Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyrenius

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.

[edit] Tyrenius

Final (4/18/7) ended 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius (talk • contribs) –

• First edit: August 22, 2005
• Total edits: 1331
• Distinct pages edited: 588
• Image uploads: 35
• No blocks, warnings or edit wars

Tyrenius 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :I accept the nomination, which is a self-nomination

I am withdrawing my nomination, because there is no point taking up more time and energy over this for me or others, though please feel free to add any votes and comments, till the request disappears, as they are all very interesting.

Regards, Tyrenius 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not right to ignore Wiki policy

The Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines page states that a policy is:

a standard that all users should follow.

The Wikipedia:Administrators page states:

Administrators are Wikipedians who have access to a few technical features that help with maintenance ("SysOp rights"). Wikipedia policy is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. (my underlining)

I do not believe that any of the votes cast so far (2 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral) have properly observed this policy in making their decision. Christopher Parham has suggested:

These policies are not intended to be a sort of code of law.

As I understand it, that is exactly what they are, having been agreed by a consensus of the community as to how certain aspects of Wikipedia should be carried out, and should be respected, until such time as a consensus changes that policy. I believe that a habit of conduct has come about on RfA that is in violation of that principle, which sets a bad example and in the longer term will be detrimental to the aims and best functioning of Wikipedia.

I am not doubting the good intentions of the individuals who have cast these votes, but I am saying they are in error in not following Wiki policy. The fact that 10 or 20 or 50 editors act in a certain way does not make it right, until they have achieved a consensus to change the policy. If such unilateral action by a small group of editors is accepted as right, then it sets a very dangerous precedent, as it would not be difficult for any minority group to achieve that number of people in order to put their own agenda into action on Wikipedia.

The argument is set out more fully below. This is a much more important issue than my personal RfA, as it addresses a wider principle. I believe that if the implications were thought through, concerned and responsible Wikipedians would realise it is up to them to set an example of upholding these standards, even if they find to do so is inconvenient. If not, they lose any moral authority when it comes to challenging other violations such as vandalism and POV edits. Ignoring a policy is a form of POV.

Tyrenius 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support as to not be a shutout. Suggestion of withdrawing, and trying again later. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support because it's no fun being piled on with opposes. Try and increase your knowledge of Wikipedia through getting involved in some projects, and reapply in a few months. Proto||type 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Weak support (and not moral in any nature, but rather genuine) After seeing the answers to his questions and looking at his actual edits, I am inclined to think that he effectively has at least 20% more in effort/contributions/time than edits would naively show. More project edits would be very good though. JoshuaZ 13:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Weak Support Give him a chance! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support, both moral and otherwise Meets my criteria and is a well-meaning user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not enough project related contributions. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Xaosflux

   I am rather taken aback by your opposition. I have studied the "How to help" points on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts and have been active with the following:

   • Check for factual errors on visual arts pages.
   • Check for spelling errors on visual arts pages.
   • Check categorization of existing articles and help organize.
   • Create new pages as requested. (I have created pages where there is a red link.)
   • Create and edit pages about artists.
   • Upload and add images to visual arts pages.
   • Add links to websites where more art can be viewed.
   • Expand art stubs and artist stubs into full articles.
   • Check references on visual arts pages.

   There is even a reference supporting this project on my user page, which you may not have noticed:

   There are a lot of gaps in Wiki arts (as has been noted in a special project), especially in comparison with subjects such as science and computing. I wonder why people aren't contributing to the same standard with the arts. There's plenty of history of art students out there who could do so. Some of the artists have an entry from a pre-World War I Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the writing is stilted. Even articles on major figures such as Van Gogh can be in a dismal state: I knocked this one into a basic shape. There are also influential and prominent figures in the arts (in the UK) who have nothing on them at all. I've started some of these—examples being Matthew Collings and Fiona Rae.

   I hope your objection is the result of a misunderstanding, but I would be pleased to hear from you, if there is something I have missed, as I can't see how I could contribute more fully to this project than I am already doing.

   I believe your stated objection is also in breach of Wiki policy on granting admin rights. I presume this is due to an excess of zeal, rather than any deliberate act, and something that you would want to redress. I have stated my argument further below for your consideration.

   Best, Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose too little edits Leidiot 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Leidiot

   I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, where the guideline for RfA is:

   A rule of thumb is probably at least 1,000 edits.

   I certainly have in excess of this, so I was surprised at your objection, and wondered if you were familiar with this guideline. I realise that it is not policy, but nevertheless "It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle", and wonder why you have not followed it yourself. I suggest if you disagree with this guideline, it would be better to take the appropriate steps to change it, if there is enough support for your viewpoint, and request in the meantime that you reconsider your vote, as I consider that it does not set an example of respect for Wiki guidelines. I would be pleased to discuss this on my user page with you.

   I also believe that your objection is in breach of Wiki policy and have set out my argument further below for your consideration. I am sure that this was not a deliberate act on your part, but an oversight, perhaps based on the example of others, and hope that you will reconsider in the light of my statement.

   Regards, Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3. No. Not enough information I'd expect of a self nom as well. Stong oppose. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:47 UTC (2006-03-31)

   Hi NSLE

   I studied the guidelines for RfA including Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship, where it says, "People tend to have higher standards for self-noms." I also looked at previous and existing nominations to see how much information was provided, and was, if anything, worried that I was going into too much detail. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kungfuadam has 22 support votes and one neutral: his answers to questions are just 2 lines each, and mine up to 16 lines each. I don't find it natural to push myself in this way—I am more comfortable writing factual articles. However, there was nothing on that page, nor on Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship that led me to think that I had not provided the required information, as I answered the required questions. I think it would be courteous and in line with Wikiquette to put a request for any further information you might think necessary, which I would be pleased to provide. I realise you have the right to express any opinion in any way you choose in this poll, but would welcome your comments on what information you consider is missing.

   I believe your decision as made is, more seriously, not in accord with Wiki policy on granting admin rights, and would be grateful if you would examine the statement I have made on this further below.

   Regards, Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Too few edits, especially in the Wikipedia project space; also, vague request description. joturner 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Hi joturner

   I would like to draw your attention to the points I have made above concerning both the number of edits and and also about project-related work. I am not sure why you consider my request vague, as I stated quite specifically:

   I am particularly concerned with vandalism to articles, which I frequently revert ... I would like to use admin tools to facilitate this, and to be able to follow through the warning with being able to block, if it gets to that stage.

   I think this is a clear statement of current practice and future intent. There is certainly a great need for this to be carried out, and at the moment I am feeling an increasing frustration at having firstly to do this manually all the time, and secondly knowing that I do not have the ability to follow through with blocking, if it comes to that stage, especially when I go to a vandal's talk page and find nothing's been done, even though they've had several warning after a "final" warning.

   I hope this clarifies my concerns, but I would be pleased to talk about it further, if you wish.

   I believe also that your decision is in breach of Wiki policy in respect of both the reasons you have stated, and would be grateful if you look at the points I have made further below. I hope that this will cause you to reconsider your decision.

   Regards, Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Better get more experience and use edit summaries more often.--Jusjih 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Nomination is insufficient in its breadth, per NSLE. A well-crafted nomination shows respect for one's peers at RfA. This nomination fails to display that respect. Xoloz 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Xoloz

   I would like to draw your attention to a Wiki guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith and also for that matter to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. To say a nomination in "insufficient" is an interpretation of fact. To say that it "fails to show respect" (i.e. that the person who wrote it fails to show respect, as a nomination is something inanimate and can't do anything of its own volition) is a personal observation and a slight on the person who wrote it, without any evidence that there was any lack of respect - in fact to the contrary, as there is nothing in my contribution to Wiki to indicate that I lack respect. To spend the time negotiating the complexity of rules to even make an application shows respect for the process. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "insufficient in its breadth" and would find it constructive if you would care to give me a bit more information about this.

   Best, Tyrenius 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose While you are correct, Xoloz, I believe that too is due to the fact that this candidate does not have enough experience. He's still pretty new. Be kind. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sure you're correct, and the comment wasn't meant harshly. Love the paw! ;)

8. Oppose... sorry, looks like a fine contributor, but needs more time on the project, per the above. Sandstein 04:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, too few edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Please reapply in a couple of months. JIP | Talk 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. It's admirable that you want to help... but you're still a bit too new in my opinion. Please reapply when you have more experience. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, this user seems like a good user. However, low Wikipedia-space edits as well as low editcount means that he needs more time on the project and try again in a few months time. --Terence Ong 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose, too few edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, nothing personal, but candidate just doesn't meet expectations regarding edit experience. Try again in a few months and I'll gladly support. _-M ^o P-_ 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: too much quotation of policy, not enough enough familiarity with custom and culture of the project. Jonathunder 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Wow. Just wow. I am flabbergasted at the level of counterpoint-ing by this user in this RfA. Per my Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards, specifically " Excessive defensiveness in responses to objections raised by others, or in general in your talk, is a clear downcheck as well", Oppose. Those are my criteria and I will apply them as I see fit. I suggest that you NOT reply tendentiously to this but just internalise what people are telling you. Ruleslawyering is not the way to work with this community. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Per Lar. Too much wikilawyering and confrontation. We need an atmosphere where people can work harmoniously, not acrimoniously. pschemp | talk 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Too low Wikipedia namespace edits. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose -lethe ^{talk +} 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Mailer Diablo

   I would like to draw you attention to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship:

   Some people who oppose RfAs do not explain their opposition. This does not make their votes inherently worthless. While it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback, RfA contributors are not required to explain their opposition. Some contributors may not wish to explain their rationale because they wish to avoid creating a sense of piling on.

   I respect your right not to state any reason for your neutrality, and do not feel any obligation to give any, but if you choose to do so, then I would find this helpful.

   I believe also that your decision of "neutral" and "perhaps later" is not a proper execution of Wiki policy, and would be grateful if you would take a look at the points I have made further below in this regard.

   Thanks, Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. While I must assume good faith, I'm worried by several things here: giving detailed replies about why the people who haven't supported you are in the wrong, and practically demanding administrative privileges based on the letter of the rules; we should use common sense and interpret all rules rather than follow them blindly. Back in the days where adminship was requested on the mailing list, the criteria you're running under might have been enough, but in this day and age of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, and legal threats, we must ensure that our administrators are civil, respected, and know not just what the policies are, but how to apply them. Regards, Alphax ^τεχ 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Didn't feel like voting oppose. But reason is same as all - more edits required. Also agree with above - Tyrenuis seems to be too eager for adminship. I would advise him too take all comments into account and then improve as per suggestions. If all things go well, he should re-apply for adminship sometime after 3 months. I would be glad to vote support. - Aksi_great 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I'm not going to oppose this nomination because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the candidate, rather I just don't think the candidate is ready yet. Raw edit counts are rarely useful, but over time patterns emerge. In the time Tyrenius has been here, (he? she?) has made some very good contributions to the encyclopaedia. But he/she has also made (proportionally) very few contributions to the project namespace and other namespaces outside the content namespaces. Even if the policy pages on administrators are to be read utterly and completely literally (and I don't think they should be) the nomination still has to show why the candidate is "generally a known and trusted member of the community", and by examining some of Tyrenius' contributions to the project, talk and user talk namespaces, I don't think this condition has been satisfied. I would, of course, gladly be proved wrong. --bainer (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Wikipedia policy isn't what determines votes around here. The people who participate on this page have their own rules, and are not shy about explaining them. Democracy has flaws but since wikipedia is 'owned' by all of us here equally, it's the only way to do it. - Richardcavell 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Vote changed due to Wikilawyering. JoshuaZ 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Unfortunately candidate has not quite understood the way Wikipedia works and is therefore not ready for adminship. Becoming an admin is not a reward, but something to assist those who undertake the duty of maintaining the site in their work. It is awarded by the community who assess the candidate based on many criteria, the most important of which is familiarity with the way Wikipedia works, and the most important factor about the way Wikipedia works is that it resists drawing absolute rules. The second most important factor is that we all try to get on with each other as comrades in creating a free encyclopaedia. Nothing wrong in the record of this candidate but needs to relax a little. David | Talk 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Even though Tyrenius withdrew the RfA, the extreme level of Wikilawyering that Tyrenius engaged in here demands a comment. I would never support anyone to be an admin who believes that this level of detailed response to legitimate objections is called for. I hope Tyrenius sees the downside to wikilawyering and doesn't engage in it anymore. If so, I hope he/she comes back in 3-6 months for another vote.--Alabamaboy 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 49% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 03:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Tyrenius's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I do not think anyone has violated policy by voting oppose on this RfA. I've left a explanation of this on Tyrenius' talk page. --Durin 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:

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: I am particularly concerned with vandalism to articles, which I frequently revert (and also on articles which I have no particular interest in, if I see vandalism occurring). I also leave the relevant test template on the user page, and sometimes a more personal note with it in the hope of touching someone's better nature. I would like to use admin tools to facilitate this, and to be able to follow through the warning with being able to block, if it gets to that stage. I have participated in some votes for deletion, and again see this as an aspect which would further interest me in an admin role straightaway. My approach is to take things one step at a time, so I will take on other tasks in due course, as I have done with straightforward editing. I'm "hands on", when I get to grips with a subject, rather than theoretical in advance, and I hope my track record to date will speak for itself.

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

A: After editing a variety of articles, I have decided to concentrate mainly on contemporary British art. It is the subject of a lot of public interest and is also widely studied in education in the UK, so is something that Wiki will be accessed for. There is at the moment a considerable weakness in this area on Wiki, where even notable artists, e.g. Fiona Rae, were completely absent. I am making it my business to build up this area, and my user page shows over 30 articles I have started, and for many of which I am still the sole editor contributing material. I didn't start Damien Hirst but I have done a considerable amount of work on it to transform and greatly enlarge the entry, as this will obviously be seen as a standard to judge Wiki on its contemporary arts coverage. I created Stuckist demonstrations with the aim of creating an article from scratch to featured article standards: this is a subject which has gained great media attention in the UK, but was previously not covered in any detail. I still have some work to do on it, but feel it is a sound piece of research. I started Frieze Art Fair and although it is a short article, I was pleased to be able to provide statistics which are not necessarily easy to find elsewhere. I feel that this sort of information will all help to make Wiki a respected source for users. Solipsist awarded me the "Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your many and varied contributions in connection with modern art and artists".

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: There was some frustration over the editing of Saatchi Gallery, where I felt that valid information I was adding was being reverted by one or more persons from a POV agenda, seemingly employees of the gallery (who had openly contributed earlier edits). I realised there was no point in a see-saw revert/edit war, and on this occasion sought informal objective advice (actually from sparkit, who I knew took an interest in art articles). I copied this advice onto the article talk page, with a statement as to its origin, and edited accordingly. This solved the problem. I also intervened in Jennifer Fitzgerald, which I came upon by chance and noticed an edit stalemate between two editors. I edited the article strictly but fairly from a NPOV and said on the talk page what I had done. One of the editors awarded me a barnstar "For your timely intervention that helped smooth things out". I believe all the right protocols are in place in Wiki for dealing with disputes and it is simply a matter of applying them properly, taking part in a reasoned and considerate debate, and if that opportunity is not accepted by the other party, then resorting to stricter measures. I have noticed that there is often personal language and ego intrusion, which takes over from the real subject, which is the validity of the information in dispute.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Your total number of edits is lower than what many consider acceptable for consideration to be an admin. Do you have a reason why the edit count is misleading or some other reason that the edit count should be discounted?

There are two considerations here. The first is that I try to follow established guidelines, and in Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship it states:

Nominees with lower edit counts are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with low edit counts have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with a limited length of time of active experience on Wikipedia can expect similar concerns. A rule of thumb is probably at least 1,000 edits.

I have 1331 edits, which is about 33% above the rule of thumb. I cannot therefore see why my edit count should be an issue. If people do not agree with the guidelines, then they should take the appropriate steps to change them, not unilaterally ignore them as a matter of course.

The second consideration is my method of editing. I make considerable use of the preview button, and also economise by making up articles simultaneously in a word document separately from Wiki. In other words I deliberately keep my uploads to a minimum, which I understand is good practice. As an example, a major expansion of Damien Hirst from 1703 words to 3950 words (i.e. 2247 words), including 20 references linking to 28 places in the article, was accomplished in a single edit. The article Stuckist demonstrations, which I started from scratch, has 5239 words, including 41 references linking to 50 places in the article, and took 38 edits (I was getting a bit tired at the end).

In comparison, a featured article by multiple editors on Paul Kane of similar length (5482 words) took 401 edits. Triumph of the Will, with multiple editors, has 6116 words, with 18 references linking to 35 places in the article, and took about 650 edits.

I consider my edits also to be of good quality, often involving new research and having to distill a lot of information, sometimes with hard-to-find facts, the provision of which will contribute respect for Wikipedia. One sentence on Damien Hirst, for example, involved trawling through about 200 google pages, and is something of considerable significance in his background, which, as far as I know, has only ever appeared in print once. I also now use the current referencing system, which is also time-consuming to get right. Furthermore, I am conscientious about such things as Wikilinks, which means doing a search each time to make sure it's hitting the right target.

The net effect of the edit count objections which have already been made is to devalue guidelines, and encourage profligate editing practices, which cannot be to anyone's real advantage. I could easily have notched up 3 or 5 times as many edits—with exactly the same content contributed. It reduces judgement to the lowest common denominator, and advances quantity over quality. It is an easy, but potentially dangerous way of evaluation. Good quality contributions, where careful practice has kept edit counts down, should be encouraged, not penalised.

I have, for the record, actually been editing for a year now with another 75 edits before I started with my user name.

2 Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?

As I put in my statement, "My approach is to take things one step at a time," so I would not envisage taking any drastic action to start with, until I had gained more experience of using admin powers. I would be cautious about blocking anyone in the first instance, and might well consult with a more experienced admin the first time I was contemplating doing this. I cannot see that I would have the need to consider indefinitely blocking someone, as, if necessary, a temporary block would stop the problem in the short term, and, if it persisted, I don’t see that I would consider that ultimate sanction unilaterally. If there were a severe problem, I would certainly consult with someone with more experience (as I have over other issues to date). I use power cautiously. As I said, I try to follow the guidelines.

I would like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to look at my application conscientiously, in order to gain further useful information to make an informed judgement, and I would be pleased to go into anything in further detail if it would be helpful in this regard.

Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An examination of policies and guidelines for RfA

I have been somewhat taken aback and disappointed by the 4 oppose and 1 neutral votes to date, not because they are "rejections" but because of the arbitrary imposition of personal preference over not only Wiki guidelines, but also over Wiki policy (I expand on this below). The only way a community project can succeed is if there are communal rules and understandings, which are respected and fulfilled. I do not consider the "oppositions" meet those standards. I am used to dealing with contention in my non-Wiki life, so that doesn't worry me. What does worry me is the undermining of objective standards. I should point out that I am not suggesting that there is any malevolent intent, more that standards have slipped. I hope that, whatever the outcome of this RfA, it may at least stimulate a debate about the process and lead to some self-examination.

I believe the first 4 oppose votes and the first neutral should be discounted on the basis that Wiki guidelines and policy have not been followed in making them.

In order to provide a proper context, I refer to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which states:

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

Thus the nature of a policy is clearly spelt out, namely:

a standard that all users should follow.

The page then expands on this:

A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.

A guideline is defined on the same page as follows:

A guideline is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it.

And also:

In addition to the generally accepted policies listed above, a very large number of guidelines have been proposed and adopted by Wikipedians. These are used to provide guidance in various situations that arise on Wikipedia. They cover everything from naming conventions and sensitive terms that should be avoided to how to get along, and why not to bite the newcomers.

Even guidelines, therefore, being "authorised by consensus" should normally be followed with only "the occasional exception". I suggest that in the RfA process the exception has become the rule. This may necessitate the rule being changed through the proper process, but in the meantime it is an an example of bad practice, which needs to be redressed.

However, a policy is an even stricter requirement, and "a standard that all users should follow" and "even less likely to have exceptions." There must be extreme conditions for it to be ignored, yet the current practice on granting admin rights allows voters to blatantly ignore policy as a matter of course. Again, if this policy needs to be changed, then it should be done so through a proper consensual process and established as such, but meanwhile its abuse is a deterioration of standards for Wiki. Such deterioration would not be tolerated in articles with POV and there is no more reason that it should be tolerated in RfA.

Wikipedia:Administrators states:

Administrators are Wikipedians who have access to a few technical features that help with maintenance ("SysOp rights"). Wikipedia policy is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. [my underlining]

I cannot stress strongly enough that this is stated as "Wikipedia policy". According to Wiki policy, there are therefore only two points to be considered:

• if the nominee has been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while"
• if the nominee is "generally a known and trusted member of the community".

If the nominee fulfills these criteria, then it is Wiki policy that that person should be granted administrator access. In regard to these two criteria:

• I have been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while".

Please note that this policy does not specify any requirement for the amount of activity, only that the nominee has been "active". However, even Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, gives a guideline of probably at least 1,000 edits, which I have exceeded, and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship gives an "informal, minimalistic guide" of "at least 3 months", which again I have exceeded.

• I am "generally a known and trusted member of the community." I am sufficiently well known and trusted to have been awarded two barnstars for my contributions. I cannot see that there is anything in my history at Wiki not to show me as trustworthy. I have not been involved in edit wars; I have not made 3 reverts in 24 hours; I have not vandalised any pages; I have not been abusive or uncivil; my articles have not been disputed for accuracy. On the contrary, I have reverted vandalism and left the appropriate "test" templates; I have notified an admin about some consistent abuse and been thanked for my vigilance; I have intervened to help settle disputes; I have left welcome messages on new contributors' talk pages; I have held dialogues with other editors where necessary to consult about points I was unsure of or to inform them as to why I was removing material that they had contributed.

There is, according to Wiki policy no reason not to grant my request for admin rights.

I am particularly concerned that potentially good administrators are being either put off altogether from applying due a process that can be perceived as a "kangaroo court", where the law is not administered fairly—and are unwilling to submit themselves to its arbitrariness—or are applying and being rejected because of subjective opinions, which violate policy. It is one thing to have a request denied because it does not meet the requirements of guidelines and policy, but a highly different one if the nominee has studied the guidelines and policy, fulfilled them and is still turned down. That is something that will obviously cause bad feeling and lack of faith in the system and other editors.

It is a poor example when voters assessing someone's fitness to uphold Wiki's policies, guidelines and procedures, are themselves in breach of those same rules, and seemingly unaware of their existence. This situation needs to be addressed.

The means to do this is also stated in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, namely:

You are a Wikipedia editor. Since Wikipedia has no editor-in-chief or top-down article approval mechanism, active participants make copyedits and corrections to the format and content problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors.

Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies, such as Vandalism are enforced by Administrators by blocking users. In extreme cases the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive situations, as part of the general dispute resolution procedure.

I trust that the obvious concern of the voters so far for the betterment of Wiki will cause them to "self-police", in order to redress matters at the first stage, now that this situation has been pointed out.

Guide to requests for adminship

In respect of my own request, I address points on the page Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, with the text from the page in italics and my comments in normal type:

What RfA contributors look for

RfA contributors want to see a record of involvement and evidence that you can apply Wikipedia policies calmly, maturely and impartially. What are often looked for are:

Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles.

I have detailed the nature of my editing already.

Varied experience. RfAs where an editor has mainly contributed on one subject have tended to be more controversial than those where the user's contributions have been wider.

I concentrate on art, but have edited a much wider range of articles to a lesser extent, including military, naval and geographical subjects.

User interaction. Evidence of you talking to other users, on article talk or user talk pages. These interactions need to be helpful and polite.

I have fulfilled these criteria.

Trustworthiness General reliability as evidence that you would use administrator rights carefully to avoid irreversible damage, especially in the stressful situations that can arise more frequently for Administrators.

I have already given a relevant statement on this.

Helping with chores. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as RC Patrol and articles for deletion.

Again, I have already made the point that I am zealous as regarding vandalism, which I regularly look out for.

High quality of articles – a good way to demonstrate this is getting articles featured.

My work has been commended by Solipsist.

Observing policy A track record of working within policy, showing an understanding of policy.

I trust the previous observations show my understanding of, and attention to, the correct application of policy.

Edit summaries. Constructive and frequent use of edit summaries is a quality some RfA contributors want to see. See Wikipedia:Edit summary.

I always try to make use of edit summaries, and have 99% on major edits. I am surprised it's as low as 49% on minor edits and don't understand how this happened, but it will make me more vigilant in future.

Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is good as an argument for why some policy and guideline pages should be perhaps updated to reflect current practice, but doesn't really suggest that there is a problem with the oppose votes here. These policies are not intended to be a sort of code of law in the way your interpret them. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the oppose votes is that they are not following Wiki policy. I find it surprising that you don't think policies need to be adhered to, and wonder how you interpret the statement which I quoted earlier:

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

Surely a "standard that all users should follow" is the same as "a code of law". Otherwise it makes a nonsense of the policies and they become irrelevant, unhelpful, and, in a case like mine at the moment, leading someone completely up the garden path. I have followed the policy in good faith, only to find it now becomes irrelevant. Is that what you are advocating?

Tyrenius 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reality that someone simply reading the policies is likely to be led up the garden path as to how Wikipedia works. That's because Wikipedia's policy system is fundamentally different from a code of law; a code of law is intended to be explicit and universally consistent, while Wikipedia's policies center on community norms that are interpreted on a case by case basis. Hence why many of the oppose voters place such a high emphasis on project-space edits -- it can be difficult to actually learn how the policies work without experience in applying and interpreting them. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that when I read your argument, the thing that sprang to mind was George Orwell's 1984, where everything means something different to what it really is. I have put my case at the top of my RfA.

Tyrenius 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, the requirements you cite, "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while" and "generally a known and trusted member of the community", necessarily involve some subjective determination by the individuals who participate in the RfA process. There are rules of thumb, but these are only rules of thumb, no more. --bainer (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above 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.