Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chunky Rice

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Chunky Rice

edit

(38/7/5); Originally scheduled to end 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chunky Rice (talk · contribs) - Hello, fellow editors. I humbly present myself for consideration for adminship. I first created this account back in 2005, but only became a regular editor in February of this year. I’ve now been actively involved with the project for about 6 months. I’m nominating myself because it seemed like a better course of action than sitting on my thumbs and hoping that somebody else would do it, or worse, directly asking someone else to nominate me, which seems disingenuous.

I believe that I would make a good administrator (obviously, or I wouldn’t be here). I’ve participated in a variety of tasks here on Wikipedia, including recent changes patrol, AfDs, tagging articles with both proposed deletion and speedy deletion tags. I’ve written a few articles from scratch, rewritten a few more and substantively contributed to others. I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of policy, work well with others and handle myself well in a conflict. If you feel similarly after reviewing my contributions, I ask for your support. If you disagree, I would welcome advice on how to improve myself as an editor of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.Chunky Rice 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

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: Primarily I plan to keep doing the same things that I have been, just with admin duties added on. So I’ll continue to participate in AfD, commenting on some, closing others. I’ll continue to deal with vandalism, adding blocking and checking AIV in addition to reverting and warning. Instead of tagging pages for speedy deletion, I suppose I’ll just delete them as well as reviewing pages that others have tagged.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as article writing goes, I think that my best is Transformation playing card, which is an article I created and brought to Good Article status. I think it’s a good article on an interesting and notable topic. On the more collaborative end, I think that I’ve done some good work, in general, with WikiProject Board and table games, improving many articles and working with the categories related to the subject. I'm also happy with the work that I've done on Critical Mass, substantially rewriting much of the article to be more NPOV.
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: Sure. Haven’t we all? The following is a modified version of what I wrote for my editor review:
I don't really experience stress from dealing with the people that I encounter during recent changes patrol. What do I care if some random vandal wants to deface my user page or calls me names? I do experience some stress when working with good faith editors where I can tell that we both want to do what we think is best for the encyclopedia, but disagree on that course. Primarily because I feel like it's a failure on my part that I'm unable to properly explain my position. I've employed a variety of methods to deal with this.
  • At List of miniature wargames, in a dispute over the appropriateness of a tag, I used dispute resolution. I talked it through with the other editor and when that failed, initiated an RfC. The RfC favored my position, so I made the edits.
  • At Pedophilia, I argued for my position, but ultimately decided to just walk away. Partially because the other editor was so adamant and partially because I found the subject matter distasteful.
  • At Critical Mass, I’ve had a mildly contentious relationship with some of the other regular editors of that page as we all try to determine how to make the page NPOV. While we have different perspectives, it is fortunate that all parties are willing to discuss things on the talk page. We’ve reached numerous compromise positions and I think that the article is better for it.
Ultimately, what I've learned that helps me deal with content disputes is that, while it is important to argue your position, it's not important that it be done right this very instant (with the possible exception of BLP concerns). I find that if I stop worrying about fixing things right away, it's a lot easier to keep my cool and avoid things like revert wars. Hopefully, this philosophy will serve me well in the future.

Optional question from User:Pheonix15

4. In your opinion, is there any discrimination against ip's from registered users?
A-Oh, certainly. Aside from the perennial calls to require registration to edit, I think that IPs are much more likely to be reverted. But I also think that a lot of that is because there’s a presumption that they are inexperienced users. I think that a registered user with just a handful of edits would face roughly the same sort of treatment that an IP editors does. If you want to put it in a nicer way, I think that veteran editors are treated with more deference than new/inexperienced users, because there’s more of a presumption that the know and understand Wikipedia policies, so there’s a good reason that they made the edit that you don’t quite understand.
5. Additional question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Hello, Chunky Rice. Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then a follow-up-- You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by a Bot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at the top of the page from the anon saying "THE ARTICLE IS A COPY AND PASTE COPYVIO FORM ANOTHER SITE” What do you do? Thanks, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, that’s a complex question. There are many different possible outcomes depending on many different variables.
1. Quick internet search for key phrases from the article. If found, 2. If not, 8.
2. Attempt to determine if the other site holds the copyright. If yes, 3. If it’s a mirror of Wikipedia, 6. If I can’t tell, 7.
3. Determine if there is a non-copy vio prior version or section in the current article. If yes, 4. If no, 5.
4. Restore prior version or otherwise remove copyvio material, leaving article. Leave a talk page note.
5. Delete article, per CSD:G12.
6. Do not delete article, remove note re: copyvio, leave message on article talk page and the talk page of the person who left the note re: determination.
7. Replace the note with a {{copyvio}}, and bring the issue to WP:CP, leaving notes for the person who left the note as well as the editor who wrote the material under review.
8. Leave a message for the anon user asking for more specifics, if they are the copyright holder and whatnot. Leave a note for the person who wrote the article informing them of the issue, asking for a response. Remove the note. Watch the page for future activity.
I think that’s a decent summary, although there are certainly forks that I have not covered. The gist is this: If it’s a blatant copyright violation, delete it or restore a non-copyvio version. If it is clearly not a violation, clean up and move on. If it is questionable, initiate discussion and review. Possibly bring in other eyes if I feel out of my depth.

General comments

edit

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chunky Rice before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. I think you have the experience to be an effective administrator and your thoughtful responses at AfD shows you have a clear understanding of the wiki-way. Good luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Your mainspace history shows you understand what we're trying to do here, and your talk & AfD history shows you've got a good reason for wanting this. As I'm not familiar with you, I've checked your history more thoroughly than usual & can't find anything to object to — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support 400 edits in project space are far from meaningless. Looking through them, I see many cases of AfDs in which Chunky Rice participated in a real discussion over the whole course of the process which is a very positive sign. I also see sound comments at the Village Pump, reasoned discussion on the talk page of WP:NOT, long-term involvement in a WikiProject. Unless I failed to notice instances where CR has dramatically lost his cool, I don't quite see what's not to like. Pascal.Tesson 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Edits are low, but no reason to think he will abuse tools. Politics rule 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per above. See no indication that this user will misuse the tools;)--Hu12 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This user has broad experience of the project, and his edits therein are good edits. for those afflicted with editcountitis, his score right now is 3,031, which passes the three thousand magic number for those for whom this is an important parameter. Clearly he will not abuse the tools, and is exactly the sort of editor we should be welcoming with open arms. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support. The candidate is off to a promising start and has built some good articles. However, mainspace edit count is a bit light. In this case the tie goes to the runner. Best of luck. Majoreditor 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suppoprt --T Rex | talk 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support edit count is fine. Acalamari 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. You've been off to a pretty good start, but I would like to see more Wikispace edits and experienc, especially for someone interested in becoming an admin and closing Xfd's and stuff like that. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per Anthony.bradbury and for good answers. Bearian 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support — I've analysed your past 50 edits and I'm happy to give my support on the basis that you make actual article edits/contributions (for example you created this yesterday). Matthew 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support CR, you've got Skills that Kills. :) Dfrg.msc 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I reviewed this editor's contributions in an editor review back in July and found nothing amiss. Solid contributions to encyclopedia, and thoughtful comments at AfD. Espresso Addict 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - no reason to oppose. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - like some others I think the editing history is a bit light. However, what there is is high quality and covers a fairly broad range of technical and mainspace activity. Good reasons for wanting admin tools, and nothing that suggests there will be any problems. Some gratuitous advice - your mainspace cotnributions seem very good. Don't let the technical side of adminship distract you from working on more articles.Euryalus 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support It is time to give this user the mop. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - clearly bright enough, seems trustworthy, certainly not mental. No good reason not to. Neil ム 09:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak, per experience. —AldeBaer 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. User has demonstrated better judgement and conflict resolution skills than most current sysops. Italiavivi 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Good candidate. Although the opposers bring up valid points about the candidate's relative inexperience in projectspace, I don't think this on its own is a sufficient reason to oppose. WaltonOne 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support The experience concerns are minor, so I will support. Captain panda 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - lowish edit count offset by article contributions, AfD involvement and vandal reporting. Addhoc 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - A look through your contributions convinces me that you are committed and thoughtful. More project space contributions would be a plus, but I don't see any warning signs that you would act rashly or abuse the tools. Your pattern seems to be that you are cautious until you learn the ropes. That's a good pattern for a new admin, so I think you would do fine.--Kubigula (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No problems evident. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I don't see why not, go for it. James086Talk | Email 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support don't think he would abuse the tools, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. There is no evident problem here and no indication of future abuse. I appreciate your offer to help. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. He deserves it for all the hard work he's done. --Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 10:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion he deserves our trust, and demonstrably sincere commitment like his surely helps. But adminship is not a trophy awarded for doing work. —AldeBaer 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Based on answer to my question. Does not require follow up question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Daniel 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support After carefully reading the oppose section and reviewing your fine contributions. The opposes are valid, but on balance I don't see that you will misuse the tools, and that is the only fundamental issue. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Experience is sufficient for me; answers to questions show familiarity with policies. Shalom Hello 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support my concerns have been satisfactorily answered. Thanks!  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Trustworthy. Best of luck as an admin. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, seems to have sufficient experience. Wizardman 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose I wanted to support, but I just can't at this time. You seem to be well on your way, and are quite on the right track as far as editing and building your skills, but I can't see your experience well enough...yet. Jmlk17 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose lack of experience in intended work worries me, as per answer to question #1 "Instead of tagging pages for speedy deletion, I suppose I’ll just delete them" - (I assume this will go for other sysop tools) with history in contributions I can't decide on good references to prove judgment, you would need to show evidence of seeking outside opinions in controversial issues. So few edits in spaces other than mainspace and talk leave me concerned about skills in making positive conclusions without outside input. This user comes across to me as making out that adminship is a badge of some sort, and by answering: "I plan to keep doing the same things that I have been, just with admin duties added on" that would mean (IMAO) that "I don't need or really have a great purpose for the sysop buttons, I just want them". But, still well on the way to becoming a good editor, focus on those project space edits and I hope to see you back here in a few months or less :-) --Ben hello! 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand concerns about my experience, but I don't really understand your objections to my responses. Could you please elaborate?
    For the first part, do you think that I should continue to tag articles for speedy deletion instead of deleting them? That seems a bit wasteful. If I run across a page that says "Joe is gay." I don't understand the benefit of tagging it and waiting for another admin to delete it. Further, I'm not sure what you're looking for as far as evidence of my judgment in this area. I'm not sure how many speedy tags I've done, but I estimate somewhere between one and two hundred. Of those, only one was rejected by an admin and that was because of the information added after I tagged the article.
    As to the second part, I'm not sure why you object to me performing admin duties in areas that I have experience in, given your overall concerns with my experience level. I'll admit that it's true that I have no real need for the tools. I can and will continue to contribute in the same areas with or without them. But I think that's true for almost everybody.
    Again, it's not my intention to try and invalidate your opinion, but it's important to me to understand why you're opposing so that I can take it constructively. Thanks.-Chunky Rice 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the mechanical task of clicking a button to put speedy tags on obviously inappropriate pages that gain you more respect in the area of your "judgment" (for want of a better word), but more chunky discussions and arguments. --Ben hello! 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as I said, I understand that part. I'm mostly confused about your objections to the language I used. You seemed to indicate that my phrasing in my response about speedy deletions raised some sort of red flag with you and I can't really figure out what that is. -Chunky Rice 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That concerns me. What Chunky is proposing to do is to close his own speedies: a dangerous habit. Even obvious deletions should have two pairs of eyes on them to avoid accidents; admins should not have to have this explained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose, per Ben's concerns, but I think more experience will resolve that. Another thousand or two edits spread across more namespaces, and I think you'll be there, you're well on your way though. - Crockspot 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Insufficient experience in project space in particular - I count at least 110 edits there that are unrelated to policy - but I've no doubt with your legal background you can catch up quickly. Xiner (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Xiner. The candidate needs more experience in mop-related fields before he can be trusted to wield the mop with care. Xoloz 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose While your work in vandal fighting has been good, I don't have enough confidence in your experience in dispute resolution and other sysop tasks that require more interaction with established editors. Some of your responses here felt particularly lackluster. VanTucky (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please elaborate as to which responses you're referring to and what you find lackluster about them? Thanks.-Chunky Rice 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically thought the first question's answer failed to properly articulate an understanding and conviction in an admin's role and duties. The "I suppose..." comment was especially uninspiring. VanTucky (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Ben. Miranda 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Sorry, but Speedy Deletes should have two pairs of eyes.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the case, the policy page should really be updated to reflect that. As it is written now, WP:CSD contains no language indicating that speedy deletion is inherently a two person process. It simply states that under the listed criteria, an administrator may delete an article without discussion. It further states that non-administrators may tag the pages to bring them to the attention of administrators. But it does not say anything about requiring two persons. I have no problem following a two-person system if that is the policy, but we need to update the page to reflect that. -Chunky Rice 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chunky Rice is entirely correct. If you can name more than a half-dozen current administrators who tag clearly-deletable speedy deletion pages rather than deleting them themselves ("the two eyes rule", as you indicated) on a regular basis (I can understand if they are unsure about whether it should be deleted, but your comment clearly stipulates that you believe it should happen with every deletion), then I'll eat my foot. Put simply, Timotab's assertion is not the stance of any administrator that I know of, and as such he is basically making a personal assertion about process rather than a well-founded opinion about this candidates' ability to perform the appropriate tasks. Furthermore, this would only create more time wasted and more backlogs. Timotab is exposing his own lack of knowledge and experience with his comments, not that of the candidates, and the closing bureaucrat should, in my humble opinion, consider this in their close if this requests for adminship falls within that range. Daniel 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be on the policy page, but as Septentrionalis said above, it's a safeguard against accidents. Further to that, it's a safeguard against any accusations of abuse of power. If all pages you actually speedy delete were nominated by others, and if it's the first time you get to it, you nominate it allowing another admin to delete it, then if anyone ever accuses you of inappropriately deleting something, you can always go back and point out that someone else had agreed with you. I will concede that there may be occasions where it is so blatantly obvious that it's OK. But reading what ChunkyRice wrote suggests that he thinks it's OK every time that he thinks it should be deleted that he would go ahead and delete, no further questions asked. At the very least he should not speedy delete articles at the same standard that he would tag them. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why he doesn't see that.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my opinion that speedy deletions should never be controversial. If there has ever been any question in my mind, I put a prod tag, not a speedy tag on the page. The criteria outlined at CSD are extremely narrow and are designed to be uncontroversial and largely objective determinations, due to the lack of discussion. I see a lot of people who just tag articles willy-nilly, using the wrong criteria. For example, G1 (nonsense) should only be used to delete something that is gibberish, though I often see people use it to tag things that are obvious hoaxes (not speediable) or fall under "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" (not speediable). I'm not like that. I'm already cautious with speedy deletions. I will be even more so as an admin. But I trust my judgment. With this RfA, I'm asking the community if they also trust my judgment, based on my editing. If you, and others, do not, that is reasonable. I just felt that I had to address this whole "two people should be required for speedy deletions" trend in the opposes. I can only promise that I will follow Wikipedia's policies and practices to the best of my ability (whether or not I become an admin). -Chunky Rice 11:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chunky Rice nails it. Speedies shouldn't need two sets of eyes because they must clearly meet the defined speedy deletion criteria. Redundancy on speedy deletions needlessly increases the amount of work needed; if one is not sure whether something is truly speedy deletion-appropriate, slap on a prod tag and move along. It's also worth remembering that no admin's action is irreversible, and any good admin will willingly work to correct their (inevitable) mistakes. — Scientizzle 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Definately heading in the correct direction. I would just like to see more experience, mainly Wikipedia-space, then this RfA will be one to be proud of. Lradrama 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - ~400 edits in project space isn't really enough for someone who wants to work in XfD, but you definitely seem to have a good grasp of policies and seem to work well with others. Keep up the good work! Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. ~ Wikihermit 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, per Hersfold's comments. –sebi 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral for now based on relatively low project space contribs. — Scientizzle 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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/Chunky_Rice&oldid=1140160781"