Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Turnstep

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

Turnstep

final (58/5/1) ending 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Turnstep (talk · contribs) – There is a theory out there that the longer one is an editor, the harder it is to become an admin, as the chances increase that somebody will find a problem with one of your posts. Thus, this self-nomination, as my edits are starting to pile up :) (I have around 3000 or so). I normally don't even like self-nominations, but the thought of someone else describing my work here did not seem right to me. So please feel free to hold me to a higher standard because this is a self-nomination: I know I would. It's been a little over a year since I started editing here (I did not edit very long before creating an account), and I think I could be even more useful to Wikipedia with the Mighty Mop of Protection and the Bucket of Banning.

(I accept, just in case it someone wants it explicitly stated) - Turnstep 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support: Turnstep's grammar and spelling are sometimes lacking, but otherwise he's a good editor. No reason not to make him an admin. - Richardcavell 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, I really liked his answers to the questions. NBD. -- Samir (the scope) 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Yes, I am holding you to a higher standard. But you also clearly are showing initiative and desire to serve the community. joturner 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Just right for Admin. Meets my requirements, 100%. Good luck on your campaign to become Admin.
   na ^t_e^c Gora 04:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. I Want Candy!!! (question 4, bullet point 4) Support... hmm... 3,000 edits and getting worried that's too many, there's a twist! ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I better clarify this before it causes this good nom issues... The "I want candy" is a flippant remark, intended to be amusing. I don't support bribing for votes and I do not think Turnstep is engaged in such. It's flippant because I don't think/know the date thing is a big deal. (because I don't know enough about it or don't want to get more deeply involved...) The rest of it is a comment on Turnstep's comment about edit counts. I think it's a true observation, actually... the longer you are here, the more there is to scrutinise. That may be good, or bad, I dunno... but it is what it is. Finally, I see these votes as both serious (I think carefully and examine histories, evidence, diffs, and so forth before I voice support or opposition) AND fun. They're fun in that I, like many others, often inject a little levity in our support votes. I think it's a chance to show my personality to long timers and to see theirs, which is appropriate for pages as deep in the inner workings of the 'pedia as this one is, I would not use such flippancy on comments to newbies, for example. I would be MORE flippant in comments to people I consider good friends (see some of my comments on talk pages of certain people, they are context heavy so you may not get the jokes but they are jokes). So to sum up, I don't really expect any candy, and I support Turnstep because in reviewing his candidacy I find it to have significant merit. The 'pedia will benefit from his being an admin, in my considered judgement. Hope that helps and sorry for the length of this, I didn't have time to write a shorter one... ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support. I don't remember ever encountering this user before, but I can't find anything wrong with him. He has plenty of experience (regardless of edit count) and the perfect attitude for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per Tantalum and consistent with Turnstep's suggestion of a syntax for dates such that they will display consistent with a user's preferences without being links where such links are altogether unnecessary. Joe 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. I'm much impressed by his answers to the questions below. Bucketsofg 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, seems OK to me. JIP | Talk 06:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Mihai -^talk 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Ahonc (Talk) 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. 100% support! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support--Jusjih 08:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Kusma (討論) 12:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I like the answers. Reasonable edit spread across namespaces. I'm sold! (I also want candy.) --kingboyk 12:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Clearly has thought a lot about the state of things and come up with positive suggestions. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Good editor.--Deville (Talk) 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Meets my requirements in edits and time in English Wikipedia.

    na ^t_e^c Gora 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Duplicate. --kingboyk 00:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support - he states valid reasons for the mop in the nomination, in addition to comments from TheKman. --Jay(Reply) 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support -- DS1953 ^talk 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Answers to questions well thought out. His rationale for self-nomination is even better and he makes a great point - the longer you edit, the more likely you are to be human and slip up. Ifnord 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per above. I don't agree with all, or even most, of what the nominee says below, but it is clear that he is a thoughtful, reasonable, experienced editor. I particularly like his statement about what makes Wikipedia different from an encyclopedia. –Joke 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Joe I 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support seems to be a reasonable editor. The number of the mainspace edits 2400 is slightly lower than my personal limit of 3000, but I like his answers to the questions abakharev 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Looks good. Nephron 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --
    e Ong 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support. I don't agree with everything you've said, or even some of the other supports ;-) But I do believe you can be trusted with the admin tools, that you will make good use of them without abusing them. As a nice bonus great use of edit summaries.
    Petros471 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Suppport, everything looks good. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. —
    T
    [18:42, 24 March 2006]
33. Support. Hall Monitor 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong support. One of the best candidates I've seen. User has good edits, good ideas, good sense of humor, and various other qualities that could be preceded by the word good. No doubt will make a good admin.
    EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support. I've never run across the user until reading this. I find the edits solid and the answers to the questions down below to be satisfactory. The self-nomination is a bother, but perhaps no one noticed the user and/or ambitions. Users in good faith with a record, give 'em the key out of good faith. TKE 06:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Good ideas, good approach. -- JJay 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support.  Grue  17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Wha? He's not an admin? Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong support undoubtedly would improve the encyclopedia as an administrator.
    Talk?) 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Support -- Good worker with a good attitude. John Reid 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - Definitly a trusted user, though I don't like his theory much (it might be true though). Jedi6-(need help?) 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support.
    emp | talk 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support, always endeavours to justify his keep votes on AfD, and understands what 'verifiable' means. Oh, if all inclusionists were the same. Also always polite, sensible, etc (the usual).
    type 10:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. I want candy too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, good attitude about adminship and good experience. Mangojuice 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per above. --BWD ^(talk) 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Good egg. —Encephalon 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support --Ugur Basak 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Answers to questions seem fine. --Alan Au 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support the name seems familiar, but I can't place it. I also can't find too much fault with the editor, although I disagree with the assertion that adminship is a big deal. But if people I respect will support you, and given adminship is no big deal, I will too. Hiding talk 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. --
    ^{wat's sup} 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support. Good user, sensible responses to questions. -Colin Kimbrell 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Looks good to me — TheKMan^talk 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, just in case it takes an extra one to get this closed. ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support looks good --rogerd 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose A tad bit too hasty. [1] when the subject in question does exist. [2] --Masssiveego 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This may be a bit embarrassing for you Massiveego, but that articles states "Turboman" is male and he removed it from a list of superheroines! (Smiles) Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it odd he didn't place it where it belonged. --Masssiveego 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   If there had been a legitimate existing article at that time, I probably would have moved it. Instead, all I had to go on were things like this. Turnstep 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per this. Too soon. Better safe than sorry. Aucaman^Talk 09:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That's your choice of course, but one out of every ten edits should be to a talk page? I'm afraid I will probably never reach that ratio. :( Turnstep 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure what you both mean. I added up the talk page posts and came up with 502 (as of this post). That more than qualifies this candidate per your rules, Aucaman. Or do you not count all the talk pages? This would seem strange since number of talk page posts is an indicator on how much a candidate interacts with others. And for that determination you really need to take all of the talk pages into account. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the idea is that anyone can put lots of {{

   test}} templates on user talks without actually having interacted significantly with other editors. Mainspace talk edits would then be a much better measure of collaborative editing ability. I personally don't like set rules for supporting, but I can definitely see the logic here. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   On the other hand, a user could be great at managing disputes, and could help involved parties reach agreements with just a few talk page edits, or a user could do a poor job at managing disputes and could extend the dispute longer than would normally be needed, resulting in tons of talk page edits. I think setting an arbitrary number or percentage on such a thing is a case of

   WP:RFAR, etc.). — TheKMan^talk 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   At risk of flogging a dead horse, I have to say that strict numerical criteria such as this 10% rule are disturbing and perplexing to me. What if a user makes a ton of minor edits (grammar, vandalism), but also contributes extensively to articles and their talk pages. By the above rule, he might have to decrease his copyediting activities to qualify for adminship! –Joke 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Has been doing some great editing but has a strong lack of communication with other editors which is essential for adminship tools. Editcountitis doesn't really apply here since he's made many contributions over an extended amount of time. The links provided above also make me worry. Moe ε 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Links above don't bother me as much as the lack of communication thing. Moe ε 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose based on answers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should strive to eliminate the turgid dreck that often masquerades as an article. Hamster Sandwich 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose based on answers and intro statement. Thumbelina 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral still thinking about this one. Don't like the intro statement, surely people should apply because they feel they can add by performing admin work, not because they might want to be an admin in the future (not a reward or promotion) but better get it now. Also some of the questions I'm not convinced of, how does being an admin enable you to better write a patch? Or is this some sort of bargaining? Comments about RFA don't inspire confidence either (although I agree te process could be better) "voting for the wrong reason" which perhaps not what was meant but comes across as voting for a different reason (and presumably a different way) to me is "the wrong reason". --pgk^(talk) 08:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I do feel I can help Wikipedia out more as an admin; I was not totally serious about the number of edits theory. While that theory probably has a grain of truth to it, I'm not particularly worried about my edits now versus six months from now. I've been editing here over a year, and feel I have a pretty good grasp on how Wikpedia works at this point, and those two factors are the ones that really influenced the timing of my decision. The patch (and the candy, which everyone seems to be focusing on) was a light-hearted gesture, and has nothing to do with my becoming an admin or not. Voting for the wrong reason refers to those who vote with a reason that does not express why the person would or would not make a good admin. Examples include voting because of the person's nationality or background, voting to "cancel" another side's vote, voting solely because of who nominated them, voting because the user has a lot of edits, voting because they are a good vandalism fighter, etc. Turnstep 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. Pgk raises some interesting points, and I haven't had chance to properly look at your contributions. I've also added some questions, which might helped me decide how/if to change this neutral.

   Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Now support. See above.

   Petros471 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See Turnstep's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I like a lot of your thoughts on your user page, but I wonder if you could explain this bit a little further: "I don't like calling it an "encyclopedia", as that word has a lot associated with it that does not represent what Wikipedia is."?
  t 08:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Calling it an encylopedia boxes Wikipedia in. While we are technically an encylopedia, we are also much, much more than any previous paper encyclopedia. People tend to have preconceptions about what an encylopedia should and should not be, and it never matches exactly with what Wikipedia is. For one example, it tends to minimize the important "Wikipedia is not paper" principle, which allows us to have a depth and a breadth that traditional encylopedias cannot ever hope to match. For another, we have a unique community built up to support the articles. Encylopedias don't have communities, they have paid editors and customers. We are also going far beyond the traditional structure of an alphabetical list of entries, with a few cross references. We have an extraordinarily interconnected set of articles, with categories, lists, templates, and talk pages all expanding us way beyond anyone's definition of "encyclopedia". Eventually, we should find a better word, or perhaps over time the general definition of encylopedia will become stretched enough to accomodate us? Turnstep 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We have a better word: Wikipedia.  ;) --Deville (Talk) 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wikipedia is using MySQL and PHP. Bleh. Nuff said." Don't tell me you're a Microsoft fan! What's wrong with MySQL and PHP...? ~MDD4696 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not a Microsoft fan. I would prefer

  Ruby. This is not the place to have such a discussion, but in a nutshell, MySQL is not a very good RDBMS, and PHP is not a very good language. Turnstep 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

A. Ah, the standard question. What this is really asking is "why do you want to become an admin?" I'll preface this by saying that I do not agree with the precept that being an admin is "no big deal." Not only do admins have the responsiblity to police, protect, and cleanup Wikipedia (and the powers to do so), but they are the public face of it as well, insomuch as they should be held up as the ideal to which all editors should strive.

I'd certainly like to help clear out the mess that is AFD, for one thing. Being able to block troublesome users and [un]protect pages would be very useful as well, plus of course the canonical "check out any admin tasks that need doing" answer. I'm also starting to wade into the image arena a bit more. One thing I will *not* be doing a lot of is vandalism fighting. I fight it when I see it on my watchlist, or when I hit a random page, but I don't actively patrol for it. There are a lot of other people who are doing that; I prefer to spend my time improving articles, debating policy ("keep all schools!" ;), and making Wikipedia better in ways that don't involve watching RC. Although I consider myself an inclusionist, I have no problem deleting articles when they deserve it. Besides, what's an admin inclusonist going to do - hit the "Keep" button too often? :) Turnstep 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A. Nothing in particular: I love that this is a collaborative effort. If pushed, I would say the articles that I have helped to save from AFD. If pushed further, an article I've done a lot of work on is

Films considered the worst ever, which is a fun article that is now completely referenced, and is often held up as a counter-example when cruftophiles are trying to delete a valid list (oops, I said the "L" word). I tend to roam here and there, doing lots of WikiGnome-like edits. I enjoy using the random article link and improving pages that come up, whether they need a little work or a lot. There's probably more articles I could mention, but I don't particularly feel they address my admin potential. Suffice to say I am very comfortable editing articles, from creation to featured candidate. Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Sure, I get edit conflicts all the time, especially on busy pages. I've dealt with them by copying and pasting my original answer to the first textarea box. :) Seriously, I don't let myself get worked up over things on the Internet. One of the first pages I came across as a new editor was

List of villains article, but I think I made a great effort to stay calm and civil, and managed to get the anonymous IP to register an account and start talking things over on the talk page. Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

(Disclaimer: I like this question, so I've added it in and modified it a bit. Feel free to add others). Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD (and deletion in general) is a mess. Too many articles end up on AFD that should not be there at all, and too many obviously bad ones have to wait out the entire multi-day process before being legally deleted. The daily pages are way too large. It should at the least be broken up somehow into sections such as "hoax", "non-notable person/group", "vanity", "schools that will probably result in a keep", "lists that will probably result in a delete", "web forums that will undoubtably have dozens of badly-formatted anonymous IPs voting keep", etc. However, I think the new "prod" system is working pretty well so far, so kudos to all involved in getting that running.

• RFA is a mess. We had some other proposals bouncing around for a while, and tried some alternate formats, but in the end, here we are. I still see a lot of votes given without reason. I still see people voting for the wrong reason. I still see a lot of vote counting (since it's not supposed to be about counting, let's make the nominations "*" instead of "#"). In addition, many people's standards seem too low, or they seem to be looking at only one factor. As a recent web page I saw pointed out, it's easy to become an admin - create an account that does nothing but vandalism reverts, let it go for 3 months, and instant admin. How soon until we see them sold on Ebay?

• Wikipedia is using MySQL and PHP. Bleh. Nuff said.

• The problem with date formatting and links using the same syntax. A very annoying problem. If I become an admin, I pledge to write a patch to fix this. (Yes, I've written MediaWiki patches before, so this is not an empty claim). If a good one has already been written I pledge to lobby hard for it. If it's already in an upcoming release I pledge candy for everyone who votes for me.

• Decisiveness. I'd like to see some more decisiveness on the part of the higher powers sometimes. Community consensus only goes so far. Exhibit A: userboxes. A clear mandate from on high a long time ago would have averted a lot of trouble.

• Vandalism tolerance. I'm seeing more and more vandalism occur on my list of watched pages. The amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs is growing disproportionate to the size of my list. I'd like to consider lessening our warnings for obvious vandals, and become a little less tolerant of vandalism in general. I'd also like to see more willingness to semi-protect pages. Nothing makes Wikipedia look worse than seeing a vulgar vandalism on an otherwise decent page. It kind of negates the thousands of hours of work done to that page up until that point, in the eyes of a random passerby viewing the article at that moment.

Turnstep 01:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Could you please further explain what you mean by suitly emphazi the fourth bullet in the previous question (the part that Lar is so excited about)? I'm not familiar with this problem. --TantalumTelluride 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given a date such as the first day of January, in the year 1970, the WP way to write it is as [[January 1]] [[1970]] or [[1 January]] [[1970]], which will format the date to the user's date preference. Both of the above will appear as to you as

1 January 1970. This has the unfortunate side effect of making both January 1 and 1970 links to pages which are almost always not really relevant to the article in question. Far better to have a separate syntax for date formatting, such as ||January 1 2005||. Turnstep 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Followup: This also encourages people to start linking anything resembling a date, so lone years such as "2006" are often linked, as well as words like "Thursday" and "November". Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you think you have made any mistakes on Wikipedia? How will you deal with mistakes in the future?

Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure I've made mistakes. No doubt I've made some that I'm not even aware of. I'm sure this RFA will draw a few of them to my attention! :) I try my best to follow all WP guidelines. I do use the preview button judiciously to try and limit my spelling/formatting errors, and reduce the number of edits I make to a page. If I feel very strongly about something, I tend to type it out and then wait a while before posting. I've made mistakes on AFD before - when someone points them out, I strike my vote, write a new one, and move on. I'll deal with mistakes in the future by accepting and fixing them when they are pointed out to me, and hopefully learning something from the process. - Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. "Decisiveness. I'd like to see some more decisiveness on the part of the higher powers sometimes." By 'higher powers' do you mean admins, Jimbo...? What is your view on consensus, and how would you apply that to your admin actions? How

Petros471 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Mostly the level above admins, and yes, specifically Jimbo. I think consensus is a great thing, but when it cannot be reached, especially among admins, an executive decision needs to be made. I think at the admin level, respecting consensus is very important, and should only be overriden when something is in clear violation of a Wikipedia policy. I don't see myself as being particularly bold with the admin powers - boldness is more for editing, which is easily undone by almost anyone, and not for things like deletion, which is not as easily undone (due mostly to the small number of people that have the power to undelete, and the fact that undeleting is seen as a much more serious action than simply editing an article). - Turnstep 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]