Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RevRagnarok 2

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] RevRagnarok

Final: (3/14/3); ended 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn [1])

First RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RevRagnarok

RevRagnarok (talk · contribs) - I would like to re-enlist RevRagnarok for Adminship. RR is a terrific Wikipedian and has amassed over 8500 total edits, with nearly 6000 mainspace edits. He has shown interest in working on severely backlogged areas such as Articles for Speedy Deletion, AIV and RFPP. It should be said that this is his second nomination, after his first nomination was shot down for the most ridiculous of reasons (some people figured he wouldn't be a good admin because of some userboxes). He has since removed the offending material. I strongly supported RevRagnarok the first time because of his terrific history here (continuous activity since July of 06) and his interest in helping in a severely needed area, the backlogs. Kntrabssi 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes I am willing to give it another try. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(Original nomination paraphrased as candidate's optional statement) - I've been an active part of WP since 2005 for 8700+ edits (as of nom, and I use preview a lot) and part of the Open Source community since around 1999 (first GPL software was 2000 provable by freshmeat.net). I say that because I consider WP an extension of the concept. Due to the nature of my work, I sometimes have windows of 10-15 open minutes that I currently use for watchlist watching (2000+) mostly for vandalism (my personal favorite was this one since I worked with Boeing on the V-22 in my earlier days).

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?
A: As I noted above, I get blocks of 10-15 min available on occasion throughout the workday (GMT -4) to chip away at the backlog (using AzaToth's TWINKLE for WP:AIV reports I often see 5-10 IP backlogs there). As a more concrete example, since my first RfA, at one point I noticed that there were over 130 speedy delete tags waiting to be examined. So most likely I would be "hanging out" in those places and sometimes new page patrolling.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Not sure if there's any that make me really feel warm and fuzzy that I can think of. I am usually doing thankless stuff with regular expressions in AWB (recently made sure that every reference to Mötley Crüe had the proper characters). I rewrote parchive pretty much from scratch. Not hugely impressive, but janitorial work is where I usually lurk. I've cleaned a few DAB pages (Rocket comes to mind). Even though it is not always understood, I have often followed split out articles around and put GFDL tags on them (e.g. Ear pick, Electoral geography, Dilbert, and TPS Reports).
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: Lately it has been because I have become more active in the COI notice board. COI: Usually start with a {{prod}} and it that's not enough, it goes to {{afd}} like this (OK, I didn't start that one - I did start Adam Jones and Sam Storey). Other articles: I've dealt with it in escalation levels. First a simple reversion, then moving to the talk page. If that doesn't work, I'll admit I think I've accidentally broken the 3RR. I usually get a few other editor's opinions and try to achieve a consensus. I think the worst was Universal Image Format which had some personal attacks against me and I might have been able to handle better; however I have done enough system administration work in the past (IRL) to refrain from smiting even when I could. Often, the best route is just to ignore the trolls and when they finally wander off, archive it so useful discussion continue (e.g. "HOMELAND OF MEAD IS POLAND").

Optional question from User:Xiner

4. How did you reach the decision to accept this nomination?
A: A few other editors, along with myself, felt that the previous RfA went totally tangential to an actual discussion of merit ("...userbox thing is just about the weakest and least convincing opposition meme I've ever seen gain traction"). Like I noted above, seeing a backlog of 130 after my first failed attempt was frustrating. I think there's a good chance that many of the previous opposition comments were not revisited after I made some requested changes to my userpage. Some editors followed up, and I appreciate that. As for the turnaround time, only two of eighteen opposes said that more experience was needed, while many supports thought I was fine. Most of the other oppose that weren't userbox commentary regarded my trying to respond in my own defense - something I wasn't aware of since I don't participate in tons of RfAs. So I didn't see a reason for waiting. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. I opted neutral last time, citing the now by-gone userboxes. I've thought a lot about adminship lately and, after very kind chats with Kntrabssi, other users, are becoming more familiar with wiki process, I say, "Why not?" RevRagnarok is qualified, he is willing, he already participates in lots of admin processes (inasmuch as a non-admin can); why not give him the tools? An administrator is allowed a personality, and that personality may or may not include likes and dislikes. To oppose someone based on that, in my opinion (and contrary to my previous opinion), is silly. Note that I do not post this to discredit any other opinions. I post to indicate why I flip-flopped and why I now support RevRagnarok. --Iamunknown 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as Nom. Can anyone give a real reason why Rev shouldn't be a nominator, other than "it's been too soon since his last RfA"? Do you all realize how crazy this is? This sets the precedent that a) the userboxes on your user page can affect your ability to become an admin, and b) an arbitrary and unspecified amount of time should pass between an RfA in which many of the opposing voters came to the nominee's talk page and admitted that it was a ridiculous reason to oppose, and the new RfA. If it were the instance that Rev didn't have enough experience, or that something was pointed out to him that needed time to demonstrate his new understanding, than that would make sense. But the absurd reason of the other RfA, coupled with many voters supporting him on his talk page, some even admitting that they should NOT have opposed, is reason enough to reapply him for RfA. I feel that we are on a slippery slope which leads to administrators becoming an exclusive club of editors who are seperate from normal editors, and not the original intention of admins. There is a HUGE backlog around here that only Admins are privileged to see, and you want to deny someone who is eager to get into that backlog. I think we need to all agree that this process is flawed and needs to be fixed. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but I'll gladly help. Kntrabssi 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on this RfA (nor did I on the prior one), but I see no issue whatsoever with userboxes (or any other content) on your userpage being a basis for discussion on your RfA. It goes to show a user's judgment (which is pretty much what RfAs attempt to determine), and user pages serve as your public face; despite the fact that we know that adminship is really just a couple of extra buttons, administrators are still expected to live up to higher standards. I don't understand why you insist on disparaging the prior AfD constantly simply because you disagree with it, but it seems to be an assumption of bad faith to me. I imagine a good number of the opposers here would have no problems supporting in the future if enough time passes and RevRagnarok continues to show good judgment, but re-nominating less than two weeks is almost a guaranteed failed nom, and Rev has been done a disservice in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Rev agreed to go about this, and we talked about it for a few days before I renommed him. As I stated above, a few of the people who voted oppose on the last RfA came to him after and stated that it was a terrible reason to oppose and they would support him in the future. Completely disregarding the userbox topic, the offending material has been removed, so I don't see what the problem is. I was not assuming bad faith in renomming Rev, he removed the material that lost him the last one, that's all. Anyways, I've suggested to him that we snowball this and take a month or two to rethink the process. Kntrabssi 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fully support, Rev should have had the sysop weeks ago. His contributions has nothing to be complained about, also his attitude to other editors, including myself. But he still failed. Why? His only mistake (biggest mistake) is to bring his political concerns on his user page, which led to a pile of the so-called oppose votes. In conclusion, his last RFA failed due to the most preposterous reason: userbox. I do think this RFA can be considered an exception, because the kernel of the problems here is not related to his experience nor his contributions, it's the political viewpoint. Oppose votes like way too soon or You could've waited a bit longer are totally irrelevant, since you can wait until the candidate gets more experience, but you can't wait until the candidate changes his political viewpoint or compel him to do so to satisfy you requirement, which has no relation to his potential as an admin. And Rev, I do believe that if you don't succeed in this RFA, you still deserve the sysop and I completely respect your point of view. Move on! Apple••w••o••r••m•• 09:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Way, way too soon since last RFA. Usually this indicates a sign that the user is too eager for the buttons. You could've waited a bit longer imo. I also notice that your answers to the questions are almost a carbon-copy of the answers to your first RFA, which is another side-effect of having an RFA this soon since the last one. – Chacor 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Chacor. A week is far too little to wait. I have heard of people opposing because a candidate only waited three months between RfAs. One week kind of ridiculous. I supported in your last RfA, but I can't support when you had an RfA so recently. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose Can't remember whether I opposed or was neutral last time around but re-applying for adminship a week later is a lack of respect for the community's opinion on the original RfA. Wait a couple of months and we can start fresh. Nominator states as a fact that ""first nomination was shot down for the most ridiculous of reasons (some people figured he wouldn't be a good admin because of some userboxes). " For one thing that's not assuming good faith in the participants of the original RfA and saying that the whole thing failed because people thought his userboxes disqualify him as an admin trivializes the genuine concerns that many expressed. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose this is much too soon. You're not helped by the bad faith displayed by your nominator. You seem to have a problem with civility, for example [2]. Finally, you tagged this edit with a {{uw-vandalism4im}} which looks like biting a newbie. Sorry, Gwernol 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Like, two weeks since the last RfA? So much for "three months". I hate to oppose something the nominator did as opposed to the candiate, but the candidate should REALLY have rejected this nomination. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose per Chacor. A week is too soon to request adminship when concensus could not be reached the first time, and it is certainly not enough time to address users' concerns. Michael 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose. WAY too soon since last RfA, I have no idea both why Kntrabssi nommed you so quickly. I mean, this may be the first bad faith nom I've seen.--Wizardman 03:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    More like poor judgement from Kntrabssi. I'm sure (s)he genuinely thought this was a reasonnable thing to do. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose Rapid renomination violates WP:POINT, shows general disdain for the community. Candidate clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies, processes, or cultural norms yet. Apply again in 12 months, and I will consider supporting. Xoloz 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Per Gwernol for now. Lakers 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I supported in the previous RfA, but one week is way too soon to try again. I suggest waiting 3-4 months before trying again, and doing a lot of good work in that time. If you do, I don't think you'll have any problems at that point. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. What? The only coherent argument I can pick out for applying again in two weeks is "but the other discussion was wrong!" -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I'm really torn on this. You seem to be a good editor, and have a generally good record. You don't seem to have acquired too many enemies, which is good, but with friends like Kntrabssi, frankly you don't need them. I opposed last time, not because of the userboxes, as such, but because you appeared to consider that anyone offended had some kind of problem. I think that you have failed to provide an appearance of neutrality, and have shown poor judgement. (Other readers can see this note [[3]] I left on Revragnarok's user page after his last RFA summarising my opinions). That leaves this RFA. The super-fast relisting certainly appears to be incredibly offensive to all those who voted oppose in your last RFA, in that you clearly think that you have nothing to change. I would really want to see an explanation of why you think there was an error of process in your last RFA before I could even consider a "neutral" or "support" of any RFA re-opened so quickly. AKAF 07:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. It's been about a week. This insults the community's intelligence. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please be civil and assume good faith. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. "So-called Oppose vote". The candidate's aggressive lawyering on the original RFA is not something I want to see from an admin. Oh, and Appleworm, don't add threaded comments to !votes, please. Take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Neutral

  1. Neutral too soon. I did the protest support thing last time, but your acceptance of this nomination makes me wonder. Even a month between RfAs would be too little time, and for such a heated argument that yours turned into, I would wait at least 3 months. – Riana ऋ 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral sorry, too soon since the last attempt. The Rambling Man 06:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I wouldn't say this insults the community's intelligence so much as rather community memory. Nevertheless, I may readily support at a later time. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 3 April 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.