Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/RockerballAustralia 2

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

I am failing this as no consensus. I would encourage Rockerball to stick WN out, and give another RfA ago in a few weeks. Improve the project some more. And I am sure you will pass next time Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

I'm nominating so I can get round to doing some on site house keeping instead of requesting all of the time. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Here's my question: Why are you here? What motivates you to contribute to the project (almost) everyday? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A - to contribute news, B - to see the project grow, and C - Theres nothing better to do (I work nights) --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can continue to contribute news without the adminship priveleges. How do you imagine this project will improve if you become an admin? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There will be a primary focus on adding categories to archived pages. An example would be adding Category:Gippsland Football League to Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Finals week one results. A secondary focus might be issuing artice corrections should they arrise and handling deletion requests.

Still a bit concerned about the incident in October. Do you feel you've got an adequate and comprehensive understanding of policy now? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate, please? My initial support was founded on a premise of good faith, but your short answer makes me feel slightly uneasy. In what ways have you matured? What have you learnt from your mistake? Dendodge _T\^C 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've learnt to be more patient. You'll remember that I self published an article a while back. I've since had an article I wrote wait for review longer than that self publish. A couple now I think about it. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded response - I self-published Australian rules football: West Gippsland Latrobe Football League Grand Final on September 19 (this diff). I've not self published since. Before i mentioned i waited for another article longer than the self publish. The artcle, Wikinews interviews Zahra Stardust about the upcoming by-election in the Bradfield electorate of the Australian parliament, was waiting for review for 44 hours give or take a few minutes (page history). Any other details just ask--RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are, in your view, the relative merits/demerits of these two situations: (1) an editor self-publishes an article; (2) an article is deleted without publication because no-one reviewed it until after it had gone stale. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a line somewhere where someone with editor privs can self-publish but I imagine it's very hard to get to. There would need to some very strict rules on that. There needs to be proper oversight on each article.

Articles that are put up for review sould not IMHO go stale let alone be deleted because of that. Letting an article go stale while waiting for review is bad because, the way I see it, we could scare off mewbies before the get a firm grip on what's going on.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these concerns but, independent review has to, in my opinion, be a non-negotiable point. I'm not totally happy at the basis of some of the below oppose votes; as far as editing goes it should be work towards the good of the project. Certainly, there's a need in your writing to take the international audience more into account and for sports stuff to minimise jargon and emotive terms. I voted support because I think you've matured enough to be given this chance. I do see where you can improve your writing and editing further. I think most Wikinewsies would agree that if you can master the news format it will serve you well in a wide variety of other places. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Weak support—I think you've made up for your previous mistake with some good work in the last couple of months, and see no harm in giving you the bit. Your expanded answer makes me feel slightly better about supporting, but I'm not sure if you have our trust just yet. I'll assume good faith and stick with weak support for now. Dendodge _T\^C 09:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I personally have nothing against you, but I'm concerned that you might not have the trust of the community (which is really the most important criteria of adminship). Sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I'm not quite convinced you're ready. Your answer to my question is, unfortunately, painfully brief and vague. "Yes" is the obvious answer. I was hoping for an explanation and description of how you feel you've matured on wiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - I haven't been a part of this community long enough, so I feel that I'm not qualified to comment on your incident a few months ago. However, I have read the archived discussions here, and I see no reason to believe that you have regained the community's trust. I have nothing personal against you, but I'm just feeling really queasy about this request for adminship. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Thank you for your detailed answers to our questions. I feel that you're ready for adminship now. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --I'm slightly confused as you don't seem very keen to show how you have improved since last time. I think you might be fine, and so would be willing to change to support if you can improve on your answers. Tris 08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Basically agree with Bawolff (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fairly happy the self-publish issue has got through to this user; no need to further berate and stigmatise for an expression of frustration on this issue. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I think you haven't learned the right lesson (from which I infer that you aren't ready yet). Self-publication isn't something that should only be done under dire circumstances, it's something that shouldn't even be considered under any circumstances, because it's contrary to the integrity of the project. --Pi zero (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A quick scan of your talk page archives worries me. There are quite a few negative comments on there regarding your ability to make the right choice. You have done splendid work over the past couple of months but trust takes a long time to rebuild and not having it with the rest of the admins could cause problems. --James Pain (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll point out Brians comment above. I've losoked through my talk archives and the last major issue was the self publish. There have been some minor things between Brian and my self but they've been work out between us --RockerballAustralia (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just quickly scanned your contribs and found this and this. These were 3-4 weeks ago, quite recently in my books. I'm quite edgy about what gets published since it gets pushed to other websites when it gets put on the homepage, after that if we edit it, it doesn't get reflected onto the other sites. Since writing and publishing seems to be your chosen path, I say master that first before you go further. Also I'm still sticking to the point that you need to gain the trust and support of the other admins in order to have a nice easy time. --James Pain (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Bawolff and, to some extent, James Pain. Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate your contributions to Wikinews - but having the trust of the community and fellow admins is a must for new sysops, and I'm not sure I see that here, seeing as a sizeable portion of the community has expressed concern over some of your actions and ability to make the right decision. I, personally, don't see any convincing reason to oppose (the self-publish issue was long ago, and should already have been forgiven), but some of the above concerns make me slightly unsure about this RfA, so I'll stick with neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I haven't been here for a while, it's probably not appropriate for me to vote, but based on the other comments, and a look at your talk page, I'd have to oppose for now. --Thunderhead 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The key point: Do I think you'll abuse it? No, I trust you not to, so I'm happy to stick my neck out and support. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.