Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TCN7JM

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TCN7JM

TCN7JM (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TCN7JM, and I'd like to offer to serve as an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia. One of the main reasons I'm running is to help fight vandalism; there only seem to be four or five active admins, and I've encountered more than one occasion where vandalism from one or more users is just rampant and there's no admin around to block them and delete any nonsense pages they started. I feel I know how simplification works, and I have some experience with it in my contributions. Along with that, I've created just more than 40 articles in my 1150 or so edits. Finally, I have experience in administrating Wikimedia wikis; I have been an administrator on Wikidata since May. All in all, I think I can handle being an administrator on this wiki, and I think I can be trusted with the mop.

Candidate's acceptance: This is a self-nomination. TCN7JM 02:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support no issues, familiar with their work on wikidata and en.wikipedia. --Rschen7754 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - has clue, no issues, and indeed we will probably need more administrators, especially after end-2013 when we perform another round of desysopping. Chenzw  Talk  02:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support no concerns, already has bit on other wiki, no sense not to have another active admin around here. Enfcer (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per above. He's a trusted and experienced user, should be fine with the mop. Also, there are only a few active admins and there have been many times An admin was needed but I cant get one! (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Don't see anything that would indicate that this user would misuse the tools. Good vandalism fighting and article creation work. While the opposition brings up valid concerns, I'm not convinced that being on less than a year is a problem. Besides, he's already an admin on another project, so I can see that he already has experience. He'll make a great addition to the admin team. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Glaisher [talk] 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see no issues in his edits. Surprised that we're having objections to this over "only" being here for six months. I became an admin here after less than three months! Only (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You did that during an era where we were too lax in making people admins and subsequently had to strip rights a few times. Would rather that not happen again. (not to say you aren't a good admin) -DJSasso (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But how many of those we did strip from were already admins on other wikis? Few, if any, I would think. I can only actually recall one de-sysop action from that "era" now that I think about it. Only (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Baseball Watcher 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. 1,000 changes in six months is not enough, and what the editor is doing does not require extra powers. I have nothing against the quality of what this editor does. But, for the umpteenth time, being an admin is not only, or even primarily, about dealing with IP vandals. And I do disagree with the idea that this wiki needs more administrators! We have many more admins than we have regular contributors to article content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say it's only about dealing with vandals, but the wiki gets a lot of vandalism, and I feel I would be talented in helping get rid of it. I wouldn't have replied to this comment, but I am not really picking up what you want me to improve on so that you would support me should I need to run a second time. Is there a certain area you feel I should gain more experience in? TCN7JM 06:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of those admins are actually active? --Rschen7754 07:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) (see my comment on your talk page Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Oppose I would have to agree partially with Macdonald-ross here. I generally prefer to see a year worth of editing from an editor before I say yes. Anything less than that and we tend to get people that get the flag and disappear. We have more than enough active admins at the moment. And quite frankly we are almost down to where we should be for a wiki our size. We are over bloated with admins at the moment so I personally don't feel strongly enough of the need to promote them at this time. The quality of their work is not being questioned however. Just not enough time to see if they should be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose My views align with those of Macdonald-ross and DJSasso, except I don't believe someone should not be promoted because 'we have enough admins'. I do believe that the user is not active enough, for a long enough time. Kennedy (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with DJSasso on this one. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I must say, I'm a bit confused with the opposes over lack of activity. By my math, I'm averaging about 200 changes a month, which is about seven changes a day. I've also been here for six months, which is twice the length that the criteria for adminship (which I'm aware is only a guideline) says is preferred. If people are going to oppose because I haven't been here long enough, then perhaps that page needs a change. TCN7JM 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page mentions a minimum. Like in other words don't even dream of applying before then. Generally most successful (but not all) people who run for admin are here a year or more. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really in the end that's just a page to give people an idea. It still comes down to consensus either way or we would just auto make everyone admins that hit that criteria. But again, my !vote isn't personal. I generally don't support anyone below a year unless they really blow me away. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually agree funnily enough. I've said that before that if the minimum criteria isn't what the majority believe should be the minimum criteria then it should be re-written. That said I didn't subscribe to the exact figures anyway when making my decision... Kennedy (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this isn't a complaint against your very rational oppose votes. This is me proposing that a page that lists what is believed to be the criteria at which people will have a chance at passing an RfA should be changed if this many people believe something different. TCN7JM 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TCN7JM&oldid=4648764"