Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Saverx

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.


Saverx[edit]

Final: (2/10/0). Closed by 67.136.117.132 per WP:NOTNOW at 15:11 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Saverx (talk · contribs)  – I notice many subjects and articles that are lacking in information and sources. It is my job to fill in the blanks and make every article that I'm aware of a expert read. What interest me most are showing the balanced sides of each story in order to show all of it's sides. I deal directly with History, Archaeology, Judaism and related subjects that might connect while I'm going through the Wikipedia articles that already exist. Lately, I decided to reserve editing on pages and just observe the issues of others. I think that being an administrator is about making non-partisan judges between disputing parties based solely on Wikipedia policy and not feelings or opinions. At this point I would love to become one that upholds that balance in the Wikipedia community... to be used with respect and NOT abuse. I leave it to the community to accept or reject. Saverx (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:--Saverx (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (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: Group discussion and disputes over deletions of articles, questions in un-sourced articles, and general upholding of Wikipedia policy. --Saverx (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My contribution of new information to pre-existing pages like Mordecai Manuel Noah and Tel Arad.--Saverx (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes I have... but it is a natural thing to expect when making edits or changes... One of the of the biggest was the deletion of the Howshua Amariel. I thought it was a good page, but in the end I left it to the decision of the community to decide its notability and a with respect I didn't oppose it afterward and I don't plan to if this respect is approved.--Saverx (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from wiooiw
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A: First, I think users should be warned if their actions may lead to a block... but repeat offenders marked by other users might qualify.
5. Would you block an angry user "solely" to cool down?
A: If the user violates the Wikipedia rules of conduct, starts and editing war or other controversial actions stated in the Wikipedia policy page then they might need a temporary block. But I wouldn't do it out of a personal grudge or if they did nothing wrong as determined by the afore mentioned policies.
Question from Beetstra
6. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the general policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the Local Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What do you do when your edit is blocked by a blacklist entry?
A. They're related to advertising and viral sites that might be published on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia policy rejects links that are inappropriate or advertising (especially those that might be offensive, bias, and hazardous) on our network those links are approved for the blacklist. This way bots can remove them quickly when spotted. If my edits are on this list then I would do nothing as it relates to that edit. But if someone asked about their block edits I would refer them to the links you listed, plus advise that they revise their post.
Optional Question from Boing! said Zebedee
7. What is the role of an admin on Wikipedia? What does an admin actually do? Please give some actual examples of admin actions. (This a question you will really need to understand properly before you run for admin again).
A.An administrator is a judge for Wikipedia... they handle the day to day disputes that happen between editors over articles. See WP:AN3 for examples.--Saverx (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q7A. What I'm trying to do here is give you an opportunity to explain how well you understand what admins actually do, and tell us in your own words how you would carry out your judgments and what methods and tools you would use, not just provide links to noticeboards. So I'll suggest an example. Two editors are engaged in an edit war. One keeps saying "The walls of Jericho were made of brick" in an article, and the other keeps changing it to "The walls of Jericho were made of stone". What would you, as an admin, do? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Seems trustworthy enough to handle the tools, irrespective of whether he actually "needs" them or not. 2 says you, says two 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support I am glad to see that you want to help but you may want to familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Particularly the blocking policy. Seeing that your have not recently edited here since last year, your clearly not going to be familiar with WP:Pending Changes. I do not want you to see these apposes negatively, as I hope you learn a lot from this. You should actively edit here for few months with some more knowledge with Wikipedia's policies. wiooiw (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Welcome to rfa! it seems that everything you want to do you don't need admin tools for. Also I woulod encourage you to use edit summaries. There is an option in your preferences that will require you to fill it in, then you will not neglect it. I will look at more of what you have done next up. -- OK looking at what you did, you seem to have edited nothing for 1.5 years before making this RFA. You need far more recent experience. I would encourage you to withdraw your nomination and practice editing and helping out instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have allot of practice and experience. But what do you suggest that I help with... because these days I edit but with reserve. But I want to be an administrator because I believe in the balance and neutral judgement. It's the difference between being a lawyer and a judge.--Saverx (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm commenting here just to try to help) If what you want to do is edit with less reserve, just do so - you don't need any admin tools to do that. And with very few edits, it's really not clear why you think you have a lot of practice and experience - have you used other accounts, or edited anonymously too? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per WP:SNOW. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per WP:SNOW.--Kudpung (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I'm glad you want to help out, but as Graeme Bartlett points out, you don't need the admin tools to do the things you've indicated. You also don't have nearly enough experience to show that you can handle the tools properly. Check out WP:NOTNOW. Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Way, way too early. Candidate has only 172 edits.--Hokeman (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. It's admirable that you want to uphold balance and neutral judgment, but you don't need to be an admin to do that - it's what ordinary editors do all the time. In fact, nothing you've said you want to do needs admin tools. And also, with just a few hundred edits, you don't have enough experience yet. I suggest you do another six months of editing and get a few thousand edits under your belt, keeping articles neutral and balanced. While you're doing that, keep a watch on what admins actually do and what tools they use to do it - and when you have a clearer feel for what admin tools are available and what the admin role actually entails, you'll be better able to decide if being an admin is for you and whether the time is right. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know that the path of an administrator is the directions that I want to pursue, but I dont edit just to edit. And I don't judge just to judge... I get evolved in topics that might have special circumstance with them. I love doing my thing now but the real question I guess most of you have is if I can handle the responsibility of the job. I can, but even if I got it I wouldn't start making edits, blocks, deletions or post everywhere. I still only deal with subjects surrounding History, Archaeology and Judaism. Becoming an administrator that handles these issues would still be my preference. Saverx (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add to my reasons for opposing, until you blanked your Talk page just before starting this RfA (removing a number of warnings - some of which do not suggest balance and neutrality), you had not made a single edit since January 2009. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on Zebedee I did clear my talk page today, but it was in preparation for this nomination... I just saw all of the issues where old topics and I thought what's the point of them existing on my page now. I prefer to keep only current issues and make way for future discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.70.250 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose/Comment. I am sorry, from the answer to the question I asked, but also general, I don't think you have enough grasp of policy and guideline here, and I doubt as well if you have enough editing experience ... yet. Please stick around, get more edits, and see what is going on on the different discussion pages in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. the pages where policy and guidelines are discussed, or where specific administrative actions are discussed; maybe you can even help out there). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Too early, sorry. --Leyo 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose since you have little experience and few edits. You're welcome to try again in six months when you have gained some more experience. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok this is the general theme... but does experience really prove a user ready to handle the responsibilities. I understand those who might question if I know policy good enough, but I don't think my edit number shouldn't count me completely out or automatically disqualify me. Saverx (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How else can we tell if you're suitable for wielding admin tools if we can't see any evidence of you actually engaging in content building, content discussion, handling disagreements, dealing with incivility and vandalism, keeping your cool when provoked, etc? What we need to see is how candidates deal with actual Wikipedia experience, how they handle themselves under stress, how they communicate with others, etc - not how quickly they can look up policies when asked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I didn't look up the questions I was asked... I just responded off what I know. The only time I was forced to go elsewhere was when I was asked to provide an example.
  10. Oppose I just want to encourage you to follow the advice of the other opposers and aim to come back in the future after spending some time seeing what admin work you might wish to do. Spend some time contributing at WP:AfD or WP:New pages patrol or even the horror that is WP:WQA to get more experience!!! But more importantly for a newish user keep editing and looking to help get articles to WP:GA or WP:FA level. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advise... isn't there some kind of user adoption thing I can do also?
Neutral[edit]


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/Saverx&oldid=1142573267"