Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encyclopedist

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] Encyclopedist

Final (10/4/0) ended 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) I would like to nominate myself as an admin. here. I have actively participated within the community for over a year, I have participated in nearly every activity available for non-admins. here (and by this I mean VfD, TfD, RfA and a WikiMeetup [1] etc.) and have over 9,200 edits [2]. Although I have not been the perfect user at all times, I believe that I would benefit the well being of the encyclopedia for two main reasons: 1) I do help other Wikipedians and newbies if they ask me, and I have and will look at any articles or participate in various activities if I am asked to do so. 2) I will not abuse my status as an admin. I sincerely hope that I have overall aided the encyclopedia during my time here; by submiting this RfA I hope to do so on a larger scale. Please help me aid Wikipedia by voting support. I will understand any opposition here, but I hope that my ability to become an admin. here is not negated.

I would also like to note that several people have requested on a number of occasions that I consider adminship. After some misgivings that I had, and my questioning of the RfA process in general (which I still, to an extent, disagree with RfAs) I declined the offer. But I think that it is time for me to put those things aside, after all, I don't think a "rollback" and "block user" button would give me so much power to cause any damage :-)

I just ask that you vote your conscience, even if that means oppose. And if saying this means something, here goes: I am very nervous about the outcome.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) – see above.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Of course, per above.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support of course! --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I am pleased this user has decided to apply. Jkelly 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    This means a lot coming from you, I am very happy :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sure. — Mar. 13, '06 [00:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  4. Support. Glad to be one of the first do do so. ProhibitOnions 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - Why be nervous, E? I've seen a lot of positive contributions from you... Happily support. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. NSLE (T+C) at 01:17 UTC (2006-03-13)
  7. Strong Support it's about time --rogerd 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support — You mean he wasn't already one? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support He shoulda been one long time ago, i see his name everywhere and he has done alot for wikipedia.--Slipknot222 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 02:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Rob Church 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comhrá, methinks that you are angry about this. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    You would be incorrect then. For starters, I don't care about anything or anyone (with a single exception) any more, so I don't allow things to anger me. Second, I opposed on other criteria which I'm forcing into words. Apologies for the lack of an immediate explanation. I'll get round to it. Rob Church 01:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Due to incivilty [3], strange and unhelpful edit summaries with gratuitous references to other editors [4] [5], and in general an excessively hostile and unhelpful attitude toward the project, I am not comfortable supporting this candidate. Additionally, user states that he want to use the rollback tool to revert vandalism, but has done very little vandalism reverting at all.--Sean Black (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I said I wasn't perfect. I am sorry if you feel that way. I can't believe that you think I am "unhelpful" toward the project. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose due to misuse of edit sums. (I've reviewed these citations.) Edit sums are important signposts for other editors and not a place to be clever at anyone else's expense. John Reid 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize, I talked this over with others, and I haven't done it in a while. Note that the one about Roitr was meant to be legitimate because he had been adding misinformation to the articles. As I haven't done this in a while, I would appreciate if you all would change your vote to neutral. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose -- Minutes after I placed my vote above, the nominee wrote on my talk page:Look I am sorry, I stopped doing that. This kind of hasty, personal, defensive reaction is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see in admins. The perfect candidate has a Zen-like indifference because he does not seek power or recognition for its own sake. John Reid 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Encyclopedist uses edit summaries too little, and when he uses them they are not helpful, like "+", "save", "no aprenden nada, y no sabrán nada", "Dude?", "add", "wtf?" ([6]. [7], [8] [9], [10], [11]). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 56% for major edits and 28% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Encyclopedist's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • I am about to see what this looks like in a few hours, because I am kinda nervous. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See also: First RFA, I seem to recall a second but I can't find it, may be mistaken. And no, it's N-S-L-E, not Nestlé. :P NSLE (T+C) at 01:17 UTC (2006-03-13)
  • About Edit Summaries I apologize, I talked this over with others, and I haven't done it in a while. Note that the one about Roitr was meant to be legitimate because he had been adding misinformation to the articles. As I haven't done this in a while, I would appreciate if you all would change your vote to neutral. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Please withdraw this nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Rollback and deleting articles from the AfD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Military history of Mexico a favorite of mine. I plan to add citations in so it can become a WP:FA.
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. This, unfortunately, has been a nadir of my WikiEtiquette. I have strived to improve on my conduct, and I remember a conflict with User:Waya sahoni in which I tried to add a calm message [12]. It was deleted, but in any event, conflict with this user has been avoided. May I note that I have also found myself mediating between User:Elonka and User:DreamGuy along with several countless others that I receive through e-mail.

Note, added these from NSLE (is it pronounced Nestle?) Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    As an editor, I would give him an e-mail telling him about it, and work on some type of resolution to the problem. If the problem would persist, I'd report it to WP:AN/I. As an admin. I would do the former, and in the latter case I would administer a week block.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    Instead of trying to fudge an answer, I'm going to tell you the truth: I'd leave it at that. If the majority of Wikipedians and an admin. thinks it isn't salvagable, it should probably be deleted. We're forgetting the possibility that the article may be created at a later date, and may come out better than before. That's the magic in everyone being able to edit.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    24 hour block. 48 hours if he or she keeps on.
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    Like User:Gflores, I would most likely try to convince them of the value of an RfC. If they persist, I would respect the decisions of the other admins. stated above.

Additional question from FreplySpang

  1. In a couple of places you have described your perspective on Wikipedia's civility policy - for instance, in User:Encyclopedist/My adminship standards and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev. These discussions are a couple of months old, so: do they still reflect your position? FreplySpang (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The above 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.