Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parker007

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

Parker007

(1/12/0); Ended 23:38, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate may make an optional statement here:

Every day there are 1,000 articles added. Just the day before yesterday it was 1,666,000 and yesterday it has increased to 1,667,000, and now today its at 1,668,000. Most of the articles are junk. But I strongly believe that creators should be notified so they can bring it up to Wikipedia standards, or inform them why it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. According to the statistics "We have 3,738,767 registered user accounts, of which 1,139 (or 0.03%) are administrative accounts." --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I am involved in DYK (Did you Know) process. I want the admin tools, in order to update DYK every 6 hours as usually there is a backlog. I want the admin tools, so I can close AfD debates where there is a consesus to delete. I want to admin tools, to rummage through CSD to see which fits or doesn't fit in the CSD criteria, and delete the ones which do not fit in CSD criteria. I want the admin tools to rummage through expired Prod Articles in order to delete it, or see if the article doesn't fit the Prod criteria and tell the Prod tagger to go through the Afd process. --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I have revived a dying wikiproject which I believed was very important, see Wikiproject Business & economics, for more information. Now, we are in the assessment phase and soon we will be starting a collaboration style system, like other wikiprojects, which lasts for 1 month. --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: When editing Wikipedia every once in a while editors get into conflicts due to lack of the clear understanding. I had a conflict with

User_talk:Parker007#User:Gimmetrow_Edits for more information. Also if there is a heated debate going on, in which I am a party, I think its best to cut your losses and give up rather than escalate the anger. However if it is very important to me in my opinion I will usually ask for a third opinion.--Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• See Parker007's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support #Support possibly premature, but you seem to know what you want to do, and I've seen your experience around DYK. Good luck. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose I would have to say that you haven't really shown me that you are good enough to be an admin. The 2511 edits is ok, but not great. The answers to the questions were kinda short and uninformative. The nom was not that great. You didn't really show why you need the tools or why you understand the processes of Wikipedia. Sorry, but I wil oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Reluctant Oppose. You're on the right track, but my dealings with you so far have shown some inexperience, so I'd suggest keeping up the good work for a while longer just at the moment. The lack of edit-summary use is a bit of a worry, but can be fixed by setting the options to force you to add a summary. As a non-admin, it's quite easy to help out in Prod-related areas just by removing unwarranted Prods and either opening the AfD yourself or suggesting the Prodder do so. Likewise, in a non-admin position it's quite easy to put things into the Next Update section for DYK, which makes life so much easier for the rookie who turns up and needs to update the template :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose (three edit conflicts). Based on what I've recently seen from you, I can't comfortably support. For about 24 hours (or less), there was a discussion, intiated by yourself, at
   inp23 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   {| class="messagebox standard-talk"

   |-

   |

   |--Parker007 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) is running for Adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parker007 and will not respond swiftly to queries/edit outside that admin page until it is over.[reply]

   |}

   While I have made this comment it seems that all the reference desk people are out to hurt me so I will tell them "please oppose my adminship" at Ref Desk talk page, Village pump proposal which you put back, (I reset the debate because many users commented it should be moved to MSD), and at Miscillany for Deletion where everyone has ganged up on me to oppose the deletion proposal. --Parker007 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not really a Ref-Desk person, never answering questions. All I do is run the bot :). I'm just uncomfortable about your actions, as I detailed above.

   inp23 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Don't worry now there will be many more opposers coming soon as I have put this comments on all 3 places: Please oppose my adminship Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Parker007. :) .--Parker007 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per that horrible message on your userpage. You do realise this process is a week long? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Oppose The most glaringly obvious, recent thing at this point is this....what were you thinking? -
   Woot? contribs 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Here is the conversation you mised:

   that redirect you just deleted, it wasn't a typo. You see the formatting of that article required redirect. I mean if you copy and paste the name of that article in the url it wont come to that article. Restore it. --Parker007 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I may have totally misunderstood the comment, but I don't see that it's a particularly likely thing for someone to type. Additionally, if one copies and pastes the string of characters, it will link to the disease anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease . Now copy and paste Ménière's disease to the url instead of that. Deletion Log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=M%C3%83%C2%A9ni%C3%83%C2%A8re%27s_disease --Parker007 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And they link to the same page? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, now I don't remember why I made that redirect. --Parker007 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I will add it to my talk page, my 4th exception, to the message on my userpage now. :). --Parker007 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per concerns by Wooty and Majorly. Also not entirely content with the numerous links to this RfA from various other pages, which could be seen as advertising. While not a reason to oppose itself, would also recommend this user rethink the conspicuous use of bold during what appears to be every discussion. Rockpocket 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, the negative canvassing of "hey oppose me" strikes me as a sarcastic

   Woot? contribs 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I felt hurt thats why. So might as well let them all gang up on me here too. Please see that deletion debate before making further comments. --Parker007 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Simply because someone's opinion differs from your own doesn't mean that these people are attempting to unkindly gang up on you. You're forgetting the

   assumption of good faith. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Steel 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Oppose – Disclaimer: I am active on the Reference Desks, so Parker would apparently see my view as an attack, however I would wonder how people are supposed to reach a conclusion as to a candidate’s suitability if not through their actions. And this is based on Parker’s actions. The suggestion to delete
   WP:RD/M seemed based on pickiness rather than the benefit to Wikipedia’s users and editors. While there is a role for that sort of view, I don’t think that role is an admin who is active in AfD/MfD/etc. Other comments by Parker (such as the suggestion to delete all questions that are not signed) seem to show an intolerance, or misunderstanding of the needs, of people inexperienced with Wikipedia. In addition, and this is probably less helpful, I get a general bad feeling about this. Parker seems to strike an argumentative tone, when a calmer approach and reason would be much more effective.[4] While I can understand losing your cool, leaving the computer for a while and returning to edit/reply when calm would be a more positive action. Parker seems like they would benefit from more experience, perhaps until people opposing their actions no longer hurts their feelings. Skittle 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Oppose. It strikes me that in my more than six months of activity here, I may never actually have opposed a request for adminship. Normally when I do not believe a candidate is qualified for adminship, the result is already apparent, and it is easy enough to remain silent. But I cannot help observe that when a candidate posts an edit like [5], my choice is clear. "Please oppose my adminship," you ask. Request granted. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. Partly due to a manifest failure to AGF where people disagree with the candidate but mainly because of the conduct described by
    Steel above. Good grief... WjBscribe 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Well, since you asked so politely, I oppose. --hydnjo talk 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I do not recall having expressed an opinion on a request for adminship thus far, but I feel compelled to in this case. This editor proposed eliminating the "Miscellaneous" Reference desk for no good reason, then posted a request to oppose his adminship. I feel that an admin should have an objective and judicial temperament, and the desire for"drama" shown by these two actions is the very opposite of that, So I am granting your request and expressing an opinion in opposition to your becoming an admin at this time. One reason is your lack of editing experience, and the other is your desire for Wikidrama. With some more experience and development of maturity, you might run once again for admin with different results. Best wishes. Edison 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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