Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simetrical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Simetrical

I withdraw my candidacy as admin. At this point, knowing what I now know, I might well have withdrawn even if I were winning, just because I now realize how much work checking over all the pages that require admins on a daily basis would be, and would have feared myself unable to fulfill my commitments. Thank you, of course, to all who voted for me; but thank you as well and especially to all those who showed me, without resorting to sarcasm or personal attacks, my actual inexperience with Wikipedia policy. —Simetrical (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


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

Final vote (17/10/1) ended 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Simetrical (talk · contribs) – I've been a Wikipedia editor for about a year now. I think I have a good knowledge of most Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and where I don't I know where to find it. My edit count is apparently 1526, for those with edit-count-itis, probably in large part minor edits; I also apparently use edit summaries maybe 80% of the time, eyeballing it. I am, I think it's fair to say, basically an editor who has made modest but regular contributions over the course of a year. —Simetrical (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: —Simetrical (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support but I expect many to oppose based on no of edits:time spent here ratio... NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    And I do agree with Orane on your answer to Q1, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Contributes on various technical cleanup projects and dealt with a minor edit conflict appropriately. ESkog | Talk 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. El_C 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Sounds like this editor will put the tools to good use. With nearly 2000 edits and a year on Wikipedia, I think Simetrical has shown that he is unlikely to misuse the tools. -- DS1953 05:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Clear support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems mature and level-headed, willing and able to communicate when required, and unlikely to abuse the admin tools. --NormanEinstein 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support admin is no bg deal so, no problem supporting.Gator (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, HGB 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
  11. Support the low edits don't bother me as I see a potential long term commitment anyway.--MONGO 11:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support After a deeper look at this user's contributions, I think the postive edits, outweigh the lower edit count. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support good editor --rogerd 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Izehar (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support: Good edits. Good editor. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strongly support. An honorable editor with integrity, who respects policy and the restraint of power. — Ford 11:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - too new, not enough contribs, not ready. Come back later. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose freestylefrappe 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Any reason in particular? —Simetrical (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Thinks deletion debates are votes. -Splashtalk 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Um, they aren't? Obviously they aren't majority-based votes, they're consensus votes of a sort. And they involve in-vote discussion. But they're still votes. (Also, I'm not sure what the relevance of that is to my adminship. I mean, it's not like it shows that I'm particularly ignorant of CFD processes, I just look at things differently.) —Simetrical (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    It is relevant to your adminship since you will eventually come to closing AfDs etc., where the notion of discussion-not-vote is important. It is possible to close a divided AfD debate without needing to count the votes at all. I would like a would-be admin to be more aware of this fact, and of how it is relevant to their RfA. -Splashtalk 03:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    It's not a simple kind of vote, it's a supermajority vote with fuzzy boundaries. But gauging consensus is mostly vote-counting. Certainly according to Wikipedia:Consensus: "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, consensus is interpreted as something closer to supermajority". As I say, it's not that I have a different understanding of the CFD process, it's that I look at it differently. —Simetrical (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, insufficient grasp of policy. User has potential but needs some more experience. Radiant_>|< 12:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your constructive criticism. [Edit, 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC): in case it's unclear, I'm not being sarcastic, I appreciate people giving reasons for no votes.] Do you have any particular areas of policy where you think I appear to be especially lacking? —Simetrical (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, making up policy as he goes along, claiming that Wikipedia has no policy forbidding the creation of articles about non-notable people, despite the WP:CSD official policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Making up policy as I go along, no. Repeating erroneous information that I have read elsewhere, yes (I saw mentioned several times in the discussion I repeatedly linked to that notability was not an "official" criterion, and it turns out that was partially wrong).
    I still don't see why I should be expected to be familiar with speedy deletion criteria before I become an admin, unless I nominate something for speedy deletion; I would have had ample time to become familiar with it if and when it actually became relevant to me, and I have mentioned repeatedly that I won't act on policy that I haven't fully researched and examined. But that's largely academic at this point, I think.
    Either way, correct me if I'm wrong, consensus is gauged based on the individual case, and I don't think my vote is discounted just because my reasoning stands in opposition to the nominally prevailing consensus (which is to say policies as stated). You are correct that I was mistaken in stating what the official policy is; my vote, of course, still counts. —Simetrical (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    I would also like to note that a vote was held at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, and there was no consensus that notability (or as phrased in the vote "fame or importance") should be a criterion for deletion. The vote closed 57–38, which is not sufficient consensus to call it policy (it's not even sufficient consensus to make one guy an admin :)). It's also notable that Jimbo Wales was one of the "no" votes. So I think it's actually fair to say that despite Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1#1 .28unremarkable people.29, the legitimacy of a general imposition of a notability requirement is pretty unclear. —Simetrical (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - per Zoe. Based on his AfD votes, I do not feel Simetrical has a sufficient grasp of article deletion and inclusion policies, and do not at this point feel comfortable with his ability to make impartial judgements on consensus if given the power to close AfD discussions. I don't expect administrators to agree with all current policies, but I do expect them to respect the policies, and I'm not sure if the candidate in question does. FCYTravis 04:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    I would, of course, respect consensus in the individual case. Those handful who have interacted with me in the past have given their opinions of my rectitude above and below; more than my assurance I cannot give you. As I appear to have almost certainly failed, however, this is again academic. (I'll withdraw if I get two or three more no votes, unless of course I get lots of yes votes as well, since there's no point in cluttering up the page with almost certain failures. And in case anyone is wondering, I have no plans to renominate myself for at least six months, or accept a nomination for at least three.) —Simetrical (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    I believe this is my first oppose vote to a serious candidate, and so I want to explain myself as fully as possible and allow you a chance to respond as fully as possible. What tipped me is votes like the one to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumpshack. OK, borderline bands, etc. I can understand. But a vote to keep some crashpad for four college kids who went and wrote a blog... is, to me, patently absurd. It flatly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I will consider changing to neutral or even support if you can come up with a reasonable explanation for voting to keep that. FCYTravis 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll explain my reasoning. You may not agree regardless, and that's fair enough, but I'll explain my position. Basically, my view is this: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It has enough space to contain any amount of notable and non-notable information. Therefore, there is no reason it should not be the encyclopedia to end all encyclopedias—no information that is encyclopedic should be removed.
    So what's encyclopedic? Encyclopedias, of course, must inherently follow certain rules as to the content they include; otherwise they wouldn't be encyclopedias, they'd be something else. I think that a proper encyclopedia must 1) contain only verifiable information, dealing exclusively with facts and not opinions (although facts about opinions are of course fine); 2) predominantly consist of some kind of narrative following the normal conventions of prose (simple lists and raw data are only encyclopedic as article indices or potential article indices, not as sources of information in their own right); and 3) consist of a set of articles arranged topically for purposes of reference (a history book is not an encyclopedia because it's arranged by time or place and generally includes something of a narrative, rather than being set up as a set of basically separate articles). Wikipedia must also adhere to neutrality, of course, and it shouldn't duplicate material found in its principal sister projects (dictionary definitions can sometimes be encyclopedic under the above definition), but otherwise I see no reason to restrict its purview beyond the restrictions inherent to the concept of an encyclopedia.
    So in other words, I think Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia to end all encyclopedias. Anything that would fit into any encyclopedia, of any sort, should be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, provided it's neutral. And wouldn't an Encyclopedia of Murfreesboro be conceivable? Wouldn't such an encyclopedia perhaps mention this Bumpshack? Or what about an Encyclopedia of Blogs? I believe that there is no reason for Wikipedia to be anything less than The Free Encyclopedia. And that is why I oppose the deletion of anything verifiable from Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, per comments below. A little too radical for an admin in 2005; could use more experience with the consensus model, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, per reasonings above and some comments below. Notability requirements should not be too exclusive, but to keep Wikipedia from becoming a personal webhost and spam/advertisement/link-farm we need notability- and inclusion criteria. The fact they're sometimes used to restrictively doesn't change that. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also 2000 edits over a year long period, with a little over 200 in the Wikipedia namespace, doesn't show a great deal of experience. User also admitted not being aware of the official policy at the time he quoted a talk page on December 16 deletion discussions. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Zoe and FCYTravis. Needs more understanding of how policies are applied before implementing them. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Zoe. To paraphrase Mr. Parham, I fear this user is likely to abuse admin tools if he gets them at present. Xoloz 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral I want to support but as NSLE has pointed out, num of edits:time spent here ratio is kind of low. Changed vote see above. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Less than 100 wikipedia edits. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I think that Simetrical is someone who would assiduously avoid abuse of administrator powers, in the sense of refusing to act like an authority figure. I like that a lot, as I think it's very important for admins to never weild their powers heavy-handedly. On the other hand, I see closing AfD's as a big part of an admin's job, and I'm leery of Simetrical's understanding of the AfD process as a vote. Obviously, one can, without error, say "it's not a vote" or "it kind of is a vote"; there's no contradiction there. I just prefer to see administrators use language that sticks firmly to the "it's not a vote" perspective. Simetrical's replies to Splash above indicate an understanding of policy that I'm not entirely comfortable with. I'd also like to see a more complete answer to question number 3. I've read up on that dispute, and I'd like to know what Simetrical feels he learned from it, that he would bring to future disputes. So, I'm voting neutral for now, but I'm open to being swayed. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For the first point, I still find it difficult to understand how my statements are being interpreted on the matter of AfDs. I will readily admit that I am not yet fully familiar with AfD procedures; I have had no reason to become familiar, beyond the simple process of submitting an article to be deleted, since I don't currently have any ability to implement the results. Why should I be familiar with AfD procedures at this moment? As mentioned under Comments below, however, I have every intention of carefully observing the processes involved in the various administrator activities before I begin acting on them. I will not jump into these things without knowing what I'm doing.
As to the dispute over 2004, I still do not personally believe that Ta bu shi da yu's actions were appropriate, although I accept that community consensus is against me. Nevertheless, I now agree with his motives, and regret not acting on them myself earlier in the dispute; that is, while I think he was out of bounds in protecting the page to stop the NPOV tag from being readded, I now agree that it didn't really belong on such a highly-trafficked page.
I have decided that, as far as I'm concerned, the tag's purpose is only served if it's added to a page that readers might be misled into thinking is neutral; otherwise, it's redundant and nothing more than an eyesore, and I can see no reason for its inclusion. Since the only alleged POV additions in that case consisted of honorifics and event selection, I don't think that readers were helped by the tag—neither of those, after all, will mislead people as to the nature of the year 2004. In contrast, if someone were to construct a 100% factually-accurate article that nevertheless carefully twisted phrases to give erroneous impressions and cited extensive sources for only one side of the story, that would deserve an NPOV tag, so that readers wouldn't be deceived.
What would I bring to future disputes from that RFC? I'd be sure to more clearly lay out my facts from the get-go, for starters. I still occasionally wonder how it would have fallen out if I had cited the relevant admin pages from the beginning. I would also certainly be less hasty to jump to an RFC. And—although it occurs to me that I've long since passed from "What I learned from RFC:TBSDY" to "What I learned from thinking about your question regarding RFC:TBSDY" and generally "Stuff I've changed my mind on since RFC:TBSDY"—I would also probably title the RFC differently from the way I did, not naming it after a person and making it seem as though I'm somehow facing off against him, rather than just bringing up a policy question. The way I did it was unnecessarily confrontational, which isn't a good thing.
What I would certainly not do is fail to bring something to an RFC if I eventually felt it necessary. RFCs serve a purpose, and despite certain users' remarks in RFC:TBSDY, any RFC that clarifies Wikipedian consensus on a nontrivial matter is not itself trivial or wrong to bring. That is the purpose of an RFC, and it served it well in RFC:TBSDY: the overwhelming consensus presented there resolved that dispute, to my knowledge, once and for all. —Simetrical (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply, Simetrical. On the issue of RFC:TBSDY, I feel completely satisfied. If that were the only issue, I would switch to support now.
There's also this AfD business, which has branched from my initial concern about how you conceive of the consensus model (still an issue), and has taken on a new dimension regarding notability as a criterion for inclusion in the Wikipedia. While standing for admin it seems, you've developed a strong opinion about not deleting any verifiable information, and you've begun to campaign that idea in AfD, by weighing in on a large number of discussions with virtually identical comments. The first one I ran into was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracer Bullet, in which I was already involved, and where I made the relevant comments as to why I think that your position there was an overextension of your cause, and frankly, somewhat frivolous.
I really don't think it's appropriate to rush around AfD like that, tossing opinions at dozens of articles without showing reasoned deliberation on each one, no matter how noble the "cause". I appreciate that, in hindsight (i.e., actually reading all the relevant policies), you've changed several of your positions to delete, but doesn't that kind of underline the hastiness of your initial run? Furthermore, the manner in which you've made your second pass at all those AfDs smacks to me of lawyering the rules, which isn't a good sign.
Now... regarding the important issue of whether notability should be a factor, detailed in your above comments in response to FCYTravis... that's a very interesting problem. You're right, in the long run. Wikipedia isn't there yet though, and it won't be for a few years. The encyclopedia model will evolve, and catch up to the fact of its new, non-paper medium, and it will change, and policies will gradually change, and people will stop applying their "encyclopedia" preconceptions to Wikipedia, because they'll have grown new, "Wikipedia" preconceptions that will serve them much better here, (and they'll stop freaking out and going to the media all outraged), and as that process occurs, the notability floor will also gradually lower, due to incessant pressure from people just like yourself. But you want it to happen now, and you aren't going to get that. It will take years, and it'll be worth the wait.
What I want from an admin is a skillful gardener, who shows a sensitivity to letting things happen in a natural, organic way. You seem to want to get there, now, and because of that, you should be one of the inclusionist activists who are so important to Wikipedia's evolution, and you shouldn't be an administrator at this point. I'm changing my vote now to oppose, but I wish you the best. Don't worry. We'll catch up with you. Your next RFA may take place in a very different Wikipedia. This is an exciting time to be here. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Regarding your answer to question 1: You don't need admin powers to add pages to your watchlist and check them. Is there anything specific you would do with the extra tools? (please read administrators and administrators' reading list). Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hah, sorry, misanswered the question. I meant all the pages that are lists of stuff only admins can do, like Requests for Arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, Candidates for speedy deletion, etc. —Simetrical (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    And I have read Wikipedia:Administrators. Otherwise I could hardly have quoted multiple sections from it and related pages in the RFC I mentioned in my answer to Q3, could I have?  :) —Simetrical (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • During his year on Wikipedia, Simetrical seems to have a good mix of edits over a wide range of subjects. However, he has had very little participation in Articles for Deletion. While I think he has shown that he will use the tools wisely in other areas, I would caution him to avoid closing all but the most routine AfDs until he has spent substantial time watching and participating in the discussions there. -- DS1953 14:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for the advice. Should I pass, I'll be sure to be careful not to use my powers for anything that I'm not well-acquainted with. —Simetrical (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to say that, whilst I don't completely subscribe to the philosophy outlined in the reply to FCYTravis, that is the most cogent argument for it that I have yet read. You want to archive that somewhere for future reference. My oppose here stems from the still-evolving nature of the candidate's knowledge of policy, and the notion that they should only be familiar with policy once they have the tools to implement it in full. An AfD comment like keep article, delete content does show a misunderstanding of the nature of AfD — we cannot simultaneously keep and delete, and a deletion does not forever prevent alternative recreation. Being able to implement policy in the partial way that non-admins can, and to get that right, is a good qualification for an RfA. For clarity, my opposition does not stem from the notability-or-not debate itself, since that is a deletion question that does not impinge directly on an RfA, and an opinion the candidate is entitled to hold. I think there would be no need to wait as long as 6 months before trying RfA again if this one falls, and would encourage perseverance on this one. -Splashtalk 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind remarks. I do plan to do a lengthy writeup on my user page about the notability issue and others, and I may incorporate material from my response above if I feel I can't match its quality. I was about to withdraw this nomination, though, actually; it seems pretty hopelessly against me, so I'm not sure there's any point in leaving it up. If you think I should persevere, I guess I'll wait another day or so to see how things turn out before withdrawing. —Simetrical (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anything that would fit into any encyclopedia, of any sort, should be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, provided it's neutral. Cool. Let's start an Encyclopedia of Zoe's house, where I can photograph every square inch of it and prove that the doorknob on Zoe's back door really is tarnished, and a picture of my cat lying on his back and write an article on Zoe's cat's favorite sleeping positions. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:39, 16 December 2005 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I'd be willing to add all the pages on the reading list all the pages that are requests for admin attention (e.g., Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion) to my watchlist and check them on a daily basis for the near future, helping out with the deletions/undeletions/blockings/unblockings/etc. brought up on those pages. This will be at least for a few months, quite possibly longer (I've held a moderator job at a midsized forum for the past seven months or so, haven't gotten bored with squashing spam and whatnot yet, so I figure I'll likely remain interested in Wikipedia too). —Simetrical (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Having recently been trying out some RC patrolling, I expect to be doing some of that too. Strangely addictive.  :) —Simetrical (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'd say Rome: Total War (my largest contribution here, also some other edits since then) and Forum moderator (rewrote the page) are the two most significant contributions of mine that I can think of. More of my edits are just typo-fixes, vandalism reverts, and disambig fixes. —Simetrical (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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. The only real conflict I've had was at Talk:2004, a few months ago. The primary dispute (over page protection, incidentally) ended up being at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu, after a long, low-key dispute over the actual content of the 2004 page. —Simetrical (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.