Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Loom91

Loom91

Voice your opinion (13/8/9); Scheduled to end 08:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Loom91 (talk · contribs) - I've been with Wikipedia for quite a length of time (including some time spent as an anon before I registered this account), and by now I think I've some idea of the community pulse. I feel, like many other contributors, a strong philosophical connection to the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit freely. As a concept, it seems like one of those nice idealistic things that never survive in this brutal world, but Wikipedia has shown to the world that this can be done. Now, after spending all this time in a symbiotic relation with this encyclopedia and the community behind it, I wish to contribute more by becoming an administrator. Even if this RfA fails, I hope I will gain some valuable insight as to what the community demands of me. Thank you. Loom91 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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 view the post of administrator as it was originally intended, a janitor with the key to the broom cupboard. I promise to strictly adhere by community consensus and never exercise my special administrative powers unless backed by a solid discussion and consensus, preferably arrived at by accepted procedures. For me, NPOV is the most important guiding principle of Wikipedia and administrators acting unilaterally violate it more badly than ordinary editors acting unilaterally. Specifically, I will oversee deletion debates to ensure actual community consensus is carried out and actively deter vandals.

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

A: Some of my better contributions include Hare School, the systematical categorisation of introductory (trampoline) articles using {{introduction}} and {{seeintro}}, creating articles on topics related to literature (so far Fictional locations and Political thriller) as part of a coordinated effort at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, and a complete overhaul and subsequent maintenance of the featured article Prisoner's Dilemma (already a featured article at the time of my initial extensive edit). The first edit to the last article was before I registered, and are under the IP User:59.93.163.198. You can see a more detailed list of my contributions in my userpage. I've also contributed to various policy discussions and AfD debates. I was for a length of time a member and contributor of the WikiEn mailing list.

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 must admit that when I was a new member I got frequently involved in edit wars. I believe I've slowly forced myself to behave in a cool and mature manner to editorial conflicts. Today, I attempt to hammer out differences in the talk pages and attempt to achieve consensus before editing, as well as providing detailed references (including page numbers of particular editions) when possible to avoid controversy. Here I must also mention that I was blocked for a short period more than a year ago over allegations of vote-stuffing in the opinion poll of Wikipedia:Censorship. However the block was disputed among administrators in ANI and WikiEn mailing list and a few administrators took my side. As the block was only for 24 hours it got automatically lifted and the debate did not get continued. I can restate my arguments in defence of my actions if necessary.

I will also like to add something about my opinions. I take an inclusionist (these days somewhat inclining towards mergist) view, and for me the lack of all forms of censorship is a necessary consequence of NPOV. However, I will only allow these opinions to influence my actions as an ordinary Wikipedia editor, while letting my administrative actions be firmly guided by community decisions rather than personal opinions. I also think I must ask excuse for another thing, my use (or rather disuse) of edit summaries. I did not properly understand their importance untill recently and therefore my use of them has been deplorably limited. I promise to correct this.

4. (additional optional question from LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) )I note that the major quantity of your edits were from 14 - 12 months ago, and that your userpage comments that you are on a temporary wikibreak "...due to lack of spare time". Are you able to confirm that you will be available to serve the community immediately should you be promoted, and are there any constraints upon your time which the community should be aware?

A:That was sometime ago. I had a major exam. I'm out of the break now. I removed the wikibreak notice from my talkpage, but forgot that I'd also put it on my userpage. It's gone now.

Thanks, that's the wikibreak note sorted. However, I still see that you haven't been as active in the last 11 months as you were the preceding 3. As an administrator you would need to be available to help the community on a fairly regular basis, IMO. Can you confirm that you will be more visible in the future? LessHeard vanU 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest. As a student, it's not easy for me to make an absolute commitment. But I currently have a good amount of free time. If that were to change, I will let the community know. Loom91 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick optional question from Goodnightmush (talk · contribs)

5. Could you clarify or elaborate on what you mean by "deter vandals" in question 1? Was this part of closing XfD debates or a reference to traditional vandal-fighting/work at WP:AIV? Thanks.

A:I was referring to fighting vandalism in general. I take a tough view on all forms of vandalism. Any editor can revert vandalism. I wish to use my administrative abilities to block persistent vandals and watch out for those who remove {{test}} notices from their talk page.

Optional from Mr Stephen (talk · contribs)

6. You write that you intend to "actively deter vandals". Your response to this edit and this edit was to issue level 4 warnings. Both cases were IPs making their first (and only) edits. Care to give us some insight into your thought processes there?

A:I went a little overboard there. Vandalism annoys me very much. For blatant vandals (users who are clearly delibarately disrupting the encyclopedia, instead of merely fooling around and trying out the tools), I find {{test1}} rather softly worded. That's why I got a little heated up and slapped test4s on them. It was a regrettable mistake.

Follow-up optional questions from Goodnightmush (talk · contribs)

7. Wikipedia possesses a wide berth of user talk namespace warning templates for admonishing experimenting or vandalizing users. If an IP/user had received no previous warnings, when (if ever) is it appropriate to go straight to {{uw-vandalism2}} or {{uw-vandalism3}}?

A:If it was a delibarately and blatantly disruptive piece of vandalism ("Sir Issac Newton WAS MY DIIIiick!!!fuck jesus") then I may skip the {{uw-vandalism1}}.

8. Have you ever employed {{uw-vandalism4im}}? If so, under what circumstances? If not, when would it be appropriate?

A:No, I've never employed it. It will be appropriate if a user already carrying a level3 warning commits an offence again. I'm sorry, I misread your question. I thought you were referring to {{uw-vandalism4}}. I didn't notice the im. I can't think of a circumstance where a user should be given only one warning. One possible situation: if the user was doing something not only disruptive but also dangorous to the encyclopedia, such as adding illegal content or frivolous but defamatory material (as oposed to serious but unreferenced defamatory material, which would be covered by the biog templates).

Optional from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

9. What do you think of the rejection of Wikipedia:Removing warnings as rejected by the Village Pump? You mentioned in Q5 that you would block anyone from removing {{test}} notices from his/her talk page.

A.That's a total surprise for me! It seems common sense that users should not be allowed to remove warnings as that would defeat their purpose: allowing vandal fighters to easily identify repeat offenders. Or is there some other mechanism available? Also, I didn't say I would block those removing warnings. I will simply readd them.

General comments

• See Loom91's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Loom91: Loom91 (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/Loom91 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support I like your general attitude, and support you despite a low edit count. Steveo2 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Thank you very much for your support. Loom91 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Support I'm going to support you here because I like both your attitude and your answers. Yes, the edit counts and frequency are concerning but I think that will come along on its own. In my thinking, good attitude trumps edit counts. JodyB _talk 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support per JodyB. The edit rate may be a little low, but the candidate clearly knows what s/he's talking about, as demonstrated by good answers to the questions. Editcount alone is not a sufficient reason to oppose; a good knowledge of policy compensates for a low editcount, IMO. Walton^Assistance! 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Great answer to questions. Active in policy discussions. I don't see a problem with 700 mainspace edits. Happy to support. Rettetast 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I added comments below, in the neutral section, but have decided to support you because I think that you will be a good admin anyway. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Answered my question, and others, honestly; which in my view is more important than availability (since every bit of admin work, however slight, helps the rest). Seems sensible and unlikely to abuse the tools. LessHeard vanU 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Public service announcement: it's called "editcountitis" because it's a bad thing. Here we have a user with two years of good contributions, and several people who haven't even looked at the content of his contributions are opposing either because he has a life outside of Wikipedia or he doesn't make enough bot-like edits to meet some inflated standards by which 1800 edits is considered "low". If you can't even look for meaningful things to base your vote on, why are you voting? His contributions and experience satisfy me, so I support.rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - bloody stupid opposes, the whole lot of them. Don't bother complaining either, I'll not be returning to this page until the end of this RfA. Nick 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Nice answers to the questions. User has clear concept on the policies. Would make a good admin.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I've always had good experiences interacting with this editor. Were you around when 1000 was enough edits to satisfy the edit count voters? Loom91 was ; ) Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Why the hell not? Editcountitis is harmful. Ral315 » 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support The concerns about edit count below are utterly absurd. When did we start worrying about edit counts for users who had more than ~1000 edits, unless their distribution was completely lopsided? This sort of editcountis-creep is extremely harmful, especially given how badly we need more good admins. --Aquillion 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Moral support. Editcountitis is not something I condone - although I must admit your contributions to the project space are a little sparse you've still demonstrated a knowledge of policy and guidelines. User seem willing to help out where we need it and has given me no reason to oppose. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry but your mainspace edit count is low, 700 is not very good but its not too bad, I think if you get your edit sumamry usage up to at least 95% and increase you overall edit count, you'll pass in later months no problem. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 11:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Thank you for your comments. What is considered an acceptable edit count for acceptance? I will like to say here that one possible reason for my low edit count is that I sometimes make a lot of changes in a single edit. Thanks again. Loom91 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Please no - not that debate yet again. Pedro |  Chat  12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   It may be a common argument but it's still a valid one - editcount on its own is not evidence of inexperience. Walton^Assistance! 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not disputing that. It's just I'd prefer the "edit count question" to be on a talk page and not a candidates RfA yet again.Pedro |  Chat  20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   I will like to clarify that I was not debating anyones criterias. I was just asking what is considered an acceptable edit coubt for adminship. Loom91 08:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose due to only 1885 edits in 2 years (plus 7 from the IP address you gave). The fact that you nominated yourself shows that the "headhunters" who recruit people to be admins failed to see you as a potential one. Nice answeres to the questions though Black Harry 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Only X edits? The fact this is a self nomination is totally irrelevant. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Are trying to make some sort of point? Black Harry 15:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   I thihk he's trying to make the point that you didn't look at the quality of the edits, only the number. Also, users are allowed to nominate themselves. Leebo ^T/C 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   I understand users may nom themselves, however I feel if one does so, that hey had better have a strong case to present, which I feel he doesn't. Black Harry 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   I respect that opinion, and I also believe users should make a good case for why they need admin status. However, you did say he answered the questions well, which, in my mind, means he presented a good case. We're not trying to nitpick you, just understand what you mean so perhaps the user could improve on something. Leebo ^T/C 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   We'll if this request fails (its still a tossup to me) I'd say if he were to make about 1000 more edits by mid-September, I'd not only think he's qualified enough to be admin, but I would personally nominate him myself. And when I refer to his case I meant his opening statement. Black Harry 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   You suffer that much from editcountitis? You oppose him now, but if he makes 1000 trivial edits you'd support him? I doubt your judgement. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Black Harry withdraws opposition to this candidate, as this RfA appears to be an unsuccessful one regardless of Black Harry's opinion. And per the above comment his offer to nominate the again if criteria were met is is also withdrawn. BH (Talk) 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. I like the answers to the questions, but the edit count and frequency of edits don't impress me. The most edits in a month for the past year was 53, which I have already reached today alone. The rate of edit summaries has risen to 100 percent, which I like, and I like his personality. Maybe apply again in a couple months and get your edit count up, the general level for adminship is 5000. Good luck, KJS77 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Reluctantly. I'm sorry, but my general criteria regarding users edit counts is about 4,000. Mainspace edits are sor of spaced out through your time here on Wikipedia. I'm not saying they were bad edits at all, just there are too few of them to really measure an editor by. I like your answers to the questions though, you have a pretty solid knowledge of what to do, but you need to get your hands "dirty" a little more often. — Moe ε 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose: I see potential in the future if you continue to edit at Wikipedia. You answered the questions truthfully and quite well, I may add, but unfortunately, a low edit count is what is holding you back. Please reapply in the future! Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose (from neutral). I don't think you've got a clear enough understanding of policy. If you intend to combat vandalism you should have a thorough understanding of the warning system, but your answer to question 8 shows that you are still unfamiliar with parts of it. (The problem is not that you have never used that particular template, but that you have a incorrect understanding of when it should be used.) I would gladly support you in a few months time when you have more experience. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. I misread your question. I apologise. I've corrected my answer now. Loom91 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm glad you have clarified. I'll withdraw my opposition since it was based primarily on that. However, it currently appears as though this RfA will not succeed. I encourage you to participate in XfDs and so on, continue your work here and reapply in the future. Good luck. Goodnightmush^Talk 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Only a couple of contributions to AfD over the last six months, and a poor understanding of antivandal warnings. I don't feel that there is enough recent evidence that the candidate is in tune with policy & practise. Mr Stephen 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. My previous answer to the antivandal warning question was based on a misreading. Please see the corrected answer. Loom91 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Not enough contributions to tell whether we can trust them with the tools. -N 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose I prefer to see more contributions per month before I support. Captain panda 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sorry but not active enough for me. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Leaning towards Oppose - low edit count, low experience (generally less then 100 edits/month isn't good), but the answers to most TfD and CfD debates that I've seen are good. Still, experience is always a huge factor. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Thank you for your comment. I will like to say that while my edit count is not very high, I've been around for more than two years and have throughout this period taken a keen interest in the various activities occuring around here. I think I've gained a fair bit of experience simply through being an observer. You may be interested in reading an essay I started on the darker side of Wikipedia's history, Wikipedia:Historic debates. Thanks again. Loom91 09:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral towards weak support I view the post of administrator as it was originally intended, a janitor with the key to the broom cupboard. is an excellent answer to Q1 and I have the upmost repect for that attitude. However very infrequent editing with the exception of 1 month, a relatively low use of edit summaries (although recently better) and although here for a good length of time just simply not that active push me to be neutral. Also [1] seems to indicate a lack of knowledge of new policies. Pedro |  Chat  09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Thank you for your comments. That revertion was a mistake. Immediately after that, I read through the spoiler policy and found the change. The spoiler notice has been readded. Loom91 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I won't oppose because I like your answers, but the low edit summary usuage, and the semi-active editing worries me a tad. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Edit count is a little low; while this does not of itself indicate a lack of knowledge or interest or experience, it does mean that these thing are not obvious to the community. Also, answering every comment on this page is usually thought not to be a good idea, unless a question is asked or an incorrect assumption voiced.--Anthony.bradbury 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Erm, sorry for answering, but this is a discussion. It's a very good idea. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Majorly, with the deepest respect to an experienced editor, most editors in my experience who contribute to RfA prefer not to see answers to every !vote.--Anthony.bradbury 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   The problem is that there is not !vote :-) «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral not supporting, due to low editing, and not opposing due to good answers to questions. Jmlk17 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral Changing to support. see above. Your answers to the questions are nice but kind of abstract. The mainspace edit count suggests two things: (1) inexperience and (2) not a lot of time vandal fighting. Although I have no reservations about your trusting your skills in editing, I just don't understand why you need the specific tools of an admin. I suspect that if you spend a little time with Lupin anti-vandal tool or VandalFighter, your mainspace count will sky-rocket. I have 2685 mainspace edits for example with only two months of genuinely contributing over the past couple of years. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral, tending toward weak Support Change to support (see above) not so much the low count, but the low recent count and apparent lack of current availability. Answers to Q4 may clarify matters. Otherwise seems trustworthy, etc. and edit summaries since Dec 06 are 100%. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral Your answers to the questions are exemplary. You have added great information to the main-space and your edits there show quality. Your project-space edits, however, leave much to be desired. Your arguments on the XfD are few and some contain a clear misunderstanding of policy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

   Switched to oppose. Neutral pending the answer to the optional question I've posed. Goodnightmush^Talk 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral for now While I am not concerned with your overall edit count I do take notice to your edit count for the past few months. Arguably they could equate to one to two edits per day of the calendar month. While I am not saying that administrators have to be uber contributors or make sweeping changes with every edit I am curious as to what you spend most of your time on Wikipedia doing. I believe even a passive reader can be fully aware of policy and procedures on Wikipedia without having made a single edit - for RFA purposes it is almost prerequisite to see some of the knowledge employed, even if minimally. That said, in viewing your contributions, you have been active in Wikipedia discussions, but the gap in Wikipedia discussions between August and February concerns me, though barely. I will keep an eye on your RFA and possibly pose a question. --Ozgod 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral I too like your answers to the various questions, but I think you're a bit inexperienced – you don't yet know what you don't know. Keep doing what you're doing, and in two or three months I will most likely support a second RfA. KrakatoaKatie 01:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral While this editor has been around for a while, the relatively low number of edits make it difficult for me to get a read on their grasp of policies, etc. Clearly has improved over time, and would seem to be a good candidate in the future. Carom 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)