think you're definitely on the right track and you being an admin at Mediawiki is certainly a step in the right direction but for the minute — I suggest withdrawing this RfA and continuing to improve yourself. All the best. Qst 11:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. After a few months of consistent activity, I would be delighted to support. Riana (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I'm not really comfortable opposing or supporting. Both parties make good points. However, 1½ - 2 years is absolutely absurd. Cool Blue 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral - While I appreciate your length of time on the project, it seems you only really got heavily into editing last June. I do not think that you are not editing in good faith, but normally I like to see a candidate with at least three months of editing with regular contributions in a diverse area to demonstrate their knowledge of Misplaced Pages and its policies/guidelines. I hope you continue editing and hope to see you here again in three - four months. --Ozgod 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)