Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aktron

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] Aktron

Final (talk page) (14/10/4); Scheduled to end 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC), ended 20:37, 1 October 2007 (withdrawn by candidate)

Aktron (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedian since 2005. Since late february 2006 I've been also an admin on Czech Wikipedia, where I am also very active (22 000+ edits).

From time to time, I was visiting en. wiki (interwiki, articles for translation into Czech and so on). Then I have seen that problems with vandalism are here more serious than on smaller projects (cs, bs - sometimes I revert "experiments" also on bosnian wiki). I tried to help, but it took quite a lot of time. I think that with administrator access such work could be done better, faster, and in easier way.

[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: Recent changes and New pages patrol. Not very often - not every day. But sometimes so and I hope that active.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On en.wiki not a lot. Some I have written for the Soviet metro wikiproject. On cs. wiki I have created 3 FA, one GA and hundreds of smaller articles. I am also active on commons (2000+ uploads).
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: On en.wiki the most significant problem for me was the 71.99 editor, who was vandalising my own userpage and such pages of other cs. users. I want administrator rights only because of patrolling and reverting vandalism/blocking vandals and I really do not plan some great action about this user. It may look now I want revenge, block whole 71.99. range but I think today we have another problems. When reading article and there is huge text "LADA IS A CRAP" i think we should do something.
Optional question from Roger Davies
4. Do you think your English is sufficiently good to understand nuance? Vandalism isn't always a matter of writing "LADA IS CRAP", often it's more subtle than that. With New Pages, the style is often the only key to distinguishing between a genuine but unreferenced article and spam.
A: I think my en indicator (see userpage) explains that. Of course that there are different kinds of vandalism, for example POV changing not visible at first sight. I understand, that with 2M+ articles it is not easy to find the border between acceptable article and spam. But spam has its own style, it is presented in some way, so it can be found. Guidelines are important in this; references can also decide (vanity pages) and notability can be proven. Spam and vanity page can be written with good style, images can be added, category also, but still it is a spam. Also, I have seen that some quite fine articles here have started from substub with one line. --Aktron (t|c) 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Question by V. Z.
5. Do you promise to reply e-mails or you will ignore them the same way as you do on cs:? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V. Z. (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Aktron before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support already a trusted user on other wikis, no reason not to trust him here. T Rex | talk 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ye, he's quite good. Petr K 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Well intentioned and has admin rights on another wiki - i.e. he knows what he's doing. User:Veesicle 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Supportper above. With all due respect, Pedro, I don't think it is germaine to base an oppose on a mistake form nine months ago. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - I don't understand Pedro' oppose comment and since he/she has not posted any response to clear them up, I don't see any reason to oppose. Also Aktron is already a trusted member on another wik and I see no reason to think he would misuse admin tools.--Bryson 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support for now, because I don't see any arguments not to. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. No evidence to suggest that Aktron will be abusive with the tools. Acalamari 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Ano, Dêkuji Jmlk17 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Considering the fact that this RfA profile is very much similar to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Samulili immediately below this one, (both users primarily edit non-english wikis and both admit that they are not really that active on en.wiki, with similar "experience" on en.wiki in terms of time and edit count), I am a bit curious (and quite surprised) to see you support this user. Would you mind explaning here why you would support this user, or explaining there why you would oppose that user? Or am I missing something very obvious? If I am, please inform me and I'll go quietly and hide in my boat. I would have asked this question at your oppose on the other RfA, but I was afraid that I'd be accused of harassing the opposers :P - TwoOars (Rev) 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems to be genuinely useful editor and cross-fluency in Czech/English would definitely be an asset to the project. No reason to think he would misuse tools. Ronnotel 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Of course CO2 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support - Agree with Siva1979 above, likely that editor won't abuse tools. (Change to neutral) ScarianTalk 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Good vandal-fighter, demonstrating a clear need for the tools. His English seems OK to me; admittedly it might hold him back if he was trying to mediate content disputes, but I'm sure he's competent enough to deal with vandals, most of whom aren't terribly literate anyway. :-) Anyway, his participation in projectspace discussions like this demonstrates that he can speak good enough English to understand the English Wikipedia's internal processes and to interact with other editors. All in all, I see no compelling reasons to oppose. WaltonOne 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per huge volume of edits to the Czech-wiki, and enough to get by at English-wiki; sysop in that other wiki, so he probably won't abuse the tools here. Opposition raises some concerns, but those are not worrisome enough in this case. Bearian 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, nothing too concerning. And as far as I can tell, his command of English is better than many of our (allegedly) native-speaking admins. At least he knows where the shift key is. Neil ム 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Regretful Oppose. this is en.wikipedia and user pages are not WP:AIV. Sorry, Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, your username is non-English; since this is the English Wikipedia, your vote does not count – – Gurch 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That first link is an interwikilink - what language do you propose he uses? ViridaeTalk 21:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And the second one was written in times when I have no idea that AIV exist. Nobody is perfect.Aktron (t|c) 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with interwiki links? o.O User:Veesicle 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Pedro, you do realize that these links are from 11 months ago? --DarkFalls talk 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Pedro, what is wrong with adding interwiki links? The edit summary was perfectly fine; I use the exact same format for my interwiki edits,[1][2][3][4] even when editing here.[5][6][7] There's absolutely nothing wrong with maintaining the interwiki links; if anything, it shows a strong dedication to the full scope of Wikipedia, outside of just the English edition. Definitely something to be encouraged. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Struck my oppose and will abstain. The point is not the interwiki link, which I do understand. The point was I like to be able to read edit summaries that are in English, rather than a cut and paste of the contribution. I see however this is not convention (per Evula's diffs) and apologise to the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  07:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I'm sure I'll be shouted down for this, but the candidate isn't fluent enough in English for me to support their promotion. Being an admin means being able to explain things, politely and clearly, to people from all walks of life. While this candidate might be a really great contributor, the grammar was so confused in several of his statements here and in other talk spaces as to give me serious pause. I feel so xenophobic saying this, but I just can't support until you can demonstrate a stronger proficiency in the language of this wiki. VanTucky Talk 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I think that's not a bad point. But I'm sure the nom has a fix. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Adminship is about trust with the tools, not knowing when to use which vs. that. Candidate has a basic proficiency in English, which in my mind should not be a disqualification. Ronnotel 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Lack of fluency in English is a reason for me not to trust a user with the tools. Even acting in good faith, someone who lacks the ability to make themselves sufficiently understood could cause disaster. VanTucky Talk 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    FWIW, I find that the ability to speak in un-accented English does not correlate with the ability to avoid making an ass out of yourself. ;) Ronnotel 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Firstly, I think VanTucky's concerns are legitimate. Also, Aktron's userpage says "Here I'm, because I can't be unregistered to edit articles". It's simply not true that unregistered users can't edit articles, and I can't support an admin candidate who makes such a basic mistake. He also admits on his userpage that "Here, on en.wiki I will contribute very seldom". His contribution rate on this wiki is pretty low, and I don't have confidence that Aktron really understands the culture of this wiki. I therefore feel I must oppose. Zaxem 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, that statement is on the page for a quite long. I haven't edited my userpage here a lot, introducing my cs-layout is also planned. --Aktron (t|c) 06:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose I know it's bad, but I just don't think this user has enough edits to really show that he deserves admin privelages. I'll review it more later, but for now - my opinion stands as this. tosh²(talk) 05:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose due to lack of experience in English wiki. Additionally, I believe that VanTucky's concerns are well-founded. An admin needs to clearly explain any administrative decisions. Therefore, an admin on the English wiki needs to have the ability to speak English well. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Aktron is not sufficiently active. Nor does he have the required understanding of Wikipedia policies. Axl 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm sorry, but on the English Wikipedia, I believe that candidates should be able to speak with an above average standard of English, and I'm afraid you haven't shown that. Q1 also bothers me.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, it seems to me that user "H2O" forgot to add "Oppose" to his vote. Pls make sure it is counted nethertheless. Or shall I add it? Don't like editing other's postings..Gray62 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    It isn't needed. Just putting a comment in the 'Oppose' section without indenting it is enough for bots to count it; even placing a comment in the 'Discussion' section at the top is sufficient for bureaucrats to take it into account (and if it expresses an opinion that is clearly 'support' or 'oppose', they'll take it as such, even if it doesn't have a bolded recommendation at the start.) --ais523 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Several reasons: Aktron isn't active enough at this Wikipedia, and this would make it difficult for him to follow up on his administrative actions. And, sry, but his english language skills are imho not sufficient for serious discussions, making it harder for users to argue against his actions, etc. Also, he didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin tools to do the simple (however, necessary!) anti-vandalism stuff he does. As a czech admin, he should be able to answer this. I checked his diffs (hit-and-run jobs, no discussions), and I don't see why he needs admin rights for this, or how this proves admin skills. And I don't think that admin rights really make the job easier, shouldn't it be the opposite sometimes? Also, he wrote: "I've been also an admin" in Cz. Well, is he, still? Any complains there? We don't know. His admin job at the other Wiki is used as an arguement that he should have the same rights here. But nobody seems to have checked his statements (there has to be someone with sufficient language skills). In absence of compelling answers to those open questions, and because of concerns about taking this decision too lightheartedly, I vote 'No'. Gray62 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I can explain it in different way - UNDO is not fast and good enough to stop some kind of vandals. Blocking is nescessary, because of the guys having Test-3 or Test-4 templates in their talk page are sometimes "editing" like without noticements.
    OK. I currently have administrator rights on cs. wiki; My first RfA was in Februry 2006 (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o práva správce/Aktron, ending with results (20/3/1), second RfA was in June 2007 (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o práva správce/Aktron (potvrzení)), ending with results (44/7/6). Of course there were some disputes because of me, nobody is totally "clear".
    If I were an admin here, I'd be surely much more active than now. So as in cs. wiki - just see the editcount. I have clearly written in the first three questions section what I want to do. Decision is up to you. --Aktron (t|c) 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Aktron, thx for answering, I appreciate that! Hmm, those RfA results look good, but why are there two of them? And, pls don't take this personally, but I would like to see mediation skills in an admin. If an admin is good at solving conflicts, he won't need to use blocking and other serious means so much. Regarding your 'language handicap', I really don't see this in you, yet, but I'm quite certain you'll get there. Successful work at those russian or czechian related articles in the next future would be a strong argument for adminship. Again, thx for answering, but right now I still stand opposed. Gray62 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. While it is great that this user is active in the Czech Wikipedia, I don't think that he has been active enough on the English Wikipedia to justify adminship at this time. Phgao 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. He just locked an article which was vandalized by some of IP addresses with summary "edit war" which is in this case nonsense. So because he is unable to guard rc and act carefully on his "home" project I don't believe he'd be able here. Honza Záruba 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    As you know, articles like cs:Radek Hulán are very often target of vandalism. And please, if you are expressing this, you should also write that another admin did it in the same time like me. What is wrong then? If single IP would be used, then blocking is reasonable. Not in such case we had a few minutes ago.
    Jak jistě víš, články jako cs:Radek Hulán jsou velmi často terčem vandalismu. A prosím, pokud už píšeš tohle, tak bys také měl uvést, že další správce to zamkl se mnou. Co je tedy špatně? Pokud by editovala jedna IP, potom má blok smysl. V našem případě, který se před pár minutami odehrál, nemá. --Aktron (t|c) 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strongly oppose. One of the worst of the Czech sysops. More than year a ago he intentionally breached privacy of my friend on cs:, he refused to repair it even when I multiply asked him to do so. —V. Z. 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, and a regretful one. While VanTucky makes a commanding argument, there have been other admins with an English level of en-3. Then again, this is a self-assessment, not anything scientific. Maybe if you're a bit more fluent in English, I'll support. Regards, Ανέκδοτο 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    en-3 is very much a self-assessment. I've seen self-styled en-2's that were more fluent than others that gave themselves en-4's. Fortunately, in an RfA, there are usually enough exchanges with the candidate to judge for yourself. --A. B. (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral (Changed from support) I didn't read through the answers so clearly. I trust you and I have completely 100% faith that you won't abuse the tools but the communication with users may prove difficult. I think you could be a valuable contributor but your grasp of English, unfortunately, lets you down. Sorry friend. ScarianTalk 11:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for now. Good guy and I want to say "support" but en.wikipedia experience and English fluency are concerns. (Note, I'm hardly one to talk -- I'm cs-0 and fr-1). In the meantime, I appreciate his contributions as an editor on the en.wikipedia and I hope he'll keep it up. --A. B. (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, sharing concerns others have raised. I agree that being able to explain administrative action can be important, especially when dealing with new users. Still, a strong candidate in several respects with heaps of experience. — xDanielx T/C 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
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.