Rcsprinter123 3

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (4/9/4); Scheduled to end 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) – After a year and four months since my last candidacy, I have decided to put myself in for administrator again. I've managed not to get blocked, warned or argued with again in that time, and I've been being productive, instead. What I have done - become author of the Signpost 's WikiProject Report, gained a bunch of DYKs, been lead coordinator of WikiProject Transport, performed administrative tasks around Articles for Creation, fought vandalism, closed some AfDs, become an OTRS agent and been running RscprinterBot. I also came second in the HWY Cup this summer and reviewed a few Good article nominations. In addition, I create maps of American counties for use in infoboxes. To be clear, I don't write that many articles, but I certainly help to maintain them. I made quite a few mistakes in the past and had admins angry, but that doesn't happen any more.

But why should I become an administrator? Well, I like to think that I'm trustworthy, and can complete any task I need to within a reasonable period of time. I don't make many big mistakes or screw up so that someone else needs to clear up my mess. I communicate clearly and am helpful and engaging to new users. I also have knowledge of technical procedures and assisted editing tools. In short, I won't delete the main page.

If there's a chance that this is realistic now, then I'm certainly happy. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) 10:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Some people are forming the opinion that I am requesting the tools as a hat collector. This is not the case; I just want them to assist and further my work that I do already. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 12:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I'd like to do it for the main reason the role exists: blocking vandals, speedily deleting, and protecting pages. Mainly, I would close uncontroversial AfDs, block vandals, answer protected edit requests, change user permissions, and respond to others' questions. I do not intend to become involved in large debates or hotly-contested topics.

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

A: This has always been a tricky question as, as I've said, I'm not really a content creator in terms of articles. You can see my full list here, but I guess my "best" will be my county maps, and maybe Dinting Viaduct.

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: Many in the past, but not really this year. However, I think that is simply part of editing if you're going to be on Wikipedia and it sets you up for the inevitable disputes of adminship. To answer the other part of the question, what I do is just let the discussion run its course, comment or take action when I see it needs it and let it finish as it progresses.

Additional question from Begoon

4. At your last RFA, it was suggested more than once that, rather than self-nominate again for a third time, it might be a good idea to wait until someone offered to nominate you. Did you consider that advice, and, if so, what made you decide to self-nominate? Note that I'm not implying that self-nomination, per se, is, or should be, a disqualifier, I'm more interested in the flow of your thinking regarding that advice.

A: I can see that having others nominate one would show that they have some faith that I might succeed the request, but there have been plenty of successful self-nom RfAs so having nominations I don't see as essential. Additionally, I don't repeatedly interact with very many individual editors these days that might have got to know me well enough to nominate me. Having considered this, I decided that a self-nomination was the way to do it this time.

General comments

• Links for Rcsprinter123: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rcsprinter123 can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support

1. Preliminary support. Good contributions at first glance. No glaring issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support First glance, i see a very decent editor for the position. Yes i consider it slightly weird to nominate yourself, but that's mostly a biased opinion, that i don't wish to include in this. Good luck! Lor^Chat 11:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - No issues at first glance. I see a lot of activity at articles for creation, which is good. However, I'm going to keep an open mind on this. Regardless, good luck, and I hope you are successful. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 11:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Fine enough. I wish a lot more people would nominate themselves.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose - I have just read over some of your last Rfa, and examined your block log. Yes, it appears you have learned from your mistakes. But you say in your self nomination (which I am taken aback by, for a third try) that it has been your goal for years to become a Wikipedia admin. Years, that concerns me. I have a deep distrust of anyone who wants power in any walk of life, and currently, I have issues with the amount of power admins have here. This is a lifetime post, essentially, and you appear to me to want this with a fervency that I find unseemly. I think it best to oppose at this juncture until I know more about you. If everything you have done has been merely to get extra buttons, you may well be the type of person who should not be handed them. So for now, thanks, but no thanks. Jusdafax 11:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - this change to your self nomination statement following O#1 is a serious lack of judgement. Leaky Caldron 11:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The original sentence made it look like this was a strong aim whereas it was actually just more of a nice something I might look forward to in the future, but is not a priority. I want to get that across clearly in the statement. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 11:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I also noticed the abrupt change in your nomination statement with grave concern. Jusdafax 12:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   You should have followed this simple guideline for such circumstances WP:REDACT to avoid any suggestion that you were altering your statement to remove a statement that would not look so good. Leaky Caldron 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - per the lack of maturity, and over eagerness for a "hat" which I commented on in your last RFA. I don't see sufficient improvement there, and the lapse in judgement Leaky points out in the panicky alteration to your submitted self-nom (which you are now attempting to backtrack on) after criticism in an oppose does nothing to change my mind. Sorry, but you seem far too eager and lacking in good judgement. Of course, waiting for someone to nominate you would again have been a good idea, for many reasons, including the fact that it would have avoided a nomination you subsequently felt the need to alter. Please do consider that advice next time. Begoon ^talk 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - I get the feeling that you want adminship as a 'hat', rather than anything else. You don't have to be an administrator to be a valuable contributor and remember that the mop is not a big deal. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 12:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - An AfD record with less than 50% of !votes agreeing with the final result makes me very uncomfortable with handing somebody the mop. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose mainly based on the issue raised by Leaky above. Lacking an effective way to remove admins, seeking a nom is a good start if you've had a self-nom that has failed before. Sorry...can't support at this time. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. This diff although edited out, is still in the history and hence still part of the project. It clearly demonstrates your line of thinking. The work you have put in since your previous RfA reinforces that statement, and while not particulary hat collecting, is indicative to me at least, of still being over-eager to get the mop and that for the last 16 months you have been fervently working towards that goal. My neutral vote on the first RfA listed my many deep concerns, while in my comments on the 2nd RfA the "perhaps" is unfortunately still "perhaps". 'Managing' not to get blocked, warned or argued with again probably means that you have had to try hard to avert things that most of us avoid subconsciously without any effort. Along with your AfD results still being sub par, that Freudian slip today was the deal breaker on my maturity barometer. I still don't believe you have that certain je ne sais quoi^{[citation needed]} to be an admin and I would not feel comfortable just yet with you having the tools and making the kind of judgements that are entrusted to admins. A solid nomination next time round from a well established user would help restore my confidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - If I'm being completely honest it looks like you want the mop as a "hat" & nothing more (Despite the now added statement above), Also It's his third nomination and yet he makes statements like this (although now amended) which doesn't feel me with any confidence at all, So I'll have to oppose for now (As some friendly advice perhaps It's a good idea to wait to be nominated as opposed to doing it yourself). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. User is incompetent, immature, and an obvious hat-collector unfit for adminship. Cloudchased (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. As far as I can tell, CSD tagging is generally good. However I am a little concerned that a CSD tag was placed here less than one minute after the article was created. Although the article did indeed have no content at that time (the creating editor should ideally have put some content into at least a single sentence at article creation), Rcsprinter123 could have waited to see if content was forthcoming. Few AfD !votes—only 17 so far, and all since August 2014. Most of these !votes are "Me too" !votes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, I have been !voting in AfDs for years, not just since August. Your source must be faulty. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 12:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm, the toolbox link only indicates 17 !votes. Although the tool states "The remaining 483 pages had no discernible vote by this user." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   That is strange, although I have to say, Rcsprinter, you tell us above that you have good technical skills. Do you not feel it might be more helpful to point this editor to a place where your AfD record might be better evaluated, than to reply "I have been !voting in AfDs for years, not just since August. Your source must be faulty."?

   Anyway, the confusion might stem from this: [1] The tool finds 1216 pages where you have commented, but no discernible votes. Maybe the tool is broken, or maybe there is something unusual about the way you vote, or sign your votes? It works for me: [2] Begoon ^talk 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the tool only analyzes 500 at a time, so only 17 of the last 500 of Rcsprinter123's edits to AfDs have been !votes (primarily relisting if you look at the actual contributions) - if you press the next 500 button twice, you get another 232 !votes more dating back to March 2011... Worm^TT(talk) 13:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, relisting. That would probably explain it. Commenting without a discernible vote. If that's what he predominantly does, then that may be why the tool returns those results. Begoon ^talk 13:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Judging from the recent edit history, many AfD-related edits are delsort edits. Looking at the next 500 as Worm recommends gives a not-very-good record, I must say. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   The poor success ratio for votes seems to be skewed by the number of bus/railway station/route articles where the vote does not match consensus. That seems to be an area of particular interest. To improve the stats in future they might want to reassess community norms on notability of these articles before voting. That said, as it's an area of interest, they might equally want to work to change those norms. Or find a balance. I'd hope they wouldn't be closing discussions in that area as an admin anyway, so that may mitigate the numbers a little. Begoon ^talk 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. I need some more time to review here, so I'll park in the neutral camp for the time being. I'll say that this comment indicates to me a difficulty in communicating in a way that will encourage productive discussion while reducing conflict to come to a peaceful resolutions in disputes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral, stuck here for right now, awaiting further comments. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral While not ready to support at this time, I find it admirable that the candidate has made changes in interaction style and taken time to improve his/her editing and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. If this was done with the long term goal of becoming an administrator, I see nothing wrong with that. After three self-nominations, it would be a little silly for the candidate to pretend otherwise. Having a goal and working openly and positively toward it is proper behaviour in my opinion, not something to be criticized.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]