Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fatal!ty

FINAL (0/5/1); Ended 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Non-crat close per WP:NOTNOW by Balloonman. Member has only been on WP for 3 months, 2 of which were under indef block. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{User|Fatal!ty}} – With three months of experience I feel that I am ready for the mop. Per WP:WTHN + WP:NOBIGDEAL I've decided to take the challenge, despite any minor WP:NOTNOW or eventually WP:SNOW concerns. I have a sound grasp of wiki policy, and will endeavor to display fair judgment during my administrative tenure. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept this self-nomination --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 13:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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: WP:AIV - checking + blocking vandals. WP:RPP - protecting requested pages. WP:RM - the backlogged requested moves section that requires serious admin attention. WP:DYK - updating and helping out with DYK, and moving the DYKbot's queues onto the main page. WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:TFD along with WP:CSD - my high level of understanding of wiki's deletion policy will come in handy here.

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

::A: Certainly my vandal-fighting skills along with my positive content, such as DYK articles along with minor 'Gnoming' and fixes, together with article writing, and namespace participation.

: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: I was checkusered and blocked indef for sockpuppetry a while ago. While the issue "remains unsolved" I am convinced of my innocence. I will ask you not to dwell too heavily on my tarnished block-log which may influence your !votes negatively, and rather inspect my contributions and positive content. It is just a website for fuck's sake anyway, and I'm just a prospective administrator who will be a net positive for the project.

:4. Although you have asked for editors not to dwell on your block-log, many editors will have concerns supporting the request for adminship of someone with an apparent history of sockpuppetry. Would you care to disclose the socks you have used (if any) and your reasons for using them? the skomorokh 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

::A. - Of course. "Allegedly" I have used two sockpuppets: {{user|WP Is C!!}} + {{user|Thewikiqediarollbacker}}. While checkuser evidence is considered irrefutable within the wiki community, I continue to deny all allegations. One simply needs to view my editing history to correctly determine whether or not I am suitable for adminship. From what I can deduce WP Is C!! seems like a failed attempt to spoof {{user|Wikipedia is Communism}}, and perhaps gain a margin of attention from the community. {{user|Thewikiqediarollbacker}} seems to have crafted his/her edits more subtly, by impersonating other wikipedians. Their [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewikiqediarollbacker&diff=236604170&oldid=236603682 unblock request] highlights this cunning mode of behavior. In both cases an indefblock would be appropriate, although the 2nd user mentioned, would require an extensive review, particularly of their deleted contribs. I also found this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFatal!ty&diff=237260536&oldid=237247458] highly puzzling, regarding my block - a question that I put forth here without receiving a satisfactory answer, which I'm still waiting for.

• See Fatal!ty's edit summary usage with [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Fatal%21ty&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the talk page.

{{#ifeq:Fatal!ty|Fatal!ty||

• Links for Fatal!ty: {{usercheck-short|Fatal!ty}}

----

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

• I can't quite get the usercheck template to parse the candidate's name correctly - So, for the interested, Fatal!ty's block log is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFatal%21ty&year=&month=-1 here]. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose - The blocks and sockpuppeting were too recent, just in September. Glad to see this editor has changed their methods, but I think that more than just two months should pass between an indef block for sockpuppeting/vandalising and being given the keys to the shop. Try again in 6 months and it will be a bit easier to be open minded. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose It looks like this candidate got unblocked specifically so they could run for admin. I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools. Let's first see a demonstration that they won't abuse their editing privileges. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - we don't need admins who believe Wikipedia "...is just a website for fuck's sake anyway".  Frank  {{!}}  talk  15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - purely owing to past behavioural issues. A steady pattern of editing and staying out of trouble for several months wouldn't hurt at a future RfA though. Nick (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - the block log, possible sockpuppet cases and attitude demonstrated in this RfA all lead me to not be able to trust this candidate. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral. There's a lot of good edits to review, many of them Huggle-assisted vandalism fighting. Candidate is credit to team, as they say - but the block is bothersome. Even if it was unwarranted and unjust - as the candidate claims, and on which I have no opinion - it was an indef block that was lifted less than 24 hours ago. There are going to be a lot of editors who see this RfA and wonder how on earth someone who was so recently blocked can possibly expect to get the tools. My view - the best way to prove that you're here to edit productively, and possibly to prove the critics wrong, would be to edit normally for a while and get back into the swing of things, showing that you can edit within policy. Then come back in a few months. I know you want rollback (as you note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FRollback&diff=253182925&oldid=253108525 here]), but this might not be the best way to get it. Good luck to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:04, 21 November 2008 (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.