Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/(aeropagitica)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] (aeropagitica)

final (40/10/5) ending 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(aeropagitica) (talk · contribs) – (aeropagitica) has contributed greatly to Wikipedia with over 2,500 edits, and he has been active in many areas in the last few months. He has made many helpful edits to WP:AFD, tagging pages for speedy deletion, and other projects, so he can be trusted as an admin. King of Hearts | (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.  (aeropagitica)  23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Yippee, I get to be the first! David | Talk 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator, of course. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support have seen this chap around, helping on AfDs.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, even though the majority of edits are within the past three months, that meets my criteria. I feel confident that this user would utilize the mop to its maximum potential. --ZsinjTalk 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, edits on AfD are contributions rather than simple yea/nay votes. Lack of user talk is compensated for by the type of interaction on AfD (many edits are of the "comment" variety). No doubt would live up to the answers given below. Kuru talk 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. User talk counts are not important when considering someone for admin duties. Waggers 10:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support; would prefer more article and user talk edits, but I've seen him around and I highly doubt admin powers will be abused. Johnleemk | Talk 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per Johnleemk. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, meets my standards. No reason to oppose. Essexmutant 14:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, I don't see why not. Stifle 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Per Blnguyen. Lbbzman 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. (support). — Feb. 28, '06 [20:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  14. Support. He's a very good editor, and has backed up his opinions on AfD very well. I liked the answers to the questions below also. I'm not that worried about lack of talk page edits for him. I think he'll do a good job. -- Samir ∙ TC 03:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per nominator Juppiter 04:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Joe I 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Terence Ong 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Good candidate, and good luck. haz (user talk)e 10:17, 1 March 2006
  19. Support. Might be a little inexperienced quantitatively, but has enough good qualities to make up for it. -Colin Kimbrell 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Good edits. Will make a good admin. Gflores Talk 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support based mostly on answers to questsions. --Cymsdale 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support based on answers to my three additional quaestions. NSLE (T+C) at 00:25 UTC (2006-03-02)
  23. Support--Jusjih 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. BD2412 T 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Great edits, great contributions to AfD. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Flowerparty■ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Changed to support. I continue to see great work on AFD, and he is a fellow Wikipedian in Gloucestershire after all :) --kingboyk 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral, leaning towards support. Wonderful advocate on AFD and a good editor. I've agonised about this ever since the RFA was launched, and I just can't push myself into the 'support' group at the moment because of the woeful number of Talk: edits. I may change my mind, and I'd certainly support a month or 2 down the line if he continues his great work and involves himself in discussion a little more. I accept that AFD is discussion, but it's of a different kind. --kingboyk 17:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per my interactions/observations involving AfDs. --CrypticBacon 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Mjal 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. "Adminship is no big deal" - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Prodego talk 15:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, he is doing good work and will do fine as an admin. NoSeptember talk 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. No big deal. He's an asset. -- Krash (Talk) 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support although some more interaction would be nice. Raven4x4x 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support good editor --rogerd 03:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Extra support with knobs on. I've had a few encounters with this user and he looks OK. Besides, how could I oppose an atheist Trekkie who dislikes American English? =) JIP | Talk 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support And good luck. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support could use the mop, bucket, and squeegee well. --Jay(Reply) 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough interaction with other people. He only has about 70 edits to talk pages ILovePlankton 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose needing some more talk page edits. --James 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    As per Kuru's comments above, my interactions with my peers have mostly been in the AfD pages rather than talking to contributors directly. Not to say that I haven't done this on occasion or will make greater contributions to Talk pages in the future. I felt that authors & editors who valued my opinion would do so in the context of overall constructive criticism of the AfD contributors. This being said, I did make a point of placing my comments regarding and article on Monday's AfD page on to the author's Talk page as I wanted to emphasise the criteria behind writing an editing a good article for WP. I made sure that my comments were constructive rather than nit-picking or derogatory before posting and as a result I now feel more confident about offering the same level of service to other contributors in the future.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose Aeropagitica's speech convinced me a little, but less than 70 is still too low. A different kind of communication is needed when talking to people on User:talk rather than Project namespace. Admins needs to understand both of them! DaGizzaChat © 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Seems to lack experience with active participation only from December. Checking contributions from the last month, I see AfD "votes" and adding cats to articles. Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any substantive content edits. I think prospective admins should be well-rounded and that includes writing for the encyclopedia. -- JJay 09:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weakly oppose on the basis of time on project. Having edits to AfD can mean a great deal of interaction -- moreso than a similar number of edits to templates or boxes, for example -- so it's not exactly an isolated pursuit. (AfD is a chatty spot from time to time.) AfD is also one of the crucible spots of the project, where losing one's cool will be seen somewhat quickly, but I also think that folks need time on project to show whether they're going to peter out when the romance of novelty wears off or when they encounter their first Absolute Truth that no one else agrees with. Geogre 11:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, per JJay. Please keep building the encyclopedia and try again after a few months of active participation. Jonathunder 13:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for now, fully expect to support next time round. Dlyons493 Talk 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose as above.Zaheer89 01:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per JJay and low talk edits. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Geogre. More time is needed for the user to understand wiki-process. Xoloz 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Good candidate but needs more experience. --Ghirla | talk 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. neutral, leaning towards support. Good user, but needs a bit more interaction with other editors. Will happily support in a couple of months if Aeropagita continues as at present. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral very little use of Talk or User talk areas, admins need high communications skills xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. as per all of above. pschemp | talk 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral leaning support, unsure about the amount and breadth of experience. No need to rush into adminship. --Malthusian (21!) (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 89% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See (aeropagitica)'s edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Formatting and templating the Star Trek TOS, Star Trek:TNG and Star Trek:ENT pages. There are many more to do but I have made an effective contribution to cleaning up the many pages that make up the episode guides. The pleasure from templating comes from seeing the improvements in layout, readability and navigation around the articles. These qualities are just as important as the content of the articles, as I believe that pages have to be easy to use as well as to read and understand.
Generally, I am also pleased with my contributions towards categorising pages, stubbing, researching and providing external links where available. I am also pleased with monitoring the new pages page and assisting editors with works-in-progress or spotting and tagging pages for improvement or deletion. This can sometimes become an all-consuming task in itself, depending upon the time of day or week!
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. The closest that I have come to conflict on WP can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fundamentalist_atheist. A user reacted in a personal and aggressive manner regarding my contribution to the debate. I decided not to give the rise to the potential aggressor as it was clear to me that there was little change of a reconciliation of views or even a dispassionate debate on theistic attitudes. Rather than escalate the conflict, I thought it best under those circumstances to rise above it and let the matter go.


Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
In the first instance, I would refer to WP:SOCK for guidance. This states:
Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
I would then have to provide evidence for my discovery. Firstly, I would apply the 100-edit rule to the accounts in question. If they had fewer than 100 edits and the IP addresses were similar and opinions were registered closely to one another then I would be suspicious. I would then go to m:Help:CheckUser and read through to determine if my request for a user check would be permitted. The following statement suggests that it would be valid:
It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon.
I would then contact one of the authorised users of the CheckUser facility on the English WP, listed at [1], presenting my evidence as a business case for the search.
With the evidence in hand, my next step would be to contact the editor-in-question with the evidence of sockpuppetry clearly laid out. At this point I would ask them to cease and descist their abuse of WP and, with their agreement, tag and block the sockpuppet accounts. If they choose to dispute the evidence, I would then go to requests for arbitration and lay the evidence out for a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. I wouldn't want to impugne an editor's reputation where it was possible to settle a matter fairly and without a fuss.  (aeropagitica)  17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
I would talk to the admin who applied the speedy tag, stating my reasons for disagreeing and including as much evidence as I had available to negate the patent nonsense criteria. I would then respectfully ask that the page be presented on AfD for a consensus and use that opportunity to place the evidence of legitimacy in the article's talk page and point towards it in my vote. I would then use the grace that the AfD process permits to edit the page in order to make the strongest possible case for retention over deletion.
Assuming that the article was deleted before I could stop it, I would talk to the deleting admin and explain my reasons for ressurecting the article. I would ask that the admin either do this themselves or permit me so to do. If permission is granted, I would then proceed with the AfD process as above. If permission is denied or requests are ignored, I would take the article to a deletion review in order to challenge the speedy deletion decision. If it came to the crunch, I would consider WP:AN/I as a last resort but only if all other avenues had been explored.  (aeropagitica)  17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


3. When closing out a certain minor WP:AFD, you realise that there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry by a well-known user, or even an admin. Upon approaching the editor, he denies it, but the clues he leaves are too obvious to ignore. His sockpuppet vote did not affect the outcome of the AFD, but what would you do? Would you call him out?
Influence or otherwise on a vote is irrelevant. It is the intention to influence that is the core of the argument. My answer is a qualified 'yes'. If the user can be proven to have demonstrated such an intent with the abuse of a vote and hasn't admitted fault when presented with the evidence, then I would take the case to the Arbitration Committee for a decision. I don't believe that it is within my purview as an administrator to determine whether some sockpuppet abusers escape censure and others are punished for such abuse. I would rather that the decision was made by those empowered by the community rather than it being an informal agreement 'not to do it again' between peers.  (aeropagitica)  17:29, 1 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.