Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Pax:Vobiscum

Closed as successful by Cecropia 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC) at (34/10/2); Scheduled end time 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pax:Vobiscum (talk · contribs) - I've been editing Wikipedia for 9 months now and have really enjoyed the experience. I have tried to get a feel of most of the different types of work being done here and think that I have a clear understanding of how things work. I've created new articles, edited old ones, participated in deletion discussions and warned vandals. I have lately felt that I could contribute even more if I had access to the admin tools so here I am. I consider myself pretty calm and I think my understanding of the Wikipedia policies is solid. I also don't have any trouble admitting that I don't know everything and that reading through a policy before using it in a discussion isn't forbidden. :) Pax:Vobiscum 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As far as maintenance work I will help out where needed but focus on AfDs, page protection and requested moves. I'll also continue fighting vandalism through speedy deletions and an appropriate amount of banning blocking. (see question 5 and 6)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best articles are Simon Phipps Vocal Ensemble and Hans Davidsson, but the work I'm most proud of is all the maintenance edits I've done, fixing links (to disamb pages), sorting out categories, reverting vandalism, particpating in AfDs and, for the last few months, sorting AfDs [1]. Good articles need good maintenance to be useful, and that is my main area of contribution.
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: Except for having my user page vandalized a few times (something I assume happens to everyone reverting vandalism) my interactions with other wikipedians have been pretty smooth. There has been an occasional AfD where I've felt frustrated over the arguments made (or the lack thereof) but nothing that has evolved to anything resembling a fight. WZBH is the closest I've gotten to an edit war, an anonymous editor reintroduces information that violates WP:BLP and I revert. I've tried to get a discussion going [2] but without results. The best way to deal with a stressful situation is to think things through carefully before taking action or (if things get ugly) to step back and ask for someone else's opinion.
4. Bonus question to myself: Are there any edits that you are not proud of?
A: When I first started to use AWB I ended up doing a bunch of unnecessary watchlist-clogging edits and even a few really stupid formatting edits. Luckily for me, people assumed good faith [3] and I I'm pretty sure I didn't repeat that mistake.
I I realize that this is a serious process, but I I couldn't help but comment on the repetitive use of a pronoun, but it's not like I I have never made a typographical error... — BQZip01 — talk

Optional question from Anthony.bradbury

5. Would you please tell me, following from your answer to Q.1, who has the power to ban an editor?
A:As some have already suggested it was a verbal slip, I meant to write blocking but somewhere in my Swedish mind it morphed into banning before it came out. An admin does not have the power to issue bans, that can only be done through community wide consensus or by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Optional Questions from DarkFalls

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block, and in what situations will you invoke either?
A:A ban is the formal decision to deny a user the right to edit wikipedia. It is taken through community wide consensus or by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, and never by a single administrator. A block is the technical procedure of denying a single account (or IP-address) editing privileges (temporary or permanently). Blocks can be used to enforce bans but also for other things as specified in WP:BLOCK. Blocks are most often issued when a set of warnings have been given even though it "is not a prerequisite for blocking".
7.:If you were asked by numerous respected editors in Wikipedia to ban a certain user from editing Wikipedia, in a IRC channel or email, what would you do?
A:I would kindly remind them of the difference between banning and blocking and give them a link to Wikipedia:Banning policy explaining that it is not up to a single administrator to ban a user. I would then investigate if a block would be appropriate.

Optional Question from Black Harry

8. This question is a two-parter. First, do you have a secure password? Second, do you access Wikipedia on any free WiFi networks using this account?
A: 1. Yes 2. No
A question from bainer (talk)
9. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A:I think the policy uses a good formulation, stating that rules should be ignored if they "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". The rules are very important in making wikipedia a nice place to be, but the rules should always serve Wikipedia and not the other way around. WP:IAR is not a tool for me to nullify rules just because I don't like them, but rather a way to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a bureaucracy. When a rule contradicts common sense, consensus and prevents Wikipedia from improving, it can safely be ignored.

Optional from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

10.Under what circumstances would you fully protect/semi-protect/unprotect an article? (3 part question) You mentioned in Q1 how you would like to help out in WP:RPP.
A.: 1. Temporary full protection should be used to stop a full blown edit war to force the editors involved to discuss the problem and reach consensus. It can also be used on the user talk of a blocked user in case the unblock template is being abused. I would use permanent full protection to stop an article, deleted through consensus, from being repeatedly recreated. 2. Permanent semi-protection should be used on very high profile articles (and vandalized biographies that aren't being "widely watchlisted") that are sure to attract IP-vandals. It can also be used on a user pages if the user asks for it. Temporary semi-protection should be used on any article that has sustained vandalism from a large number of different vandals. 3. Unprotection should be used if there is reason to think that the situation that caused the protection has changed, such as consensus being reached or a "reasonable period" of time having passed (the admin who placed the block should be consulted unless the unblock is an obvious one).

Question from rspeer

11. Your answers to the questions so far show us only that you make a lot of small edits, have written a couple of stub articles, and have avoided controversy. This means we have no idea what you will do with admin tools, particularly under stressful situations, and we have nothing to distinguish you from hundreds of other AWB users who are not all admins. Can you show us something interesting you've done on Wikipedia which distinguishes you and shows your commitment to the project? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A. With recent admin vandalism in mind I do understand your concerns. The question from my point of view is: how can I prove that I'm not a trojan candidate when I'm not? The only thing I can do is to point out that not a single of my edits can be considered vandalism, that I've always stayed calm even when my edits have been reverted (examples:[4], [5], [6]) or my arguments questioned ([7], [8]) and that my interactions with other wikipedians have always been friendly. Even though a lot of my edits have been gnomish in nature I have invested a lot of time and effort in Wikipedia and can honestly say that I care a lot about the project.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pax:Vobiscum before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Please see This discussion about suspected sockpuppets in this RFA. Funpika 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do not vote based on the sockpuppet issue until a checkuser is performed. It's unfair to the candidate to assume that he/she's involved unless there's evidence to suggest that it was the candidate, and not an enemy trying to raise suspicion about Pax:Vobiscum. Ral315 » 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • A checkuser has now been run by Dmcdevit and determined that the SPA's are socks of a known vandal and unrelated to the candidate. See here. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Although banning and blocking are different, I think everybody should keep in mind that many editors are not native English speakers, and the difference can then become more foggy. This does not mean they will use the tools abusively. Pax tecum. Errabee 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support It seemed to be obvious that it was a verbal slip and I think his balance of work makes him well-qualified.DGG 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Majorly, is it not hypocritical to brush off canvassing as negligible and then oppose based on what can be seen as a typographical error? -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not at all. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I wonder how many people would have even noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it. You're pretty influential around here. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 03:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    To be fair to User:Majorly, I saw it first; hence my Q.5, which pre-dated Majorly's comment, and the answer to which I am satisfied with.--Anthony.bradbury 12:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, and I see it has since been cleared up. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support We're all learning every day, and if someone believes they know everything, then I would say they are more dangerous than someone who knows less but keeps an open mind. --Infrangible 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support As stated above, I'm sure its a mistake, or an error as stated by Errabee. --WikihermitTalk to me £ 02:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support oh no! he said he'd ban a user instead of block a user. That was an easy mistake to make, especially for someone who hasn't been able to block anyone yet. So I support him, though we were on opposite sides of an AfD (what, I'm not petty) Black Harry 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I was fairly certain it was a slip of the tongue, or finger, but I needed him to say so.--Anthony.bradbury 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support (Changed from oppose) Per answer to question 6. He knows the difference between a block and a ban, he just slipped up. Everyone slips up once in a while. --Mschel 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. The ban/block minor slipup does not worry me in the least. Abeg92contribs 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support The ban/block slip-up was a very simple mistake. I disagree with folks voting neutralor oppose solely on grounds that such an error means you will not be a good admin. So much else suggests that you will be a fine an admin. I just can't see making a big deal over this.—Gaff ταλκ 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Per the answers to the questions. Since it was just a slip up, no reason to opppose. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Good user.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support- very good user, don't see why not. Malbour enziz 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Malbour enziz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support- very good user. Noble of pemberton 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Noble of pemberton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support- yes, why not? Crowdman 4000 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Crowdman 4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Support- good editor. Pax vulcurcross 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Pax vulcurcross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support With the ban/block thing cleared up, we're ready to go! Gutworth 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Am thinking of leaving wikipedia because of aggressive editors but Pax:Vobiscum is very encouraging and also a good editor.Pipermantolisopa 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support the block/ban confusion (although relatively minor) having been cleared up, this editor is a good candidate, and should do well. Carom 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support The issue appears to be cleared up; otherwise, a good editor. Jmlk17 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Glad to see your slip isn't going to cost you. You seem to already be helpful to others based on your talk page. I'm sure you'll continue to be a fine resource. JodyB talk 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support <clichè> I thought you already were an admin! </clichè> Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Everything seems good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs)
  21. Support Appears to be a good user to be admining. Captain panda 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Why not? THe only reason why people are opposing is because the he confused blocking and banning. Big deal, as long as it keeps vandals away, it works with me. Also his answers to the questions seems good. -ScotchMB 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Great answer to Q10. Diez2 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - No Problem..--Cometstyles 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support. I appreciate the response to Q11. The links he's provided - though to fairly minor incidents - help to show us how he interacts with people in a way that benefits Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe he won't continue to do so as an admin, so I support now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    I've oscillated a lot here, but I think I've settled at a weak oppose. I'm sorry that what prompted me to swivel back was not Pax's fault, but here's the thing. The fact that this RfA is so easily mired in confusion highlights the fact that his self-nom is so lacking in content. If I was too quick to oppose based on sockpuppet concerns, I was also too quick to support just because he answered my question. I'm sorry for only adding to the confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. SupoortNice responses to all questions, good editor should be given a nice mop as a reward Æon Insanity Now! 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support No one would use SPA socks to support their own RfA - that's just silly. This is clearly a third party trying to disrupt the process. I see no reason not to trust Pax with the tools. WjBscribe 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. The answers are quite good. If you're doing this for the purpose of gaining admin rights to destroy Wikipedia, you're putting up a good cover :) . RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Weak support - Answers to questions are reasonable. Mild concerns re. knowledge of policy but No Big Deal. WP:SPA accounts do not bother me in the slightest, post-checkuser - Alison ☺ 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - as someone who uses the heck out of AWB myself. Some of us really ENJOY doing gnomish things, and still believe they're significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Wish the candidate the best. Philippe 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I hope I haven't upset you with my comments below. To be clear, I value editors who do gnomish things, revert vandalism, and use AWB. It's important work. This isn't a judgement on the value of the user's contributions, which I think is well-established. Adminship isn't a validation of the worth of one's contributions, though. I think Pax is a good editor, whether or not this RfA goes through (and it appears, at present, that it will). MastCell Talk 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support No problems here. Glad to voice my supprt. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support the reasoning of WJBscribe. Acalamari 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Oppose votes don't convince me, in fact all the crossed out ones show me something.--Wizardman 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Many of the crossed-out votes are solely there because of the single-purpose-accounts throwing confusion on the matter. That's all it shows to me, which is neutral with respect to the candidate. -- nae'blis 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. The adminship is no big deal, and it is not fair to oppose a candidate on the grounds that their profile seems similar to a recent (surely unique) case. If you've got a diff, produce it. Otherwise, bite your tongue and assume good faith. Bucketsofg 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Low talk page edits is irrelevant to adminship. Peacent 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why doyou think that? Communication is a primary skill for sysops, and a vandal fighter with that few talk edits probably isn't leaving warnings as often as they should, or engaging users in constructive dialogue with potential good users. -- nae'blis 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    The only real way to know if a person is a good communicator is to actually look at the edits to the talk namespaces, not merely count them. GracenotesT § 14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Unless, of course, it's really low. The same logic applies to another edit count worries. GracenotesT § 14:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose per question 1. Should know by now the difference between block and ban. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Switch to neutral.
Per Majorly. Banning is extremely different from blocking. A definite lack of experience in Wikipedia's policies. Strongly suggest a withdrawal.. Pending answer to second question --Dark Falls talk 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to neutral.
Oppose Unless we get a really satisfactory answer to my Q.5-- Changed to supportAnthony.bradbury 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose — Per DarkFalls. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Majorly. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to Support
Oppose policy knowledge is uber important Gutworth 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Joining the general change in direction. Gutworth 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, Should know the difference beetween a ban and a block. --Mschel 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Changed to support. --Mschel 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. As it stands, this is the kind of vacuous RfA we should be afraid of. We have basically no information about Pax:Vobiscum except that he "edits old articles" like presumably every WP editor does, "writes new articles" that have remained essentially stubs to this day, uses AWB to get a high edit count, votes on things, and can give satisfying answers to policy questions. We know nothing about his motivations, what he will do in the stressful situations that admins encounter, or even whether he is a "trojan candidate" like Runcorn (talk · contribs). (This is not an accusation, this is being cautious.) I oppose pending an enlightening answer to Q11. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Update: I would have supported based on a satisfactory answer to Q11, but the marginal trust Pax gained from me there is countered by the sockpuppet concerns raised below. Try again when we know you enough to trust you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Per this ANI discussion. Funpika 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Checkuser has now been run and determined that the SPA's supporting this RfA are socks of a known vandal and unrelated to the candidate. See here. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Gah, this has gotten convoluted. I think I was too quick to be swayed by both his Q11 answer and the sockpuppet suspicion. When the dust clears, Pax is still an unknown. I'll stick with a weak oppose -- I would be more comfortable supporting a candidate with more substance to their RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per above user. BH (Talk) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Because checkuser cleared him, I'm back to my original position. BH (Talk) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for now. The single-purpose accounts voting for this user have put me on edge and the answers to the questions don't seem to indicate that you understand policy and the tools well enough to be trusted with them. I'd like to see some better contributions and contributions that exhibit clear understanding of why he'd be using the tools. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Sorry; I think you've done a lot of good work with reversions, sorting, and the like, and ordinarily I think anyone whose RfA is trolled by sockpuppets must be doing something right. However... given recent events with sockpuppet admins with editing histories very similar to yours, I'm going to oppose based on a lack of content contributions. I hate to do that, because I don't want to imply your contributions lack value. But you don't need the tools for the kind of wikignoming work you're doing, and the contrib pattern makes me nervous given recent events. I think you're a good user, making good contributions, and I could see supporting with a little more evidence of involvement in the content aspects of the encyclopedia, but I have to oppose for now. MastCell Talk 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    That's a big assumption of bad faith, MastCell :) You'd have to oppose most candidates now for the exact same reason. If you think the user is good, making good contributions and such, you'd be contradicting yourself by opposing. No big deal remember. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, it really wasn't meant to be an assumption of bad faith. I think this user's contributions have been good, but my opinion remains the same. I agree with what User:rspeer articulated, and my comments were a reflection of what I expressed here: in the wake of recent events, I'd like to see more than primarily vandalism reverts or bot-assisted edits from admin candidates. It's not a judgement on this editor's value to the project, which I think is well-demonstrated. I realize I'm being on the stingy side here, and that I'm open to being accused of undervaluing countervandalism work, but there you have it. MastCell Talk 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. May happily support a future RfA, but I, too, would like more evidence of who you are and where you are going. Only article writing and some involvement in Wikipedia debates (more than your current 7 edits in WT space) could conclusively show that. —AldeBaer 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose at this time; not yet confident in this user's understanding and implementation of the more arcane bits of Wikipedia policy, and while gnomishness is absolutely useful, it rarely requires the bit. Maybe another time. -- nae'blis 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per low Talk page edits. An admin must be more than a vandal fighter - s/he must be experienced in interacting with others. Crum375 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Nearly 4,000 mainspace edits and only 58 edits to article talk. That's way too low. We need admins who've done something other than revert vandalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, answers to the questions don't convince me that the experience is there, I don't sense confidence Modernist 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Generally not confident with communication, which is so important for admins. Daniel 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose No not enough mainspace article creation edits. --VS talk 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To me it seems like your standards are a bit to high. All that we need is more admins who will be active and reliable. If that person does not have many content to articles then so what. Also, it is vandal fighters who need the tools the most.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Was there a simple reason that you typed ban rather than block? You should explain that soon, before the oppose votes pile high.—Gaff ταλκ 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. —Gaff ταλκ 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. I am worried about the mainspace contributions, as most of the contribs seem to be AWB edits, and you have a minimal amount of article expansion edits. Apart from that, your request is fine. --Dark Falls talk 09:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Your explanation seems OK, but I'm worried you might make similar errors in your role as an admin, leading to confusion. Majorly (talk | meet) 11:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll remain neutral for now, but I'm very concerned by the sockpuppeteering allegations raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet concern, especially as this RfA seems to go towards sysopping Pax:Vobiscum. We can't have a sockpuppeteering admin. AecisBrievenbus 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish to withdraw my neutral !vote; Pax has been cleared of all suspicions. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:22, 7 June 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.