Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Popefauvexxiii

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

Popefauvexxiii

Voice your opinion (talk page) (1/8/1); Scheduled to end 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Popefauvexxiii (talk · contribs) - Been an editor for three years, and have developed a good technical understanding of wikipedia. I am particularly drawn to POV disputes, and am uncompromisingly civil in discussions. I didn't realize that administratorship was so casual. Looking to try it out as an opportunity to increase my working knowledge of the project and test my virtue against the corrupting influence of increased power. PopeFauveXXIII 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

duly. PopeFauveXXIII 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 am one of the few active participants in WikiProjects Jehovah's Witnesses and Austin, I figure adminship would assist greatly in those. Also looking to get more involved in candidates for deletion, particularly images, per my uncommon familiarity with intellectual property as it pertains to image licensing.

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

A: I am most proud of Kerry Thornley, and the Yo-yo article, because ive seen the information i researched and presented in those articles resonate into the collective consciousness and take on lives of their own. There's no rush quite like that. I've organized and expanded a lot of article categories, too, Category:Homelessness/Category:Homeless people and Category:Mind control being the most notable. Same reason, on a smaller, more localized scale. Also strangely satisfying on a base, obsessive compulsive level.

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 believe WP policies to be nearly universally sound and refer to them regularly whenever in doubt. This one in particular.

Optional question from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)

4. Hi! You indicated that you refer to m:Don't be a dick in discussions; by this do you mean that you look to it as a standard to follow, or that you tell other editors to not be a dick?

A: As per the unofficial policy, the former, except in extreme circumstances and even then with as much tact and sophistication as i can conjure so as to avoid breach myself.

Question from Nat.tang

5. You were a bit vague with question 3 so here we go: If you ran into an extreme POV pusher and he/she was not committing any obvious, or "simple" vandalism, what steps or actions would you take to deal with this person?

A:

General comments

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

Links for Popefauvexxiii: Popefauvexxiii (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/Popefauvexxiii before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Moral support - while your heart is definitely in the right place, there is so much you can already be doing to get involved in adminstrivia right now. Weigh in on AfD, do some recent change vandal patrol, maybe get involved in policy discussions. You're a fine editor but adminship isn't something to be apathetic about. - Alison ☺ 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support valuable editor but I'm not convinced that you are sufficiently familiar with the underlying mechanics of Wikipedia to be an efficient administrator just yet. Pascal.Tesson 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I am sorry, but I do not see adminship as informally as you perhaps do. To be approved as an admin you have to demonstrate a sound knowledge of the basic policies of Wikipedia, which you do partly by editing mainspace articles, but also, and importantly, by contributing in WP:NAMESPACE. Apart from having only 1,510 total edits, which might lead me to being accused of editcountitis, you have only 24 edits in wiki pages and only 4 in wiki-talk. This is not enough, in my view, to indicate an adequate grasp of admin-related issues. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my comment was misunderstood, so i feel it appropriate to clarify my remarks again. By "casual", i refer to WP:ADMIN which states "In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should." I believe my record indicates that i am trustworthy and experienced, and upon reading that line, decided to submit my RfA. PopeFauveXXIII 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- per Anthony. E ddie 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - adminship is not to "test [your] virtue against the corrupting influence of increased power"; that should already be a set question before you become an admin. --Haemo 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While you have been here 3+ years, you are not as experienced of a user as I would like. There are many gaps in your editing, lack of edit summaries, and just a general lack of overall editing throughout the project. Jmlk 1 7 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You need to work a lot more on policy and procedures, expecially edit summaries, before you run for adminship. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your casual attitude towards contributing appears to extend to your RfA as well. Evidence in the form of diffs to support your claims would be a significant advantage in demonstrating your awareness of the policies and guidelines that all admins are required to implement and educate other editors on. More admin-related contributions in the policy space and places such as new page/recent change logs would be a good start. The other comments above also obtain. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, offensive Username. Corvus cornix 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, can you elaborate? —Kurykh 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one should have a User name which includes the title of the head of a major religion. Would a name which included "Ayatollah" be acceptable? Corvus cornix 01:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, though I disagree with it. —Kurykh 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral but Moral Support - 1) didn't realize that administratorship was so casual is kind of not the attitude when you have access to certain buttons 2) have developed a good technical understanding of wikipedia - I struggle to see this given your low talk page additions and sparsity in edit summaries. However your length of time here probably indicates a lot of actual reading of articles, and contrary to popular opinion writing them is not what it's all about. - People reading the things is what it's all about. So my inference (and it is only that) is of an honest, civil and good editor who is slightly misguided in his/her belief that they have a lot of knowledge of the backroom and the oily rag - hence I can't justify support at this time. Kudos as ever on the self nom. and I wish you well in both this RFA and your editing. Pedro | Chat 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dunno if responses are kosher, but i wanted to respectfully point out that by "technical knowledge" i merely meant that which is gained through experience at the common editor level, i did not mean to imply any more than that. Gaining an understanding of administration is one of my major reasons for submitting this RfA. PopeFauveXXIII 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responses are perfectly acceptable IMHO, but the failure to capitalise the personal pronoun is not .. :) just a comment!! Thankyou for your reply. Pedro | Chat 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although you have great potential, it looks like you can contribute towards Wikipedia the way you plan to without adminship. Oh, and Don't be a Dick is not a policy, just an essay. Cheers! Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (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.