Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16

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

Alan16

Final: (10/14/7) closed at 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate.

Withdraw - I am withdrawing my request for adminship. With a bit over 5 days left, I would need 40 unanswered supports for this RfA to be successful, and I can see that this will not happen. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone, bar one, for the constructive criticism offered. I'll take the advice offered and perhaps we'll meet here again, sometime in the future. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Alan16 (talk · contribs) – Hello. I feel I need to start this by saying that I know I don't pass the minimum requirements by very far, however I would ask that you consider more than just my not-huge edit count. I joined Wikipedia in May 2008, however it wasn't until January of this year that I started editing on a larger scale. I do approximately 300 article edits in a month, and although I see that increasing some, I do not believe it will ever really get beyond 500 edits. This may seem like a reason for not allowing me the privilege of becoming an administrator, however I say this because I want you to know that edit-wise I am at my peak. My life outside of Wikipedia simply does not allow me the time to do more than that. Of course, it is not the number of edits that make the editor, it is the quality, and it is here where I feel I am strong. I feel that my edits are well written - something I put down to the excellent education the SQA provided me - and are always with an eye to improving Wikipedia. I also think, that for my edit count I am very experienced - I have come into contact with many AfDs, I have used "Request for page protection" many times, and I have done much work for WikiProject Novels (of which I am now assistant coordinator as well as newsletter writer/editor). I feel that every editor should edit with the aim of becoming an administrator at some point, the same way all articles should be written with the intention of become featured articles, even if you do not want or expect the honour. That is what I've been doing my whole time on Wikipedia. I know that less than 0.02% of editors become administrators, but even with my edit count I feel that I have the experience and the understanding to become a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator, not a hindrance. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: If I were to be granted administrative powers, I will certainly help with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have requested protection perhaps half-a-dozen times and I know how annoying it can be to have to wait until an admin shows up, especially when instant protection is necessary. I'd also help out at WP:ANI. When I was granted use of AWB, I knew that I wasn't going to be needing it everyday - I needed it for f&r and spellchecking on novel related articles where bad spelling seems commonplace - so I decided to help with the tasks people needed done by users with access to AWB. What I'm trying to say is that I will help wherever I am needed, whether that is AfDs, at the ANI, or at the page protection. I don't mind - I just want to edit Wikipedia, and help people whilst I'm at it.

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

A: The edits I am most proud of are those where and article has been in a dilapidated state, and I've turned it into a more encyclopaedic looking and sounding article. For example, the work I did to the John Byrne (Scottish playwright) and Bernard Hill articles. How such dilapidated articles on such amazing talents could remain in that state for so long amazes me. I am also proud of the work I have done to Steven Erikson's article and those relating to his seminal work, the Malazan Book of the Fallen series. Finally, I am also proud of the fact that I managed to set up a Coordinator Election for WikiProject Novels - it took a lot of hard work, and in the end was successful - and the fact that I have resurrected the newsletter - something I will continue to write and edit.

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: I will freely admit to having broken 3RR in the last few days. It occurred on the British Pakistanis article which a blocked user (the infamous Nangparbat) continues to edit in a hate-filled POV manner. I felt that it was in the best interests of Wikipedia to revert his edits, and the administrator Nishkid64 was aware of the events and they seemed to accept that my reverts were for the best of Wikipedia as no action was taken against me. This has happened once before on the same subject matter - one which I have no interest or connection with, but I edit and revert so that nothing malicious gets left there, and many people try - but apart from that I have not been in any major conflicts over my editing. Some people have occasionally disagreed with my editing, but a civil discussion on the article talk page has almost always solved the problem. As for stress, I think an editor would be lying if they said that other users had never caused the stress. If I am ever in a stressful situation I walk away, the best solution. Anything else will almost certainly inflame the situation. That has always been my policy and always will be: walk away from the situation; give it a day or two; then go back and try again. If the break has not made a difference then just leave it and try and get someone with no opinion on the matter to deal with it - nothing is worth raising my cholesterol level for - I intend to live a long life. If you want an example of me in a stressful situation see this AfD. I feel that I handled the situation civilly, and this was at the point where I was still learning - and even though I am still learning, you never learn as quickly as the first few months.

Additional optional questions from Steve

4. Looking at your nomination statement—"privilege of becoming an administrator"; "every editor should edit with the aim of becoming [one]"; "even if you do not want or expect the honour"—you seem to have exalted the position to one beyond that which it was originally intended: a user entrusted with access to certain restricted technical features to help with maintenance. Indeed, you explicitly equate the administrator position to that of a featured article—"Wikipedia's best work". Do you feel that such an attitude about the role ("Wikipedia's best editors"?) is a healthy one?

A: I explicitly equate the position of administrator to that of a featured article - however not for the reason you think. For an article to be a featured article, it will have to go through a very harsh critique, and it is that which I was comparing. To become an administrator my past record will be, and is being, picked apart. And like it or not, administrators are looked upon with more reverence. I consider my attitude to be the realistic one: as a non-admin I understand how they are looked upon, yet I also know that becoming an admin does not make me superior to any other editor. I think it is important to never forget that inexperienced editors will look up to you.

General comments

• Links for Alan16: Alan16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Alan16 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Alan16 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Alan16 has worked hard to get the Novels wikiproject moving and has thus shown that he cares about building this encyclopedia. A net positive as far as I can see. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Looks good so far.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, moral or otherwise. I think you need a bit more experience to be honest, but I've seen you around, and you seem to know what you're doing. I'm confident you can learn on the job and prove to be a capable admin. Juliancolton (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I have no problems with Alan as an admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, I am impressed with the user's attempts to explain any valid points raised in the oppose section and see no reason to be concerned so no reason to oppose at this stage. --candle•wicke 04:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, mostly moral as it is unlikely this RfA will succeed at this point. This is probably due to some concerns regarding lack of experience - and to be honest, the candidate could use some more refining in certain admin-intensive areas they have expressed an interest in - but overall I see a candidate who appears to have a good head on their shoulders and seems open to constructive criticism. A good candidate even if the RfA is slightly premature. Shereth 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Clean block log, civil editor with varied experience. 2,751 edits would not have been a problem a few years back when RFA was producing more admins than we were losing; now that RFA is sufficiently broken that our admin numbers are dwindling I suspect those who care about edit counts will be sufficient to make you wait three months or so (if so you might consider doing a few reviews at WP:FAC, interesting stuff and doesn't require the mop). ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Answers to the questions are thoughtful, open, and appear to be honest. Work is good, and one shouldn't be punished for not being as active as some of our 9000 edit/month members. Seems a net positive, which is fine in my book. wadester16 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - per Regents, Alan as an admin would be a net positive. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
10.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Alan16. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. Keepscases (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Keepscases, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That has nothing to do with his qualifications as an admin. Please do not use RfA as your soapbox. Thanks, Triplestop x3 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   It has everything to do with his qualifications as an administrator. It shows disrespect and incredibly poor judgment to choose to display an offensive and confrontational userbox such as that. I want no such person representing Wikipedia as an administrator, even if he's crafty enough to pretend to be a nice person when the situation calls for it. Keepscases (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that in the edit in which he removed those userboxes he also removed lots of others, and that he still does have an atheist userbox on his page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I have seen your participation, Keepspaces, in these events before, and you vote oppose on everyone who has ever had that userbox in the past. As you can see, that userbox along with many others was removed at the same time, and it was because there were too many, and because it and the rest made my user page look very unprofessional. And that was over a month ago: I wasn't actually considering an RfA at that time, so your complaint is unfounded. I would ask that you read my answers, or post a question, and vote on whether you think I will make a good admin, not on the fact that I am an atheist and once used a childish box to display such a status. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

   That userbox was from only a month ago. Come back in a year, when you're an adult and you've proven you can be respectful, and perhaps you'll get my vote...even if you're still an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Keepscases, whatever you think he is doing wrong, you are doing 10 times worse by opposing every atheist. Wikipedia is made up of people of all different beliefs and backgrounds and I am very disappointed that you would think having a particular belief makes one unfit. Triplestop x3 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S_Marshall I'll await your apology. I have no beef with any atheist who doesn't proudly display elitism and contempt. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Keepspaces, I would ask you to consider the fact that I removed it because I realised that it was childish. As Soap pointed out, I display a more appropriate userbox now, and I feel this is important because it means that my position on religious matters is always upfront. It solves the possibility of any misunderstanding or misleading. And I do not feel that I showed contempt - I feel it was merely a poor choice of userbox.

   • Once again, I must say that I am very disappointed that this argument is being used, by I will say no further.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) Isn't it unfortunate that virtually every other RfA candidate associates himself or herself with such hatefulness? If that weren't the case, you might not ever even hear from me. Keepscases (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   • I would like it to be known that I realise the inappropriateness of the userbox and that is why I removed it - it was nothing to do with this RfA. I would prefer that people judged me on my merits and faults displayed in my editing, rather than on one userbox. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

   • poke* *poke* — Nope, no whinny. This horse is dead.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I'm just not seeing the necessary experience that I've come to expect for RfA candidates and admin hopefuls. Also, for some reason, your answer to question 1 strikes an odd cord with me. Administrative powers? A half a dozen times to RFPP and you want to work there? Same with the drama-fest that is ANI? Sorry. I could see myself supporting in the future though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your response. If it helps, I would like to clarify a few statements. "Administrative powers" is, if anything, simply bad word choice in this instance. I know that becoming an administrator does not make one editor superior to another. "tools" would have, in retrospect, been a better word to use. When I mentioned that I had made a half-a-dozen requests at RFPP I was not trying to suggest that this made me immediately experienced in that department. Every time RFPP appears on my watchlist I almost always will look at the article in question and make a personal decision - I thought it was a good way of comparing my judgement to experienced administrators. And I would like to do some work there because it gives the impression of being understaffed. There are just short of 1700 admins and yet there only seem to be about 5 or 6 working at RFPP. That may not be correct, but that is the impression I get. It is basically the same with ANI. I have been involved with it in the past, and have since kept a watch on it at all times, comparing my decisions to experienced admins. I've found I've learned a lot by doing that at both ANI and RFPP. Again, thank you for your comments. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

   And thank you kindly for your own response. I will concede that your use of the term "powers" was just a slight misnomer, and nothing to really get bent out of shape about. Whenever I read the word "power" associated with admins or crats I cringe a little. As for RFPP, I honestly feel that's one admin area that rarely has a backlog, and when it does, it usually disappears in a timely fashion. Regardless, I like to see active clerking or participation in that area. The same goes for ANI. ANI is prone to drame and heated words and if you plan on working there, I'd like to be able to assess your temperament. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   RFPP gets backlogged quite regularly in my experience. In particular, the more clear-cut requests tend to be dealt with first, leaving an accumulation of more contentious requests (edit wars etc.) at the bottom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I've come across a backlog ever now and then that's true, but it's usually fleeting in my experience. It's really just a minor point anyway, more of an observation really and immaterial to my assessment of this candidate's experience. Cheers J. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Again, thank you for your response. ANI is most certainly prone to heated words, and that is really why I've avoided it as much as I could thus far - why get into a heated exchange over something where I was never involved? This doesn't mean that drama hasn't found me though. The AfD I mentioned in my answers to the questions, became quite stressful and I've had plenty of conversations with people with whom I disagree or vice versa and what I've always done is walk away whenever things start getting personal or off topic - there is no point continuing a discussion when it stops becoming about the edits and ends up becoming about the editors. I try to avoid confrontational arguments, and I know that this will not always be possible as an administrator, but I think my past record shows that I have always acted in a civil manner. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

3. Regretful Oppose for now First of all, I am on vacation, so I may not be able to completely review Alan's record. I must say, that hopefully time willing, I can switch, but at the moment, I think Wisdom hit the point directly. Again, give me a chance to hopefully review everything, but just in case, I do oppose per wisdom. Sorry, and good luck. America69 (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments. Like every experience in life and on Wikipedia I will learn from it, whether it passes or not. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

4. Oppose. Alan16 does some very good work around the project. However, the issues such as those noted by Keepscases and Wisdom89 could potentially problematic and prevent me from supporting. I feel you need a few months more experience and some more edits in the administrative areas of the project. Otherwise, keep up the good work and come back in several months. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments. Wisdom89 raised well thought out complaints and I answered them as best I could. However, I regret that Keepscases oppose has influenced you as I feel his oppose is baseless and his accusations are unjustified. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

   Exactly what of my oppose do you consider "baseless"? Exactly what is my "accusation" that you consider "unjustified"? Keepscases (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   You oppose me on the fact that I once used a stupid userbox. You have shown no indication that you have looked at my past edits, or the answers to the above questions. That is a baseless oppose however you package it. And because I once had that userbox you accuse me of being elitist and contemptuous - that is unjustified. Alan16 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose which of your actions we should judge you on. Keepscases (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Keepscases, you're persistent attack on atheists is getting tiresome. And you can try and tell me it is not only atheists, but a quick look at the userboxes under the Christian heading shows userboxes like: "Only real men love God" & "I have God and that is all that matters". I don't remember seeing you crusading against them. Alan16 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose, per badgering of every other editor opposing. Nakon 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Surely you can think of a better reason than that? Aaroncrick (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Aaron: do you not see the inherent humour in your reply here? :P Ironholds (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I would be "Badgering" them too, as two of the opposes question his morals as a human being.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Wisdom89 raised issues with my candidacy which I felt I could answer. The keepscases thing had nothing to do with me on the most part. The rest of the time I was merely saying thank you for the advice. If I'd know that trying to answer accusations raised against me and saying "thank you" would have caused so much trouble, I wouldn't have bothered. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

6. Oppose. Basically per Wisdom's commentary on the questions, with the additional comment that I didn't get the sense that the candidate has thought through exactly what they would do with the mop; also, just over 1000 mainspace edits strikes me as quite thin, especially as when I browse through the contributions, a few hundred or so seem to be automated. -- Deville (Talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Content contribution and housekeeping work, both, are below RFA standard. You've been here for only half a year, after all, and at this rate of contribution gaining proper experience will take years. Example: opinions pulled "purely from memory" [1] - are you aware of WP:V? (although kudos for admitting the fact).NVO (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   The idea of experience is subjective, and I feel I have enough of it to be granted admin rights. And, I am aware of WP:V - I'd be stupid to apply if I wasn't - and the edit to the Fry article was uncontroversial, and I added that edit summary because I couldn't confirm it, and I didn't want to mislead anyone. Anyway, thank you for your comments. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

8. Not yet. When you come back, I'll be looking for evidence of some successes in dispute resolution (perhaps from WQA), evidence of further progress in your understanding of policy at AfD, and in view of your ambition to work at AN/I, evidence of successful drama-control in places such as EAR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Not yet. Editors can start doing admin work at any time; 90% of the things admins do can be done by anyone. I don't see evidence that you have significant experience with any of the things that admins do, but I'm impressed with your work at WP:NOVEL. I could see myself supporting in 3 months depending on what you do between now and then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. This editor is in fact fairly young, and my experience of him a few months ago showed him also to be rather immature. He needs to work on avoiding and defusing his own disputes. Only then will it be sensible to put him in a position where he has any power over other people's. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Regretful Oppose Sorry Alan, but I feel that you are not yet ready. You've done great work at Novels and can make a great admin. But you need more experience for that. Please return after 1-3 months. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose. The only problem I have with your editing is your experience in the projectspace. You spend very little time editing there, and yet you wish to work there as an admin. When you have more experience I will support. Malinaccier (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose: per the comments above. South Bay (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Wisdom89 makes a good case against Alan16 being admin'd at the current time. I almost want to support, to cheese off the Christian activism winding itself serpentlike through this RfA, but that would not do anyone any good. Alan, show us what you've done to improve your standing and understanding again in 6 months, and let me know that you're running, I look forward to seeing the sort of gains that will make me pleased to vote you up. ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. Shappy ^talk 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral You're a great candidate, but you need more experience. -download ׀ sign! 03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   To be more specific, you should have more experience in the Wikipedia namespace; for example, WP:AIV, WP:AFD, etc. -download ׀ sign! 03:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment. I'll take your advice, no matter what the outcome. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

3. Neutral Terrific candidate and I wouldn't be terribly sad if they were given the tools. Keep up your current pace of editing, maybe clerk a little in the areas you mentioned you would be using the bit, and I'll be happy to support your next RfA. Tan | 39 14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral You're a great candidate, but the whole 3RR breaking just days before you came here shows that you have more to learn. Come back in a few months and you might have my support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Just a note, he was reverting POV edits by a banned user. This is a noted exception to the WP:3RR rule. Tan | 39 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Per Tan. iMatthew ^talk at 21:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't find the userboxes to be that big of an issue. However, per what Download said, you should get some more WP experience; that's there the admin tools are used. You'll have my support in a few months. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. A little more experience is probably required before his likely temperament across a range of areas can be properly judged, but he shows promise. The answer to Q4 nudges me from the oppose camp to here, as it displayed an awareness of both self and the way the role is perceived that was lacking in the nomination statement. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 07:32, 7 August 2009 (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.