Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 4

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Porchcrop

Final (0/6/1); ended 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC) per WP:SNOW - —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:09pm • 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Porchcrop (talk · contribs) – I would like to know if I can become an admin now, as I have experience now. If you see any problems with my edits, they're probably mistakes. Remember that I am a human and I make mistakes. Thanks. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I decide to take part in blocking vandals and other inappropriate editors, protecting pages, deleting pages (good for my new page patrolling), etc.

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

A: I have alot of various contributions. Like new page patrolling, recent changes patrolling, vandal fighting, helping newcomers, helping editors.

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: Not to say about the violation of Etiquette and Assume good faith. I had created WP:Antiquette and User:Porchcrop/Antiquette.

General comments

• Links for Porchcrop: Porchcrop (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Porchcrop can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Oppose

1. Not enough experience. Very small percentage of article-space edits; more to user-space than anything else. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 07:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Just because I have not too many article edits doesn't mean I am an inexperienced editor. Also I have 400 mainspace edits, which is alot. Please see my article edits. Thanks -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Sorry I don't have to pore too far back through your edits to see that your judgment - which comes from experience - isn't there yet. For example, trains are not A7-eligible[1] and this RfA close - NOTNOW for someone with about 40,000 edits - was ill-advised and correctly reverted.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure that they are mistakes. And also I am experienced in New Page Patrolling. I will know how to use the tools in an appropriate way. The reverting of the RFA is more of inexperience of becoming a bureaucrat, but I now know what WP:NOTNOW means. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   I perfectly accept they are innocent misjudgments but mistakes by an admin have to be at a very low frequency. At this stage, your mistakes aren't infrequent enough. I was additionally quite surprised that you would blacklist a group of users during an MfD.[2] --Mkativerata (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   For the MFD, see the reply to Qwyrxian. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   It seems that about half of the entrants on your hit list were opposers of your previous RfAs? Please tell me I'm missing something. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   They were opposers that were rude in my RFAs. They had violated the guidelines WP:Etiquette and WP:AGF. But not all editors were opposers in any of my RFAs. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

3. You are right to say that your edits were mistakes--WP:Antiquette was a fundamental mistake in both the right way to make new policy at Wikipedia and proper ways of interacting with others. It was first unanimously shown to be a bad plan (it would have created another WQA like board, except that only members could hand out judgments), and then deleted (see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Antiquette). I think Boing! said Zebedee put it best: "Delete as a failed proposal - well, it wasn't even a proper proposal. A single-user forum for bitching about other people, which was summarily (and properly) dismissed as an idea by the community? No thank you." Anyone who thought that Antiquette was a good idea will not make a good admin. Until I see Porchcrop showing a clear understanding why that was a bad proposal, I couldn't possibly trust this user with the tools. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Um ok. But I haven't repeated it. However, I know that it was not an appropriate proposal, but I was just letting other Wikipedians know that how they violate the Etiquette guideline. And I am not going to do this again. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose I'm sorry, but you need some more practice with deletions, especially A1. I remember from you contributions that you tagged Panconnectivity for speedy deletion per A1. (See [3]) The subject of that article is a graph, and therefore I agree with Tikiwont, the admin who originally declined the deletion. Minimac (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   As I said to Mkativerata. It was probably a mistake. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well, the next thing to do is as least realise the mistakes you've made in the past and think of reasons why some articles should be included in the encyclopaedia. Sorry to bring this oppose one step forward, but I found some notable maturity concerns per this comment. It may have been a while ago, but with the severe cooling problems I think these problems will affect your judgement. Minimac (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   So, you want to explain everything that I did years ago. Well could you explain if they are happening now. Also could you see the last article I created. (I don't create too many articles not because I don't have enough experience, it's just I have no more articles to create). -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I had a look at Maximum Boy, and it's not too bad, so I might not consider it for deletion just yet. However, other than the fact that it needs more links, the references are quite vague and need some more detail. A good quality news reference usually has an external link. See if you can try to link those references. You can try using Google News Archives to help you out. Minimac (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Inexperience as exemplified by Antiquette, which was only a month ago and was completely ridiculous. Townlake (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Please see the reply to Qwyrxian. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Way premature. While your enthusiasm to help Wikipedia is there, you simply don't have the knowledge or skill expected from an administrator...yet. Keep working at it. ~dee^(talk?) 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Could you explain what parts I don't have experience. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not going to pile on, but your constant rebuttals to the opposers above seems to be an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. The incidences raised, coupled with the fact you simply don't appear to even basically understand what admins do, leads me here. StrPby (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   I have alot of experience on Wikipedia. And I know when to use the admin tools. All problems with my edits were mistakes. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 09:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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.