Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd

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.

Contents

[edit] Abd

Final: (0/9/0); Ended, 21:07 10 October 2007 (UTC) - WP:SNOW closure. Acalamari 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Abd (talk · contribs) - Abd has been here since 2005 and has rapidly familiarized himself with Wikipedia policies and procedures. He is a prolific writer whose analytical thinking, reasoned responses and willingness to delve into complex matters and see them through to their conclusion will likely prove useful in investigating situations and dealing with them fairly and thoroughly. Captain Zyrain 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the gracious and unexpected nomination. Abd 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


While I am currently heavily involved in some struggles against what I see as the propaganda use of Wikipedia by a political organization, I am actually far more interested in what Wikipedia is and what it can become than I am in any particular special cause. It dovetails with my major work, which I will explain in detail and make accessible. I would consider it my responsibility to use administrative privileges only in pursuit of the realization of Wikipedia ideals, assisting users as needed and to the extent that I can make myself available, trusting the informed community consensus, and not to advance any personal goals other than this. I'm a firm believer that freedom of thought and expression, bounded by certain necessities, are essential for intelligence. Abd 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:I would serve in various capacities to extend my experience, a little of this and a little of that, but, primarily, I would bring my experience with consensus process, which is extensive outside of Wikipedia, to the process here. It appears to me that this prior experience has made me able to more or less intuit what will be Policy here, I have not actually read nearly as much as I would consider necessary, so I would tread carefully. I understand Conflict of Interest, as well, and would scrupulously avoid it, or even the appearance of it, when working as an administrator.
(added after some comment below) I was completely unprepared for the nomination. It came from someone who initially protested at my intervention, but, apparently, he went back and read what I had actually written, which, I know, was not easy, I do, in fact, write a lot, that is connected with the ADHD mentioned below. So being nominated by him practically floored me.
On the other hand, I have been a professional editor and do know how to be succinct; the problem is that it takes me much longer, it takes me twice as long to write half as much. You will see my ability to be succinct in the article pages, not in Talk, though I realize that I can be more effective, often, if I'm more restrained.
I have no attachment to the idea of being an administrator, and considered declining the nomination. But I decided, instead, to simply trust the community. If this community asks me to help with administrative tasks, I would do so to the extent of my ability and with full respect for the community consensus. I have functioned as the parliamentary equivalent of an administrator, as the chair of, for example, a national conference of delegates in an organization where people hardly agreed on the time of day, on many issues, and was able to facilitate the rapid expression of consensus, where, for years, others had failed. I'm proud of my accomplishments, indeed, and, through my involvement over the last few weeks, I've come to a much deeper appreciation of what Wikipedia is, and how important it is, for the implications transcend simply creating an encyclopedia; if we can find consensus about knowledge, what about community action? How can democracy be scaled? With no action on my part, Wikipedia became a test bed for concepts I've been working on for years, and it is a deep pleasure to see how much of what I anticipated has become real.
So, regardless of what happens with this nomination, my hat is off to the community, and that sentiment has nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection of this nomination. I'm here and would take no offense at all if it is declined, I am honored merely to have been nominated.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The best is happening now, or, actually, just over. I intervened to confront the domination of an article by banned sock puppets and an anonymous editor, plus an apparent meat puppet brought in by that anonymous editor, and the result was that the socks were blocked, the article partially frozen to interrupt new socks (he is persistent) and the anonymous editor (not really anonymous, the IP was actually known IP for a person with about as large a COI as is possible, itself noteworthy, but not here), and simultaneously began to attract attention to the article from participants in the Voting Systems Project, and the article is currently being cleaned up with the help of experienced Wikipedians, plus extended input is being obtained from the entire community of election methods experts, though an independent project started for this very purpose.
I've made small edits here and there over the last few years, nothing major until now. It should be understood that the reputation of Wikipedia in the election methods community was very low, largely a result of the tactics that were being used here by editors with a COI. It is quite discouraging, particularly for a newcomer to Wikipedia, to sincerely edit an article with, say, six edits' and then see them, within a day, all gone, reverted by an anonymous editor with the only explanation being that the original editor was a "critic." It's unusual for such people to come back, to stick around long enough to understand the process, the problem, and what to do about it.
By confronting the situation, reverting sock and anonymous edits which I saw as maintaining an external political agenda (but not edits by legitimate and known users, nor NPOV edits even by the socks), I took the risk of 3RR sanctions myself, but, as I expected, when an administrator looked at the situation, it was blatantly obvious what was going on, hence the strong response. I did not initiate the complaint, they did, through a new SPA sock, and thus brought down the blocking response on themselves.
The "meat puppet", an editor who was a personal friend of the anonymous editor above, who appeared immediately after my entry into editing the article, and I am very well known by the organization involved, is a published author on the subject with an outside affiliation that clearly makes him have a COI; and he was blocked indefinitely by the blocking administrator. Because, however, my view is that the community of editors working on the article needs to have participation by all sides, he was a known representative of one side, and he had not been properly warned, etc., I intervened to suggest that an indefinite ban was too strong a remedy, and this was noted in the WP:ANI consideration of that request, and apparently a factor in the unblock decision. Time will tell if this was a help for the article or a hindrance. The intervention by experienced Wikipedians seems to be turning the tide.
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:I have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and am very familiar with the symptoms and effects and how I could easily become obsessed with activities like this. I was, actually, triggered by administrative response to my first report of abusive editing of the article in question, I am sensitive to unjust positions taken by people in positions of authority, or, in this case, a response that was based on an inadequate perception of the situation, a knee-jerk response by an administrator who clearly did not have the time to investigate more carefully, since it wasn't a subtle or controversial situation. I think I had one night with difficulty sleeping over that, it pushed an old button. However, I used the opportunity to learn more about how Wikipedia is functioning, its strengths and shortcomings, and, eventually, my responses to this will be contributed to this community. I don't need administrator status to do that, and, in fact, I don't need administrator status at all. I have extensive support with my ADHD, which is actually a blessing when recognized and appropriately supported.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Abd before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Abd, based on your revised comments above indicating second thoughts on your part about accepting this nomination, I suggest you consider withdrawing it now. Ronnotel 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, but you edit count is just way too low for me to support this RfA. nattang 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not enough experience to demonstrate a good handle on policy nor to demonstrate trustwortiness. Please don't let this RFA discourage you from contributing. Build up a few thousand edits, especially in admin-like areas, such as WP:XFD and WP:AIV, then you will have my support. I recommend withdrawing this RFA. Useight 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose More experience required. Also, I am curious as to why the candidate did not answer the questions if he is interested in adminship. Miranda 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    And, I am also worried that this candidate may be biased and not have a neutral point of view in some articles due to his userpage. Miranda 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose 247 total edits is not enough to judge whether you have a solid grasp of Wikipedia policies & guidelines. Please withdraw and try again in the future. — Scientizzle 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. No NHRHS2010 Talk 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. No'. 5 edits to wikipedia space? That doesn't prove that this user knows the policies. --Hirohisat 紅葉 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. No. Vague nom statement about removing "propaganda" on the one hand and promoting free speech on the other. One does not need admin tools to remove point of view problems. Ironically, nom's user page seems to be selling a way to gauge consensus. This suggests nom lacks an understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it disturbs me to see a user engaged in "struggles" requesting the block and delete buttons. The way to resolve conflict is through discussion and consensus building. The user has been here a while, yet has not made more than 500 edits. This is not sufficient to gain the needed experience in Wikipedia's policies. I would suggest that nom withdraw. This looks like a WP:SNOWBALL. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I would further suggest that you, the nominator, and others involved in the ongoing edit warring seek some form of dispute resolution. This has been going on for some time, and you need help from outside, disinterested editors. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Part of the problem is that voting systems such as instant runoff voting involve a lot of arcane details and esoteric concepts that few people are particularly knowledgeable about, which has made it difficult for outsiders to objectively judge the correct version to revert to based on facts and adjudicate disputes to everyone's satisfaction. Also, Arrow's Theorem proved that a perfect voting system cannot exist; for that reason, those who are interested in such things are forever debating the pros, cons and tradeoffs of these systems, and it is inevitable that some will prefer to stress the good points of a particular system, while others will want to point out the flaws. Captain Zyrain 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per all above and recommend withdrawal. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose This report at WP:AN/3RR demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of WP policies. You weren't able to create a properly formatted report, even when asked to repeat, and then you launched into a 2000 word diatribe when your request is denied. Sorry to be so frank, Abd, but you've got a long way to go. Ronnotel 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    They've been edit warring for some time. I can imagine they're all getting pretty frayed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.