Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex9891

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] Alex9891

Final (54/8/6) Ended 22:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex9891 (talk · contribs) – I’m nominating Alex for several reasons, in my time knowing him I have found him to be very respectable and a kind user, who is always willing to help. Alex does a lot of vandal fighting, and is a member of the Big Brother Wikiproject, and also has created several small articles (one feature I look for in a potential SysOp).1, 2

He has shown to me a good understanding and attitude of policies and guidelines and to my knowledge has never been in any conflicts. I believe he could use the “tools” primarily to block persistent vandals and spammers and clear the backlogs that occur often at AI/V. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Alex (Talk) 19:17, 21 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As an administrator I would hope to contribute in as many places as I could. Currently my favourite activity is removing vandalism, and so the “real” rollback button would be helpful here, and also the ability to block persistent vandals would be easier than having to wait for another user to do it for me. As well as user blocks, I would watch requests for unblocking, as everyone makes mistakes, including administrators. I can imagine how frustrating it might be for a user who has been wrongly blocked. Related to this, I plan to watch the WP:AIV page to deal with any reports. I also plan to watch WP:RFPP for protection requests, and I would unprotect pages which disputes over had been solved. Again, this is so as many people can edit the page as possible, after all this encyclopedia is one that “anyone can edit” and anonymous users may have some valuable information which they wish to add to a protected page which no longer needs to be.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I’m pleased with all of my contributions. I joined when Big Brother 7 (UK) was airing and I was heavily involved in the Big Brother WikiProject related to that. I have made about ten articles, most of which unfortunately are stubs still. My favourite ones are A Teenage Opera and Murder in Mind, which are still looking pretty bland but I’m not much of an article writer; I have also made quite a contribution to Cheadle Hulme, my home town, Live & Kicking, and Big Brother 7 (UK).
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: I’m glad to say I have never been involved in anything major. Of course, I’ve had the occasional minor conflict, which has been sorted relatively quickly, but I’ve never felt stressed because of issues on Wikipedia – if this should ever happen I would probably take a short break to think about things and decide an appropriate way to deal with the situation. To do this, I would firstly leave a message on the user’s talk page, but if the user does not read it or follow its instructions I would have to take further actions, especially if guidelines are not followed, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. If it looks like an edit war might break out, I would try to come to some sort of compromise which we, and any other users involved could agree to.
4. Optional: Is the glass half empty or half full?
A: Half full of course :P

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

5. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
A: It will be unlikely, in fact I expect I will edit more. The extra tools will be useful, but this is first and foremost an encyclopedia and so I will continue to contribute to articles.

Question from Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

6. It has been a very important matter in RfA's as of late, so I must ask it. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: To me, the reason WP:IAR exists to avoid wasting people's time. If, say, an editor was vandalising pages, the rules are that they should be given up to four warnings, then reported and blocked. However, I have often gone straight to test2, or test2a when I can see that they were not really testing, but making purposely malicious edits. Likewise, I often have to revert more than one edit at a time, and so I will move more than one warning up. The same can apply to XfDs – if an article is an obvious speedy delete, then I would ignore the rule that I should wait for consensus and go ahead and delete it, to avoid an unnecessary, wasteful discussion. This decision would not be taken lightly though, and (in response to opposes below) it is an area which I have not specified working in.
WP:SNOW happens a lot on RfAs, and I think it is an interesting clause. However, in the case of RfAs, I don’t believe a candidate should be withdrawn unless they want to be, because they have the choice of whether to withdraw or not. They may wish for further (negative) comments. When it is applied, it should be with common sense, and if there is any sense of debate it should not be used.
Both WP:IAR and WP:SNOW are both useful in that they speed things up, and save people a lot of time and effort.
6a. (As a benefit of doubt) You said that you will IAR and speedy articles. Does this also apply for articles that have just survived a prior XfD on record? - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A: No, because if there had been a consensus to "keep" previously, there would probably be the possibility of it being "keep" the next time round, especially if the discussions were close in time.

Optional Question from Yanksox

7. You mention that you would be involved in WP:RPP, which is always a good thing. Do you think protection is usually a good thing or a bad thing? Can you define when it would be preferable to leave a page alone, warn or block users as opposed to protecting the page?
A: Protection and semi-protection should always be used as a last resort, and for high risk page such as the main page. I believe that protection should be used on an article where there is an edit war; the protecting admin should then watch the talk page for a consensus to be reached, and as soon as it has, unprotect immediately. Events in the news (Steve Irwin for instance) cause a lot of anonymous edits, most of which are vandalism like "RIP Steve, you were da best" or something, and even if there are many editors watching, vandalism can still slip through. In this case, semi-protection should be applied, and unprotected after the event has died down. Semi-protection should not be applied to pages where just one or two editors are vandalsing, they can easily be blocked, whereas mass vandal blocks would be innappropriate.

Question from Haukur

8. Under what conditions would you consider resigning your adminship? Haukur 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A: If there was community consensus that my adminship be removed then I would let it happen without question. I wouldn't resign voluntarily, only if it was in the community (and my) best interests.

Question from Jcam

9. Should an administrator who has been desysoped by ruling of the Arbcom be allowed to reapply for admin ? Jcam 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A: It depends totally on why they were desysopped. If it was because of malicious abuse, such as blocking users they disliked, or deleting pages they didn't like on a rampage, then they should not be allowed to ever reapply, certainly not in the near future. If it was because of genuine misjudgement, but caused a desysopping they should be allowed to reapply when/if they and the ArbCom feels ready.
General comments

Alex9891's editcount summary stats as of 19:27, October 21 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support — as nominator. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Good spread of edits in user Talk, XfD, RfA, project and mainspace areas; I don't think that the tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom: After viewing several contributions looks to be a very good multifaceted editor with an exceptional temperament. Here is one response to a vandal’s insult on his user page “No, actually, I'm not. By the way I've had to cut your message down as it was taking up too much space” --Sirex98 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support Especially after reading his answer to question 1. KazakhPol 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Double edit conflict support. I've been consistently impressed with Alex to the extent of considering offering to nominate him myself. The good amount of namespace contribs and the fact that he regularly warns vandals after reverting both make me think he understands Wikipedia and will use the tools well. Picaroon9288 20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Civil user and a total work-horse. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. I was thinking of nominating Alex very soon, but I got beaten to the punch! --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Looks good, and I totally agree with his answer to Q6.--Húsönd 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian ※ Talk 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Rama's arrow 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support per answer to Q6. Exactly what I was looking for. Nishkid64 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom. Michael 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per previous interactions with the user and getting beaten to the punch on reverting vandalism. --Daniel Olsen 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, past experience tells me that Alex will make a fine sysop. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. *raises eyebrow* Alex, you told me I could co-nom with Nearly Headless Nick on the 27th. Now, unless I've got my dates all screwed up... :p Ah, support, obviously. riana_dzasta 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. PEANUTS!!!!!!That caught your eye, didn't it?  Jorcoga  05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support  Doctor Bruno  07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Civil, very unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 12:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I don't think answer to question 6 indicates likelihood to abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support appears to have the experience, honestly can't see any problems in the answers.--Andeh 16:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Clarified his answer to Q6, so I see no reason to oppose. NauticaShades 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. I was going to say "Strong Support" from what I've seen, but some of the answers made me think that this user is mostly focused on vandalism in place of more important things such as XfD. Anyways, has enough experience and is a valuable member for the community. --Esteban F. (con.) 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. (edit conflict)Changed from neutral. Good luck! - Mike | Talk 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support-Seems like he'll do a good job.--SUIT42 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per nom, answers, comments. Good editor with solid contributions, no issues or worries. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support Nice guy, not too concerned over answers since almost nothing is irreversible. I'm a little uncertain about well roundedness, but still I'll give the green light. Yanksox 03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Jeffklib 08:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I hope Q6a did help clear up some doubts for editors who oppose his RfA based on Q6. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Recent interation with this user leads me to believe he knows his stuff. At least enough to be given some rather unexciting tools. -- Steel 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Weak Support I'm a bit concerned about the issues that Badlydrawnjeff mentions, but overall, I've a positive impression of the candidate and think that he'd be able to further help Wikipedia with the buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Very Strong Support I approve and enjoy your delighful edits, enjoy, hope you become an admin. King Dracula 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Good editor who would find the mop and keyring useful. --Slowking Man 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support--MONGO 11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Yes, support, per anyone you like. Just don't leave me an RFA thank you message, they spam up my talk page. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. 'Support I see no reason not to support this editor. Dionyseus 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Seems like a good user, I find the opposes less than compelling. I would like to see slightly more mainspace experience in general, but by and large seems fine. JoshuaZ 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support-Seems to be a reliable, efficient and intelligent user. Nileena joseph 17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Mikey likes it!. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per JoshuaZ. Khoikhoi 22:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Seems willing to apply common sense and reason, despite unhealthy interest in Big Brother. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support as the opposes don't strike me as relevant, and he seems otherwise qualified, TewfikTalk 18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Seem to have common sense about the role of the rules, and to be a solid editor. -- SCZenz 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support per the "reasoning" of some of those oppose !votes, and for the number of hoops you've had to jump through. --Kbdank71 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support --Wissahickon Creek talk 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Good editor. Anger22 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support per above. Pretty helpful on IRC too. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Per above and the thoughtful, articulate responses to the oppose votes. They are dead-on, particularly in regard to the "encyclopedia building" arguments. Irongargoyle 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. This user is a great candidate. He's so on top of his watchlist - my talk made it onto it somehow, and he's been instrumental in helping me deal with User:Amrykid (now also known as User:Amkid). He's a great vandal-fighter and he seems quite familiar with policy. I just can't believe that this is his nine thousand, eight hundred and ninety-first request. I'm KIDDING...I know it's his username. Srose (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support, can't think of any reason to oppose. jd || talk || 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support I have seen Alex do some great work regarding Big Brother. Since this topic, by its nature can get quite controversial and pages have had to have been protected due to edit wars, I can see Alex will understand the kinds of issues involved when protecting pages. I don't see too much of a problem with the oppose votes. When deleting articles, I think applying common sense is more important than citing exactly which rule you are using when. Tra (Talk) 02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. Weak support per Yanksox. For what he wants to do, Alex seems well prepared. It's hard to judge fluency in policy, but Alex is so cooperative, civil, and polite that it doesn't leave me worried.--Kchase T 12:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per question six. Gives me great pause that he feels willing to "not wait for consensus" in situations that consensus is necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    I said that "if an article is an obvious speedy delete" I would delete it. For instance, if someone listed a page on AfD instead of tagging it for speedy, and the content was gibberish. I wouldn't delete if there was any sort of debate. --Alex (Talk) 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have !voted "speedy delete" in AfD discussions and also have seen speedy deletions done before the AfD closed. As you say, these were obvious speedy deletion candidates. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per question six. I would suggest a read of Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules. While application of IAR to block a blatant vandal is unambiguous, deletion takes more care. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Of course it takes more care, that is why I mentioned it. However, in my answer to question 1, I haven't said anything about deleting pages, so you can be sure I won't be deleting pages very often. --Alex (Talk) 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Weak oppose per Question 6. Candidate's answer isn't really awful, but it isn't well-thought, either. If something is listed for AfD, and one speedy deletes it as a clear G1, one isn't using IAR - listing at AfD doesn't supercede clear CSD applications. IAR should only be used as a last resort, and should be called upon in deleting maybe once a year. I think the candidate is properly reluctant to use IAR (which is good), but I must oppose weakly until I am sure the candidate's understanding of IAR has improved. Xoloz 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    In what way will you be sure? --Alex (Talk) 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Neutral after comments on candidate's talk page. Xoloz 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. oppose. wikipedia is not a "fight" against vandals. When you wish to contribute to the project by adding articles and proofreading, consider re-applying. ... aa:talk 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Adminship is not about writing articles and proofreading - it is purely technical. Anyway I do add articles (see my user page for examples) and proof read, so could you possibly reconsider your !vote? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. weak oppose - lack of time editing wikipedia, please try again in half a year --T-rex 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    What do you consider an acceptable amount of editing time for a prospective administrator? I was nominated for adminship six months after registering, and I don't seem to have caused many problems. --Slowking Man 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    I almost never support canidates on RFA with less then 9 months with the project. --T-rex 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose his comment in response to Avriette put me off. Besides being pointless, he never corrected "!vote?." KazakhPol 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    "!vote" isn't a mistake, it is shorthand for "not vote" JoshuaZ 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose We are here to build content, not just act like a police force. Cornerbock 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment, but could I make it clear that I have created several articles, uploaded images, and, as outline in answer #2 I have made hundreds of Big Brother related edits. Also, you are correct, we are here to build content, but we also need to keep the content correct and free of vandalism. --Alex (Talk) 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose I've been on the fence for this as Alex contributes greatly to the project, and I value his contributions. The need to respond to nearly all oppose/neutral comments; however, pushed me over the edge, as, to me it implies immaturity and lack of trust in other Wikipedians and their ability to make decisions based on all the facts not just a few comments. --Trödel 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, sorry. Nothing personal but I would like users with clear and strong record on content creation to be admins and to be sure that they continue to create content after adminning. Adminship is not only a mop but also a stick. Only content creators can be trusted with a stick that can occasionally be used to hit other content creators. Blocking vandals and obvious trolls is a trivial job and the least conntroversial one. I am also not happy about the vague answer to question 8. --Irpen 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Not enough information on his editing philosophy to make an informed decision, yet. Tnfiddler 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: It’s reasonable why you would want to make an informed decision about a nominee but what exactly do you mean by editing philosophy? Will you give an example of what you mean or trying to find out because the question is rather open ended.~~=Sirex98= 06:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Mike | Talk 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. Is there any reason why? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Was perplexed by what an editing philosophy exactly means myself but should had allowed the nominee to respond or ask questions himself ~~=Sirex98= 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, my comment was vague. I was concerned by Alex's comment about IAR and deleting articles based on a threshold of "obvious", which is a vague word. On an otherwise well written, well referenced, neutral article, what are some reasons you consider obvious? I have since had more time to look through Alex's edits, which seem sensable and constructive, and I am leaning toward changing to support. Tnfiddler 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Was sort of on the fence per badlydrawnjeff's concerns. Changing to support now. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1 (talk • contribs)
  2. Neutral - seems like a fine editor but I've seen him/her/it change his/her/its mind quite a lot in RFAs. On one occasion I seem to remember it got patently ludicrous - either 3 or 4 vote changes in just one RFA. Admins surely have to be a bit more decisive than this, surely? It's about trustworthiness, really. Not a reason for opposing, though, so I sit on the fence. Moreschi 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment. Was there a particular RfA you had in mind? --Alex (Talk) 18:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    And stop calling him "Shirley". -- nae'blis 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I would like to see more experience in mainspace editing. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    How much were you looking for? --Alex (Talk) 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    This question is enough to warrant opposing, IMHO. The nominator says that the nominee is "a very respectable and a kind user"... Kind users don't harrass those who don't agree with them. "Alex does a lot of vandal fighting"... We all do, that's a duty of every wikipedian. "He is a member of the Big Brother Wikiproject, and also has created several small articles"... Probably a solid reason for entrusting someone with tools, but it does not cut ice with me. I have seen too much admin abuse to treat adminship so lightly. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    All I wanted to know was how much experience you wanted, and I haven't harrassed anyone. --Alex (Talk) 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, leaning oppose. I can't quite put my finger on why this user's edits bother me whenever I see them, so I can't go straight to oppose, but the answer to Q6 leaves me with the impression that Alex does not have a good grasp on the community consensus here yet. Good work as a vandal fighter, but having the extra tools requires a level of trust I am not yet willing to give. -- nae'blis 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Switched from oppose. I think user's heart is in the right place, and I don't think he'll go around making messes -- I'm satisfied he likely won't misuse IAR. However, per nae'blis, I'm still not sure how good his grasp of policy is, given his initial mistatements in Question 6. Xoloz 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per Ghirla, I think you need a bit more experience. T REXspeak 19:40, 24 October 2006 (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.