Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tikiwont

Tikiwont

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/1/0); Scheduled to end 09:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk · contribs) - I've been a wikipedian and regular contributor since October 2006. Besides editing, I have participated in several projects such as new page and propsed deletion patrolling as well as (to a lesser extent) third opinions and page translations. Tikiwont 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nomination --Tikiwont 09:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially mostly in the three deletion processes for articles, where I am already active for some time. Later on also in other administrative areas, where I'm still gaining experience, mostly (but not exclusively) related to content and structure of the wikipedia. I would, however, most likely stay away from images, since I'm not very visually minded (at least with respect to this encyclopedia).

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

A: Having moved around a lot, there aren't really particular articles that I could point to. There is, however, a fair list of deletion candidates, which I improved from stub or sub-stub level, sourced better and thus helped to keep. I'm also somewhat fond of Towers of Bologna, as it was a translation from one foreign language to another (from my point of view).

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: An early deletion nomination of mine caused frustration both for the creator and myself, from which I appreciated the importance of assuming good faith and assuming the assumption of good faith. My interactions in the context of speedy deletions were actually less controversial than I assumed. I am sometimes at odds, however, with editors that have specific interests or ownership issues. Depending on the problem and the previous history of the conflict, I have sometimes left my opinion and moved on, and decided in other cases to be rather firm, which earned me sometimes respect from the 'page owner' [1] but also prompted another to leave, when I implemented what was according to me the clear editorial consensus. [2]

General comments

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

• Links for Tikiwont: Tikiwont (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tikiwont before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. The user looks legitimate with his edits and has a good edit count. I believe the user should have enough experience to use the sysop tools. — E ^talk_bots 09:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support User Track is good with over 5000 mainspace edits and over 8000 overall.See no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Good experience and mainspace contribs. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak support. A lot of experience, considering he only started late last year. Diplomatic and sometimes helping users, for instance with mergers. What I haven't found in his contribs is problem solving in controversial articles, and this is experience that is important for admins. Kudos for the candidate for the honesty he showed when presenting his weak point, but that his a bit authoritiarian apporach at the Al Leong article drove User:Bblackmoor away is a sad fact. Hence my not overwhelming enthusiasm. Gray62 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, I'm sure you'd do great in your areas of experience. Like Gray said, you may want to ease into the more controversial issues, as you don't have a great amount of collaborative editing. Good luck. *Cremepuff222* 14:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Has lots of experience. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support for everything above. Martial BACQUET 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support very good user--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 16:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Dustihowe 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Okay. Jmlk17 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Nice amount of experience, and honesty show. Tiddly-Tom 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Nothing that worries me. It is unfortunate that Bblackmoor found it necessary to leave, but I'm guessing that someone who thought of wikipedia as not an encyclopedia, but a "glorified blog" that any moron can edit [3], had deeper issues than Tikiwont. Especially considering he had already left the project over what appears to be a cleanup tag on the same article [4]. --Kbdank71 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, looks good to me. Congrats on a full year of editing. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support well-prepared. Happy to support. Ronnotel 00:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong support per all the administrators that supported this RfA. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    What, we "normal" editors aren't good enough for you? ;) *Cremepuff222* 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

16. Support. I have no concerns based on a look at his contributions. I liked his frankness in answering the questions. He seems to do mostly gnomish editing. I didn't see him adding much new writing to articles, except that he did good work on Towers of Bologna. He did perform some non-admin AfD closures that appear correct, and he seems to know policy. EdJohnston 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. No problems with this editor. Phgao 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Good quantity, quality, and variety of edits. Honesty. Bearian 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. I really respect the honesty here. That's an excellent trait for an administrator. --FolicAcid 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support PxMa 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Great post count, user seems to have very good understanding of how WP works and functions. TOL 05:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom." east.718 at 08:56, 10/17/2007

Support, has a lot of experience in the articles for deletion, and considering the size of that these days, Tikiwont could be very beneficial. I also see he has a handful of edits at ANI, which would be another good place for him. I'm not blaming Tikiwont for "making" that user leave Wikipedia, but hopefully he can learn from his mistakes. Thank you very much for sharing that bit of information to us; admittance of mistakes and honesty are very important parts of adminship. *Cremepuff222* 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's welcomed but sorry, you already supported. --tennisman 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Support per edjohnston and gray62--WriterListener 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose. This person's mistake has already driven off one contributor, and that without even having the tools or authority of an administrator. I have absolutely no confidence that this candidate will not abuse the tools and the authority in destructive ways again. Even if his actions unintentional, that's not acceptable. Argyriou (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume the user will have realized that this would not be attractive to his RfA but still chose to include it. Surly this demonstrates how honest he is (a very important, in my option, thing for an admin to be). How do you know you have not driven away users? If you reed the blurb about RfA is says that users have been previously driven away due to negative comments. Your criticism does not appear to be consturctive. I believe that with dedication, even with the tools, this user will not drive away anyone else and the previous issue with assist in this ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not applying to have the power to block or ban users, Tikiwont is. I'm happy that he included negative information about himself in his RfA, but that information shows that he has the makings of an abusive administrator, and therefore, I believe he should not be trusted with the tools. My criticism doesn't need to be constructive - I want this RfA to fail, to avoid the strong potential of adding another abusive admin to Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, I didn't very much like that episode, either. But you really have to look into it: Tikiwont wasn't rude at all, he explained to Bblackmoor that all those movie details couldn't really stay in because they were unencyclopedic. It was Bblackmoor who wouldn't want to hear that and who had rather unrealistic ideas about WP. Maybe Tikiwont could have done more to reach a consensus, but on the other hand there was no clue that the other editor would take this so personally. Without a warning, he was gone. That's sad, but it's more Bblackmoor's mistake than Tikiwont's. Not really something that makes him unsuitable as an admin. Gray62 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When opposing a user, you need to be civil. User:Argyriou's oppose did not sound civil at all. RfAs are meant for users to be civil while voting. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Argyriou's comment was civil. Civility doesn't say you must be caring and helpful to those whom you correspond with be caring, all it entails is acting in a civil manner, using manners and using respect. ~ Sebi _[talk] 05:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sry, NHRHS, but you're wrong. Argyriou is outspoken, but civil. And imho it's better to say openly what you see as a problem, than to tiptoe around it and provoke misunderstandings. Gray62 09:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no confidence that this candidate will not abuse the tools and the authority in destructive ways again. This does not even sound civil to me, and I HATE when people say I'm wrong. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sry to hear this, NHRHS. You must have a hard time at WP,since there doesn't seem to be consensus for your interpretation of 'civil'. However, stay cool, pls. Argyriou simply stated that he doesn't have confidence in the candidate. I don't agree with his view, but I can't see how he could word it more nicely, if this is happens to be his true conviction. We should distinguish between the way something is said, and the message. Hmm, seriously, isn't it more the message you object to here than Argyriou's choice of words? :-/ Gray62 11:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a clear distinction between being civil and giving the editor your considered opinion; civil does not mean appleasing whoever you happen to come across, but to put forward your own viewpoint without prejudice or personal attacks. (Bolding no confidence may be just a tad over the top, btw.)Phgao 12:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NHRHS2010, I would suggest that if you ever were to request adminship that you calm down a bit and think about the consequences that may arise from you posting these comments. *Cremepuff222* 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just that Gray62 has hurt my feelings by saying that I was wrong. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)