Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blakegripling ph

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

Blakegripling ph

edit

Final (9/30/9); Ended 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikpedian for over a year, and I've done a lot of contributions to the project; although I had a fair share of mistakes and stuff in this site, such as uploading copyvio media and unnecessary edits (including a nonsense edit I made to the article N-Gage), I always try my best to follow the rules and enforce Wikipedia policy, by reverting POV edits, getting rid of fancruft and requesting for help when necessary... I'm also a parodist, so you can expect a shot of humor from me... = ) Blake Gripling (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: It would be like, deleting inappropriate pages made by vandals, making some spelling/grammar corrections, and other stuff to improve the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions? I think it would be those new articles that I started and had a fair share of positive feedback and contributions, such as the list of Strawberry Shortcake characters.
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: Yes, I had some conflicts with other users, such as the vandal/Angel Locsin fanboy named Gerald Gonzalez, who made unnecessary POV edits and then started dissing other editors with expletives. I often ask my fellow editors, and voice out my opinions about it, and then try to undo the damage that the vandal(s) do.

Optional question from Icewedge:

4. What should be done with articles in a different language?
A: That's a good question. I might translate it as far as I can, have it translated to someone else, or move it to the appropriate Wikipedia site when necessary.

Optional question from SJP

5 Would you ever give someone a cool-down block? If so, under what circumstances?
A: Yes, if he goes out of control, but of course, I would decide if it would be necessary.

Question from Matthew

6. In your own words please: what is fancruft? Please give me an example of an article that is fancruft. Also, how would you handle the article?
A. To me, fancruft refers to content that is only made by and/or for the benefit of enthusiastic newbies and fanatics who don't seem to pay attention to NPOV policy and just unwittingly turn articles like those of Hanna Montana and High School Musical into a fan site or a tribute instead of something that gives the right information. I know that some of them don't really intend to vandalize or something, but it would be better if I revert or rewrite them, and remind those responsible that what they are doing isn't necessary and qualifies as conflict of interest. An example of such fancruft would be like the one that me and some of my fellow editors cleaned up: this article of Angel Locsin was full of excessive POV at first, but per WP policy me and my fellow editors got rid of it, although the one responsible for this still kept on disrupting, with multiple sockpuppets on hand... Blake Gripling (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gears of War

7.A few days back, someone opposed on a editors RFA because of age. Do you feel that age should play a major part in whether or not an editor becomes an administrator?Gears Of War 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Well, in my opinion, no. As long as the editor acts maturely and up to the standards of a Wikipedian, he can qualify as an admin, even for a twelve-year old. I once encountered a minor who registered for a Grand Theft Auto fan forum, and he asked about his age as a factor for joining the community - the other members told him it's OK as long as he acts mature enough. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Titopao
I am weighing in my vote based on your responses to questions #1, 2 and 3, and there are some points that I'd need to clarify, so here goes:

8. In your response to Question #1, you said that among other things, you would make "other stuff to improve the project." Could you please elaborate? Other than simple copy-editing work (spelling and grammar) and closing inappropriate pages made by vandals (I presume that hoax pages and CSD-eligible pages belong to that class), what other admnistrative tasks do you intend to take part in, at least within three months?
I know most of you may frown on my rather vague answers, but besides the answers in number one, maybe if I use my admin rights sparingly, or whenever necessary, and just do my job in helping Wikipedia, that would be better than being an admin and just use it abusively.
9. What are your next-best contributions to Wikipedia other than articles related to entertainment and show business, and why?
I'm not sure; one of them would probably be the major revision I made to the Dual SIM article. I own a cellphone, like most Filipinos, and I used my knowledge about them in the article, since I've been in a cellphone specialty store a couple times, and I've encountered a lot of tools, software and stuff used for it.

General comments

edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Blakegripling ph before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Stirring up fond memories? :) Shereth 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that... Blake Gripling (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I see you have dealt with it. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the edit summaries, don't worry, I'll try adding them whenever I edit something... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing on-wiki is not that much of a big deal. Bwrs (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Anything more than an RFA notice on your user page is considered very bad form. -IcewedgЁ (ťalķ) 06:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the cool-down block, sorry about that... But if you guys vote me as an admin I'll try my best not to screw up, since I already asked for an admin coach... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is not a vote. America69 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys with the insanely negative opposes, can you be a little nicer? This is obviously a good-faith nomination, so seriously, tone it down a little. J.delanoygabsadds 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm just here to ask; I'm not into being overly dictatorial or power-hungry, I'm just trying to do my job... Blake Gripling (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I'll let this pass but to tell you guys, removing discussion (whether resolved or not) is a big disrespect to us. Don't do it again. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
edit
  1. Moral Support. I can't give you my full support at this time for a couple of reasons. Your work so far is great. Keep it up and you'll be an admin in no time. However, you don't have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace. You'll need to get some more experience there (WP:AFD is a good place to start). Also, you need to use edit summaries more. They're very helpful in letting other editors know what you're doing and/or why you're doing it. Also, bonus points for being Filipino, I spent a couple years in Isabela. Useight (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support (reccomending NOTNOW) per Useight. Also, it wouldn't hurt to become more active in the project space, but you're off to a nice start. You're a good editor, don't stop what you're doing. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. User has good insight as a moderator and wiki owner, having learnt to set up and run wiki software by deploying wiki software onto own servers, as well as being appointed global moderator at a few forums. RAM (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I believe this Wikipedian is experienced and trust worthy enough. We need more admins here to support this every growing project. And, personally, I think lack of edit summaries is not that much of a big deal. As long as we'll have more antivandals, that's fine with me. And even yet, if he makes a mistake due to the "lack of experience" you people noted, that can still be reverted. -- Felipe Aira 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be advised that this is not the Tagalog Wikipedia, where we are (and can afford to be) more lenient on peoples' edit summaries. The English Wikipedia is a completely different ballgame, where edit summaries are important especially in the fight against vandalism. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving good edit summaries means respect to other editors. --Efe (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I admire your honesty; it is refreshing. Bwrs (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as he seems to have a reasonable understanding of inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies (as an unfortunate note, in that XfD, an account turned out to be a ban evading sock that apparently did influence the discussion). I also like that the candidate has pleased other users enough to receive User:Blakegripling ph#Barnstars.2FAwards. One suggestion, though, would be to avoid using words like "fancruft" per Verdatum. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Bwrs. Also, you have done a nice amount of anti-vandalism work and get bonus points for editing User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support.Per answer to my question.Gears Of War 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose Seems well-intentioned but also seems not to understand fair use rules. Article summaries is woefully lacking and aside from AIV I don't see much of anything in Project space. Also concerned about the length and content of answers above. Just not ready for the mop. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose His edit summaries are lacking (per above) or insufficient to convey what has been edited without looking/checking the article. Also, he has problems in (uploading) images (per talk page). --Efe (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Candidate lacks the requisite experience in the project space, unfortunately they do not meet my criteria. Also, per the laconic answers to the questions, especially number 1, which seems to signify a slight misunderstanding on what it means to be an administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Heart is in the right place, but I find the lack of edit summaries to be a negative. Also, lack of experience outside of mainspace is not the greatest. Recommend you spend 3 months or so working to address the issues brought up in this RfA and reapply.--Finalnight (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The answer to the first question seems particularly weak, IMHO, betraying a concerning lack of non-admin experience in what admin tools can bring to the party. This is enough to outway the generally otherwise fine help given to Wikipedia so far. No doubt a future administrator but needs to consider why they want the ability first. M♠ssing Ace 06:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose with Moral Support The user is a good collaborator and a nice person. However, I think he needs more experience. I suggest hanging out more on the Xfd pages and improve on other weakpoints. I also suggest that you request an admin coach.--Lenticel (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, sorry, way short of experience. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose with Moral Support StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm sorry, but you're not ready yet. In Q5 you said you would give someone a cool-down block. You are never suppose to give people cool down blocks. That question leads me to believe you would misuse the tools, though not on purpose. Try again when you get more experience, and I would gladly support you:-)--SJP (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose - fails the trick question as regards the cool-down block. I can't see a valid reason why this user should have admin tools. This user could report vandals to AIV and tag new pages for speedy. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You seem like a good editor, but unfortunately, you don't have enough all-around experience. You seem to lack experience in admin-related areas, notably. Your answers to those questions are also less than ideal. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Seriously limited knowledge of some really basic policies admins should know. Certainly well-intentioned but I can't say I could trust this user with the tools right now. ~ mazca t | c 00:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Answers don't fit what I am looking for. Question 5 to me is what pulled the trigger on this, and the lack of edit summeries worries me. I also strongely oppose the answer to Question 7. America69 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Sorry, no. Not satisfied re "wants tools" v. "why and what for" Plutonium27 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose - Per answer on cool-down blocks.  Asenine  08:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per answers to #1, #2, #4, #5. Also per weak experience in most areas. Canvassing is also a problem to be considered. Rudget (logs) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose - cool down blocks Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Q5, and the canvassing. And you might want to look at your answer to Q1: I wouldn't want someone correcting my grammar who makes a mistake as glaring as "It would be like, deleting pages..." Xenon54 12:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose Answers to questions are terrible, project space is lacking, and activity is shaky.--Koji†Dude (C) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Not yet ready Answer to question one suggests a lack of understanding of the role of the admin. One need not be an admin to copyedit and improve articles. I assume form the answer candidate intends to do work with speedy deletions. I found no speedy deletion taggings among the candidates deleted content. Contrarily, there are articles and images that were created by candidate that needed deletion. Not english is not a valid deletion reason. The thing to do is tag for translation. Answer to question 3 does not convince me that candidate understands dispute resolution process. I saw some unsuccessful AIV reports, so I'd like more experience in that area and a review of the blocking policies. Also, more experience Recent Changes patrolling. OOO, just saw answer 5. Definitely review blocking policies. Communication is essential for an admin. I would like to see 100% edit summary usage. You can set your "preferences" to require edit summary usage. Policy does not speak as strongly against canvassing as I think it should. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I can't tell why this user wants or needs the admin tools, which is relevant in the context of the answers to Q1 and Q5. Townlake (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Dlohcierekim. --LaPianista! 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Answer to Q1 is weak, and answers to Q4 and Q5 are plain wrong. While we may well feel the temptation to apply a cool-down block, they must never be used. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - very bold, very honest, and I respect that a lot. But the necessary contributions of a potential admin aren't really up to scratch, and the answers to the questions are extremely vague, and display an all-round lack of knowledge about adminship and policy. Lradrama 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Generally unready. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Cool down blocks. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Question 5. Cool down blocks should never be used as per WP:CDB. Not quite enough experience yet but would be a good candidate in the future with more experience with our policies and more quality edits. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose with good faith I have faith that you have potential. However, you still need a bit more to be trusted with the admin tools judging from your answers. Good luck!  Marlith (Talk)  00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose with Moral Support I think you have the heart, you just need a little bit more experience. Don't many editors face the same problem their first time going for admin, myself included. I'm sure in time you will be nominated for admin again! Keep at it!  :) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. I appreciate your desire to help out but your contributions to Wikipedia space - where familiarity with policy and procedure is demonstrated - is fairly thin. Right now I don't have a lot to go on as far as judging your readiness for adminship, and I predict that most will be willing to oppose on the low edit count (which in and of itself does not bother me). I would suggest withdrawing this nomination for now, get involved with some of the policy related areas of the encyclopedia and try again when you've had a chance to get a real feel for it :) Shereth 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Right now, I'm neutral. Although two of your fellow Tambays oppose your adminisip, I'm here for moral support. Right now, I haven't made my decision per your adminship. For now, hope for the best. Sysop or not, you have done the best job of keeping Wikipedia away from pesky fanboys. -iaNLOPEZ1115 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont expect that because we are Filipinos, we will support his adminship. This looks like FAC, because you are part of WP:SONGS, you will support song-related cadidates. He is good but needs more experience. --Efe (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral with moral support. In the meantime, just continue editing with good faith and neutrality. Starczamora (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Before I reach a decision I would like to see him at least answer the question I posted, and I may need to ask more questions.--SJP (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I will not oppose at this time, although it seems that the candidate lacks experience and policy knowledge, based on answers to questions. If later on the outcome of this RfA is in doubt, I will come back and do more research. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral with moral support Notwithstanding that both Efe and Lenticel oppose your nomination, and despite the fact that I stand by what I said in WT:TAMBAY that I frown upon self-nominations for adminship, I understand that this nomination was launched in good faith. However, your tenure in Wikipedia by my standards is still too short (I've seen a lot go by in the last three years, believe me), certainly not long enough to have a proper working knowledge of the inner workings seeing from your responses to the questions above. Being a forum moderator does not necessarily translate to qualifying as a Wikipedia admin. In the meantime, as this RfA progresses, continue doing on what you do while I evaluate my position on your nomination in the long run. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral with moral support per Useight/SJP/Q5/WP:NOTNOW. I don't think you're ready for the tools, and I don't think your policy knowledge is up to the point I could trust you to use them wisely. That said, I believe your heart's in the right place and you will get to the point you're ready for adminship if you follow the advice others have given you here. I would love to support your next RfA, but I can't support this one, right now. Best of luck. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Kumusta, Blake! I appreciate your sincerity in wishing to assist Wikipedia, but I think you may need a little more experience before you can step up a level to administrator. You may want to increase your level of activity and come back towards the end of the year. Good luck! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, I'm not very impressed by your answers to the questions. Agreeing with others, I think you just need a little more time so you can gain some experience. Read up on some policy, enforce policy when you can, and continue doing what you normally do. Please do try again later when you believe you are ready. --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. CDB is a big issue, but I think that in a few months you would be ready for adminship. Take a look at WP:ARL. Malinaccier (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2008 (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/Blakegripling_ph&oldid=1086344698"