Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A930913

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

A930913

WP:SNOW closure (0/11/0). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

A930913 (talk · contribs) – I am running for this, not so much for the adminship, more to highlight the shortcomings of the process we have called RfA.

I am not expecting this request to be successful, albeit were it I assure you the tools would be used appropriately. There are a number of reasons for which I will fail, and I have outlined a number of them below.

1. Article content I have created no new articles and have added very little content to existing articles. Although I have on the occasion helped and talked with other users in creating good articles, even making Article for Creation Helper to aid with the creation of new articles, many will oppose me for not being involved in article content much. Article content does not need any extra buttons and it is perhaps counter-productive, giving (dare I say it, "rewarding") significant content contributors with buttons that will inevitably distract them from the brilliant work that they would otherwise be doing.
2. Automated edits Many people will see my 80+% automated edits (more if you include the smaller tools, such as the ones I made personally) as a bad thing. They claim that each edit counts less, because it took less effort. Firstly, I would say to them, why do you edit an online encyclopaedia? Why aren't you using a typewriter, pen and paper, quill and well, painting it on a cave wall or carving it into stone tablets? Sure I can type out every edit I make, but why expend that effort, when an automated tool would do it for me in significantly less time? I still commit the edit. If I'm wrong in an edit, am I not held accountable in the same way that I would be were I to type it myself? Why don't anti vandals patrol Wikipedia by clicking on pages on the recent change page, manually deleting vandalism and copying a warning from notepad/gedit to the vandals talkpage? It would be extremely tedious and time consuming, and reduce efficiency, effectively allowing Wikipedia to be overrun by vandals. It is for this reason we have transclusison of templates, bots running and tools that allow for relatively high speed detection and reverting of vandalism. Furthermore, the use of automated tools make a uniform standard. However, some tools, especially newer ones, do not always use a particularly high standard. Just as I have been in contact with the developers of these tools now and in the past and, when a RfA of mine is successful, more so in the future, to suggest better ways to interface with Wikipedia.
3. Age of account It will inevitably be pointed out that I have only had an account since May of last year. While I have actually had an account since March 2009, a CHU failed and left me with a split account. In any case, I have only been active for a number of those months, and as such many will distrust me because of this. However, I counter that in those months that I was active, I was very active and only moving country has reduced my activity. Regardless of this, surely I should be considered, not by my account age, but by what I have done, and this should be used to judge whether what I will do in the future will be correct. I would agree that an account only a few days/weeks old should not be given as much trust as one that has been around for longer, but after a investing a few thousand positive contributions, one should be able to determine the characteristics of an editor. Regardless, can a user given the bit really cause enough havoc before being blocked to negate all the positive contributions invested previous, especially when it can be reverted?

930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 10:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I will probably start out in AIV, and then gradually work my way out, perhaps finding a my niche. I tend to be a very timid editor at first, only making clear cut cases, but after repeating similar actions, I gradually become more bold, to the extent of me eventually making bold moves on borderline cases.

The other bit that I get, API high limits, will allow me to make further research to Wikipedia considerably easier, by allowing me to get ten times more information per request. I am currently interested in the effect of the short block - one which is forty-eight hours or less, as to whether it prevents further vandalism by deterring vandals that session, or as to whether it allows vandals to come back within the same week, and continue to vandalise.

A third use of the admin rights, will be to test and make new tools that are made for admins, especially when the creators of the tools cannot otherwise test the admin functionality.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: One day, whilst on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, I saw some users wondering why another user had been so stringent on articles put forward in Articles for Creation. I decided to go clear up the backlog, and it became immediately clear as to why this user was so stringent. While it took the simple addition of a letter and a pipe (|), an acceptance took considerably longer, plus concentration to the extent that even I was inclined towards declining then accepting. I decided to make a light tool to aid this process, and soon after released WP:ACH. These give all the default reject options, along with options to add your own reason, but most importantly, a button that with a single click, will do all that's needed to accept the article.

I also have helped others to create a page. While not showing up on my account as created by me, I have helped other users make well structured and referenced pages. Articles of note include Canstruction and Meilin.

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: Yes. At the beginning of my active editing, I got into a number of bouts with TreasuryTag. The first incident was about the deletion of an article, that I thought should be kept per policy. At the time, I thought Wikipedia was run according to these rules of policy, and that even if I just showed one person of note that it should be kept per policy. What I now know to be true, is that a consensus can override policy, and as such, the article was deleted. TreasuryTag saw this, and (not unreasonably considering the nature of my username,) thought that this was an account made soley for the use of defending the article in question. He then took me to AN/I where it was pointed out that I had done nothing wrong. After TreasuryTag used ad hominems against me, I took him to Wikiquette alerts where I was told that TreasuryTag's caution at the aforementioned AN/I was enough, and no further action was to be taken. This incident was then laid to rest.

Within the month, I found that I could change my username to one that I wanted, as opposed to having an "A" prefix. I applied for a username change and shortly had it granted, only to find that I could not access the account to which my contributions had been moved to. TreasuryTag then filed another AN/I saying that I was editing from two accounts which was resolved in a block. I appealed the block, and after explaining the situation, had my account unblocked. (It should be pointed out that I have never edited from User:930913, and that the only reason my first edits are there is due to the failed CHU.) This incident was let rest.

A while later, I sent a {{peace dove}} to TreasuryTag and made up with him. There has been no incident since.

I think these incidents were due to TreasuryTag seeing my account as a sock of some sort, and were I an established editor at the time, I believe that this incident would never have taken place. In any case, I certainly should not have been so vigorous in the defence of the article.

General comments

• Links for A930913: A930913 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for A930913 can be found here.
• Wikipedia can be analogised by a school. There are the students (readers), the teachers (content writers) and the network administrator (admins). While some teachers may be network administrators, and some network administrators may be teachers, the majority do not overlap. Could you imagine your high-school network being run by the French teacher? Just because a teacher can teach, does not mean they can administrate; likewise with people who can write articles.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• What is the name of the previous account (the one you had prior to failed CHU to mentioned)? DMacks (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By a technicality, the old account was A930913, but the old A930913 was moved to User:930913 for the CHU. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 12:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Are there other accounts of yours? DMacks (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have User:B930913 as a simple redirect to A930913, since on IRC I often go by "b930913". As such, you will find links to User:b930913 and the redirect there will put them on the right track.

I also have a number of bot accounts, some failed BRfAs and some just need a server. Off the top of my head, I can think of InfoBot, ReplyBot and CountBot.

• Could you please opt-in for X!'s counter (see here)? Regards SoWhy 13:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done per request. Thanks for cleaning up this RfA too. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 13:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit stats posted to talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. "What I now know to be true, is that a consensus can override policy, and as such, the article was deleted." No. The article was deleted because it was a flagrant example of WP:BLP1E, an article on a minor who asked questions to politicians on TV programs. There was much coverage of his question and the politician's replies to them, but none whatsoever of him. The AfD is here (with some content moved to the talkpage), the DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_27#Joel_Weiner here. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   But it was not one event, that's my point. On two separate occasions he appeared, on two separate TV channels, to ask two different questions to two different politicians. The coverage that followed an appearance included articles on him in relation to the appearances, not just stuff about him in an article about the programs. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 12:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   And the articles that deal with him outside the issue of him asking a couple of questions to politicians on TV? They don't exist. Still, looking below, this is turning out to be irrelevant anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Not a serious RFA. While the editor is worthy of attention, this RFA is not, per the editor's admission that they're more interested in making a point or two. Also, the editor misunderstands WP:BLP1E. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC) tweaked
3. Oppose. You stated yourself that this was not a serious RfA. Perhaps you would've liked to try WP:Editor review instead? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   I did? 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   You stated "...I am running for this, not so much for the adminship..." Perhaps I misunderstood, but unfortunately, I still can't support this RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per the Utahraptor. You're running for adminship so that message does matter. WAYNESLAM 15:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose basically per Dank (talk · contribs). You're a great contributor, but I cannot support you on this occasion, because you explicitly chose to run to make a point. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose "I am not expecting this request to be successful" Then why run for adminship? It's just a waste of time for everyone and pointy. Regardless, you don't have enough experience for me to support. SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)From WP:POINT "However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior [sic] which should be considered 'POINTY'."

   Pray tell, what is this experience that I lack? 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose. If at some stage the candidate wants to make a serious request for adminship, I will consider it seriously. But since this one is just a pointy game, I'm not playing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - Blatant violation of WP:POINT. Somebody please close this RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Per above, I do not feel that you have had enough experience on the encyclopedia to yet be ready for sysop tools. Additionally, this is and RfA, a place where the community discusses your eligibility for adminship. This is not the place to be arguing every oppose. If other members of the community feel that an oppose was wrongly made, they will argue it. Your role right now is to answer questions, not discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose Running an RfA not intending to succeed just to make a point is unhelpful, and there is no question of supporting it. What is more, having done this is likely to count strongly against the candidate in any future RfA, unless they can show pretty clearly that they have changed their attitude significantly. In addition, the candidate's comments regarding the deletion of Joel Weiner would in itself be enough to make me oppose. The candidate was belligerent and unconstructive in the discussion, but I would be happy to take the line "that was a while ago, when this person had little experience of working on Wikipedia, and is of little relevance", were it not for the fact that the candidate has brought this up in this RfA, insisting on a view of the deletion which does not fit the facts. The deletion was fully in line with policy, and an editor who does not understand that is not suitable to be an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose. If you know you're going to fail, go away and stop wasting our time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

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.