Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN
I withdraw this nomination. I admit that the oppose reasons are pretty true. It's time to start over for me. I will not return here probably for a while, so I can get much more experienced and also show better judgment in AIV, UAA, etc. Thank you everyone who !voted in this nomination, you have given me some advice for the future and I hope to see you again sometime. Thank you for the nominations by Milk's Favorite Cookie, RyRy5, Kingrock, and Diligent Terrier. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtracker94

[edit]

FINAL (9/22/4); Withdrawn. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtracker94 (talk · contribs) -

Co-nomination by Milk's Favorite Cookie: Stormtracker is ready for the mop/tools. He has been on Wikipedia for a while, since July 2007, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since October 2007. On talk pages, he is always civil and assumes good faith. Another thing that RFA voters like is article space work. He has helped make Luis Castillo (baseball) and Iván Rodríguez a good article, and has created List of Heisman Trophy winners a featured list. Furthermore, he has worked hard on List of Boston Red Sox seasons, a current featured list candidate. He has also been a large help to Wikiproject Boston Red Sox and Wikiproject Boston Celtics. Stromtracker has also worked in some admin areas including WP:AIV with 90 reports there, and WP:UAA with 45 reports. I'm sure Stormtracker is ready for the tools. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will be added later. The only reason I am starting this before he can write up the nom is so the RFA will end during my school vacation week. This would help me monitor the questions. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC) And added... Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Kingrock: Stormtracker has always been there for me. From the first day I joined Wikipedia, he always made sure he answered any questions I had for him and best as he could. He has worked tirelessly to help me become the best editor I could be on Wikipeida, and has showed me how Wikipedia works and how to make the best article as possible. He has stayed active with discussions to improve pages, helped in the tireless battle angainst vandalism and has helped my save many of my articles when they faced deletion. He is humble and is not greedy for power. He has helped promote many article to FA and GA status and deserves to join the ranks of Wikipedia admins. King Rock Go 'Skins! 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by User:RyRy5: I have known User:Stormtracker94 for a while now, and he has been active ever since I met this user. He has done a great job reverting vandalism, improving articles, and creating decent articles. He also promoted an article to WP:FA status and he also promoted three articles to WP:GA status. Stormtracker seems to always have a cool head too. He is a generous person and he is always kind to users. Well, it is about time Stortracker becomes an admin, and I see no reason why not to nominate this user.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Diligent Terrier: Since Stormtracker94 joined eight months ago, he has shown a real dedication to Wikipedia, and if you take a look at the way he improves articles, reverts vandalism, and helps newcomers by adopting them, you will see why. During the time I have been active here, I have seen his name all over Wikipedia for a while now, and every time he has been friendly, honest, civil and has used good judgment. For these reasons, I feel Stormtracker94 would make a good administrator. He has worked very hard and deserves the tools, and he has also improved greatly since his previous RfAs. Please support Stormtracker94 in this RfA. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP
PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING
Stormtracker94: Frequently addressed concerns (FAC's)

I know that there are some reasons that I may be opposed here, but I am going to do my best to try and address these concerns .

  • My "too many RFAs in not enough time"

This was a main reason that I was opposed in my last RFA. I really think that if I had explained this in the past, I would have succeed in my last nom. Well, the first two nominations were self nominations when I was pretty new at Wikipedia, so I really don't think that the two premature RFAs should slap a "power-hungry" or "too anxious to get tools" tag on me. These noms were premature. I had no idea what the standards were back in September and October, so I applied twice hoping for some success. I hope this helps you understand why these should not go against me.

  • My "voting too fast at AFD"

This was also a major concern in my past RFAs. I had been !voting in Articles for Deletion discussions very quickly, and seemed to not be helping to build consensus. I have tried to stop doing this, and I have slowly went away from AFD and have started at MFD instead.

  • My "not enough experience"

This pretty much speaks for itself. I have waited about four months and re-applied. I took a look at the Administrator's reading list and know the policies better. I am almost a nine-month member of the website now, so that should not be a concern of experience.

  • My "not answering question 3 correctly"

I have finally figured out that the stress explained was over edit wars not other users vandalizing your page, making personal attacks, etc. I have not been in any of these edit wars, so I did not understand the meaning of the question, but now I completely understand after watching other edit wars and being in the Meditation Cabal.

I hope this covers everything. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 22:54, 20 April 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: I would work in many areas as an admin:

  • WP:UAA I would really want to get involved here. I have experience here (about 50 reports), so this may be the place that I start. I would look for usernames that have been posted and only block the users if they have obviously violated the username policy. I know I have made mistakes, but I promise to be more careful here. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AIV- This would be one of the first things I would start getting involved in. I have had a lot of experience vandal-fighting and would like to help out here with blocking. I would throughly check the user's contribs, and would make sure the user was sufficiently warned before a block.
  • WP:CSD- Wikipedia could always use a lot of help here. Users create accounts and make nonsense pages or attack pages, etc., at almost any time of day. I would really want to focus here, because this is probably one of the most importing things on the entire website (behind the mainspace, of course). I would also like to help out with images that have no conpright information for 7 or more days, or copyright violations.
  • WP:RPP- I would ease into this area after a while, but would help here after reading over the policies and getting some help from a more experienced admin. I am starting to get inviolved in this lately, so I may go here after getting used to the job.
  • WP:BACKLOGS- After a while, I would also like to clear the administrative backlogs. I would get involved here after more time as an admin.

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

A: I'd have to say that my best contributions to Wikipedia would be in two areas. These two areas are vandalism fighting and sports articles. In the field of vandalism fighting, I have reverted many user's vandal-edits and made nearly 90 reports to WP:AIV. I hope to continue to do so, but spend more time at AIV viewing reports. In sports articles, I have created or expanded many articles related to baseball or football (American). My best work would have to be either Luis Castillo (baseball) , Ivan Rodriguez , or List of Heisman Trophy winners . And why? I really feel that some person will look up one of the articles that I helped write and say "I didn't know this about that person", or "I didn't know that he won the Heisman in that year." I feel that I am helping other people learn with my best 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: Because I work in the field of non-controversial sports articles, I have not been in many conflicts since I have started here. I have had some stress put upon me by other users, mostly angry users angry at me for reverting their vandalism. In the future, I would alert a trusted user to mediate the dispute and help settle the conflict. Possibly, I would take it to the Mediation Cabal. I have been involved here and have experienced how it can make a tough thing like solving a dispute over an article a easier process.


Request for clarification from User:Revolving Bugbear:

3a. Can you explain the notion that "because [you] work in the field of sprots articles, [you] have not been in many conflicts..." ? I'm afraid I don't see the connection there at all. I've seen plenty of conflicts about sports articles since I've been here. What do you mean by this? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not seen any at all. The types of articles that I edit are usually non-controversial, (e.g. award winners, games) so they are not prone to conflict. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions that I'll probably have to answer, so I'll add them now:

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

A: A ban is a formal decision by the community to revoke editing privileges from a user, and can only be decided through a few processes, such as the Arbitration Committee or a formal decision by the Wikimedia Foundation. A block can be used to temporarily remove editing privileges from a user, and can usually be preformed by any admin without much major discussion first. A block can be used to prevent a user from editing, while a ban formally expels the user from the community.

5. When should you apply a "cool-down" block on a user?

A: Cool-down blocks should never be used. These may just provoke a user and possibly make the situation even worse, after the block expired.

Optional question from SorryGuy

6. I went ahead and went through all of your AIV for the last two months or so and observed almost all them were good reports that were acted on. However, I also noticed that in almost all the cases, they came in circumstances where other editors had reverted the vandalism and warned the user. As such, I am unsure how you feel about warning and how aggressive of a blocker you would be in regards to recent discussion on WT:AIV. So I was wondering if you would review recent discussion there and give your opinion on the issue. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A:

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/Stormtracker94 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Done. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have known Stormtracker94 for almost 2 months now, and I consider that "a long time".--RyRy5 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support As co-nominater. King Rock Go 'Skins! 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support as a nominater. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good range of Wikispace contributions. Looks to be a good fit for admin tools. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No major problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I've seen this user around and I like his attitude and demeanor. Just a little bit of advice. Your WP:AIV looks darn good, as do most of your WP:UAAs, however, I noticed a few of the latter that were borderline. Nevertheless, I find that this area can be tricky. Just remember that, generally, usernames that match a company or some other commercial entity should only be reported if they are spamming or making promotional contributions. Other than this minor thing, I foresee a great administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to be more careful with these, as stated above. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support as nominator.--RyRy5 (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good WP:AIV and WP:UAA experience. Epbr123 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as co-nom. Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I nominated Stormtracker94 in his 3rd RFA, so I definitely believe he's ready. I'm disappointed that he didn't inform me that he was up for RFA again...Useight (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. The editor says they have "lots of experience" at UAA" - how? and why? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further information - these diffs worry me. They show the editor does not know username policy, yet this is an area the editor claims experience in. 1, 2, and 3. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone does make mistakes, and I promise to improve here. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "confusing usernames" is really a gray area. Besides, the first diff isn't that bad. These are minor slip ups. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it rather bad form to agree with editors that rebuke oppose !votes on your own RfA. It comes across as confrontational. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    replying here, but I'd rather take it to a talk page1)Blocking a user for their username is one of the bitiest things we do. 2)Blocking a user for something that is not gainst policy is very bitey and wwill drive editors way 3)"confusing usernames" is NOT confusing, the big red box at the top of the page where usernames are reported has a bolded comment about policy. This editor was still reporting people -to be instantly blocked- for "confusing usernames" 15 days after the policy changed.4)The big red box contains alternative, less bitey, instructions for RfCU or talking to editors about usernames. In my opinion the editor is too quick to report editors to UAA and not quick enough to place welcome templates. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Your comment in your FACs regarding AFD worries me. You were told, I assume, to actually add to the discussion rather than !vote to keep/delete/etc, but your solution has been to avoid AFD and instead move to MFD. That seems a little odd. Also, I don't approve of "hassling" opposers as appears to be happening here George The Dragon (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I mean to be doing. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose This page he created (created 6 days ago, now deleted) doesn't really show, in my opinion, good judgment. It was overly bureaucratic and unnecessary as far as I can tell. Metros (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was having a horrible day in real life (I know this sounds like an excuse). I did not know what to do, so I tried to change the process. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then I really can't support you at all because I wouldn't want any issues arising when you have a bad day with the sysop tools. Aslo, this is a little thing, but it really doesn't give a lot of confidence that you can't properly add replies without breaking the formatting. Metros (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'd like to support because of your work with WP:AIV, but Metros's points above make me question your integrity. I'll easily switch to Support if I can have some assurance that you won't abuse the tools in the event of a "bad day".--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User's "Stormtracker94: Frequently addressed concerns (FAC's)" should be replaced by real FAC work if he wants my support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. In his contributions, he doesn't show the maturity necessary to be an administrator. (I am as opposed to ageism as anyone, which is why I emphasize maturity.) Also, I severely doubt he has "UAA experience"; I believe he is just clicking buttons in TWINKLE without being familiar with the username policy at all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Lacks the maturity that is fundamental to administering this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per general lack of maturity and judgement. This diff (and surrounding diffs) I find problematic for numerous reasons. The fact that you attempted to alter statements in a previous RfA so it would justify you running earlier was bad. What is worse though, is that you didn't realize how badly this would come off to other editors. We can read the entire history of your edits, yet you still thought it was a good idea to attempt that. I think you only changed back so quickly because you were caught almost immediately and the other editor told you to revert. To give you the tools, I need confidence that you understand how wikipedia works and attempts at deception by simply editing your old edits is so ... bad. If this RfA doesn't pass... take your own original idea in the last RfA... wait at the very least 6 more months. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose You have done great work to contribute to this project, but you are writing almost as if you are already an admin. Giant red tags, answering questions before they are asked, writing your own optional questions? Sorry. I would love to support in another few months. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I think that this user is going to make a good admin someday, but not quite yet. I don't see enough of a change from the last RfA. I still see consistently poor judgment and a lack of maturity that are both crucial to being given the mop. I suggest waiting six months and quit being so eager for the tools. Trusilver 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unconvincing responses to opposes; possible maturity issues. · AndonicO Engage. 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose This is going to be a long comment, so I'll apologise in advance. Firstly, I'm again surprised that the candidate is here at RfA, so very soon after the last RfA, which was just over a month ago. I made a comment on that RfA which prompted the candidate to withdraw the RfA and admit that accepting a nomination was a clear error of judgement, so I said I was happy to withdraw my comment and treat the RfA as a declined nomination, but we're back here at RfA after another month, now this is the 3rd request in 4 months and the second which has been accepted. I'm a little disappointed at the nominators, so I'll start there first, they're all fairly intelligent people who should really know that nominating a candidate a couple of months after their last RfA outing is likely to result in another failed request, so I'm at a loss as to what the hell they're doing. I can quite happily shout at candidates self nominate every other week, but when someone is being poked and prodded with nominations from users who really should know better, it's only natural they'll assume they do know better and are likely to accept a nomination. That doesn't absolve them of responsibility to determine whether they should be at RfA, and in that respect, I'm still not happy that Stormtracker94's judgement is up to scratch, especially when I told them to wait more than 5 or 6 weeks before accept another nomination. Potential administrators not listening or professing to listen then ignoring advice worry me. The deleted page about trying to change RfA (which again, I seem to have been the first to comment on) was, I feel, an indication that the user has an unhealthy interest in passing RfA, which on it's own isn't a bad thing, I don't care if someone who I feel would make a great administrator passes RfA after having a great deal of interest in it, but when it's someone who has recently failed one RfA and had a second withdrawn, mildly outwith process, as I was obviously in a very charitable mood that day, it starts to become rather troubling. I have a few concerns which I'll share, my first concern is this which is in no way sensible behaviour for any user, and it worries me immensely as to how such an attitude would impact on the project if the user was given access to the block, deletion and page protection tools. I'm also left wondering how much the user knows when it comes to the biographies of living persons policies and the role of OTRS volunteers within the project. I don't even see any evidence that the user even paid a cursory glance at the AfD, which Lawrence provides all the details of the situation they are asking for in the diff above. The deleted page detailing the new RfA process the candidate here wishes to propose again showed signs that the candidate had a impulsive response to something, and there's again no evidence they had looked at WT:RFA or were familiar with the subject of adminship reform. I believe I checked the users contributions at the time and saw no recent edits to WT:RFA, which I believe demonstrates an inability to communicate with interested parties on a subject. I'm a little concerned that I had to fix the comments of the user in their own RfA, they appear not to be able to correctly format wiki-markup, which is a tiny little problem, but admins have access to the MediaWiki namespace, blacklists and such, where a little error can prevent a spam filter or titleblacklist working, and I've just got the feeling it's indicative of an overall lack of experience - that's something difficult to quantify, but that's my thoughts. Finally, I'm unhappy with the candidate agreeing with the endless harassment of those Opposing above, that's jolly bad form and again begs the question how they would behave if given access to administrator tools. Nick (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose per Nick, per three of the four nominators, per the last part of the name of this page, and per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 3. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Apologies for not waiting for the response to my question, but really either way I am going to oppose per Nick. There is a considerable amount there that bothers me. He also points out what bothered me most looking through your contributions: You see to avoid centralized discussion whenever possible. I do not see you use talk pages much, particularly those in the Wikipedia namespace like RFA or the Village Pump. This alone is not worth opposing for, but it does make one wonder about your abilities as an administrator to grapple with the increase in exposure and pages like WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Best of luck in the future, SorryGuy  Talk  03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Per Nick and per my lack of faith in the vetting by the nominators, as well as the many recent RFAs. 5 in 8 months is far too many. MBisanz talk 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Not to be rude, but the nominations are not all that great. This RfA also has an appearance of an over being far too prepared, and thins like adding templates like “Stop! Read first before commenting" is just well...silly. This makes me feel uncomfortable as well. Along with concerns raised above I must oppose. Tiptoety talk 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Nick and Gwynand. GlassCobra 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Many concerns above needs to be addressed. —Dark talk 06:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: I won't bother with a comment, just read Nick's again. ...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Appears to be lacking in good judgement. the wub "?!" 09:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. The candidate says they would like to work on images, but judging from edits like this, it looks like the candidate doesn't really have much experience with image work. It looks as if the candidate uploaded an image, decided it was too small so decided to upload a better version here with a different filename. They could have overwritten the mistaken small image or at least requested deletion, rather than leave non-free content floating around. Here they tag an image for deletion; this shows a lack of knowledge of image policy. I think it's fine not to be familiar with all areas of the 'pedia, but you can't say you are going to work on areas that you don't really know about. That shows poor judgement to me. Seraphim♥ Whipp 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose -- Editor has shown very poor judgment. Should not be given the tools. X Marx The Spot (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. For every thirteen edits the candidate makes, they make one edit to their own userpage, which seems like an awfully high ratio. Then there's this, which is just weird. And what happened to RFA #4? I don't know what to make of this candidate - the contribs list seems very sterile, many of the edit summaries being automatic - hence, neutral pending greater understanding. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not going to !vote for support or oppose because this RfA is not going to succeed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. From my observations, I am of the opinion that this contributor is intelligent and contientious, but unfortunately not quite seasoned for adminship yet. Return in 3-4 months and I'll gladly support. Valtoras (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I see some promising this from the candidate, but there are still concerns. Like Valtoras, I suggest you return after some time. SpencerT♦C 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Didn't see nomination was withdrawn, my bad. SpencerT♦C 11:08, 21 April 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/Stormtracker94_5&oldid=1126873442"