Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trampikey 2

(11/19/4); Ended 0:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTrampikey_2&diff=189368223&oldid=189362039 Withdrawn]. Acalamari 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

{{User|Trampikey}} - Trampikey has been editing wikipedia since October 2005, and in that time he has ammased nearly 19,000 edits, over 14,000 of those main space edits. He has worked extremely hard for various television WikiProjects, in particular Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders, where he has been one of the main contributers since 2005. He has helped to improve many soap-related articles, bringing them up to encyclopedic standards by sourcing, rewriting and cleaning up, such as Pauline Fowler, which was the first soap character to reach FA status. As well as editing, he spends a lot of his time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism and dealing with vandals, and the extra tools will only help him do this more efficiently. He has a good understanding of wikipedia guidelines and policy, and has helped various users (including myself) to better understand them too. His last RFA in July 2006 was unsuccessful. A lot of the oppose votes referenced his failure to use edit summaries and talk pages adequately. However, he took the advice given to him on that RFA, and has made a big effort to rectify these issues. Trampikey has shown that he is dedicated to Wikipedia, and I feel that the project can only improve with him as an administrator.Gungadin 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept I'm withdrawing, it's fairly clear this RfA's going nowhere - I'll try again another time. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 5 February 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

::A: As an admin, I would be most active in warning and blocking vandals, in particular sockpuppets, as I know how annoying they can be to the editors who have to revert their vandalism. I would work with WP:AIV and WP:SSP to get rid of vandals and sockpuppets and puppeteers.

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

::A: My best contributions are to EastEnders-related articles, as that is my area of expertise. I have contributed to the Pauline Fowler article that reached FA status, and have organised a project to add out of universe information to all EastEnders articles. The article I am most proud of is the main EastEnders article, which I worked hard on to get it up to GA standard.

: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 am pretty easygoing, so don't get stressed easily. I was annoyed by an extremely persistent sockpuppet called Danh90, so I put together this report against him and he eventually stopped vandalising. If I had sysop tools I could identify sockpuppets like this and more efficiently deal with them.

; Questions from EJF

:4. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?

::A: An indefinite block is a block that has no fixed duration, and may be reversed with the user being unblocked. If no administrator will unblock the user, they are considered banned.

:5. Would you add yourself to admins open to recall? Why?

::A: Yes, I would, as I am open to any constructive criticism. If anyone had any problems with me being an administrator, I would have no problem with them reporting it.

:6. How would you deal with a POV-pusher who had not committed any vandalism?

::A: I would warn them on their talk page, quoting from WP:NPOV, and if that had no effect, take it to WP:M.

:7. Would you ever undo another admin's actions? Why?

::A: I would only undo another admin's actions if they were unjust or a mistake. Before undoing them, I would investigate the history of the page and/or the other admin's contribs.

:::So if the action of another admin was unjust you would undo their actions after consulting their user contributions? What do you consider "unjust" and simply ignoring all rules? Tiptoety ^talk 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

::::A: If an admin was to revert a perfectly good edit for no given reason, or block a user irrationally, then I would undo their actions, then ask them about their reasons on their talk page. There must always be a reason for ignoring all rules, so if I came across an admin seeimingly abusing the tools by taking rash and unneeded actions, I would undo it.

;Questions from — BQZip01 — ^talk

:8. Please explain your comment "If I had sysop tools I could identify sockpuppets like this and more efficiently deal with them." What tools would help you identify them? How would being an admin help you deal more efficiently with disruptive editors? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

::A: I meant that I could identify them myself and that the sysop tools would help me to deal with them, i.e. block them. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough.

• See Trampikey's edit summary usage with [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Trampikey&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the talk page.

{{#ifeq:Trampikey 2|Trampikey||

• Links for Trampikey: {{usercheck-short|Trampikey}}

----

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

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Trampikey_2&oldid=188905483| Permanent link] to an archived debate that brought precious little to the assessment of this candidate. Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Support per my nomination.Gungadin 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2. :Support, no evidence of possibly misusing the tools so far. Sorry, change to oppose after reading more answers. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
5. 5th Support Participates in WikiProject EastEnders which also includes vandal fighting as well. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
8. After much deliberation, I feel this is the only option. EJF (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I have come across this user many times, and I only have good things to say about him. Slightly worried by the earlier discussion, but overall I feel it would be a net gain. John Hayes^talk 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support would help Wikipedia in many ways and could do help a lot in the sockpuppetry area. Not sure about answer to question number 4, but seems to know most policy's well. Good Luck! Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support-As per Level 2 in my test(ver 1.1). See testUser:Quek157/Rfa Test--Quek157 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
12. No idea what the opposers are talking about. Answers to questions are fine imo, and the diffs given are irrelevant. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose I have worked with Trampikey on some soap opera articles, such as at Talk:Pauline Fowler to get the article to FA status. I got the sense of someone who means well, but is a bit too short-tempered at times, and who is more inclined to support a personal sense of what an article should be like, rather than what Wikipedia guidelines and policies require.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauline_Fowler&diff=prev&oldid=187354855] This is especially a concern considering the controversies over how much "in-universe" information should be in soap opera articles, an area where Trampikey participates almost exclusively. I think that Trampikey is also unaware of just how stressful that adminship can be, and I don't think Trampikey would yet be well-suited to dealing with vandals. It's one thing to revert and block vandals, and it's another to deal with the fallout when the vandals come back and attack you and question your decisions. Based on my observations, I don't think that Trampikey would handle those challenges well. It is my hope that perhaps later, after Trampikey becomes more familiar with and supportive of Wikipedia culture, and also develops a thicker skin in dealing with disagreements, adminship might be a good idea, but I just don't think Trampikey is ready yet, sorry. --Elonka 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2. :Thank you for your comment. I, however, think that I could deal well with vandals and their attacks/questions in a calm and collected manor, as I did with the Danh90 vandalism/sockpuppetry. I handled each sockpuppet in the same way without losing my cool, even when accounts such as User:ANTITRAMPIKEY, User:Antitrampikeygroup22 and User:Its time to annoy Trampikey popped up. Also, addressing the "in-universe" issue you raised - I have organised a project to add "out of universe" (OOU) content to all EastEnders articles here and have started writing OOU content for articles in my sandbox. I have also been collecting references on the talk pages of many EastEnders articles so that OOU content can be written. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'm sorry. Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
4. :What are you sorry for? When you oppose, it's best to give a good reason for the oppose so that it would be helpful for the candidate. NHRHS2010 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
5. ::I'm allways sorry to oppose. And for the rationale, see the permanent link in the discussion section above. Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose → sysop tools don't help in identifying sockpuppets, and the exchange with Majorly and Pedro wasn't impressive either. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
7. :Thank you for your comment. Sysop tools, however, do help with blocking sockpuppets, and as for the "exchange" with Majorly and Pedro - I was only asking them not to turn my RfA into a slanging match. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
8. ::Frankly this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Trampikey_2&diff=188900716&oldid=188900651] comment addressed to a respected administrator and a considerably less respected editor, hardly show your ability to handle disputes, or to assess a situation. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
9. :::I thought it was fine, if a little misplaced... Majorly (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
10. :::::Pedro, I disagree. He just wanted to nip it in the bud, and he was trying to do that by being fair and asking all parties to not continue, so it didn't look like he was accusing anyone in particular. You clearly agreed that things got a little off topic, seeing as you asked to delete the entire conversation from the RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Trampikey_2&diff=prev&oldid=188903754]Gungadin 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
11. :Also, how have I missed answer to Q4? That is really worring. I suggest withdrawing this RfA and present it at a time where the candidate is more familiar with the policies. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Per issue raised above with pedro. Also i do not care for the answer to question number 7. I would have liked to see this user state he would AGF and contact the administrator who he believes made a "unjust" action before undoing/reverting their actions. Also it appears that you have been a current edit war [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Mitchell_%28EastEnders%29&action=history].Tiptoety ^talk 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
13. :Thank you for your comment. The "edit war" you referred to was actually me (as well as User:Quentin X and User:Moreschi) reverting the vandalism of multiple sockpuppets of User:Trueman31. I reverted the edits then reported the sockpuppets to WP:AIV and they were subsequently blocked. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
14. ::Admins are only human, prone to error just like regular users. If they made a mistake, then i'm pretty certain that they'd want to be reverted.Gungadin 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose sorry but there's some big names putting across some valid points under oppose. Also question answers are very putting off - you needed to demonstrate your excellent understanding of policy, not just a blanket generalized response. But keep up the good work :-) Pumpmeup 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
16. :Do you mean big names, or big egos? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
17. ::No, I mean big names. That is, editors who have proven their dedication to this project and are widely recognized names in the active community. Pumpmeup 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
18. :::To Malleus, those guys are big egos. Move on... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose very good editor, but his answers above just don't demonstrate a particularly good understanding to of the policy's. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose, per above. Dreadstar † 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose per answers to questions #3 and #4 above. #3 . #4 misses a key institution in the mix: ArbCom. Contact me on my talk page if you want more information/perspective on my two cents. I am willing to have my mind changed on this if you can satisfy my concerns. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME ANSWERING. You have some time to formulate an answer. Don't rush it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
22. :Yeah, your answer to question 8 was exactly what I was afraid of. See Ronnotel's response below for more. Best fo luck in the future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose Answers to question are just a bit disconcerting. Jmlk17 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
24. No. Evidently not ready, as amply shown by others signing in this section. Please try in a few months time, I may support then. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk • contribs)
26. Oppose I'm sorry to do this, as I almost always vote in favor, but this user just doesn't seem ready. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose per unconvincing answers to questions, esp Q7. Black Kite 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
28. :Would you mind elaborating on what is wrong with the answers? What would you have liked to have seen him say? Just so that Trampikey can learn from this as he goes along.Gungadin 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose Per answer to number 4. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak Oppose. While you have many good contributions - EastEnders is a great article - a few answers to the questions are bugging me. Why not try admin coaching? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
31. :I did, they never got back to me. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
32. ::If you go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status and look for coaches who aren't that busy and might share a common interest, I don't think any of them would consider it improper to approach them directly and ask to be their coachee, they might say no due to other reasons (real life, etc), but wouldn't be offended. MBisanz ^talk 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose. Uncomfortable with answer to questions #7 & #8. Except in an emergency, it's almost always a good idea to speak the involved admin before reverting them. As to #8, I have no idea which admin tool it is that helps identify socks. Is there a hidden checkuser function buried in one of the screens that I somehow missed? on re-reading this comment, I find it rude and I apologize. Ronnotel (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose Q4 does it all. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose - per your comment to Pedro, and Q4. Soxred93 | talk [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count] bot 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose per very weak answers to questions. --Veritas (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral While I can't oppose, I find some of the answers above an indication that the candidate doesn't understand the role of an administrator, and therefore, I'm not confident in offering support either. I recommend seeking coaching and coming back in a few months. Triona (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. :Thanks for your comment. I sought coaching after my last RfA, though nothing came of it. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral I'm afraid the answer to question 7 indicates over boldness. One should not be overly WP:BOLD when reverting another admins actions, even if one thinks they are "unjust" or "a mistake. (Why else would you revert them?). If you adamantly believe in the wrongness of an admin's action, and they believe as adamantly that the action is correct, what then? It could lead to a Wheelwar. I haven't seen anyone express a concern about wheelwarring in a while, but in the past they have caused damage and disruption out of all proportion to the matter in dispute. Eventually, the arbcom had to unravel the mess. It would be better to politely and respectfully (even regretfully) approach the other admin, explaining why you have a concern and proposing a remedy. If that results in an impasse, then a neutral third party opinion should be requested. If the matter remains unresolved then, discussion at WP:AN/I or an RFC should be helpful. Failing that, you still have the arbcom, but you've gotten there with less disruption and upset than otherwise. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral to avoid pile on. Questions 4 & 7 are most concerning, as others have said. 7 especially, because it shows a reluctance to talk it out with the other admin first. Hopefully, another RfA in six months or so will yield better results. XENON54 | talk 22:29, 5 February 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.