Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody

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] Anynobody

Final (13/26/8); Ended Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:01:24 (UTC)

Anynobody (talk · contribs) - I'm not interested in wasting anyone's time so I'll keep this brief. I've noticed that administrator backlogs on certain tasks are very heavy, and I think I can help with some of the work.

I realize my tenure here has been short, but I can respond to any concerns this may cause by stating that I am open to recall by the community. Rather than a set number of editors necessary for recall I propose having the subject be settled by a WP:RFC. I also support administrator transparency and would place a link to my edits as an admin on my user page. Further I pledge never to use any administrator tools in disagreements over the articles I am editing, against any editors I have disputes with, or to help editors I am friendly with break any rules.

This proposal may seem short, especially to anyone who knows me or reviews my contributions. I do not mean to give the impression I am not willing to put effort into this, instead I prefer to let my actions speak for me. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self nomination. Anynobody 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the software may not have any way of enforcing a recall without intervention of a bureaucrat. I want to reassure everyone that if the community thinks I should resign I would do so without being forced. Making a mistake is one thing, refusing to acknowledge it is unacceptable to me. Since I despise double standards I couldn't in good conscience keep admin tools, since I wouldn't listen to an admin the community rejected.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Anywhere required by CAT:AB but I think I can be of the most help in any of these: WP:AN/I WP:AN3 WP:BLPN WP:COI/N WP:LTA WP:SSP WP:ABUSE WP:CN WP:AN WP:CFD WP:RM. To be clear, when explaining Wikipedia to an editor I would not simply list links to policies, guidelines, or WP:DR. I do that here to save the time of experienced editors and administrators.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I try not to take pride in any of my edits, this makes it easier to accept criticism and allow others to edit my contributions. I stand behind all of my contributions because I know that I could be called to explain any of them. Here is a link to my contributions, I invite anyone interested to review. Anynobody's contributions
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: Other editors do not cause me stress because I can accept being wrong. I try to handle disputes with other editors in a rational, courteous, but assertive tone. I always try to find something to agree with them on, and am usually willing to compromise. As a sysop I would try to mediate in the same way by looking for something each editor has done correctly and pointing out errors as humanely as possible. As it happens I am currently supporting an unpopular move request regarding Krakatoa, this is an example of how I handle disagreements:Talk:Krakatoa
Optional question from RockMFR
4. Do you edit with any other accounts?
A: Nope, and so far I've managed to keep the Anynobody name on the Commons and Wikisource.
Another optional question from RockMFR
5. It seems you filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother (now deleted). What was this about?
A:The basic issue that began the process was/is that Justanother refuses to acknowledge that he may be arguing his position from a WP:COI. Justanother is a devout Scientologist, and is keenly aware of the fact that some people are trying to show it (the CoS) in a negative way. I honestly acknowledge his point, but he was unwilling to accept the fact that Barbara Schwarz is highly notable for her use/abuse of the FOIA.
As a rule I don't like to see anyone left out of a discussion, however in my opinion he crossed the line into a violation of WP:DP by essentially disregarding WP:CCC. I should note that I am not opposed to the need to discuss deletion of an article, however it is my understanding that in this case each new WP:AfD nomination should be based on an argument that had not been addressed by the previous three AfDs. I say that because the previous three were strongly in favor of keeping. Many editors commented on it's notability and that is the issue Justanother raised as his reason for the fourth nomination. My first attempt at coming to an agreement with Justanother around 4 March 2007 I wanted to address his COI because it seemed like he was applying Wikipolicy incorrectly when judging my actions. Rather than dive straight into religious bias, I first attempted to clarify a dispute we had about WP:BLP that I had assumed was resolved. (This is a good reason to be careful about assuming anything regarding interpersonal disputes.) He was not receptive to feedback, please read the above diff for specifics.
Another editor (Smee) and I each attempted to address these concerns with him, but he was hostile and refused to even engage in a meaningful discussion about his bias. Smee and I then decided to collaborate on a WP:RFC, my logic was based on two beliefs. 1) Perhaps he would listen to other non-involved editors. 2) If I happened to be wrong, the RfC would either be denied or find Smee and myself as the problem. Smee consulted with an admin (Bishonen from now on) who felt that Smee's efforts at mediation were somehow lacking. I disagreed, rather than arguing that point I let the admins on the RfC board settle the dispute and I submitted the RfC. It turned out that the admin who reviewed the request agreed with me, and the RfC was initiated. Justanother asked Bishonen to delete it, and Bishonen sought an uninvolved admin to do this task. When none would, Bishonen deleted it anyway.This link sums up the situation in my opinion. I never received an answer, from anyone. Since Smee asked Bishonen for advice, which I disagreed with, does that bind me to accepting it anyway? Especially if the advice is about whether or not it would be accepted? If it was inappropriate to submit the RfC why wasn't I given feedback on my talk page? I'm pleased to hear you are not ashamed of your actions Bishonen, because it means you should have no problem answering one question I've had about the whole situation. Why did you ask an uninvolved admin to delete the RfC if you felt it was proper for you to do it? I don't mean to sound petty, but that sounds strange because if it's work you feel you can do why ask someone else to take time from the editing they had planned to do it instead?
Currently several editors and I are putting together another RfC on his behavior. I do not plan to use my proposed tools on Justanother unless he does something like post another editors personal information which requires immediate attention. Even in that unlikely event, I'd probably put up a notice at WP:ANI to have another admin take a second look for the sake of fairness to him.
If you want specifics about who Smee and Bishonen are I will of course provide them (and diffs too), but I'd prefer not to. Every time I discuss this I feel like I'm tattling on Bishonen. (I only mention Justanother because he was the subject of the RfC)
      • Here is a link to the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page for an example of a discussion regarding the 4th AfD mostly between Justanother and myself.

These are diffs to more background information and the lead up to the current situation: the origin of our first disagreement around 24 February 2007] which I had assumed he acknowledged my interpretation by no longer responding. First mention of RfC 8 March 2007

Optional question from Justanother
6. Anynobody, I have seen behavior on your part that calls into question the notion that you have any understanding of how an admin works here. I refer specifically to two instances where you cast doubts on the motives of admins that were simply doing their jobs simply because someone that you are attacking (me) was the beneficiary of their proper action as an admin.
In the first case User:Bishonen cancelled an improper User RfC that you brought against me. You brought that RfC after she spend a considerable amount of effort trying to help you and User:Smee set it up and after she very specifically told you to not bring it as it was not appropriate, see User talk:Bishonen#RFC minor formatting . You brought it anyway and another admin erroneously elevated it from candidate to active. I requested on AN/I here that it be reviewed and, as no other admin took interest in it, Bishonen deleted it herself, for which I am grateful. Following her proper action as an admin, you called her motives into question, accusing her of corruption in user talk space here and here and even bringing your allegations to the AN/I here. In article talk space, you misrepresented what she had told you about bringing the RfC and I called you on that here.
The second incident followed a perhaps inappropriate WP:CANVASS action on your part wherein you tried to find editors that may have had a problem with me in the past and you came up with User:Johnpedia here and called him "Justanother victm". Johnpedia replied with an uncivil rant against me on your user page here that I thought constituted WP:PA. I notified the admin, User:MrDarcy, here that had previously blocked Johnpedia for PA against me and MrDarcy put it on ANI for input and then warned Johnpedia here to not violate WP:CIVIL. Following his proper action as an admin, you called Mr. Darcy's motives into question here, calling him "out of line" and accusing him of "representing" me (he, like all good admins, represents the project).
How do you respond to these instances?
A: The diffs and expansion I've added address the first instance. I've always maintained it wasn't improper to submit the RfC. I've said that since Bishonen was saying she didn't feel Smee made a good enough effort and I disagreed, the best way to resolve the disagreement was to submit it and see if her advice was correct. Since it was approved I honestly hadn't planned on saying anything else about it to Bishonen, as it might be taken as gloating.
The second instance you've cited regarding my conversation with Johnpedia was motivated by my desire to figure out if I was being offensive to Scientology or if you were just prone to extreme hostility toward those who disagree with you. I think if any curious editors want to read all the diffs you've provided my intentions should be easy to understand. I have not tried to engage Johnpedia in any action against you, we were discussing our opinion of you which is neither an attack or inappropriate. When you had MrDarcy reprimand Johnpedia I said it was wrong then, and I still say it's wrong now. (I figured MrDarcy was WP:AGF on your part and may not have read the conversation in question. If he had it would have probably been more appropriate to reprimand me since it was I who contacted Johnpedia in the first place, if you were right in your belief about the inappropriateness of said conversation. No offense meant MrDarcy, everybody makes mistakes like that when they assume good faith.)
Not to put words in your mouth but simply to clarify: So for the first instance you are not answering my question regarding your accusations against Bishonen for doing her job as an admin and for the second instance you maintain that you were correct in calling MrDarcy's motives into question as he made the error of thinking that when I objected to a personal rant targeting me it might be because I objected to a personal rant targeting me? --Justanother 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm just saying that now that since I've added the full account of what happened I think I answered your question as part of it. The part that specifically applies to what happened with Bishonen is here: This link sums up the situation in my opinion
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Moral support. You haven't been here long enough, but what you've done so far has been very good and you certinaly mean well in this RfA. Apply again in 3-4 months continuing to do edits like this and you should pass no problem. Try participating in the areas you wish to help where you can as well.--Wizardman 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support to prove a point. It's insane that you are interested in clearing the backlog, yet people oppose you because you haven't been here long enough. These backlogs continue to pile up, yet we become stingyer and stingyer at RfA. So you have my support. Kntrabssi 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. Just under three months of editing was plenty when I first saw this page, and I see no reason why it should be any higher now. We need more admins. And actually, the "weak" part is because of that recall thing, which I dislike for reasons I won't go into here, unless requested. I can only support because you intend on doing it through an RfC. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support. (change to abstention) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    [1] —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Conditional Support. Thus far you have participated in only 2 AfDs. I can easily support since you didn't link to the speedy deletion backlog, and your other contributions thus far are impressive, but I would like you to participate in more AfDs and do some newpage patrolling without the delete function before trying to clear out that backlog. -- The Hybrid 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Tentatively support. Willingness to work on backlogs combined with reasonable neutrality on Talk pages outweigh the inexperience. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - An extremely polite and courteous editor, even while enduring personal attacks and/or brusque behaviour from others at times. And leads as an example that others including myself look up to. Smee 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
    Glad to see that you have found someone here to look up to, Smee. --Justanother 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Upon reflection, strike facetious remark. Sorry. --Justanother 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support we do need more admins Crested Penguin 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. I am normally very nervous about supporting anyone who has less the 1500 edits, but he is such a great user that I can support him without reservations. -Mschel 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support It is completely civil to avoid mentioning names. You may want the diffs, but you can request it while AGF. Xiner (talk, email) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. support --CyclePat 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a vote - statement of reasons to support or oppose is vital.--Anthony.bradbury 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support means you support the nomination without further needing to explain. Oppose however means you have reasons to disagree with the nom, and these should be stated Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, this is a vote. There is no need to state a reason for a support or oppose, though it is polite to do so. Challenging people's reasons for voting (or lack of reason) can be considered canvasing, and is generally discouraged, and is often removed if it becomes excessive. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support. Great Wikipedian!!! Fast editor!!! Would recommend!!! AAAAAA+++++ 4kinnel 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per rartional set out on my user page. Edivorce 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - although I can understand some of the opposers' lines of reasoning, I've never voted anything but Support on anyone's RfA, and I'm not going to start now. Anyway, editcount is not a reliable measure of experience, nor is adminship a big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. You provided insufficient demonstration of why the community should place such trust in you after only two and a half months editing. --Deskana (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Deskana. You have a willingness to help, but you need to be here a little longer first. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience yet. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose. Willingness to work on the backlogs is irrelevant if you don't have the level and type of experience to show that you are able to work the backlogs or be trusted with the other tools. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Lack of experience, lack of contribs, serious lack of main space and Wikipedia-space edits, and you've only participated in two AfDs. I don't believe people can support candidates with just 1000 edits and nearly one-third of them are to user talk pages (or you must be exceptional - Am I missing something?). Willingness to work on backlogs cannot outweight inexpericence. Oppose Arfan 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. way too few edits (less than 500) and experience.Rlevse 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - per lack of experience. Seriously advise candidate withdraws good faith self-nom and tries again in a while. --Dweller 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - discourteous and wikilaywerish in my interactions. This A1 / AE business in question five -- "avoiding tattling" is absolute nonsense: avoiding giving real diffs and links to a situation that makes him look bad, is more like it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Bunchofgrapes, Yeah! Outing myself as the mystery admin A1, I can only endorse the request for diffs and links so that people have a chance to see for themselves. This editor needs not just more experience but a genuine learning process before being entrusted with extra powers. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
    I had written a longish response to Anynobody on the talkpage, but since I see both Anynobody and Justanother are continuing, under Question 5 and 6 above, to canvass an episode involving me, I'm posting it here instead. It's an explanation of why the candidate isn't IMO suited for adminship at this time (over and above the inexperience everybody mentions). I deleted the Request for Comments on Justanother that Anynobody had initiated, according to policy, according to the instructions prominently posted at the top of the RFC template, and according to the several very clear and explanatory warnings I had given him that it would be deleted. It wasn't a judgment call, it was what's supposed to happen to RFCs that have been up for more than 48 hours without being properly endorsed. I, specifically—me—deleted it because I realized that my original suggestion that somebody else do it had been needlessly scrupulous. I was by no means involved, or had any interest in the RFC either way—I didn't even know what the complaints were about. Most admins hate RFCs and want nothing to do with them, so Justanother's request for deletion on WP:ANI went unheeded, in spite of the fact that he had a right to see it deleted. That kind of thing happens on a volunteer website sometimes. Anynobody, before you dig yourself any more deeply into the hole you're already in, have you tried asking some, or any, other admin or experienced user, whether I acted inappropriately in their opinion? Wouldn't that be a simple thing? Did Daniel Bryant, the admin you so mysteriously refer to as having "reviewed" and "approved" your RFC (this "review" is a complete misunderstanding, as you know), think I'd acted inappropriately? No, he doesn't, as you know.[2] I'm still trying rather desperately to assume good faith here, but I'm coming round to the old saying that AGF is not a suicide pact. More formally, per WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." You're providing evidence that you don't read policies, you don't believe in instructions, and you routinely assume bad faith: you think nothing of attacking my admin integrity ("[Justanother] had an admin he knows delete it"[3]), Mr Darcy's admin integrity ("Mr. Darcy appears to have been representing Justanother"[4]), or, with your mouth full of apologies and implicit self-praise, the integrity of anybody whose actions don't please you: "No offense meant MrDarcy, everybody makes mistakes like that", "Every time I discuss this I feel like I'm tattling on Bishonen".
    The big reason I believe you unsuited for adminship at this time is that you show no interest in what any experienced users tell you—it's not just me. See for instance Bunchofgrapes' advice to you on WP:ANI about not making personal remarks (per WP:NPA, one of our central policies: "Comment on content, not on the contributor")[5] You waved that one off with "As I understand it, places like this are the exact place to address concerns about personalities, whereas on the article pages it might be inappropriate." Now, that's just... strange, you know. It really is. (Try reading the actual policy. WP:NPA.) Your "concern" about my personality then was that I was suffering from a "bruised ego"... and you've continued to speculate unpleasantly on my motives, feelings, ego, etc. You're not supposed to do that. What in blazes is so hard about clicking on a few policy links, instead of wiklawyering till everybody's tired of explaining stuff to you?
    Btw, you state above that "Justanother asked Bishonen to delete it (=the RFC)". No, he didn't. That's a lie. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
    Threaded discussion below my vote moved to talkpage, please continue any discussion there. Bishonen | talk 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
  10. Oppose. Main reason is not enough experience. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with anyone who edits a lot around controversial subjects, especially if I'm unable to get a good grasp of their intentions/POV (a bit too measured, one might say). Also you don't seem to use edit summaries at all. Last but not least, you don't seem to have a need for the tools. Yeah, we have a backlog. It's good that you recognize that, but that does not immediately translate into a need for the tools. --- RockMFR 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per RockMFR and S. Miyano. Michael 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Changed my vote from Tentatively Support because I am more concerned about the lack of experience than I thought I would be. Sorry. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per general lack of experience. I see a lot of promise, however, and I would likely support if you continue on your current path for several more months in order to gain more experience. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per edit summaries. "Edit summary usage for Anynobody: 16% for major edits". Sorry, but that's too low. At least, given everything else, it's enough to tip my vote from neutral to oppose. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I am quite certain that with three or four months more experience you will make an excellent candidate. As of now, only 1,086 edits and low edit summary percentage do not demonstrate adequate knowledge or skills. Have you considered changing your preferences to enforce edit summary entry? It would help.--Anthony.bradbury 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits, low edit summary usage. If you keep on continuing like this, you will have more experienced and I may support you. Terence 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, inexperience. Xoloz 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, inexperience, low contribs in mainspace and wikispace, low edit summary usage. mrholybrain's talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Weak Oppose per Deskana and mrholybrain. While I believe that time spent editing is not proportional to experience gained, it would be better if you used edit summary more often, and spent some more time here. GofG ||| Talk 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong Oppose, inexperienced user. please apply RfA again in about 3-4 months. right now, this is not the appropriate time to apply. — zero » 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose: The user has been involved in arguments and battles already, and has shown a proclivity to thinking his own ordure without odor, as it were. Some folks play with anthills and show majestic temperaments, and some just come out covered in ants. The RFC failed for lack of certification, and yet he misrepresents that situation wilfully. People do make mistakes, but this misrepresentation is too obviously a picking of sides and an attempt at creating good admins and bad admins, people he likes (when they agree with him) and people he doesn't (who point out an error). We have enough of that in admin ranks already. I cannot be neutral. Geogre 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose per Bishonen and Geogre. --Justanother 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per Bish and Geogre and others above. Also, this seems to me like deliberate baiting, not something I want to see in an admin candidate. Sarah 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, please see AN/I here. I am not quite sure what to do about that. --Justanother 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per comments by various people above, and also just that admin is something other peope see in you... the fact that it was a self-nomination and presents deceptive information is a sure sign that this person is wholly unsuited for the position. DreamGuy 11:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Too much controversy at this time.--MONGO 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. At the Regular Commissions Board they have an outcome, "fail encourage" - you failed this time but are encouraged to come back when you are a more ready. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I cannot oppose a sincerely well-intentioned user who wants to help in any way he can. I also cannot support a sincerely well-intentioned user who probably needs a little more experience in administrative areas. YechielMan 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral-leaning-to-support - as per YechielMan, a well-intentioned user. I'm just a shade nervous about giving the admin tools to someone with this limited amount of experience. I'm all for people stating they'll attack the backlogs, but everyone says that so why do we still have backlogs?! A bit more experience and I'll definitely support in the future. The Rambling Man 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral lack of experience in process, etc. I would probably support in the future. – Riana talk 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Has not been active here long enough. Sorry, James, La gloria è a dio 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I'm sorry, but I think you need more experience.-- danntm T C 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral more experience is needed. But I see good things. Try in the future, I might support. - Anas talk? 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per YechielMan. Acalamari 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral your on the right track, I just feel you need a bit more time and experience before you get the tools, continue your current participation level and reapply in a few months Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:30, 29 March 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.