Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seth Ilys (renomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Seth Ilys

Vote here (31/0/3) ending 02:39 1 July 2005 (UTC)

The bizarre level of dissent, belligerency, and tension surrounding User:Eequor's recent failed RfA, combined with a sense I've been getting from the community that admins just aren't trusted and generally abuse their power prompt me to wonder what it would be like if we re-voted on standing users who already hold admin powers. As such proposals are floated from time to time, I think it will be valuable for us to see how the community reacts to these situations. (Note: as some people are unclear on exactly why I'm doing this, there's an attempt at a more detailed explanation on the RfA talk page.)

I've been a Wikipediholic since December 2003, an admin (approved unanimously on a self-nomination) since March 2004, and have made a disturbing 45-thousand some edits in that time, a great many connected with the Dot Project. As I'm in grad. school now, I'm not as active as I once was, but I still enjoy being useful around here. I like to think that I've been a model user and admin; hardly ever getting into disputes or firefights, and offering wisdom into the midst of disputes where I have it. I plan on sticking around even if this RfA is voted down, of course; all I want this to be a referendum on is on whether or not I should continue to have a copy of the key to the janitor's closet. :) -- Seth Ilys 02:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - Unconditionally. Not even a question. --FCYTravis 02:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Definitely, and more users should be re-running, IMO. – ugen64 02:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. We need more administrators like Seth, not fewer. Kelly Martin 02:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gladly support. Hopefully we will hear no WP:POINT accusations—I think it's a totally legit and even commendable thing to do. Everyking 02:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, without hesitation, for both the user and the gesture. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Interesting idea, and rather a brave one. I for one think he's a great admin. Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, no doubt. Effortfully swallowing the "I thought he was already". Bishonen | talk 03:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. one of the few, and i stress few, good admins. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. What a great gesture. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Woah... not one already? Support. Alphax τεχ 11:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Not only a support, but a salute (in the form of a barnstar) from me as well. Grutness...wha? 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Stewart Adcock 11:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Full-fledged support. You're a braver lad than I be. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. No reason to de-admin. - Guettarda 13:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. This is a great idea and I wish more admins would do it. --Scimitar 13:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oh, you show off! :)) Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Super-Support Wow. This makes me proud to be a Wikipedian with Seth. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Waerth 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support --Phroziac (talk) 14:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong support. I have every confidence in Seth Ilys as an admin. It's commendable that he's put himself up for confirmation in this way. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. The only one with the integrity to do this. Keep him and de-admin the rest. — Chameleon 20:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    He's not the only one! See Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_sysophood -- Joolz 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, ofcourse! -- Joolz 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. support I hope other admins follow, I hope all follow. Some admins are admins because the people that edited with them didnt knew they were being elected. --Pedro 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. He's just lucky I'm not Donald Trump! If anyone can tell me why, they can have a cuppycake. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. I would rather this had not been done in this way, but if we are honestly evaluating his ability to be an admin, then that is a clear yes. I can disagree with certain actions and still believe him to be a great admin. - Taxman Talk 21:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  26. I don't think this approach will do much for creating something similar to compulsory confirmation of sysop-hood (and anything non-compulsory isn't going to do the job), but Seth deserves his pat on the head, so Support. --W(t) 23:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  27. Support. As Seth notes, adminship (and de-adminship) are no big deal, and his admin status has nothing to do with his activity on the site; but he's good with a broom. +sj + 02:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've interacted with Seth before, and I like what I've been through. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  29. David Gerard 22:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea, but I'm not entirely sure it isn't. But I'll put this in anyway.
  30. Support while I think Seth Ilys is a great admin (even though I see my name when I read his, Ilya), I don't know about re-nominating all admins. Although, I do wonder if I would be re-nominated. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 28 June 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  31. Whether or not I think reconfirming adminship is a good idea, I nonetheless entirely support Seth in his adminship. - Mark 30 June 2005 02:43 (UTC)
  32. Entirely suitable to be an admin, which, after all, is no big deal. Warofdreams 30 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)
  33. I think this is a good and creative idea, and I support reconfirmation. CDThieme 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
  34. OMG! OMG! OMG! FNORDCABALFNORDCABALFNORDCABALFNORDCABALFNORDCABALFNORD Project2501a 1 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I feel that this renomination, in addition to being outside of any known policy, is ingenuous. The user, in his explanation, says that he is upset over infighting concerning Eequor's RfA. Though noone has doubted his fitness, he states: "all I want this to be a referendum on is on whether or not I should continue to have a copy of the key to the janitor's closet." But apparently this is not so, because, after I removed this to his user space, User:Kim Bruning says that:
    "I'm positive that [Cecropia et al.] are acting in good faith here and doing what you believe people expect of you. Even so, please let Seth Ilys run his experimental nomination here. You can mark it with "experimental" or some such banner if you prefer. He's attempting to reconfirm data we got from the .nl and .de communities. The conclusions will have a direct impact on RFA, so this is the most appropriate venue for the experiment. Kim Bruning 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Seth said nothing about this being an "experiment," nothing about "confirming data from .nl and .de communities." No one explains how this "will have a direct impact on RfA." This created controversy here and in the talk. AFAIK, no one here was consulted about this, certainly not me as a bureaucrat. And I feel this gamesmanship shows enormous disrespect for the community.
    Kim allows as to how I and others "are acting in good faith"? How could we act in any other way when we had no idea this "experiment" is based on a constructive lie? A widely popular user Tu ba shi da yu, voluntarily withdrew his nomination after he made an inapropriate joke on the main page. So I am opposing despite the fact that I otherwise had no reason whatever to believe that Seth Ilys in not a valued and excellent user.
    I am not looking for Seth to be removed, but this was highly inappropriate and if he ends up being desysoped, so be it, and he can come back for a new RfA for a non-crytpic reason. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Cecropia, I actually did repond to all of these concerns on the RfA talk page about an hour before you cast this vote. -- Seth Ilys 21:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Explanation accepted and objection withdrawn. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. I dunno, please explain this maybe? :-) Kim Bruning 20:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    A bit of WikiHumour, mostly-harmless stress-venting, and ignore-all-rules-ing. :) -- Seth Ilys 20:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm inclined to agree with Cecropia. I don't think this is necessary, and if this RFA will affect policy, Seth Ilys should have stated so more explicitly. Acegikmo1 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Totally unnecessary and waste of time. Very un-wiki like, as it is just (a lot) more red tape. Do we really want to re-validate 500 admins every year or what ever arbitrary time period is set? ridiculous. I oppose this silly ego stroking "experiment", but clearly there is no reason to oppose the adminship of Seth Ilys. Bluemoose 22:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Seth Ilys has 45000 edits or so, so I'm sure he's made at least SOME mistakes that give you a reason to oppose? Kim Bruning 23:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    "Some" is not enough for someone to vote Oppose, surely? Claiming someone is no longer fit to be an admin isn't peanuts. I suggest we have a team of editors go over those 45,000 edits in parallel. If they look at 500 edits per page, 90 editors will be sufficient to do it in a short time... These are startup problems, of course. Once we routinely review admins, we can check their edits incrementally.
    OK, yes, yes, I'm having a cheap laugh at your expense. Sorry about that. But let's be perfectly clear about one thing here: doing it on a voluntary basis cannot continue. Inevitably some admins wouldn't come, because they're actually controversial, personally opposed to the idea, or ignorant. So then you'd need to draw up policy to "ferret them out". Can you feel the heat?
    If we're going to do this, we're going to have to do it for everyone, we're going to have to do it by drawing up policy to make it mandatory, and we're going to have to do it as soon as possible. Does anyone feel inspired yet? JRM · Talk 00:50, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    *evil grin* Yes. We must quantify at least once, just to know exactly *HOW* bad that plan is! Kim Bruning 01:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't like the idea of calling a referendum on yourself. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 18:25 (UTC).

Comments

  • Seth could have made his dislike of the proceedings around Eequor's RFA known without this RFA, so I'll assume it actually has a more general purpose. In which case it's well-meaning, but pointless. This RFA will not fail. People will not soul-search about their other votes and be shamed straight. Admins who honestly stand to fail a revote like this will not come here and do it. "I think you should run for a new RFA" will not become friendly advice.
    The criticism of a Grinch? Maybe. But I think that if anything is supposed to address Seth's concerns about the status of adminship, this in any case is not going to be it. And I will not give my vote, good or bad, to support emotional manipulation—good or bad.
    Oh, and just in case anyone's wondering: I think Seth is an excellent administrator. JRM · Talk 20:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    It's more like that people who have been admins for a while might face considerable opposition at some point. If Seth Ilys is too good, maybe I should go up as well. Goodness knows I've made mistakes and controversial descisions in the past. Kim Bruning 20:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, see above. I will not be joining you, I'm afraid. JRM · Talk 00:50, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I find myself using my admin powers most to clear out backlogs of pending speedy deletions, or doing such speedy deletions myself while on New Page Patrol. I've only blocked vandals a handful of times, and try always to warn them repeatedly before blocking. I also edit and polish items on the main page templates (which are only editable my admins) from time to time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm of the personality type that likes to take on small, tedious tasks that most people find hopelessly mundane and uninteresting; hence my massive amount of work creating dot maps for Rambot articles and other "small" edits (hence my ridiculously inflated edit count). Although I've done a little bit of everything, that's my "niche," and I'm happy there.
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. I try not to get too emotionally attached to my edits; because Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, I figure that my good edits will stand and my not-so-good edits will be improved upon. As an eventualist, I'm not obsessed with perfection in there here and now; the last time I remember being embroiled in a major conflict was around April of 2004 when I tangled with User:Hephaestos over the inclusion of Kate Faber, and I'm positive I've matured emotionally since then. For one, I've learned that edit wars are simply a waste of time for all parties involved. :) I personally try to adhere to WP:1RR and think that the WP:3RR constitutes instruction creep and a breeding ground for legalism, so I don't get involved with that much. People often become far too emotional about Wikipedia, and so I only stick my nose into contentious matters when I feel I have some particular wisdom to offer, and have been heartened to note people agreeing with me or being convinced by my arguments on occasion. I feel like my Policy trifecta adquately summarizes my perspective on editing and adminning in a succinct manner.
4. Given the unusual nature of renominating yourself when you're already an administrator, are you in fact relinquishing your administrator powers if this vote does not achieve consensus?
A. Yes; I apologize for not making that sufficiently clear before. I'd intend for this to be as binding a poll as any other RfA; I'd most likely cease using admin tools as soon as significant oppostition became apparent (significant meaning in the 10-20% range on an RfA vote), and would request de-adminship (assuming it wasn't done by a bureaucrat automatically) as soon as the RfA closed without a consensus to uphold my present admin status, should that occur.