Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Autocracy

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] Autocracy

Final: (7/18/8); Ended 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN --Auto (talk / contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Autocracy (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination. I want to get the chaf out of the way immediately, so I'll start with anything less than glossy that I can remember. The things that will likely be brought up as reasons for opposition are my edit count, which is recorded at just over 2000. I was blocked by Ryulong when I first started editing over an AfD / DRV procedure I took up on behalf of another user that had been permblocked by the same administrator. The block was reversed by another admin. I was scolded earlier today for being a little bold and processing a bunch of AfD closures under categories other than keep. I looked briefly through policy before, but didn't stumble my way to the section. Not knowing / finding one way or the other (until it was linked to me), I opted for WP:BOLD and use of {{db-xfd}}.

For the better things: I act boldly, but listen carefully and always learn. I'm more of a wiki gnome. I hang in the background and do my thing... and a little of it everywhere based on whatever seems to be the most need at any given moment. I've written code for a vandalism study project that never completed. I've done a fair amount of vandal patrol. I've been through a lot of page deletion processes (AfD, DRV, speedy tags). I help the occasional new user who stumbles into my lap, on at least one occasion writing an entire article unrelated to me. I've tracked sockpuppets, hunted out "sneaky" vandalism, and been around AIV often enough. I try to add photography and have written the greater part of several local articles. I feel most of the #wikipedia channel knows me fairly well, and definitely the Toolserver crowd. I've been on the Toolserver for somewhere around 9 months, and part of my lower edit count has to do with assisting other users there. (My edit drop-off and my account creation are pretty closely timed).

I consider myself to be good at finding a middle ground in the midst of heated and conflicting view points. I'm familiar not only with (most) of the Wikipedia policies, but also quite familiar with the underpinnings of how it all works. I think the rest I'll leave to interview questions as they come. For a lowly janitor who feels more useful holding a mop, I submit myself to the wild horde that is RfA. --Auto (talk / contribs) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (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: Backlogs. AfD, images, watching AIV, answering users in the IRC channel. There's always a backlog of something around here, and I work best with queues.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel the local articles for my area are my best specific contribution (see my user page), including the photography work. Second to that are any articles I champion in a given moment... usually something I find in AfD that is in a miserable state but should be a worthy article.
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: Ryulong and I had a nice misgiving about each other. I brought the issue up for others to review, but the community never found consensus in agreement. I'm content just that the rest of the community looked over things. I feel like I dealt with it well, especially considering I was at the start of my deep-end-of-the-pool dive into Wikipedia, probably hitting most of the controversy I'll come across all in that moment. That's probably my only source of individual wiki-stress. RfA stresses me out too, but... well, another story ;)

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

4. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it?
A: AOR is a tool of public confidence. Becoming an administrator is not a one-way gate, and removing an admin the community is not comfortable with should not be a battle. It is sad that sometimes politics and small silly things can cause large problems for administrators, but I feel the value of the category is far greater than that. We're not married to our administrators, and entering that category would be one of my first edits. --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
5. What is WP:IAR all about, and when/are you willing to use it?
A:IAR is about not having to be a wikilawyer. I had seen non-admin closes before, and I've been around Wikipedia for a while, with a good deal of AfD experience. I have confidence in my actions, and had the general feeling what I was doing was right and helpful. I glanced the related rules before starting, though I didn't fine-tooth comb them. Sometimes it's a violation of what I should be doing, like it was in this instance... but in many other cases things like this are "right." So, while in the end as a non-admin I won't be doing closes like that (because somebody pointed it out), this, and other instances that were more acceptable, were spurred by being able to gloss the policies that I don't intimately know and be comfortable without being Wikilawyered.
IAR is about being able to California-roll the stop sign at a 4 way interesction where you can see a mile down every interesecting road. Example: while there is a bot approval process, going through the procedure for a one-off bot tags categories for 100 pages is probably worth skipping. This is a case that, unlike above, is knowingly against policy... but with the 20 or so edits you would do before approval to show your test case, just do the last 80 with a slow timer.
IAR, as an admin, is a little different. It's unblocking the user you think is OK when his blocking admin can't be reached. It's stepping in and cleaning out the mess of things like this guy's actions without following every letter of policy and trying to carry out his advocacy case in tandem with his block appeal. To elaborate on that one in particular, I am one to give a user any chance in the face of doubt, but appeals in regards to this kind of an edit are a waste of time. --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
6. When may cool down blocks be used?
A: In the sense of "you've been a bad boy, think about what you've done"... skip it. They're for things like 3RR and no sign of stopping... and at that point I don't believe it falls under the category of a "cool-down block." Without elaboration on your question to clarify that, I'm going to make my one-word answer never. --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Question from Ryan Postlethwaite
7. Could you explain why you've been closing XfD debates as delete ([1], [2]) when non admins are not supposed to close these debates? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A:I feel I've answered this above... I acted in good faith, and read a quick refresher of the rules before making those closings. Unfortunatley, I didn't fine-tooth comb them enough (it's a lot of reading for something I felt I was pretty familiar with), so I missed that critical section. It was pointed out to me, and as I've said, I shan't do it again as a non-admin. It is one of my (i think few) notable mistakes. In 3 words: "oops, my bad." (and what awesome timing to do this bit of stupid just hours before putting myself for RfA!) --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  — master sonT - C

7 Give a good example of when you should use WP:SNOW to close a deletion discussion.
A:Well, since I was naughty enough to [already do that], I'll let it stand as my example. --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
8 Where do you think the fine line is between being BOLD and being reckless in editing? In particular, where would it be best to gather consensus before making a change?
A: Any time I'm not really sure, I [ask the opinion] of the community (I certainly wouldn't click delete on that without the process, capable or otherwise -- but it was a good way for me to get further understanding). No individual on this site is "right" (unless you're Jimbo, who says so, though that doesn't apply so much with the board now). Of course, in the face of an argument like this, one may want to go ahead and force the issue (I boldly took the side of slamming EU into the list... which apparently checking it now, I see has lasted). --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from thright

9 Do you think the page Fuck should be deleted? If not, should a user be allowed to have that username?Thright (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Wolf support. :) A bold, hardworking gnome who don't screw up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. No obvious problems, trustworthy, could use the tools. Best, AGK § 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. What we need are BOLD admins who can step up to the plate when it comes to deletions and blocking. bibliomaniac15 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - Boldness is admirable. Yes to this one. Xdenizen (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. So this is where I saw you? This RFA is a little premature, however, I'm willing to give Autocracy a go. WRT the block, that was over a year ago. Rudget. 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. I'm sort of worried about your wildness and such, but we do need admins willing to make tough blocks, determine tough consensus, etc. This RFA probably won't pass, but now you know you will have my full support after a little bit more experience. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. There's no chance for this RfA to pass as it stands now, but I do think you have the beginnings of adminship going on. You're not nearly as active as I would like to see in an administrator candidate, but your attitude is spot-on. Experience is your key weak point, and that's something I think you could address by spending more time here in the coming months. I'm confident that, if you made an effort, you could become an administrator before 2009 hits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Had to do it, sorry, for a few reasons. 1.)Low mainspace/article building 2.)Generalized talking is nill 3.)Relatively thin Wikispace contributions 4)erratic Wiki participation over many months with lulls. I admire how candid you were in your self-nom, that was pretty cool and I respect that. However, some of those things actually do concern me. WP:BOLD is one thing, but stepping over the boundaries is quite another. I'm sure in a few months time you'll meet my criteria for experience and balance. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on the general talking thing? I'm afraid it's too vague. As for the erratic participation, it is somewhat related to various wiki projects that don't involve editing, and somwhat involved with non-wiki life. The boundary crossing has always been a boundary I wasn't aware of, and as I said, I quickly learn. You'll note if nothing else, I don't make a mistake twice. I do ask what the downside of an admin who is around only 1/2 time would be, though? --Auto (talk / contribs) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    My pleasure to elaborate - One of my criteria for a prospective admin is general talking taking place within article talk pages, or the wikipedia space, which, unfortunately, there seems to be scant evidence of. I feel that an administrator should be quite vocal and able to communicate effectively, as their position dictates this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - The fact that this user RFAs the same day a number of their NACs where overturned worries me about their possible usage of the tools. As well, far too few edits lately (223 in the last nine months). Particularly in the regular places for admin duty. Take a few months to work in these areas and I'd support. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    They were procedurally reverted. I do invite you to point out any that you feel the outcome would be different than the action I took if not for my position as a non-admin. --Auto (talk / contribs) 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Whether the outcome would've been different isn't the point. I appreciate boldness but taking action without fully knowing a policy can quickly cause problems. Especially with admin tools and as an admin you can't quote BOLDness when making obvious mistakes. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - For several reasons. First, I have a gut feeling that reckless editing may reapear, and the block conerns me. also, too few edits. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have to oppose. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Close to half the user's edits took place in a two-month span in March and April of 2007. I think more experience is needed. Metros (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    I also have to oppose based on the user's statement that he didn't follow the guidelines because he only read a refresher on it. I think that our administrators should be fairly well versed in a majority of our guidelines/policies, especially those dealing with areas that they plan to work with. Metros (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I do like that you're bold in editing, I like that. However, a couple of things stop me from supporting. One, your mainspace work isn't quite enough yet for my taste. We're here to build an encyclopedia and so I want to see encyclopedia building. Secondly, you haven't been very active over the last 9 months. A lot changes in 9 months. I'd recommend knocking down 3 consecutive months with at least 100 edits as more concrete evidence that you're familiar with policies and procedures. Useight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Not ready yet. I might suggest more thoroughly reviewing the guidelines and a bit more experience. Dlohcierekim 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    I would recommend trying again after another 3,000 edits and three months as repeat RfA's often undergo close scrutiny. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    I am also concerned about snow closing AFD's before they have had time to run. It would be better to give more time for proof of notability and verifiable sources to be located. I see no need for such haste. Dlohcierekim 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose: The SNOW example you provided was decent, but I also stumbled across more NACs by you that were reversed, that looks pretty bad and I personally frown upon that. In essence, this is a perfect example of Recklessness. Finally, you need more experience.  — master sonT - C 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose NAC's should be sparse and rare and only invoked when a clear consensus has been achieved after an acceptable period of time. Having them overturned in quantity is a sign of bad judgement on the subject.Balloonman (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Misapplying the deletion policy as written as a non-administrator generally doesn't encourage one to support, and per Metros, I must oppose. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Extremely strong oppose User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. I will not support right now. No.Moosester (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Now that the block has been shortened, should we unindent? Dlohcierekim 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Moosester's indef-block was overturned and shortened to 12 hours. I've restored the !vote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: Sorry, but your answer to Question 6 show you are not yet knowledgable enough to be an admin. Come back some other time when you know more. Smartguy777 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
  13. Oppose, sorry, but recent inactivity coupled with poor answers to the questions (#6 in particular). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
  14. Oppose: I agree that more experience is needed. You need a more consistent track record. ArcAngel (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose - Sorry, I like to whole boldness (though don't over do it), but lack of experience coupled with not the best answers to the questions makes me oppose. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose As said above I like your bold editing but I just don't think that your ready to be a Sysop yet. Thanks, --Mifter (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose due to lack of experience and erratic behaviour in closing AfDs that bodes ill for an admin candidate. Biruitorul (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per all above. I agree that this candidate has the makings of a good admin, but consistency concerns and Ryan's questions make me think that this editor is a little too bold. GlassCobra 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - I was tending towards oppose, but you seem like somebody who generally meets my main requirement: trustworthiness. Being bold and self criticizing (i.e. recognizing your mistakes) is also great. However, a little bit more experience under your belt and I'll be in the support section! Poeloq (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Agreed generally with Poeloq's comments; you've been a member here for going on two years now, but you've only been active for a handful of months, in a very erratic fashion. I agree with the sentiment posted in the oppose section that a lot can change in 9 months; you would do well to put in a few more months of work, read up on the policies that govern places you'd like to become involved in as an admin, and be careful about the non-admin closures. You do seem to be a trustworthy editor, which I believe is the most important criteria for admin-candidates. If you get some more experience under your belt, I'll be happy to support you in the future. Parsecboy (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral to avoid a pile on, and to just state that admin coaching may be the way forward. Plenty to like here, really plenty, but some fairly fundamental errors that need sorting out. Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Poeloq and Pedro. I like the boldness, but WP:IAR should not be a modus operandi. --jonny-mt 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Tempted to support, but... Boldness is good, half-cocked boldness in an area where you are unfamiliar with policy is risky. Next time. Avruch T 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral to keep from a snowball oppose. Auto, this is too soon after making a large mistake like you did. I did it as well not so long ago, and got cracked for it. I'm currently on a Wikibreak but felt I should comment on this. I'm glad your BOLD and I am as well, but you need to wait for awhile and get your edit count higher and practice some more. Remember, Adminship is No Big Deal!!! I see you succeeding in the future, but for now, I feel your not ready yet. Please don't get discouraged, as I am sure one day you will make a great Admin, but for now, keep being bold and keep your head up!!! Dustitalk to me 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Dusti summed up my thoughts exactly. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral per Dusti, Poloq and Pedro. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 14 March 2008 (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.