Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sugarpine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sugarpine (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 21 September 2006 (space). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sugarpine

Voice your opinion. (6/5/0) Ending 23:29:54 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sugarpine (talk · contribs) – I am Sugarpine. Even though, this might seem like a silly request for adminship when I only became a user a week or so ago, I have contributed since April under the username, ForestH2. Recently, however I changed. I am active with the Wikipedia Signpost, Harry Potter, SpongeBob SquarePants, Drake & Josh, Stanford Sierra Camp and various baseball articles. I also contribute to others, like speedy deleting as I'm a new page patroller and a recent changes patroller. I founded the Drake & Josh Wikiproject and the SpongeBob SquarePants wikiproject also starting the newsletter for the SpongeBob SquarePants wikiproject. With my two accounts I've made right around 7,000 edits since April 14th, 2006. Sugarpine t/c 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self accepted nomination Sugarpine t/c 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Sugarpine t/c 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Closing AFD discussions and something big that's really bothering me. I have been speedy deleting unneeded pages and I takes several hours; sometimes days to get done with so I'll really help with C:CSD and page protection a bit. And solve incidents and disputes at WP:ANI and WP:AN.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: List of Drake & Josh episodes and surrounding. I am a big contributor to this page, and I helped set up the graphs for each season. Then, because the articles were short I merged them into Season 1 episodes for Drake & Josh, Season 2, and so forth. I have done a lot for the Drake & Josh episode pages. I am also happy with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) which I update on a regular basis.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in many conflicts with various users and IP's. They vandalize my page most of the time, and I just give them warnings. Then if they do it again, I report them at WP:AIV or ask for my page to be semi-protected. If I get the admin powers, I'll do the same thing, though I won't post at WP:AIV after 4 warnings, I'll just block them.
4. Optional question: could you explain why you switched usernames. In particular why did ForestH2 "retire" from Wikipedia a day after Sugarpine became active? Thanks, Gwernol 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure. I was tired of ForestH2 because a lot of annoying things happend the week before I retired the account such as the big Tonetare scandal which really got me annoyed so I switched counts and decided to stay undercover for a while; but Chacor figured it out; and I annouced I was Forest several days ago. Sugarpine t/c 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 00:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they have 4 tst warnings, there listed at WP:AIV and have vandalized within the last 20 minutes, or for disruption on pages I monitor and username vandals of course. Sugarpine t/c 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if you were to become an admin, we can expect you to only use the block button in these circumstances?--Mcginnly | Natter 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally. Also include sockpuppets. Sugarpine t/c 00:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think you may have missed the word "established" in question 5 above. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? Or is your answer the same? —Mets501 (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer as above. Under what circumstances? Bad usernames; sockpuppets; just as above? Sugarpine t/c 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • I don't like the User:ForestH2 exit. Having a complaint about admins is not a federal crime, but I don't appreciate how less than two weeks later you suddenly want to be an admin. I see the whole situation a bit strange (although I'm not familiar with the Tonetare issue) as it seems like you planned to stay hidden, but when you got caught, less than twenty-four hours after this admission, you decide to run for adminship. Lastly, as admins are supposed to be the face of Wikipedia, I expect them to be a bit more proficient in English (note the answers to the RfA questions about). A response / objection from you is welcome. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left only because of the Taretone/Tonetare scandal which was about this yelling user/annoying user/sockpuppet user who was attacking seven users or six, I think. I've wanted to be an admin for a month now, but I decided to wait until after my trip (August 23rd to September 3rd) Sugarpine t/c 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously not true. Your own ForestH2 userpage says I've had enough. If people leave spam-links over the encylopedia, and I revert them, they're just reverted by an admin, warning me to stop removing spam-links. By the way, is this the spam you referring to? Perhaps you should have contacted the admin that was referenced to confirm and discuss the post, instead of just deleting the comment. -- tariqabjotu 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This was a total advertisment. I'm not discussing things that are spams. Ethier they are and there removed or they aren't. Sugarpine t/c 00:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is being dealt with with Mangojuice right now. I'm in progress of fixing it. Sugarpine t/c 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Seems fine to me. Streamwater 23:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 00:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support RainbowSwirl 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment this is a somewhat odd account, only edits are to userpage and three RfA supports. Mak (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment reply Nope. Haven't had time to contribute to the encylopdia yet. No role account. RainbowSwirl 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support Keep up the good work Mjal 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Personally I have no problem with him being an admin. SOADLuver 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per SoadLuver. T®eebark t | c 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Insufficient answers to questions - questionable understanding of block policy. Poor grasp of grammar and spelling leading to potential communication difficulties. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm sorry I feel compelled to oppose, but I share Tariqabjotu's concerns. The manner of your exit doesn't instill a lot of confidence - what will happen if something similar arose and you had the admin tools at your disposal? I'd be willing to consider supporting an RfA in the future, because I think you're a good editor, but two weeks is just too soon. Gwernol 01:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose poor communications skills, strange RfA circumstances, 312-character signature, and fairly light article contributions. Opabinia regalis 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose - several positives, but way to many negatives. First, the User:ForestH2 exit. Speaking out so harshly against admins and then requesting to become one is just odd. Second, no offense, but your English is not great, and that may impair communication efforts. Third, in my opinion, you have a clear misunderstanding of many elements of blocking. Although, I admit, being more conservative is better than being aggressive than the tools, you do not seem to understand the blocking of established users. It is very rare that an account other than a new acocunt or IP will receive all 4 test warnings and then be reported to WP:AIV. When established users "vandalize", it is very rarely clear vandalism, but usually more of a dispute. They do not usually receive more than a couple of warnings, and if they continue to be very disruptive, they are blocked. Blocking of established users is rare, and does not really adhere to the same generic 4-template WP:AIV thing. Also, clear vandals do not always need the four test templates, some are warned with a template such as {{test4im}} and are blocked if they vandalize after that. Fourth, your signature is too long. Fifth, your question answers are weak, and you do not seem to have any major article contributions, which in my opinion is necessary, as we are first and foremost building an encyclopedia here. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very Strong Oppose per my comments in the discussion section. But worst of all, he reported PilotGuy and Ral315 as vandals. Yes, I know those are IPs, but a look at the history of User:ForestH2 seems to show that that user is indeed Forest; see this, followed by this to confirm the IP. Not good at all. The comments on AN were not spam, as had been mentioned on your talk page once and again. You may disagree with those evaluations, but quitting and refusing to discuss your position was not the best thing to do. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, ForestH2 reported User:Pilotguy (roger that) who was an imposter of User:Pilotguy and User:Ral315 (talk) who was an imposter of User:Ral315, so these are valid reports. Both imposters have been indef blocked. Gwernol 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow; those imposters even fooled me... mea culpa. I have changed my statement to what I originally was going to say before I saw those AIV reports. Sorry about that, Sugarpine. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not alone, I actually removed Ral315 (talk) off the page, thinking that an anon had messed up trying to report a good-faith user. Although I'm not happy with what followed. See oppose below. – Chacor 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Firm Oppose per Gwernol and Tariqabjotu's comments. Rama's arrow 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - failure to WP:AGF - giving me an unneded test0 without first finding out what occurred. Too rash. – Chacor 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sugarpine&oldid=76917409"