Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/White Shadows

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

White Shadows

[edit]

(10/26/13); Scheduled to end 02:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate

Nomination

[edit]

White Shadows (talk · contribs) – I'd like to nominate User:White Shadows for adminship. WS does a tremendous amount of work here, and he is now in the semifinals of the WikiCup. He knows his way around the wiki, and I believe is widely respected for what he does. He has grown as a person during his time here (not going to deny that he and the whole over-18 thing have yet to intersect). I suppose I've tried to take him under my wing a bit here and keep him flying right and I"m now pleased and proud to nominate him for adminship. Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

For my second ever nomination, I present you with White Shadows. Specializing in submarine warfare, White Shadows is a wonderful content worker who has contributed to some 25 good articles, three good topics, and 41 DYKs. Identified as an "Awesome Wikipedian" by Rlevse, WS is a familiar face at the DYK talk page (486 edits) as well as AIV (99 edits) and even the WikiCup.

I think everyone's aware of White Shadows' humble origins. Let's not beat around the bush, his beginnings as an editor were not ideal. He began as a well-meaning but zealous user who struggled with maturity and clue issues as well as some contentious conflicts. Despite the fact that people were often criticizing him (sometimes a hard thing to face), White Shadows came to appreciate their advice; he learned to listen to it and began to apply it to his editing. For months, he took to heart advice which helped him grow as a person. I was one of the first people to try and reach out to him, and reflecting on his history, I am stunned by his progress. In the past few months, he has grown exceptionally not only in his editing but as a person - becoming more mature, not jumping to conclusions, and spending more time in the content area, amongst other accomplishments.

I want to make it clear that White Shadows makes a strong candidate. Apart from the fact that he was able to spring back from a rather rough start (which I feel is very demonstrative of his enthusiasm), he has many positive traits. His quick learning ability, newly-acquired accountability, plus his dedication to improving himself while improving the encyclopedia we all work on - highlight what I think makes White Shadows a strong candidate for adminship.

I hope you will join me in supporting this request for someone who will continue to work hard for the benefit of the project who is also very enthusiastic and obviously has the best interest of the project in his heart. ceranthor 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you Wehwalt and Ceranthor for nominating me. I accept.--White Shadows There goes another day 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Having read through all of the supports, opposes and neutrals, I realize that while I am on the right track, I need to wait a few more months of further productive work (and less typos) before I should run again. Thank you to all of you who !voted, I will take your comments and advice and work in my weaker areas.--White Shadows There goes another day 15:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My admin work would be concentrated around the main page, in particular WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS, both of which I am a regular to (with over 480 edits to the suggestions page of DYK) and are on my watchlist. There seems to be a shortage of willing admins that work in both areas and I have seen some error reports that go unfixed until the DYK queue is updated. It would be my pleasure to assist with the admins that already work in these places. I would also like to participate in {{editprotected}} requests which I have relevant experience from WP:ERRORS requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my personal opinion, my best contributions to Wikipedia in the mainspace would be my work on the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary which I wrote from a short list of names of the 13 battleships in the Austro-Hungarian fleet to an A-class article, as well as my contribution in getting World War II to GA status. I am also very proud of my work on German submarines such as German submarine U-47 (1938) and the entire class of 9 German Type IXA submarines, as well as the promotion of over 15 further U-boat and warfare related GA's and over 41 DYKs. I've also got a further 10 GA's from other naval ships such as Austro-Hungarian battleships like the SMS Zrinyi and the SMS Habsburg. Behind the scenes, I believe my best contributions to this project would be my work in DYK, creating queues and clearing the backlog of DYK suggestions as well as my participation in other projects such as the WikiCup. While I am technically a contestant in the competition and not a judge, I generally participate in helping out by answering questions to the project's talk page, updating the pools, as well as the contestants page along with User:Stone. On a personal note, I am also very proud over my transformation from a Myspacer to a prolific content writer during the months of January and February of this year. Prior to that, less 25% of my edits were to articles and over 50% of my edits were to others talk pages and my own userpage. since then, I have managed (with the help of several editors) to leave behind my unproductive past and find my niche on this project, German submarines and battleships.
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: Anyone who knows my past knows that I had a number of editing conflicts during my 11 and a half months here. I originally took these conflicts personally and went about the wrong way of trying to end them and I even kept grudges against several editors. Two such conflicts got me blocked in January and February. However, I have learned that when editing on a site like this, there are bound to be people who disagree with you. Rather than fuel the flames, I've now tried to just back away from any situation that can result in an unfavorable outcome such as a lengthy ANI thread that wastes others time or a block. If I feel that I myself am getting tense with the situation, I simply take a break for a few minutes and cool down. As for holding grudges, I've learned that holding grudges means that one can never move on and forget about an unpleasant situation. I've always thought that it is best to not dwell on the past and simply let these conflicts go. In the future, if I ever get into a disagreement with another editor that possibly would require administrative attention, I would defer to another neutral admin because there are always two sides to a dispute and when you yourself are involved, you don't always see the other viewpoint.
Question from —fetch·comms
4. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: Oppose White Shadows has been an very unproductive editor in the first 6 months of his time here on Wikipedia. While he has made a major turnaround in his editing, I still have concerns over his maturity. For instance, on occasion he has interjected in ANI discussions and made unhelpful comments without understanding the entire setup of the situation.
My reply would be: I understand the reason for your oppose rational. However since January-February, I have made a massive effort to turn myself around. It was a tough journey but I am glad to say that I made it. While I have in the past come across as immature, I believe that the biggest sign of maturity is owning up to your mistakes and making a valid effort to correct them. I've learned that commenting in such threads tend to result in inflaming the situation rather than cooling it down.
Additional optional question from Noraft
5. What is your opinion of WP:AOR?
A: I am a huge advocate of WP:AOR and I myself would be open to recall if my RFA passes. I believe that if the community has a valid grievance, then I believe that it is an administrator's duty to be open to calls for their handing in of the tools.
Additional optional question from Noraft
6. User:Fozzie9000 is editing an article about a Chinese church that was ruined during the Cultural Revolution. The article has a photo taken before the Cultural Revolution of the church that shows a statue of Jesus in the courtyard. Another photo taken after the Cultural Revolution shows that the statue has been removed, and that all the stained glass windows of the church are broken. The article narrative talks about the damage to the church, and states that the Red Guards (China) destroyed the statue and the windows. However, this statement is unsourced.
User:RunOff, who has never edited the article before, reverts the unsourced statement. On the talk page he states that the statement is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. Fozzie9000 quotes policies that appear to be relevant such as Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F and WP:OI, but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight. Fozzie9000 brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and implies (without stating overtly) that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF, he states that editors must "earn good faith."
How would you analyze this situation? Is it Original research? Does it constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should Fozzie9000 do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff?
A: First off, I would talk to RunOff and tell him that WP:AGF implies that one must assume that another person is trying to help not hinder. Since he likely never had any interaction with Fozzie9000 he is expected to assume that he is here to help clean up the article, not add in Original research or advance a particular position. His "threats" to block others just because they disagree with him are also not the right way to go. In a technical sense, such comments in an article about a certain organization destroying a church would require a reliable source. Fozzie9000 should look for a source to back this sentence up and perhaps bring the discussion to a relevant WikiProject such as WikiProject China. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the article or the time period can provide a source to prove or disprove the article's text.
Additional optional question from TomStar81 (Talk)
7. A few years back my inability to spell came up in my third rfa (the one that was ultimately successful), and while it was cause for concern among those opposing I was offered a chance to explain my poor spelling in my own words. To be fair, some people simply can not spell; I know I have spelling problems, and I suspect that other members on Wikipedia have experience similar difficulty in composing their thoughts with proper SP&G. I want to know if you can explain to us in your own words why your spelling is so poor, and more importantly how you plan to compensate for this weakness.
A: I understand that spelling is a major weakness for me. It always has been and aways will be when it comes to typing. Generally in real life, I tend to do fine in spelling but for some reason, I simply cannot type like I write. (and the fact that I use IE is also not helping as that does not have a spell checker). However I found that while my spelling tends to be horrendous, if I type slowly, I can catch a few of my mistakes before I press save and while IE does not fix typos, Microsoft Word can so when I am done, I'll paste my comment into a MW document and find any remaining typos and correct them. So far this method had suited me well, I've had a lot less typos in the past month or so.
Additional optional question from Toddst1
8. If you see a threat of violence on wikipedia, what steps will you take? Are you willing to contact authorities?
A: Any threat of violence on this iste is to be treated seriously. With that being said, I would be willing to contact the authorities if such action is required. As for what steps I wold take, I'd first try to locate where this particular person is. He/she have likely already states a name or an address/location. If not then I an always ask for a Check User. Once their location has been found, I would then proceed to contacting the authorities nearest to the user making the threats as well as report the incident to my own local authorities.
Additional optional question from Begoon
9. There's an essay in your userspace at User:White_Shadows/Wikipedia_is_falling_apart. It contains the statement, in the section Changes in WP:Policy:
  • "The implementation of consensus as a valid way to determine the course of action needs to be scrapped."
Do you agree with that statement? If you do, could you briefly outline what, if any, effect that would have on you as an Administrator, particularly with regards to occasions where you might be required to judge consensus.
A: To be honest, no I do not agree in fact I disagree with many things in that essay now. I wrote that a long time ago and have really forgotten about it. While there are a few things in that essay that worry me, I feel now that consensus is probably the most valid way for the community to determine a course of action, although how one interprets it may be a little vague.
Thanks for answering. I presumed you did remember the essay, since you edited the section I was quoting from less than 6 weeks ago: [1], but I understand if that is no longer your opinion. - Begoon (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I remember doing that now but to be honest, I had actually forgotten about it. I'll likely ask for it to be deleted once this RFA closes.
Additional optional question from Iridescent
10. Explain in your own words what this was all about.
A: From any point of view, that was a violation of policy. Banned means banned and I was talking like it did not. I felt that Mattisse was a victim when I made that post and it is only just recently that I realize that she caused a great deal of drama and wasted the community's time far too often. In other words, it is a fine example of one of my "jumping in feet-first" comments that I am not proud of.
Additional optional question from Immunize
11. Please describe why you were blocked for 24 hours for "abusing multiple accounts or IP's.
A: The whole situation started when a good friend in real life of mine User:Orangesodakid (Who is not retired I believe) got one of his "secret pages" up for deletion. While I was off-line he made a sock puppet called User:Gurrenlaggan and vented his anger at the MFD's nominator. Gurrenlaggan was blocked and the IP address of Orangesodakid was too. (though people had yet to connect his sock with OSK) Thinking that he himself was blocked, OSK called me and told me he was blocked, So he gave me his password to the sock puppet as well as his account and told me to unblock it somehow. He then had to log off for personal reasons. After logging into OSK, I found out that it was not blocked but that the sock was and his IP address (since we had different IP addressed and lived across town, I was not auto blocked when using OSK like he was). After that, I told him that he was not blocked but his IP was so I then logged on to the sock puppet and found the angry post that was made. (Trust me I was very mad, having told him personally not to do that) I then tried to ask for an unblock of Gurrenlaggan (thinking that was the way to help him out) Well my IP address then got auto blocked for using a blocked account. So I then logged back onto OSK and asked for someone to unblock my IP address. (while stating it was really me who was on as OSK) Then an admin came along and thought that OSK was the puppet master of both myself and Gurrenlaggan (for obvious reasons) and directly blocked me and OSK. Because of this whole fiasco that was created by OSK, people had doubts about me for a while, first by thinking I was a sock of OSK then of another troubled user, Guitarherochristopher. In fact none of this was my fault and I was only trying to help a friend in need to the best of my capabilities at that time. A while later, I realised what an idiot I was for doing that. Not a single thing could have been more against policy.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. As nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Diego Grez ¡aprende a llorar! 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per nomination. No problems here. --John (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) To neutral per answer on Q9. User:White Shadows/Wikipedia is falling apart raises concerns with me, which the nominator may address. --John (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support – I've seen White Shadows around the wiki, and he has been a clueful and useful editor. I trust him with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support. No recent red flags, but old problems last in my opinion. ACCESS DENIED 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As co-nominator. ceranthor 02:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I was the GA reviewer for WS's nomination of World War II. Despite being faced with a huge topic and and equally huge list of things to be fixed, WS persevered and (with some support from Wiki-friends) managed to bring the article up to GA status, an achievement for which I awarded him a well-earned barnstar. I have seen some issues with maturity, but a) none recently, and more importantly b) I have also seen evidence of him learning from his mis-steps and striving to be a better editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This RFA is premature. But I have to question whether it is premature as a matter of tactics or a matter of substance. I am certain that it is tactically premature but far from convinced that the candidate is not actually ready to be an admin. In addition to the contributions and answers to questions, I am confident because of the respected editors who have vouched for the candidate's rapid improvement as an editor (especially the nom and co-nom). In this respect I think the candidate's young age is a positive - because of that age it is more likely that the early editing problems were down to immaturity and there has been genuinely rapid progress.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wow, I expected this RfA to turn out a lot better. I have formed my opinion, though, and the opposes are not bringing up anything I didn't already know. I can see why people may be uncomfortable with having someone with your editing history as an administrator, but that's pretty much what the opposes are about ... history. I don't believe you would seek out conflicts as an administrator or hold grudges against those who you've had conflicts with in the past, and that is why I am supporting. —Soap— 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I concur with the Soap's sentiment right above me, as I do with the logged-out JC in the neutral section. At the end of the day, WS has his heart in the right place and I see no reason why he couldn't make a fine admin with guidance from those more experienced in the role. The risk of him deliberately abusing the tools is nil. The risk of negligent use is absolutely minimal and he wants to work in areas which are short of admins and where he has already done brilliant work. He has already made a dramatic turnaround from a myspacer to a prolific content writer and I see no reason why that tranformation would not continue, producing an even better editor and administrator. Quite frankly, if he'd retired the Coldplay Expert account and started the White Shadows account as a new one, although not strictly legit, the connection would be near unrecognisable and this RfA would almost certainly be going the other way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent point - if he had done that (retired and started anew), you may be correct. I suspect he might still have needed a little longer, though, even under those theoretical circumstances - there is stuff like the comments during the Tan desysopping, and the seeming wish to amplify that drama, which postdate the name change, and would still set off red lights to me. Fair point though, that being open about your past is not always instantaneously advantageous. I suspect that's a conversation for many other days. :) In the long run, though, I think he's done the right thing, and, as I said in my oppose, feel sure he will be a good admin in time. - Begoon (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per above. wiooiw (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I am pleasantly surprised by the strides WS has made in these last few months, and am impressed with his dedication to content work. But he's not ready for adminship. The old problems were based on issues of judgment and maturity, which do not resolve themselves overnight; I still have significant current concerns in this area, and they are an important facet of adminship. These issues will disappear slowly with time, but it is too soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Atrocious spelling is of concern, especially when simple words ("makeing"?) are spelled wrong on a continuous basis. Vandals do not take admins seriously when immaturity shows. Comments like this one during the Tanthalas39 situation are extremely unproductive and add nothing to the discussion. Aside from the above, your answer to question 1 does not show a large enough range of admin areas you'd be willing to work in. For someone who is not very active in warning vandals (as far as I can see), 32.81% of all edits dedicated to user talk pages is very concerning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that my spelling needs work. However as for warning vandals, I am active in that area. That is why I have 99 ANV reports. As for the diff, yes that was not helpful at all. Though when User:Daniel brought that up to me on my talk page, I admitted that I should have stayed out of the issue and thanked him.--White Shadows There goes another day 02:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Floquenbeam and as per what I said earlier on White Shadows's talk page. I also think that the nominators have demonstrated rather poor judgement in putting White Shadows forward for this "trophy" too soon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per those above me. I pointed out your spelling problem to you last year yet nothing has been done on your part towards correcting it. WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS also don't require a lot of administrative attentions so I also fail to see your need for the tools. Unproductive comments are also worrying. Eagles247, Floquenbeam and Malleus sum up my feelings perfectly in this case.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Editors who cannot communicate intelligently really shouldn't be administrators. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you don't mean to comment on the candidate's intelligence? 69.121.245.182 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor could be a genius for all I know, but his answers reveal an inability to communicate in a clear and mature fashion i.e. intelligent. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the word you're looking for is "intelligible." Muphry's law in action... Shimeru 07:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose He's doing much, much better, but real maturity takes time. The spelling is still an issue as well. AniMate 04:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - in the nomination, it is mentioned that WS has "25 good articles, three good topics, and 41 DYKs." While those are good numbers, I'm concerned that's all you were doing it for—the sheer numbers. From what I've read of your articles and various reviews, it appears that you do the absolute minimum to get articles to GA or past DYK's 5x expansion rule. This is most often expressed in a comparatively long "Design" section (ex. French battleship Gaulois (1896)) where basic characteristics of a ship—often already available in the infobox or the class article—is restated in prose so that the article is long enough for DYK. In other articles, you have simply copied over a five-paragraph-long design section and added a lead + two/three paragraphs on the ships' service lives. Yes, these articles technically meet the GA requirements, but they really aren't up to par IMHO. While I appreciate that information on some of these ships is scarce, you have never attempted to get any of the definitive works on the Austro-Hungarian Navy through inter-library loan or any other means (most recent attempt to get you to do this), and using general works like Conway's or Battleships of World War I is just not enough to make a comprehensive entry on any battleship. Possible COI note—both White Shadows and I are members of Operation Majestic Titan —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean but I have to disagree. I try not to do the bare minimum. Otherwise I would be done working on Revoljucija or adding images to Rudyard Kipling (ship) as they are likely to not go to GA but are already verified as DYKs. In other words, I try to make my work though, not getting the bare minimum to get the job done.--White Shadows There goes another day 10:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose but leaning toward neutral. Sorry, too much drama in the past Pilif12p :  Yo  04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry, I really don't feel comfortable with supporting or even going neutral here. WS is a very helpful editor, but I am concerned with his/her maturity and spelling, as mentioned above, I really don't see vandals or problematic users taking him/her seriously at this time. Sorry, I hope I can feel comfortable voting support in a future RfA, with all concern taken into consideration. Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. In an encyclopedia, spelling is too important an issue to downplay. I'm uncomfortable that such a small proportion of edits have been made to article talk pages (an important indicator of how well, or not so well, an editor has learned to collaborate with peers). And if the nominator really meant to say that this candidate is under 18, that's a showstopper in my view. Richwales (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I think you're a great editor, but I'm afraid I cannot support per your block log which contains several fairly recent blocks. Keep up the good work and I'll look to support in the future. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - That block log is way too active, with two just this year and five total. The editor has come a long way but I strongly suggest withdrawing from this Rfa now or as soon as you are comfortable with that, working hard at some of the issues raised including spelling (I keep a dictionary next to the keyboard at all times, not being a good speller myself) and staying unblocked - and then come back in 6-12 months. Best wishes! (NOTE: This feels like it is trending WP:SNOW, suggest early closure if it turns into a pile-on.) Jusdafax 06:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to make up my mind, but it's only fair to the candidate that two of the five entries in his block log are "friendly fire" and fixing the same- three actual blocks. Courcelles (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so Courcelles, but at this stage it's a moot point. To update my previous concerns, I think someone should close per WP:SNOW asap. Jusdafax 08:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep it going for a while. If anything, just to get more opinions.--White Shadows There goes another day 11:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to oppose at this time. Although I'm impressed by your progress in the last few months, I don't think your quite ready yet. Floquenbeam brings up some good points, and this particular conversation (a follow up to this) from three months ago is a bit worrying. I'd like to see some more experience before I can support. Theleftorium (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Sorry, but I think this RfA is premature. The range of concerns raised above indicates that although you've indeed come a long way, there's still further to go before you're ready for adminship. Spelling is obviously an issue but it's not the major one for me (installing a spell-checker in your browser might help if you haven't already done so). What are issues are your recent(ish) blocks, your relatively short tenure on WP, your age as hinted at in the nom statement (not necessarily as a child/adult thing but in terms of your probable experience of dealing with a wide range of people and situations in RL), Ed's note about the way you develop articles, and some of the sentiments expressed in your essay linked in Q9. You should definitely be encouraged by the progress you've made and deserve full credit for it, but I believe you should have realised you're not ready for RfA. That you accepted the nom calls your judgement into question, and that for me is the single biggest factor in opposing. I hope this isn't too discouraging and wish you well if you decide to try again (though like Judasfax I'd recommend leaving it at least 6-12 months). Best, EyeSerenetalk 08:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, but with strong moral support. Firstly, much respect to White Shadows for coming so far so quickly - what I'm seeing is an extremely valuable and committed editor with a much improved attitude. However, I'm going to have to reluctantly oppose because I think it's still too soon. Blocks in January and February were just too recent, especially considering the reasons for them, and I'd need to see more clear water after the immaturity issues. I'd also like to see more attention paid to details like spelling - use your browser's spell-checker before you submit, and it will catch things like "makeing" and "takeing" every time. If you come back in around six 6-12 months time, with no further blocks and no further immaturity issues, I expect you'll do much better here - I look forward to supporting you in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (edit conflict × 3) Per practically everyone else, without wanting to re-iterate. Spelling is frankly dire (a good answer to question 7 might sway my opinion here) and leads me to think the user is fairly young - while this obviously is not a bad thing, I can't see vandals feeling threatened over an incorrectly typed warning (if a manual one is used at all). I also share Ed's concerns over article quality, but that's something I'm guilty of, too.  f o x  08:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (edit conflict × 4) Oppose – with regret. Five months without a block is long enough to show you have improved in general editing, but not nearly enough time to prove suitability for adminship. It just doesn't follow. Also, we all make spelling errors, but if it's what you are remembered for, that's when it's a problem. – B.hotep •talk• 08:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I am disappointed with White Shadows' response to Q6. There is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's core policies taking place and RunOff, the person attempting to clean up, is not making headway, and people are ganging up on RunOff so things are getting stressed. White Shadows decides to escalate the drama by publicly tackling RunOff on assumed AGF issues rather than backing up RunOff on violations of core policy. You cannot AGF regarding unsubstantiated accusations. The statement needs sourcing or removing - that is the priority. The drama can be eased with a few soft words and a gentle but firm explanation of policy. And if it is felt that RunOff had got a little over-heated with some comments, then that can happen at times, and a quiet conversation - perhaps off-wiki - along the lines of: "I note that you got a bit stressed there - if you need help in future, give me a call" would be helpful. SilkTork *YES! 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I said in my reply that "such comments in an article about a certain organization destroying a church would require a reliable source". I understand that RunOff is correct in his interpretation of policy but he is going about the wrong way of solving the issue.--White Shadows There goes another day 10:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Lacks basic self-awareness. Plutonium27 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Sorry. I can't support with the maturity concerns I have, and what I see in very recent contributions as a tendency to rush "feet first" into commenting. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and I'm also sure you could be a good admin one day. That's not yet, though, imo. - Begoon (talk)
  21. Oppose per Floquenbeam & Eagles. I'm sorry. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I'm sorry to make my first contribution to RFA like this, but I am regretfully in the oppose camp on this one. I have come across White Shadows in a number of venues, mostly related to Did You Know where he puts in a lot of time and effort. Besides this I see from his contributions that he does a lot of anti-vandal work and his editing in the area of ships and submarines is laudable, even if, as Ed has pointed out above, the work is usually sufficient to just pass at DYK or GA. Overall his edits show a definite positive trend away from the blocks of his early career. However, I believe that this improvement was down to a number of respected editors (gently and not so gently) pushing White Shadows away from areas of drama, and encouraging him to spend more time building the encyclopedia. White Shadows, as Begoon says above, has a tendency to jump in "feet first", particularly when there is some sort of drama going on (besides the Tan incident mentioned above, this also manifests itself in his poor spelling which could easily be addressed if White Shadows paused for a minute or two to read back a comment, rather than rushing in and hitting the save button) and this leads to escalation of the situation and increasing conflict. By becoming an admin, White Shadows would be pushed back directly into the path of high drama, whether he wanted to be or not. An admin should diffuse defuse a situation, not make it worse, and this is where White Shadows would fall down. I believe that this will very quickly result in White Shadows getting into the same kind of trouble as earlier in the year. White Shadows is a promising editor but I think becoming an admin at this time is too early and would cause too many problems (both for WS and for en.wikipedia). tl;dr You are doing a good job and improving month on month. Focus on your content-related skills, improving the encyclopedia and working on "looking before you leap" and leave the distractions of adminship for another day. Nick Ottery (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    this also manifests itself in his poor spelling which could easily be addressed if White Shadows paused for a minute or two to read back a comment, rather than rushing in and hitting the save button ... An admin should diffuse a situation. It must be contagious.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of those participants such as myself who can tend to be slow on the uptake, could you explain what you meant in that comment, Wehwalt (genuinely confused) - Begoon (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct word is "defuse", not "diffuse".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, yes, I see. It's not an uncommon usage, though, really, 3 million hits on - [2]. Perhaps not perfect grammar, but I understood what he meant. More in terms of dilution, like [3] - which explains it is wrong, but demonstrates it's a word usage question, rather than a spelling issue. Still - take your point... - Begoon (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I'm taking what I got and making the most of it. Many of the opposes are valid. Some, by those who have ongoing contact with WS and his work, and apparently (I do watch his talk page) have not seen fit to express their concerns to him, disappoint me, and perhaps should have been brought up on an ongoing basis, rather than for the first time at RfA. Be that as it may I think WS, if he takes these comments to heart, and if he chooses to run again, should do rather well in six month's time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I've always thought that badgering opposers for picky reasons is wrong. It's not even the main point of Nick's oppose - so forgive me if I thought it seemed too harsh, and I reacted. Nick's oppose is fine. He's saying he agrees WS is too quick on the draw sometimes and uses his spelling as a minor example. That's my main gripe - ignoring the main gist of the oppose, and commenting on a bit you can find fault with seems wrong, especially when he opens by saying it's his first oppose at RFA. If you had other knowledge relevant to the oppose, you should have shared it, instead of assuming we all knew what you knew. On the face of it, your comment was a petty "badgering" spelling point, hence my reaction. Nick's point would have got past the simple barrier of a spellchecker, whereas a lot of of WS's would not. Sorry if I upset you. I shan't comment again - Begoon (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, thank you for pointing out my error. I have inserted the correct word into my oppose rationale. I also take on board your comments about communicating more effectively with editors about ongoing issues. Also, Begoon, thank you for your above comment. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more talking about others than you regarding the communication issue. I'm afraid I used your oppose as the platform to stand on a soapbox and comment about some of the others. Forgive me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong oppose Blocks for personal attacks, abusing multiple accounts, and edit warring, which is not what we want to see in a administrator. Immunize Contact me Contributions 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that this would come up. Many people who have !voted know my history already so there was no reason to explain. Seeing as you joined this year you probably would like to know the history of these blocks. Hy block in January for "personal attacks" was because of this post here. While it was indeed not polite and rather rude, I have seen much worse on this site that result in zero administrative action. I made that post because of this comment. however this occured back in January when I was a "waste of space", one who spent 90% of their time here doing nothing productive. The other block in February come from someone making fun of my spelling. I felt insulted and reverted him and this continued until Xeno came along and blocked both of us. After looking at the situation, I know that HS's comment was not to be taken as "insulting" as I originally had. I had better things to do than to edit war. The other block is a bit more complicated so if you want I can e-mail the story to you to tell you on your talk page if you'd like.--White Shadows There goes another day 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Regretful oppose I wish I could support you WS. You have lots of good contributions, a large amount of DYK's and GA's, and your maturity has improved... to a point:
    • Every now and then, I see what some might consider useless comments in various places. Now, I am guilty myself of the occasional odd comment, but I would consider it rare. With you, I see unproductive comments too often, as do several people above me.
    • You have been told about your spelling problems several times, yet it seems like you haven't done much to change your habits. (As a side note, might I suggest using Mozilla Firefox if you don't already. It has a spelling checker built in.)
    • You still seem to get into conflicts, but not as much as before.
    You are still improving. If you were to come back in about 6 months or so, and took the advice of the opposes well, then I'm sure you would make a fine admin. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Q10. It's great that you recognize that was against policy -- I just want to see you establish more time without similar bad moves so that I can support in the future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Had this RfA been say six months ago, it would have been a straightforward decision for me to oppose. Back then it seemed that WhiteShadows spent more time editing his talk page than writing articles, and when he got into disputes just couldn't let things go. Since then, WhiteShadows has come a long way and has demonstrated he's here to build the encyclopaedia by writing Good Articles on submarines. This transformation is encouraging, but I don't think WhiteShadows is ready yet for the tools. It's not been an easy ride, in March there were problems with copyright violations. WhiteShadows seemed to have changed after that, but to me it speaks of an editor who is still learning about Wikipedia. Of course, it's not a pre-requisite to know everything before becoming an admin, but in the absence of familiarity with admin areas there needs to be aptitude to adapt and understand situations. I'm not convinced that's been demonstrated. This situation was not a good idea and I'd like admin candidates to demonstrate a more circumspect approach. As much as I applaud WhiteShadows for his work in changing his attitude, long may the GAs keep coming and keep working at DYK, but I don't think now is the time for adminship. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I'm on the fence here (leaning support). On the one hand, your work since your issues multiple months ago has been spectacular. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can overlook the issues even after this time. It was a pretty large mess, and I'm not sure I can let it go. From that whole get-go, it seemed like you were on a race to get adminship, but I haven't seen much to substantiate that recently. Since I haven't worked in the same area as you for many months, I'm going to have to look into your contribs more to make a decision. (X! · talk)  · @126  ·  02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Your contributions are definitely great, and I really try not to judge by time, but between the one year time here and myspacing until just 6 months ago, that's enough to have me a little worried. Good luck and you've definitely done good work, but I just cannot support for adminship yet. PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm sorry to say that I can't support right now, per the two above me. Perhaps in just another few months, but right now is too early for me. Sorry, —fetch·comms 02:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If I'm perfectly honest, I'm extremely surprised to see this nomination. I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw the name in the RfA TOC, but Wehwalt's signature is reassuring. With that said, as someone who has (maybe?) helped him get his bearings, it seems like just yesterday WS spent much of his time engaging in highly unnecessary disputes with respected users or unnecessary chatter on his talk page. He has made one of the most spectacular turnarounds I've ever seen in my three years on Wikipedia, but yet I feel he needs several more months to detach himself from his checkered past. I have no reason to believe he would deliberately misuse the admin bit, nor do I believe he would accidentally induce mayhem, but I don't yet think of WS as "admin material", however vague that may be. My advice would be to continue to establish yourself as a solid article creator. I'm well aware that one can literally change his ways in an instant, but in a community like ours, where every last mistake and quarrel is forever etched into multiple historical records, a consistent track record is necessary to pass RfA. On a more down-to-earth level, I agree that you need to work on sounding more professional in your talk page comments. "Your" and "you're" are not interchangeable, for example. Don't worry about achieving adminship so much – it's more a burden than anything. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC) (Juliancolton logged out due to wikibreak)[reply]
  5. I really don't like opposing people, and you've made a fantastic turnaround, but it's just too soon. Reading through your talk page archives from as recent as April gives me a really uneasy feeling about you going anywhere near the mop, and whilst you've improved drastically I just don't feel comfortable supporting. You know enough that you wouldn't abuse the admin bit, but accidental misuse due to hastiness is still a concern in my mind. I certainly am not one to speak, but the overall impression I get from you is that a few more months will mean a lot more stability. sonia♫♪ 03:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not going to oppose, as I think that given time you will make an admin. However, I think that this RfA is a bit too early. Keep up the good work, learn from this RfA and take on board the comments made by all parties. The opposers will show you in which areas you need to improve. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pending answer to Q9. --John (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I cannot support. Three blocks in the last ten months for three different problems, that is to much to recent. Continue down the path you are on for the last 5-6 months and come back in 6-12 months. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 08:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Along similer lines to GB. Before someone else makes the opposite point, while your post in question 10 deserves strong criticism and should not be repeated, I think it was understandable given the circumstances of her departure. WFC (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral leaning support good editor but the block in February means I cannot support at this time, 3 months from now I would love to move to the support section. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (edit conflict)I woke up and logged on this morning and was, frankly, surprised to see this up. I think it's a bit too soon, and agree with everyone above in the neutral section. I'm not going to oppose, though, as you are a great user who is on the right track; I'm just not comfortable supporting right now. Q10 worries me, especially. Please keep it up! Airplaneman ✈ Review? 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral leaning support - I have seen some extremely wonderful work from White Shadows, and my experience and collaboration with WS has been excellent. This RfA is a bit too soon in my opinion. The typos, however, don't concern me since everyone makes mistakes. Even admins make typos. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral leaning oppose, per Julian, Ed, and candidate's comments in his current WP:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_battleships_of_Austria-Hungary/archive1#List_of_battleships_of_Austria-Hungary. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (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/White_Shadows&oldid=1091461748"