Adam1213

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam1213 2|action=edit}} Vote here] (1/18/2) ending 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam1213 (talk · contribs) – Adam1213 was nominated in the past but was not accepted for adminship. I believe this user should be administrator because he has a high edit count, is committed to counter vandalism. He is an experienced programmer that can use his skills to better the encyclopedia. Adam ^(talk) 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept --Adam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support - I trust him. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Sorry, I do not conider this user to be familiarised with workings of Wikipedia policy yet. Please see my talk page comment. Secondly, blanking of comments on his own RFA Apparently edit conflict caused this, believe or not, up to reader. NSLE _(T+C) 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Addendum; high edit count does not mean one should be an administrator. NSLE _(T+C) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I agrea with you NSLE that I high edit count does not mean that you should be an admin, A person's policy does. I have a policy of following wikipedia policy and also what the majority wants. If you think I don't know the policy because of 1st or/and 2nd RFA you should realise the number of days I had edited wikipedia before them and that I was new to wikipedia.

   I probably know the policies that you would feal I do not know as your reasoning for me not knowing it seams to be just the RFA's and probably edits ages ago. Thanks for your vote. I hope that I can convince you that I do know the policy and that I would make a good admin --Adam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You have problems spelling as well, and you don't seem to know that you need a # before your : when indenting in RFAs to keep the numbering, which to me is a bit of inexperience showing. NSLE _(T+C) 09:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I forgot that, thanks for reminding me.

   Spelling is an excuse to oppose adminship now? How degraded are RFAs getting... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   My spelling in articles where it matters is better. Also why don't you quiz me on wikipedia policy --Adam1213 Talk + 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can't support someone who's self-nominated twice in a week. -lethe ^talk 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

   Should of mentioned I stopped the first RFA and it was my 15th day aprox of making edits I was new I should not of been running for adminship but you should try to look at how I have improved and read Please do not bite the newcomers

   Also it was not twice in a week) --Adam1213 Talk + 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I should also mention that Kungfuadam nominated Adam1213; this isn't a self-nom. --Deathphoenix 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That he is right Adam1213 you shouldnt have had an RfA this early. You just give people excuses to oppose, they generaly dont have logical reasons anyways. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose For now. Having spoken to Adam in IRC on several occassions I know he is very keen to help wikipedia which is good even if I'm sometime not convinced his focus is "right". However from some of those discussions and the answers below I'm not convinced he has the overall grasp of what wikipedia is "really" about and the ability to deal with the situations and decisions he is likely to meet as an admin. I'm not sure on the relevance between being able to put together an IRC client and the need to be an admin or being capable as an admin. The overall edit count is reaonable (2200) but the break down doesn't seem too good about 1400 of those on User and User_talk pages, Only 295 on Article pages (which for someone who reverts a lot of vandalism seems very low over the 4 months he has been active) and a looking through the history seems to indicate difficulty getting things right first time, which suggest unfamiliarity (we all have problems there sometimes, but I seem to see lots of "clusters"). Given that I know Adam I was in two minds as to if I should oppose or just add my comments as Neutral, but I feel I have opposed better candidates so... --pgk^(talk) 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Struck out the above, since this seems to be a bit confused as to where it fits in Adam's response and so the comment maybe a little unfair, so I'll assume it's just one of his contributions to the projects, though I'm not sure if it's complete or anyone else is using it. --pgk^(talk) 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Please think of how being an admin would benifet wikipedia (blocking vandals that will not stop) and for now you should be in #wikipedia-en-vandalism2 as there is a lot of vandalism and only me in both rooms active. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe you just worded that badly, but I'm trying to think how overall being an admin would benefit Wikipedia, not to benefit you. --pgk^(talk) 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Given timezones, there's bound to be at least one admin active (either in the channel or elsewhere) at any certain time. The question is wheher you getting the powers would necessarily benefit Wikipedia, it may, or it may not, we don't know. Until then, WP:AIV is watched by most admins. NSLE _(T+C) 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   IRC... all I met on IRC (in #wikipedia that is) idiots who would ban me instead of marmot, arrogant admins that constantly lecture me on the slightest error as if they are flawless, countless irritaing people who just spend their time irritating me (aka trolls). I got people complaining about the access restirctions to the channel my bot runs on and never bother to use the bot once they talk me to remove modify such restrictions. We have arbitrators/ex-arbitrators who ban good users instead of marmot on IRC. If you want to be taken serriously dont ever use IRC to judge people. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. I appreciate his earnestness, but I just don't think he's ready yet — and won't be for quite a while. I'm also concerned that he's placed his userpage in Category:Pages watched by the Counter Vandalism Unit; I don't think I could trust anyone who uses the "watched by CVU" template or category to have a strong enough grasp of common sense and its application on Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Probably should not of added that category but it was because if an IP edited the page unless it is me its vandalism 99% of the timeYou are right, I should not of added that category, I have removed that. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That proves my point, Adam. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I meant to say benefit wikipedia. As being an admin does not benefit me directly. It benefit's wikipedia. Wikipedia being benefited, benefits me by having a good online encyclopaedia. --Adam1213 Talk + 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think I could trust anyone who uses the "watched by CVU" template or category .. To say such a thing... what kind of a nerve do you have?!! The point of that template is that it is a vandal magnet so idiots vandalise our userpages and pages its linked to and not article namespace just like drinis vandal proof userpage. Anyone voting oppose because of any reason that has to do with CVU is an idiot. Yes that includes you fuddlemark. Dont you ever dare talk to me on IRC or ever post anything on my talk page. Geez these arrogant admins... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   not ready yet and not ready for a while... can you please rephrase that too something like if you make edits relating to... or .... you will be able to show that you are ready to be an admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose, very few edits to article namespace for someone who is committed to counter-vandalism. The answers to the questions (especially the optional ones) would indicate that he is not familiar enough with policy. And I don't think he expresses himself clearly enough, as I'm having a hard time discerning what he means in some of his answers here. - Bobet 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   what answereds are you unhappy about? --Adam1213 Talk + 15:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose, as personal experience and actions makes me believe that he is not admin material. Ral315 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What actions exactly are you talking about? --Adam1213 Talk + 15:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Define what the hell is "admin material". I am not pleased with the current admins we have and their arrogance. I doubt many of the admins are admin material. Your oppose reasion is not better than of the one Davenbelle had. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. You seem like you might make a good admin some day, but I don't think you are familiar enough with the way things work as yet. Please try again in a couple of months. -Colin Kimbrell 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What things exactly are you concerned about? --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose. This user has a controversial history, including his 2 failed RFA self-noms. he also has a history of self advertising and spamming pages for support. He has, ever since he joined, been constantly in search of that adminship bid. For example, on an October 2005 TfD, User:Robchurch said We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator (User:Adam1213) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I did not spam Jimbo's talk page. I asked what exactly I should improve on to become an admin, I got one part of the answer signature, I have changed it and keep changing it comply with what the majority wants. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose because this is yet another nomination seeking to use edit count, rather than suitability for the job, as justification for adminship Cynical 17:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That is what I was nominated for but why not look at those edits? --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. His edit count isn't really that high. Also more edits to his own userpage than to articles [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:19, Jan. 24, 2006

    One oppose for edit count reason high one.... next its not that high oppose (edit count freaks and anti ones!) --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - The answer to question 4 bothers me quite a lot as it seems to misunderstand the meaning of "blatant vandalism." (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong oppose. Adam has yet to grasp Wikipedia policy, or demonstrate the level of maturity and coolheadedness required of an administrator. His interactions with other users leave much to be desired; Adam has a desire for power not for the betterment of the project, but rather, for the inflation of his own ego. Adminship is a position of community trust, a stewardship of the community's best interests, not a way to make yourself feel more important. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to help wikipedia. If this is about that issue I remember you saying to forget about it. --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Firm Oppose - without prejudice in the future. Adam acts in good faith, but hasn't quite got it yet. It will come in time, I am confident of it. Rob Church (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Got what... please tell me

14. Oppose per Essjay. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - while I appreciate this user's enthusiasm, I don't think now is the time. (I will be happy to elaborate if the candidate wishes, but will leave it at that for now.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you think I need to improve on?

16. Oppose I would definitely consider supporting Adam in the future for adminship however I still don't think he's shown the maturity and grasp of policy that is expected of an administrator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly makes you think I dont know the policy

17. Oppose per previous RfAs; also (and you can clarify this) it seems that you just want a rollback button by your answers. If you change this, I'd gladly reconsider my vote. Also, your answer to question 4 is quite confusing to me. Can you explain, please? (Pardon me for saying this, but it seems you don't understand what {{bv}} is for as it is currently worded.) So to sum it up, maybe later, but not now. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would really like to ban vandals that just wont stop

18. Oppose Almost there, but not quite ready. A tad better grasp of the Wikipedia namespace (policies and processes) is all that is needed. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you specify which policies exactly --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I hereby vote neutral. Adam1213 it has nothing to do with you. I have no reason not to trust you to hand "admin power" to you. However...
   • Adminship critaria is not determined based on how much ones worth for adminship. It would be an isult for me to vote support untill RFA is fixed.
   • Currently RFA is just peolpe finding excuses to oppose handing people adminship power (aka power to block vandals etc....)
   • An admin supposed to be a person the community trusts. I trust fewer and fewer admins everyday.
   • I figured adminship was broken. I cannot put you in the same category as some of our current admins.

   --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral A very enthusiatic guy from what I have seen, but comes off as a little immature. Tintin Talk 16:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral per the oppose reasons, to avoid a pile on --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 75% for major edits and 78% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 27 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 09:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See information about Adam1213's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
• First RFA; second RFA NSLE _(T+C) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned after you beat me to mentioning these RFAs I had not edited wikipedia on more than 16 days. Thanks for mentioning them you saved me the time of having to make a link (0.5 secs) --Adam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do RC patrol but recently have been working on my IRC client. While I do admit to stuffing up some of my early edits, the edits after hem have been have been good edits 99% Most of the time that I stuff up, I soon realise and go back to fix it. I recommend looking through my contributions starting at my first edit and going through and looking at the improvement. I am familiarised with a lot of the workings of Wikipedia policy I admit that in the past I did not know much of it.

Some of my stuff ups:

1. RFA 1 - 10 September 2005 - 6th day that I had edited wikipedia - I stoped this RFA
2. RFA 2 - 3 October 2005 - 15 aprox day that I had edited wikipedia.

the fact that I kept editing the page which caused some oppose votes to be removed accidentally

later wanting to keep it open for remaining time

1. Arbcom edit somewhere (should not of made it)
2. A joke made on IRC that to most people would seam small and I said I was kidding but ended up causing problems (note that this issue can't be discussed [for reason's that I am not allowed to mention])

I feel that I respect other contributors. (excluding simple vandalism)

I have forced edit summaries in my monobook so I will be making a lot more edits with edit summaries. --Adam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My IRC client. Its code is approximately 123 kb 74 pages 3697 lines. It is almost done. It has plug-ins for computer2 (CVU bot) (it displays the words diff and revert which are hyperlinked instead of the long URLs) I have almost finished plug-ins for pgkbot. It has wikipedia links (directly helped by User:Daverocks's code for hyperlinks (he also did connect 4))

• Very annoying sig. —Cryptic (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I just chagned my sig --Adam1213 Talk + 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would ban persistent vandals and impostors.with it.

I would use rollback but be careful

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. A little pleased with Jaycar as it was small but I should of spent more time on it.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I try to avoid conflicts example User talk:Mpatel Talking to the person can avoid / solve a conflict.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking the questions --Adam1213 Talk + 12:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. Mostly after someone has vandalised I do test, test2, test3, test4 after that more test4s and report it in #wikipedia-en-vandalism, if no response #wikipedia-en-vandalism2 if no response #wikipedia if no response I will report it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I dont really use bv --Adam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. I have thought about what I would do in the past... I would write a message on the talk page right away asking for it to be put back before my edit and that I was sorry for breaking 3rr or contact someone asking them to put it back and say that in the summary

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. One thing is the number of people that edited it also how many times it comes up on google (not the things site and about what the article is on) if more than 100 (depending on what it is) it should not be nominated for speedy deletion and google page rank. Also what the article is about. (something that is expanding rapidly / small and getting smaller)

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. If a point may be controversial say it as some believe... while others believe that ... Discuss on the talk page about it as there will probably 2 groups (or more) about a way of stating both opinions

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. Vandals that do not stop when no one is there to block them and they keep going. In addition, the length of RFA and how it works also the end result

Certain points need longer to be discussed and should be discussed, what the person needs to do to get rid of the reason for an oppose vote and the oppose vote. After it, what the person needs to do to become an admin.

9 Why do you want to be an admin?

I would like to be an admin to ban vandals that will not stop, use admin rollback (carefully), help users that want help with their monobooks (could not help that much but a bit) probably delete some pages (after it has been decided that they should be deleted) and the main thing I probably will not do is delete images --Adam1213 Talk + 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what I meant is, what's in it for you? What motivates you to become an admin? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (from User_talk:Adam1213)

A. Well I guess having a good online encyclopaedia, and I am motivated to make programs that have intergration of wikipedia by the fact that people will use what I program. Also I don't like letting vandals win --Adam1213 Talk + 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. What is Wikipedia?

A. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that any one can edit. Because anyone can edit wikipedia it makes it such a good encyclopedia, Wikipedia is very accurate.

9. What is consensus?

A. Consensus is what the majority want and this is what should be followed (after the legal parts)

10. What is the purpose of WP:IAR?

A. the purpose of it is to tell people that the rules are obvious. For example if someone wants to vandalise wikipedia they should realise thats breaking the rules.