Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImperatorExercitus

< 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.

ImperatorExercitus

edit

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/20/18); Ended 20 April 2009 per Withdrawal I'mperator 12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

edit

ImperatorExercitus (talk · contribs) – Hello! I've been here on Wikipedia for over 6 months, in which time I've attained over 6600 contributions, 255 of which are deleted. In addition to my abundant anti-vandalism work, I'm also dedicated to article-writing; I've 6 DYKs, 5 GAs down (as well as two that are waiting.), and hopefully a Featured list soon. I'm also pretty active at various projects; for instance, I regularly help out at Articles for creation. In addition, I've demonstrated a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies; I have numerous reports, comments, and votes at WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and WP:CSD. I also regularly patrol Usernames for Administrator intervention (which is one of the primary reasons I need administrator tools-see below) and Administrator's Noticeboard. Also, I help maintain the heavily backlogged Did You Know by help reviewing people's articles. I'mperator 14:14, 16 April 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As mentioned above, I often help take care of Did You Know by often reviewing people's submissions; consequently, I believe that I could aid by adding the approved DYK hooks to the queue. In addition, I plan to contribute to WP:AIV, where, though not too bad at some instances (thanks to j.delanoy :P), can be heavily backlogged when the majority of administrators are absent; for instance, I often help revert vandalism when the people across the Atlantic are asleep. Also, I plan to interact more at UAA. There, I often help clear up the backlog by eliminated false positives from bots and discussing usernames with beneficial users whom otherwise might be blocked. However, as a direct consequence of my lack of administrator tools, I sometimes make mistakes, namely the fact that I miss deleted contributions. These contributions mark a user as either a well-intentioned user with the misfortune to pick a bad username or a promotional user who uses Wikipedia for blatantly advertising.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, aside from my many reversions of vandalism (whether manually or via Huggle, which I don't really like that much), I have written plenty of articles that span from specific fungi to articles of art (a list can be found on my userpage. However, I must say that the ones that I'm most proud of are my 6 DYKs (this, this, this, this, this and this) and five GAs(this, now reassessed, Bart the Fink, this, this and this), with two more well on the way. In addition, I'm proud of my work at WP:AFC/R WP:UAA and WP:AFD.
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: First, my biggest conflict was with Calton at UAA over a user who had created spam pages (which were quickly deleted without tags on his/her talk page). Consequently, as far as I could make out, the user had done nothing wrong; consequently, I marked the reports as "Non blatant". In fact, I had even checked contributions, which reflected nothing. As a result of my misreplies, I was quickly "put down" and spent a few weeks reviewing all the policies again that related to WP:UAA. Since then, I've learned a great deal: to this day, I have always requested a list of deleted contribs, if any, from an admin before reviewing a case at WP:UAA. Should the community decided me worthy of attaining these tools, I will be able to avoid such conflicts in the future.
(A link can be found here.) There was a notable incident with another well-intentioned editor, whom I accidentally reverted with Huggle (and giving him a warning). Although I reverted my revert and removed the warning, I was accused of "going in like a bull in a china shop." However, I calmly conversed with the user, and, sure enough, WP:AGF paid off. We finally ended with a cup of tea and apologies on both sides.
Additional questions from Ali'i
4. In your opinion, what level of participating does it take to being able to claim a Good Article as your own? The reason I ask is that it appears that on some of the articles you note above, most of the work was done by others (User:Theleftorium on Three Men and a Comic Book, and hundred of others on England, etc.). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: For this, I can understand why you'd be concerned with my taking credit for GAs that I didn't contribute...say more than 25%. However, the true reason that I do what I do is because I believe that the articles that previously would not have been a GA. However, even though the changes weren't adding a mass of information, it was vital for the article. The change in bytes can also be misleading; as provided by my edits on England, I changed the content from a list into a paragraph that followed WP:MOS. Also, without the references that I helped provide, I doubt the article would have passed part 2 of the GA criteria (verifiable info). Even though I respectfully disagree with the opposes below that base on this logic, I bear no grudge against them for their reason.
An optional question from Tempodivalse
5.What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in a certain situation? I'm asking this because, as an administrator, you will frequently come upon situations where you will need to judge consensus in order to take an action, such as in a deletion debate, article content disagreement, etc.
A: Consensus is basically when the community, not a (group of) editor, decides upon an issue that various people may disagree upon (official definition: "broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hopes that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions.") I would determine consensus by evaluating the peoples !votes by their reasoning, not the number. For instance, in a AfD, if four users vote AfD by simply saying "Delete ~~~~", I would first ask them to explain, and, if they don't provide an exlaination, I would discount their votes.
Optional Questions pertaining to CSDs
6. Answer and explain questions found here.

A:

1. Although this could fall into several categories for CSD, I'd chose A7 (non-notable individual) over in order to not turn away a potential user.

2. Also per WP:A7, notability for musicians and bands, as it fails WP:BAND.

3. Sorry, even though this might seem a bit WP:BITEy, I'd delete as G1 (patent nonsense), though G3 might also be taken into consideration.

4. Although it could be included as A1, I'd be more cautious here, WP:PRODing it. If the phrase "They can cause mosquitoes to be more attracted to you" is cited with a proper source, I might merge it to Banana.

  • Note If there was a section in the article banana about its side effects, I'd redirect to that section. In addition, if the sources provided had nothing to do with said bananas or otherwise failed WP:REF, I might delete as WP:G3 for "blatant and obvious misinformation".

5. As this article does not fall into any of the categories in CSD (even though the "You can download the file at [en.wikipedia.org] - it's free!" made me suspicious of it being a A11 and I suspect it'd fail Notability), I'd prod the article, and then take it to AFD.

6. I'd decline a speedy here, as it passes WP:BAND, having been nominated for ARAI and won 2007 Grammy Awards.

General comments

edit

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

Discussion

edit
~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the GA stuff. The Comicbook article was expanded by about 9500 bytes over the past month. Of that increase IE is responsible for about 3500 bytes. While the Leftorium was responsible for most, I have no problem with his sharing credit there. As for England... that's a little tougher. That's a huge 114K article and his direct invovlement was more limited---BUT he was still the main force behind taking the behemouth to GAN and working on the clean up to get it to pass. Thus, while he might not have too large (in terms of percentage of the total article) I again am not overly worried with his taking credit there. It probably would not be a GA right now if he didn't do the little bit of work he did. Most of the editors were drive by's but he was trying to make across the board improvements to help the article meet GA requirements.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just more curious as to his or her opinion on the amount of work done to be able to share/take credit. A lot of the work IE did on the Three Men was adding references (which is important, of course), so the byte count may be inflated (refs take up a lot of bytes, properly formatted). Unless you meant readable bytes, in which case, I might be wrong. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ImperatorExercitus should be more careful before taking credit for Good Articles. For example, even though I asked him not to, he went ahead and nominated an article he barely worked on (Lisa the Iconoclast) before User:Maitch (the main contributor) had a chance to finish it and nominate it at WP:GAN. (Note: I have nothing against ImperatorExercitus, though, and I think he is a great user). —TheLeftorium 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean. Thank you. I think he's doing wonderful work, but was curious about these. --Ali'i 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, TheLeftorium, Maitch hadn't worked on the article for over a month; after I worked a bit on the article, I felt that the article was in good enough shape to nominate for GA. Cheers. I'mperator 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you told him not to nominate, that does not mean he has to follow or obey you. GAs are meant to be more casual, and there is no rule for/against someone nominating the article even if he/she is not one of the major contributor. And "hijacking" nomination is nothing new. It happens all the time across all areas (from GA to FA, good topics to featured images) so I don't know what's the big fuss. As long as he gave his best effort and improved the article, there's nothing to do with "stealing" someone's nomination. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "big fuss", I'm just saying that it would have been nice if he had asked the main contributor before nominating. —TheLeftorium 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled as to why you asked TheLeftorium for permission to take over the article and not me. I would consider that common curtosy. --Maitch (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment about one specific instance of G1 tagging which apparently is raising a lot of trouble: the instance where I tagged an article in French with G1. Many think that I tagged the article because it was in French; this is not the case. Instead, I'd actually translated the material, and the "translated material" I tagged for deletion. For the relevant thread, see my talk page here. Cheers. I'mperator 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First, I'm actually going to keep this RfA open; it's been extremely helpful in allowing me to learn my mistakes (particularly the mis-tagged CSDs). As a result, I want to receieve some more feedback, seeing as this RfA's already open. Before this RfA, I had never received a notice about my mistagging. Secondly, should someone decide to close this RfA for whatever reason (and I hope they don't before the appointed time), then could you not pass it as WP:NOTNOW? WP:NOTNOW generally refers to a newbie who has only been here for less than around 3 months or so...and consequently isn't exactly applicable here. Thanks for your thoughts, though :) Cheers. I'mperator 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good point - I would strongly encourage admins that come across mis-tagged speedy deletions during their patrol of CAT:CSD to let the tagger know. It's not nice that Imperator's RfA ends up getting sunk based on a problem he wasn't even aware of - while it is indeed a problem, perhaps if someone had nicely mentioned his overuse of "nonsense" a month or two ago he could have happily rectified it. RfA is always going to be a place where people have their hidden problems dug out, but if you notice errors before a user asks it's nice to inform them in a friendly manner. ~ mazca t|c 12:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like a CSD review done on your work down the road, feel free to ask.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to say that after this RfA fails (and it definitely will), then I'll be looking for an admin coach who will be able to help me increase my skills and understand more Wikipedia policies :) Cheers. I'mperator 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Disco Steven Lua (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm withdrawing this RfA, as the issues posed by the opposition are too serious for any administrator to handle. I'd like to thank everyone who participated, support, neutral, or opposition, and will take your concerns when I edit; specifically, I'd like to thank Sparticus, who helped show my faults and errors. Cheers. I'mperator 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
edit
  1. Support He is a very helpful user. GT5162 (我的对话页) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Nobody's perfect. If his policy knowledge isn't that good, I'm confident that he will work on this concern (i.e. improve his knowledge in this area) before he starts helping out there as an admin. After all, I believe that ImperatorExercitus will be a good administrator and of benefit for the project. — Aitias // discussion 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support working antivandalism and newpages is difficult (and imperfect), and IE seems to have the temperament necessary. Specifics about CSD templates can be improved, right? tedder (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Meets my admin candidate criteria: is trusted, is polite and civil, and has at least a decent understanding of policy. Incorrect CSD usage may be a concern, but not a large one, because the most important thing is that the articles he is tagging get deleted; use of the wrong criterion isn't as bad as tagging articles that shouldn't be speedy deleted at all in the first place. tempodivalse [☎] 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The wrong tag applied at CSD tends to result in a newbie editor getting the wrong template, and that can be a big concern ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. He has sufficient experience and edit count. 6 DYKs and involvement (even if the degree is disputed) with 5 GAs shows that he knows what we're trying to do here and how to write content. I'd be concerned about CSD tagging if he were tagging articles that shouldn't be deleted, but putting the wrong CSD tag on a speediable article certainly isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day, there are only two questions in RfA. Can we trust the candidate and would the candidate be a net positive. I have no doubt that the answer to both of these is affirmative. Cool3 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support This user has edits that are very good, and if he were to uphold his promises, then he should be a very great admin. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Friendly editor with a good and healthy attitude. Won't abuse the tools, IMO. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May I add that, if CSD is the main concern, then with the lesson that he is getting (we all are getting, I've found the discussion very useful) I doubt if he'll ever make a mistake in that area again. IE has shown that he is willing to listen, understand, and change, all with complete and total politeness. What more could you ask for in an admin?--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support mainly per Cool3, Tedder and Tempo. The candidate is now aware of mistagging issues at CSD, and I'm supporting partly as a response to the way they've handled that matter in this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Come across a few times at AfD; always civil, no reason to oppose. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per WP:AGF on the grounds that he did cleanup the article before bringing it to WP:GAN OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. We've crossed our paths a few times and I really regret that this is going the wrong way. However, you should definitely re-apply in a few months, once you gain more experience in CSD-ing. —Admiral Norton (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per RegentsPark and Cool3. Keep up the good work, IE! —TheLeftorium 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Sure. Should definitely pass in a few months. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I can't oppose someone for something that they should have been made aware of, that's why IE's talk page exists. Almost everyone is happy with IE's conduct. DYK needs dedicated help from good-intentioned people like IE. Royalbroil 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Sounds like he has the right temperament, also sounds reliable. From what I see, I don't get the feeling that this person will abuse the position of administrator.WackoJackO 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per WereSpielChequers - I agree his tagging isn't perfect, however the candidate at least accepts there is room for improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support — I've seen Imperator around and I feel he would make a good admin. I have read over Spartacus's CSD concerns, and as much as I agree that CSD is a place where potential newcomers could be turned off by tagging things the wrong way, I personally consider the G1 Patent Nonsense tag to be an occasional exception to the rule, if it deals with vandalism (though vandalism is explicitly excluded). Very few vandals are going to be able to tell the difference between calling their disruptive new article "vandalism" or calling it "nonsense", and neither is more off-putting than the other. Occasional mistakes are part of being human — I've seen many admins delete pages under what would be defined as "incorrect tagging" and nobody was hurt by it. The only times I would oppose over CSD work is if the speedy tagger uses G1, G3, etc. to try deleting a good-faith attempt at starting an actual article; none of the examples on the talk page strike me as particlularlybitey. Additionally, his answer to Q1 does not indicate a significant desire to work in new page patrol, and Imperator isn't particularly active there anyways. On another note, I consider 6 months and significant involvement in project space to be evident of an overall satisfactory understanding of policy. This won't pass, but I just wanted to register my opinion. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support He is very helpful to the wikipedia--Disco Steven Lua (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Strong Oppose strongly suggest that you review the meaning of nonsense as it applies to CSD. You are using it way too frequently and in every case incorrectly. You might also want to review WP:WIHSD, WP:FIELD, and WP:10CSD. But I cannot support somebody who fails to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, yet works in that area and indicates a desire to work there.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide some diffs for that? Or are they mostly in the deleted contribs? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the comment above is applicable. Cheers. I'mperator 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They were all deleted edits, I've copied 9 CSD noms of his most recent 20 deleted CSD nominations on the talk page.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose. I am the person that is being cited the most at Imperator's RfA for my oppose. I have nominated a triple DYK. Three articles for DYK, one has 5K bytes, the second has 6.6K, and the third has 2.2K---but only 1.48K of usable prose. Imperator wanted me to expand the 1.48K article by 3K before accepting this triple DYK because "are supposed to represent some of our better works." Um, no DYK does not represent our "better" work. It never has and it never will. Articles do not have to be past the stub stage to be a DYK. And to fail one because it is 20 characters short of a guideline that is routinely ignored... 20 characters short on a triple DYK where there are 2 other articles that far exceed the mininum, is a little petty. I have to wonder if the reason why is more based upon my oppose here rather than the 20 characters at the DYK. But, even if I were to AGF, his actions there have me reassing my !vote to strong oppose here. An admin should never take actions that could even be perceived as being tit-for-tat. He should have reclused himself from the DYK---especially if he was going to threaten to reject it for such a trivial matter. This has me wondering if he might use the buttons punitaviely down the road. Also, if we AGF that his actions were not retailiation for my !vote here, then we have to ask why is he expecting a 4,500 byte expansion on an article when the guideline is only 1,500? Especially when there are two other articles already on the DYK nom? Is it because he doesn't accept the guideline/rules? Wants to re-write them per his own beliefs? If those are the cases, then they would be grounds to oppose. So in short, every way I look at his edit, it has me reassessing my !vote downward.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: 20 characters = 3-4 words... it also is a little concern that if he was caught up about 3 words that he couldn't add 3-4 words himself.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Per Sparticus. Unfotunately, WP:CSD is a splendid place to turn away new users. It requires finesse and a thorough understanding of policy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. As often I'm Spartacus! is correct. You used G1 five times in the last 3 days alone, each time to an article that was clearly not notable. Yes, they were deleted but with correct reasoning instead. Point is, I have to assume that if you were an admin, you'd use this incorrect reasoning instead, this biting new users (because G1 carries a much harsher assumption than some other tags like A7). An admin who wants to work in deletion should not make such elemental mistakes. Also elemental A7 mistakes like tagging a product. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, the article you are referring to really did look a lot like it was about the company and not the product. It was only a few sentences, and at least half(at the time he tagged it) were about the company. The sentences about the company were also the ones at the beginning of the article. I could easily see how one could be mistaken in this case.WackoJackO 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Regretfully, CSD is the one area where I don't believe you can fix your mistakes in policy knowledge after passing RfA. If it were AfD, or RFPP, I'd ask you to take things slowly and recover certain topics. But in CSD you don't really get to take things that slowly. I'm pleased to see your work at AfD (listing, nominations etc.) but again, today alone, I've seen several mistakes in your nominations. I'll diff if you'd like. Keep up your work on articles, I hope you choose to run again in future after reworking some of your policy knowledge at CSD. Also per Sparticus. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above, if you want to work in speedy deletion you're going to have to know which tag is right for which article.--Giants27 T/C 16:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To see lengthy discussion concerning DougsTech's vote, see the talk page--Iner22 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Likely to make poor judgment calls on article space content, like he/she did when expressing recent opposition to the DYK nomination of Richmond Bridge, London, because he/she did not understand the method of citation (a method used on numerous FA's). Troubles me greatly. — R2 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may comment: I actually approved the DYK in question, though only wondering about the reference, not downright rejecting it :) Cheers. I'mperator 19:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per I'm Spartacus. Let me say this though...you are off to a good start. Come back in a few months, with more experience, and I will be happy to support. America69 (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Understanding of key guidelines and policies are important to both admin and content related work. I share in the concerns that you don't have a strong enough understanding and have even put forth things (like CSD) that contradict what is good practice at Wikipedia. I hope that you go back and take careful notice of these, as an unclear understanding is damaging even without administrative tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose for now Made a simple process error in AfD - no problem, we all make mistakes, and this was very minor, but when I pointed it out he still didn't get it and felt he was right, and I had to explain it again. Making mistakes is not a problem, it's how people handle mistakes that mark them out. I feel confident when people reflect quickly and appropriately on matters that are brought to their attention; I feel less confident when people argue they are right about their mistakes. To his credit he has now corrected the matter, and that suggests he will do well in future. My feeling is that ImperatorExercitus needs a little more experience - 6 months is rather a short time to have a firm grasp on our policies and procedures, and not long enough to have gained the trust of most Wikipedians. Suggest ImperatorExercitus applies again in 6 months. SilkTork *YES! 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per Spartacus, needs a bit more experience. -download | sign! 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Spartacus, and failing my RfA criteria: too inexperienced having only been here six months, plenty of AIV action but not enough anywhere else in the Wikisphere, self-nomination, and I do not feel the candidate has a clear and firm understanding of the core Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and behavioral guidelines. Also, as someone who has taken articles to GA, I can't help be find it mildly aggrieving that the candidate claims GAs without giving clear credit to other involved editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per R2 and Spartacus. Also, from nought to admin in 6 months is a bit too fast to my liking. You claim "I've demonstrated a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies" but I'm afraid I don't agree with you (yet). Yintaɳ  23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose as the user has issues with CSD and needs to be solved before becoming admin. Try again when you have more familarity with policy. Tavix |  Talk  23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Recent inappropriate tagging for speedy deletion isn't too big of a deal, but multiple speedy deletions for the wrong reasons leaves me wondering about the user's knowledge in other areas of policy and guidelines. He's only been here 6 months and, while some have been this experienced, they also have a better grasp on policies and guidelines. — BQZip01 — talk 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose 6 months seems like a short timespace to apply for adminship. I also don't like the fact that you don't seem to know as much as you should about Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, was planning to support, but looking at the pages on the talk page... I've got to agree with the other opposes. It's very easy to WP:BITE new editors while tagging pages they've created for speedy. But I like your other work, if you manage to go a few months without incorrect CSD tagging issues I'd be happy to support - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Regretful Oppose I wanted to support, but based on the improper CSD tagging I feel you need some more time to learn policy better. Will gladly support in 6 months. Do keep up all the good work though. Landon1980 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I was working on Lisa the Iconoclast and User:ImperatorExercitus knew that because it was part of The Simpsons WikiProject featured topic drive. Then he took over the article and added only 1 KB before sending it to GAN. He didn't even ask me as a curtosy. There are plenty of Simpsons episodes to do. I don't consider it good behaviour to just add 1 KB to someone elses work and then send it to GAN to get another GA to your resume. Also, I would personally have done at lot more work on the article before sending it to GAN, but who cares now - it is his GA. --Maitch (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, to be fair, nobody owns a page. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. There is no rule against it, but I still don't consider it a nice thing to do and I think it shows a lack of better judgement - a quality I don't want to see in an admin. I see now that he has withdrawn his nomination, so I will withdraw my oppose. --Maitch (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds a lot like you are claiming ownership over the article...WackoJackO 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly polite to ask other contributors before GA nominating an article they've substantially worked on - in this case though, there had been no substantial edits at all for more than a month after Maitch finished working on it; then Imperator cleaned up and expanded a few more bits and GA nominated it. Certainly from the edit history, were I in Imperator's place, I would have got the impression that Maitch had finished what he was planning to do with the article. ~ mazca t|c 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I signed up for doing the article here. He already knew about this page because he is also signed up. And anyway why is he asking User:Theleftorium for permission for taking over the article (see User_talk:Theleftorium#Favour.3F) and not me. --Maitch (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't own the article, that's why. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, would normally be inclined to Support, but the issues with CSD tagging above are too serious to ignore. I don't expect a 100% success rate, but far too many of this user's recent tagging have been poorly done. Because CSD is often, unfortunately, one of the first areas that new editors brush up against, it's important that we get it right. Suggest the candidate thoroughly review the existing speedy criteria, and if taggings improve, I would be delighted to support in the future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Oppose from neutral I checked out the incident I'm Spartacus! alluded to above, and he has a legitimate concern - that was poor form at best. That plus the previously discussed CSD stuff is enough to oppose at this time. Townlake (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral-Man this is tough. I like you GA and DYK work is very impressive, good work at AIV and I would love to see with the mop, if it wasn't for you actual time here. You've only been here about like 6 months and don't which tag is proper for an article in a CSD, not sure about this one.--Next-Genn-Gamer 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning support I like his nomination speech a good deal: he seems to have good potential as an admin and is unlikely to abuse the tools. However, I think it's best if he waits a few months. He is very active, but I know from my own experience that just because your active, that doesn't mean you are qualified enough for the job. I'd most likely support him if he'd requested adminship in a few more months and kept up the same level of contributions, and would most definitely support him if he waited for a full year. Sorry, but I'm a little worried that he might quit; a user needs to be here long enough to prove that they won't drop out and get bored with Wikipedia. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - You are a well meaning user with good intentions, but I don't think you're ready yet, especially due to the CSD issues. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, nobody 'needs' administrator tools. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You're a great usre and I've seen many things I like. It shouldn't be difficult to tone down your aggressive speedy deletion tagging; and that's all that's keeping me from supporting at this time. :) ~ mazca t|c 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to comment on this, he isn't aggressive in his CSD's... I would consider somebody aggressive if they did a ton of CSD work where he routinely tagged articles that shouldn't be deleted... he doesn't. It is sloppy CSD work, and that is where my concern is. A sloppy CSD'er can make mistakes and turn off new users.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong word, perhaps. I'm using "aggressive" in the sense of confrontational, in that unnecessary G1s give a strong impression that a new editor is not welcome. You're right that "inaccurate" might be better. ~ mazca t|c 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - not going to pile on, but I can't support here if what Spartacus and others say about your CSD nominations is true. (I can't see the deleted contribs myself, but I'll take their word on that.) I suggest you consider withdrawing this RFA, and trying again in a little while once you've got some more experience with CSD. Robofish (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Per Sparta. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral The user has done some really good content work which is most appreciated, but at this point in time it'd be best to gain some experience in other areas and reconsider an RfA perhaps within a few months. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Since I cannot confirm whether the previously stated CSD concerns are on target or exaggerated, I will need to weigh in as neutral for now. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I pasted them on the talk pages so that you can decide for yourself.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per R2 and Balloonman. The GA and DYK work is impressive but concerns brought up in the oppose section are definitely issues. Perhaps in a few months and a bit more experience, I would be glad to support. Sorry, Fastily (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support I do like your editing skills but your csd skills might need tuning first. I hope that this RfA won't discourage you in improving both yourself and Wikipedia in the future.--Lenticel (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Understanding of deletion policy is probably the most essential trait for an admin. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Having crashed and burned at RFA myself over the wrong CSD issue, I won't pile on with the opposers, because CSD errors are the one mistake that you can make that are certain to leave you with a horribly skewed failed RFA out of all proportion to the extent that they are affected by other problems! This RFA is probably going to fail, but take it as a valued pointer as to what you need to fix, and fix it (like I'm doing!} Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When this RFA closes, don't concern yourself too much with the ratio of supports to opposes here - I don't think you're as far off as that number might indicate. Just take some time to address the CSD stuff (because it's especially important) and the other concerns raised by the opposition, and I imagine you will have a shot at success here in the not-far-distant future. I think you have the right temperament, just need to expand your knowledge base a bit. Townlake (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) changing to oppose[reply]
  13. I see potential admin material here, candidate just needs more time to orientate himself better with deletion policies. Would support in future, - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral, could be support I really want to support, however I strongly suggest you consider what Spartacus said. I will support if you could thoroughly ensure by way of example that you understand deletion criterion. Whilst adminship is 'no big deal', going around and improperly deleting pages is. Nja247 11:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to go through an "exam" if possible...Cheers. I'mperator 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. I've seen your work around Wikipedia, and while you're on the right track, I believe you need more experience. Keep up the good work and perhaps take a look at WP:ARL. Malinaccier (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No need to pile on at Oppose, but if you are using {{db-nonsense}} as much as the people above say (I can't see the deleted edits, but I'll take their word for it) I can't support now; CSD tagging should be done with great care. This essay by I'm Spartacus! is pretty much my bible when it comes to G1, and you might find it helpful (if you haven't read it already). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want, you can check the talk page for the deleted cases. Cheers. I'mperator 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The CSD tagging issue forced me out of my planned support, but I don't see that as enough to oppose.--Res2216firestar 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I've seen him around at DYK approving nominations. However, he says he could aid by adding the approved DYK hooks to the queue, but he's never assembled queues at next update or next next update. It hints at a lack of knowledge on how DYK works. I'd be more willing to support after he's gained experience. Shubinator (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (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/ImperatorExercitus&oldid=1252079280"