Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SpeakFree

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.

SpeakFree

[edit]

Final (4/9/4); ended 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

SpeakFree (talk · contribs) – User requesting adminship to help with some administrative tasks, e.g. AFD SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate withdraws per [1].—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Helping with maintenance tasks such as closing AfD's. I've closed a few uncontroversial AfD's as non-admin. I don't think I will arbitrate in editing disputes much.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Creating 206 articles inclusing one Good Article (Hotel Polen fire). Until my Windows PC crashed I also used Huggle to fight vandalism and I also did some New Page Patrolling over the times.
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've had some disagreements with users in the past but I've been generally diplomatic about it even though I have been disillusioned at some times. I do think my record stands for itself. None of my articles have been deleted yet and I have never been blocked on the English Wikipedia.
Additional question from Buggie111
4. You state that your PC crashed. From where do you edit? Is it a secure location?
A: It slowed down and crashed, I have cleaned it up but there is some maintenance work left before I will use it to edit again. I'm using a Ubuntu PC now and I like its stability so I'm considering switching to that and ditching Windows altogether, though there are some programs I use which require it. I'm very careful with my PC's, I use NOD32 as antivirus on Windows. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Shirik
5. I'm curious about this edit. I note that I currently do not oppose your candidacy. However, I would like to know what you think has changed in the past 2 weeks that you think you are more qualified/experienced now.
Whoops, I didn't realize I was viewing a deleted edit. The edit in question is a withdrawal of an RFA by the candidate on Dec 15, 2011, with the summary "I withdraw the request. This seemed a good idea yesterday but on second hand not. Guess I need more experience." --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: I merely forgot to copy the template on this page. Being inexperienced with RfA's (yes I guess I have to get up to terms with it more) I thought "well no-one cared to respond" and thus withdrew my nomination. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
6. I see some have suggested you don't have sufficient experience with deletion criteria, so I'd like to ask an open question to give you the chance to expand on your thoughts. Entirely optional, but would you have a look at WP:CSD and give us whatever thoughts you have concerning the various criteria? Are there any you think should be removed, any new ones we need, any that are hard to understand, any that you think are abused, etc? (I have no preconceived "right answer" in mind, I'm just interested to hear your take on the whole thing).
A:

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. —Dark 04:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always a good idea to use inline citation though, but it's not significant enough to oppose over. —Dark 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentative support. I see some things I like (plenty of content created, generally sensible comments at AfD), a few pet peeves (e.g. an unreferenced article or two) and some odd things in their talk page archives (sending a CSD notice to oneself?) but no obvious red flags. As TParis does below, I will keep an eye on this RfA as it develops in case someone else finds something (good or bad) that I've missed. 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not active enough: user has less than 50 edits in 2012. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL it's nearly 61/2 hours into 2012 over here. ;) SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support — SpeakFree is definitely trustworthy. I can see him being a tremendous asset at AfD with his clear, concise manner of speech. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I can no longer support. There are too many concerns brought up in the oppose section. I still think SpeakFree will be a great administrator someday, but he just needs a bit more fine-tuning in the deletion process. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this editor has good potential. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Weak oppose Unfortunately, I must oppose. At first I looked at Road trip. The candidate has greatly overused images in that article. I didn't check the history to see if this editor added them, but they appear to be the main contributor to the article so I assume they were. Then I saw this edit. There isn't anything particularly wrong with it, but I can't tell what exactly is trying to be conveyed. This didn't bother me too much. I moved on to Greup, an unreferenced village. Again, I wasn't bothered but I was wondering why the editor was creating unreferenced articles. I finally came upon Paul_van_Herck. I expect editors seeking adminship to be familar with WP:V and when I see unreferenced new articles and unreferenced BLPs, that concerns me. I'll keep an eye on this RFA.--v/r - TP 04:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul van Herck's not a BLP since the subject died in the 1980s, but I do agree with your general point about unreferenced articles. 28bytes (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Many of my articles originated on the Dutch Wikipedia. There isn't a strong referencing culture on the Dutch Wikipedia (in fact some people there think it isn't necessary to add any references at all, see e.g. this discussion there(in Dutch)). So especially in the beginning I took over many practices of nlwiki over to here. In my later articles I have been more aware of the requirement to reference my articles. Also I did not create Road trip I only expanded it with some non-American content and wikifairied it up with some more images. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch Wikipedia, and unreferenced articles here should be the (very rare) exception rather than the rule. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  2. The self-nomination statement was unhelpful and undescriptive. One would presume that a serious admin candidate is requesting tools to help with administrative tasks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting was opened less than four hours after the creation of the article in question, which strikes me as hasty. In addition, I'm concerned that someone who wasn't familiar with the RfA process until only a few weeks ago is going to take the admin job poorly. RfAs, like adminship in general, can end up being very personal and I don't know if the candidate is prepared for the inevitable and unfortunate barrage of criticism that I suspect is coming soon. But I'm open to persuasion. Impress me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 07:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created about one hour after the shooting took place it is a typical example of WP:RECENTISM with live updating of the events happening by the minute and it after 5 hours was clear that it wasn't going to be very noteworthy in the long run, Unfortunately there was no consensus to have it deleted. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I would hold that nomination against him. It has a valid rationale, and it's not like he was alone in that belief. I'm not saying I would go for deleting it, but I can respect his viewpoint on it. (No comment with regards to the other points, and I recognize that this was not your only rationale for opposing, but I just felt that needed to be said.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per above. Concerns with experience and judgement. Sorry, FASTILY Happy 2012!! 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Needs more experience with the deletion process before being given the actual delete button. Looking through his CSD nominations, I see a number of A7s that were applied within a couple of minutes of article creation... this is far too quick, and is likely to discourage new editors from contributing. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I have no idea how the candidate will act as an administrator, as he has told us next to nothing in his nomination. I feel that he is too inexperienced to ve given admin tools just now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Based on this response to User:28bytes Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely explaining what the practices are there, I do think all articles should be referenced now. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. A clean block log, and an impressive number of creations and although (I've only reviewed a random 100 of them) they are mostly stubs or very short articles, you have demonstrated that you know what content work is all about. Only 31 votes to AfD (according to SW's tool), and of your 317 deleted pages, if one deducts the U1 and the files, there is little left to demonstrate a knowledge of deletion policy, and there have only been a handful of manual page patrols in the last six months. If you believe you really need the tools, you would have made the effort to produce a far more compelling self-nomination statement or perhaps even asked someone to review your work who might either have proposed you or suggested what you might still need to do to get up to scratch. On 15 December however, you withdrew an RfA transclusion; I'm assuming that you felt you were not ready for adminship at that time, and I'm curious why you have changed your mind only two weeks later, because I don't think you are quite ready yet to take on the challenges of adminship. That said, I have no reason to think you would abuse the tools and if you can do more work in meta areas over the next 6 months, such as for example, AIV, and demonstrate your knowledge by helping others, and without any of your creations or files being tagged or PRODed, you will be in with a chance and I'll most likely support your next RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Issues concerning experience leaves me worried. Furthermore, the answers to the questions are vaque and in my opinion silly in a way that the candidate doesn't seem to be taking this seriously. Recommend WP:NOTNOW.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions)
    I only answered with a joke to a silly statement (oppose: less than 50 edits in 2012). Of course I regard the job of an administrator as serious. But seeing the way this is going I think I might not be ready yet, So please consider this RfA withdrawn. Maybe I'll apply again at a later time. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose:User needs more experience.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral, for now. Candidate does not have many AfD votes. Godo answers to questions might persuade me to change my vote. Nice edit count/content creation, though. Buggie111 (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, I do not think that the candidate is untrustworthy, however the creation of unreferenced articles (even if they're not BLPs) is a bit of a worry (albeit not enough to tip me into the oppose column). Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Per my comments above. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, this user doesn't have enough votes and I don't think the candidate is untrustworthy. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (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/SpeakFree&oldid=1142573029"