Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ikiroid

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] Ikiroid

Final(50/18/14) Ended 15:36, 2006-07-28 (UTC)

Ikiroid (talk · contribs) – I've been registered since about November 10th, making large edits to linguistic and cultural articles, but I've also reported numerous vandals to WP:AIV, helped categorize and cleanup various topics, and participated on WP:ANI. I'd like to think that I've participated in a little bit of everything—helping build an infobox template, organizing work to bring article to FA status, nomming an article for deletion (as well as participate in others), etc. I'd like to help do some basic admin work (see my answer to question 1) and carry out admin jobs that pop up at WP:ANI. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accept. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. First Support Because there's no reason to vote otherwise. — The King of Kings 15:56 July 21 '06
  2. Support Naconkantari 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - An overall good user, I can't see why I should vote oppose. Viva La Vie Boheme 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Not had much contact, but I do know that he is a good, solid editor, and would make a good admin. Thε Halo Θ 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Trustworthy user. Xoloz 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. (edit conflict!) Support per Moe. Misza13 T C 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. OMG More Edit Conflict Support. "I thought this user was already an admin." G.He 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Wanted to nominate but didn't know candidate wasn't an admin, oh well, I ought as well vote for them anyway because they are an excellent user and yes I want to hold and be remembered for a Wikimedia-projects-wide record for the most bold words in a bolded support sentence, anyway, I guess I will support already and here is my support vote... drumroll please... Support. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Thought you were an admin support Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support This Fire Burns Always 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. 1ne 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Hmm, he helped produce a featured article without pouring hundreds of edits and reverts into it. He doesn't strafe the AFD log pages with sheep votes either, created Jesus in popular culture. Support until provided with adequate reason not to. — Jul. 21, '06 [18:08] <freak|talk>
  13. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Helpful, friendly user. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. RfA voting is cool! :D --Terrancommander 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Ikiroid has shown himself to be a very capable editor, his work on IPA alone is evidence of this, and, what is more, he has given absolutely no reason to believe he cannot be trusted with a few more buttons. Rje 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. May not be overly active in AfDs, but he's contributed a lot to WP:AN/I and WP:AIAV and others. Seems to have an interest in becoming an administrator and I think he's up to the task. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. The perfect candidate acts like an admin before thinking on filling out the application. Ikiroid has done this, and has my trust. Highway Return to Oz... 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, I like what I see. The only arguments against seem to me related to edit count, which are valid but not convincing for this editor. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support First class editor - Glen 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per Highwaycello. Mostly Rainy 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, definitely deserves the mop. RandyWang (raves/rants) 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Even if he falls short of some of our standards, we sometimes have to make exceptions. It's great having editors who are willing to tidy up the project. Roy A.A. 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support as per above. --Draicone (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. support, thought Ikiroid was an admin already. ~ ctales *blah* 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support While the candidate has a low number of mainspace edits, everything else about him is perfect. He has also been in enough disputes that it is clear that he keeps his cool and tries to work out reasonable compromises. JoshuaZ 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. DarthVader 10:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Defrosted 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - candidate knows what he must know, and is not likely to abuse the tools. Kimchi.sg 14:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support as per excellent answers to my questions. Seivad 15:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support.  Grue  19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Weak Support A good editor but mainspace edits are low. --Tuspm(C | @) 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Basically meets my criteria. I would've liked to see more AfD participation, but it doesn't sound like that'll be your main focus and the random diffs I checked looked fine. BryanG(talk) 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. My interactions with Ikiroid have been consistently positive, a bona fide contributor, and I'd reckon the number and nature of edits sufficient to be able to assess as highly unlikely to abuse the extra tools.--cjllw | TALK 06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. See my RfA criteria. Petros471 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per CJLL, Royboy, Aguerriero, and Rje, to name four, and inasmuch as none of the reasons for which others have opposed seems at all persuasive to me. Joe 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. A hard worker who looks out for the newcomers.--the ninth bright shiner talk 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Switched from neutral to support. After watching this RFA, a few things have shown me that Ikiroid is good to go, mostly based on the optional questions. First of all, Ikiroid has demonstrated that they are smart, which is good, because smart people should run things, as opposed to...the alternative. Second, Ikiroid has shown that they understand all the different aspects of Wikipedia, which is also important, since we're giving Ikiroid more buttons. Finally, Ikiroid has enough edits and has that whole good attitude thing (a nice touch). Besides, my orginal reason for voting neutral is pretty stupid. On a scale from 1 to stupid it's about a 6.5. I hope people understand my change of heart. --Clyde Miller 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Yanksox 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Heart and mind in the right place and functioning suitably. Tyrenius 03:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, despite the reservations of users below, I think this user has proved he's grown as a user, and his good attitude ("help me improve myself") impresses me. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Absolutely. "More people like this candidate, please." Always a pleasure to talk to, very kind to other users, an excellent editor, more than capable and responsible enough for the tools. — Nathan (talk) / 07:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Fine admin candidate with alot to offer. DVD+ R/W 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support along the same lines as Clyde Miller. Candidate appears to understand the value of interaction over process. MLA 09:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. I totlay support you. User:Peterwats 09:38, 28 July 2006
  49. Support: prefer more edits (or exceptional work), but honest approach and no disasters a plus. More positive than negative. Stephen B Streater 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:07, 28 July '06


Oppose
  1. Oppose TruthCrusader 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    To help the candidate improve, and to help others come to an informed judgement could you please say why? Petros471 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I flipped a coin..no seriously, as Adam said, most of his namespace dits are WP:AIV. Give it a few months, I will probbaly support then. TruthCrusader 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well, wait a sec......I only have around 17 AIV reports, and about 380 Wikipedia namespace edits. How do you figure...? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Has only about 20 AfD edits--most of the Wikipedia namespace edits are WP:AIV related. In a few months with more active participation in AfD, CfD, etc, or some other exhibition of policy knowledge, I'll be happy to support. AdamBiswanger1 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    As Freakofnurture mentioned above, I usually do not add my opinion to an AfD if the outcome is already obvious, or if the dispute involves extensive knowledge of a topic I am not familiar with at all. I will throw in my 2 cents if I think it will significantly add to the outcome of the AfD. I do not hold a solid phiosophy of inclusion or exclusion, generally I deal with these things on a case-by-case basis. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Fails my standards which calls for 1000 mainspace article edits. We are building an encyclopedia, after all. And the low article count was not helped by Ikiroid calling most of his work that of "a wikignome or wikifairy". A great editor otherwise, however. —Mets501 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    This is a valid criticism—the main reason I rarely make large edits is becuase much of the information I know is already in articles. Each time I read into a topic, I eagerly log on to wikipedia in hopes of adding on to the topic, only to find that it has already been written. I'll usually use this information to help answer questions at the language reference desk, since it is already in articles. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Mets501. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Mackense and because of this user's extremely uncivil comments, close to a personal attack, regarding me on the AN/I board. VivianDarkbloom 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps you are referring to this? Yes, I'm sorry, please understand that I looked into your contributions at the time, and I saw them all to be votes in RfAs and AfDs. Then I looked at your userpage, where you said you were a sockpuppet, and I worried that you were a sleeper meatpuppet account (that is, a sockpuppet used to stuff a vote). I worded my response badly, but please understand that all of the evidence did not point in a very good direction. It is, however, not a good idea to vote in things if you are a sockpuppet, which you admit to be. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    You skip over your completely unfounded accusing me of being a user already involved in the dispute I commented on. Putting an accusation like that up violates WP:AGF. I've openly used this id for about a year on controversial stuff after somebody got pissed off about my vote on an RFA, figured out my IP, and sent threatening IMs to my daughter. So I don't care whether you think it's a good idea. Check back after somebody here takes out their anger on your kids. VivianDarkbloom 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Then it was clearly my fault. I commented on an issue I never should have, because a lot more had happened than I ever knew. I am sorry for exaserbating the problem. If there is anything I can do, please tell me. I would have never become involved in such a dispute if I knew the parameters you were dealing with.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per to low mainspace edit count abakharev 08:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. I am quite lenient on mainspace edits, but they are an excersise in article policy (not just direct behavoir policy). If a high amount of the edits where large, then I'd be fine, as less edits of high quality can give as much or more experience as many smaller edits, but that is not the case either.Voice-of-All 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, would like to see a higher mainspace edit count. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for Stifle.--Aldux 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per much of the above. Especially VivianDarkbloom's experience. Someone with no or terrible public relations skills should NEVER be an admin, especially here in Wikipedia. --HResearcher 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Switch from Neutral to Oppose per editcount and VD's concerns. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the only reason I recognized Ikiroid's name was that he stuck out in my mind for this edit [1], where he seems to be encouraging Blu Aardvark, a well-known banned user during his arbitration case, and thanking him for "giving Wikipedia another chance". This causes me to question your priorities (thank him, then?), but also you judgment, as it is clear to me that by that point the editor in question had exhausted his chances with personal attacks, vandalism, and other petty disruption, and I'm not sure what to think of an admin candidate who would think otherwise. Perhaps it was simply ignorance of the case, in any case, I'd like to hear a response. I am also concerned by the statement: "you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away". This apears to me to be both misinformed (we've always had problems with banned users not giving up: Wik, Zephram Stark, Jason Gastrich, Bonaparte, etc.) and an unsettling comment nonetheless, since we desperately want banned users to go away; I can't think of a less subtle hint. Users are banned for widescale and persistent disruption, or personal attacks, or edit warring, or in this case, all three. I can't understand why that was worthy of encouragement and admiration. Dmcdevit·t 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I thought he had actually had a change of heart, I then realized from his response that he probably wasn't going to change. But I held the same hope as Linuxbeak, who had talked to him on IRC, and Raul[2] that he was actually going to change. He had written an apology, and everything. Then he broke his ban, gave a rude response to everyone including me on his talkpage, and continued to be disruptive again. All of my initial thoughts that he may hae been a victim of miscommunication went out the window, and I regretted the fact that I had become involved in the first place. This user embarassed everyone who had helped him out. I was not the only one.
    This was not a case like Zephram Stark or Jason Gastrich, it was different—a banned user had asked for a second chance. Jason Gastrich came to advertise his idea of faith, Zephram Stark wanted to push his POV. If you remember, Blu had been an RC patroller, and he had been blocked over an argument with the Wikipedia Review on the userbox undeletion page. Then, while arguing his unblock, Nicholas Turnbull protected his talkpage, the only way he could communicate. He wasn't the only person who ever held a wikipedia review account, but he was one of the last ones to do so. It was primarily what he did there that meritted his first block. Anyway, after his talkpage had been blocked, I raised a concern about it [3], to which Nicholas said it was better to do so because both parties were arguing pointlessly, and it was a better idea to protect the page. I concurred [4]. So he came to Linuxbeak on IRC and said he had forked from Wikipedia Review and politely asked for a second chance. I think many of us remember the long discussion on ANI over the unblocking (which eventually resulted in a wheel war over his block). I read his apologies and his comments, and I decided that he deserved a chance. The reason I wrote that message was to boost his morale, but after reading his angry response it seemed to be already going out the window anyway. Please don't single me out as the only one who sympathised with Blu, because there were a handful of us who had faith in him. FWIW, the situation did teach me a lesson—never interfere with a person's defense of character: always watch from the sidelines unless the situation requires you to become involved. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose mainspace edits are just too low for me, sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose; lack of real editing and per Dmcdevit. Ral315 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Sorry, I must oppose. Not impressed by answers to questions and other comments on RFA. Seems to be blaming Wikipedia admins for harming users while carrying out Wikipedia blocking and banning policies. Sorry, I can not support a nom with this attitude. FloNight talk 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose as I don't see much need for mop. This editor spends as much time on user talk pages as he does editing articles, which shows good communication. But I can't accept the, "I'd write more but it's already been written," argument. I have edited lots of articles, adding to them, outside my fund of knowledge. What I did was research it then write about it, this also allows me to add references as well. Ifnord 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose the fact they want to close AfDs (as mentioned in answers) whilst they haven't gained that much experience with them already is quite worrying. I fear their experience may be on the weak side. Also not a huge amount of edits considering they've been here since November 2005, but I would certainly consider supporting any of the users future RfAs. Would recommend user trying again in a few months when they've gained more experience/edits.--Andeh 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Per Andeh above. --Wisden17 13:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per FloNight above, and low edit count. Tom Harrison Talk 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I am wary because the number of mainspace edits is lower than I want, as the main importance of this website is to create the encyclopedia itself. --WillMak050389 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Seems to be a good user, but I won't call 17 AIV edits to be numerous. The mainspace and WP space edits is little low for me. (This is after factoring in the 86 more significant edits shown in VoS's JS). --WinHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Impressive candidate from what I can tell from reading current and archived talk pages; less experience than I'd like to see. (I'm cautious about new admins and like to see more experience than most voters). My vote may change as more users share their experiences.--A. B. 16:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    P.S. RfA process comment: are we supposed to update the tally at the top ourselves or does someone else do this?--A. B. 16:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    You can do it, and most do, as it makes less work for others, and keeps everything up-to-date, but if you forget don't worry. Someone like me comes along and does it gladly ;) Thε Halo Θ 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I do spend a lot of time reading up on old ArbCom disputes and bans (the most interesting one was probably the pedophilia userbox wheel war), and reading the disputes on the talkpages of users. I watched a lot of the Karmafist fiasco play out from afar, and I sort of involved myself in Blu's ban (I copied part of his statement to the arbcom page, and I encouraged him to persevere through it.....look at his talkpage history). That event drastically changed the way I saw things work here, mostly because the whole conflict arose and collapsed in a series of hours. I saw that many of the criticisms both groups made were long-term grudges about certain issues. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    editcount - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    2,000+ isn't good enough for you? What a pity. 1ne 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Switch to Oppose - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I believe that 1000 mainspace edits is a good minimum for potential admins to shoot for before accepting nomination. But I do not find anything else out of place... will support on re-app if all is in order then. Themindset 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral I'd like to vote supoort for this user, but I know them outside of wikipedia. They're a great person. Good Luck. --Clyde Miller 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC).
    I'm leaning toward support after reading answers to Seivad's questions. I'll think about it.--Clyde Miller 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) changed to support.
  5. Neutral on the lack of AfD and article edits. Good luck in a few more months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, lacks of article edits, can't oppose, would really want to support. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I only counted 17 reports to WP:AIV (not as "numerous" as I was expecting) and his lack of AfD experience is a bit concerning if he wants to start closing them. I also would've liked him to have a bit more article writing, as that's the primary reason why we're all here. However, I really like the candidate's attitude (evidenced from his answer to Seviad's Q2) and I think he could potentially be a good administrator. hoopydinkConas tá tú?
  8. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral The reviews above provide mixed messages...Having not encountered this user, I cannot provide my own evaluation. Michael 07:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral per Hoopydink. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral per Hoopydink, because I haven't encountered Ikiroid myself. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral Very impressed with the thoughtful answer to my essay question, but have some serious concerns about interaction with BluAardvark per User:Dmcdevit. ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: The above was before I saw your answer to Dmcdevit. That answer is a long and thoughtful one and shows evidence of the sort of thinking I think is needed. And I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that you meant well, but I also think an admin needs to know when meaning well isn't enough. Sometimes snap judgements are needed but sometimes some investigation is needed too. BA, in my view, deserves nothing but shunning.So while I am impressed and likely would support next time, I still feel neutral is the right sentiment for now. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral. I did not find the nominee's answers to the "standard" questions compelling and the "oppose" comments give reason to pause; however, the answer to the optional question was excellent. If only that quality shone through the rest of the answers and reasons for the nomination, I'd lean much more to support. If this RfA succeeds, then fine (as adminship is supposed to be no big deal); if not, I'm likely to support in the future. Agent 86 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral per Lar --Guinnog 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username Ikiroid
Total edits 2254
Distinct pages edited 983
Average edits/page 2.293
First edit 17:00, 10 November 2005
 
(main) 650
Talk 195
User 297
User talk 603
Image 9
Image talk 2
Template 29
Template talk 25
Help 1
Category 4
Wikipedia 373
Wikipedia talk 66
  • Ikiroid's edit count from VoA's JS
--Viewing contribution data for user Ikiroid (over the 2254 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 224 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 21, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 10, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 98.25% Minor edits: 98.99%
Average edits per day: 17.84 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 306 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2254 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.13% (3)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 3.68% (83)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 12.95% (292)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 39.1%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 983 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 9.41%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 65.17% (1469 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 10.2% (230 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.86% (380 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 7.05% (159 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 28.84% (650) | Article talk: 8.65% (195)
User: 13.18% (297) | User talk: 26.75% (603) 
Wikipedia: 16.55% (373) | Wikipedia talk: 2.93% (66)
Image: 0.4% (9)
Template: 1.29% (29)
Category: 0.18% (4)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.04% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.2% (27)

--WinHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 July 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, 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: I'd like to help block recurring vandals at WP:AIV, speedy delete obvious cases at Special:Newpages, and block inappropriate usernames of new users in the new user log, and block 3RR violations. I'll also close AfDs every once in a while and regularly check if I can help out at WP:ANI.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While a lot of my work falls under that of a wikignome or wikifairy (categorizing, seperating sections, NPOVing, adding pictures), I'm proud of the work I've done for the Writing systems wikiproject. I've started International Phonetic Alphabet on its way to becoming featured, and oversaw much of the work on Template:Infobox WS, though CWDunkerson worked with much of the esoteric code.
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: Early on as a user, I pointed out some POV on the article about Interlingua, which spurred more of a serious discussion than a conflict, but it still got my shoes wet in the matter of content dispute. JoshuaZ and I had an edit war with The Artist Formerly Known as BenFranklin over pro-whatever content in the Death article, which eventually ended in a compromise. I added some information about Jared Diamond's hypothesis to Neolithic Revolution, which met a decent amount of opposition from an editor. I try to use process, and a large amount of communication when involved in a dispute. I believe that many disputes, bans, etc., stem from misunderstandings ultimately rooted in a lack of communication.

Optional questions from Seivad

4. How much experience of Recent Changes Patrolling do you have, and do you intend to continue doing this if you become an admin?
A: I'll always spend time going about recent changes, I do not see any adminship hindering it. I usually use User:Lupin/Recent IP edits for checking for vandals, and since it comes with a non-admin rollback option, I'm already somwhat familiar with it. However, I try not to make RC patrolling my biggest activity. This is because often the vandalism has already been reverted as I hit rollback, leading me to believe that there are already a large amount of people (as well as bots) on the job, so my work would be done by someone else anyway. The worst that has happened was my userpage being vandalized three times and an anon calling me an evil jew in an edit summary[5]. I do enjoy the work though, it has a bit of a pattern to it, and it is a quick way to help maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia.
5. If you thought a user was being rude to you, how would you respond?
A: I would probably try to ignore the fact that they were being difficult and try to fix what was bugging them. People will naturally become angry or frusterated if they feel they are being cheated, so it is better to not perseverate on this, and instead focus on helping them so they don't turn into a long-term abuse case. If an admin keeps throwing {{civil}} tags at someone while ignoring their plight, chances are that that person will end up becoming angrier. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers and good luck!Seivad 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Optional question from Lar:

6.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
A: Ah, I was hoping to get this question! Yes, I fully support recalling and examining one's adminship, and I fully support adding myself to the list and getting reviewed monthly (or every few weeks). I think it gives normal users more power in wikipedia, indeed, many users have scuffles with admins where they end up having the lower hand, but there is little to do. I guess adminship reviews would help give normal editors a better voice in the administrative community and help dispel those ideas of a cabal.
The current options of criticism are 1) Tell the admin on their talkpage, 2) Get a lynch mob if the situation becomes bad enough and file an RFC 3) Go through the long process of arbitration. Arbitrations and RFCs call require an editor to be seriously out of control (usually the editor is question is an admin or an "aparatchik" as Tony Sidaway calls them). Editors unfamiliar with process, such as exopedians, usually end up getting the short end of the stick, as process and policy wonks get the best of them. You see cases like Ed Poor's where every issue surmounted into a giant snowball which ultimately destroyed his bureaucratship and adminship. If only something could have been done earlier to stop the gears from turning—I do realize some problems were created by him, but there were a lot of it were views and opinions that weren't fully realized by both parties until it was too late. Some admins will ignore these comments until the point of arbitration, and by that time they are on the defense and likely to be too defensive to accept criticism, and those making accusations are often so sick of being ignored or abused that they'd rather see someone properly punished, instead of reaching a liveable compromise for both parties.
You often see admins who are sick of being reported by naive editors and recieving ad-hominem attacks from wikitruth and hivemind. These admins grow a sort of callous which makes them assume bad faith and self-gain of other editors, and they become known as "rogue" or "rouge" admins. To a point, they have a right to, it is a defense mechanism from a potentially abusive stranger. Some of these admins like JzG and Mel Etitis have been through a plethora of RFCs which have sought to destroy their reputations. In the end, it comes down to the fact that there is really no good way to force an editor to listen to small complaints before they become large ones. A Re-RFA would force an admin to approach these criticisms, because their adminship is on the line. Look at Sean Black's recent RFA—in essence, it is what a admin review would be if we ever had one. The majority of complaints were his attitude and language as an admin, things that become increasingly more popular with admins as they realise that there isn't much they have to lose. But what if they did have something to lose, like their adminship? Perhaps things would get a little more civil.
I can see here that I have a significant amount of opposes and neutrals. If I do become an admin, I don't want to see these criticisms disappear or go unnoticed—I want all of these people to realize I will try to improve based on these criticisms whether or not this RFA succeeds.
And if I don't, you can tell me when my admin review comes around, or my next RFA if this one fails :). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:56, 24 July 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.