Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asenine

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

Asenine

Final (1/10/4); Closed by AGK (contact) at 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Asenine (talk · contribs) - For a long time I have been considering self-nominating for adminship, mostly due to my work against vandals. I visit Wikipedia regularly in daily life, partially due to the fact that I find it both interesting and informative, and partially because I have always been astounded at the number of people who do their best to harm the encyclopaedia - and I like to do my best to stop them. My belief is that, with sysop tools, my fighting of vandals would be more effective, however I can assure you that I would only use the more harsh sysop tools for treatment of vandals when absolutely necessary - I have no intention of causing any harm to this encyclopaedia by going over the top and overusing the sysop powers. I have self-admittedly, in the past not quite as much of a regular user as I am nowadays, but as you can see I am now an active contributor to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is invaluable to me, and I would very much like to give something back by serving the community as an administrator. Thankyou very much for taking the time to read this and I look forward to hearing your concerns and comments. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 11:46, 1 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As stated earlier, I would mostly take part in anti-vandal work. However, I am very open to helping in any section of sysop work, and would make sure to check my facts thoroughly before engaging in any situation. That said, however, I am not afraid to be bold and step in as an administrator where it is necessary.

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

A: I am especially happy about my help with the community. I have helped users out when they have been confused over boilerplate templates and article disputes (this occured with User:Susan E Webb), and I enjoy adopting users by giving them help and support. It brightens my life to see that I help out in the community.

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 have not been put under stress by other users before, but if I was to be faced by it I would leave them a notice regarding the problem, and deal with it efficiently and completely in good faith. I have been involved in only one edit conflict in the past over my addition of band logos to articles, but this was because I and another user (User:IllaZilla) were interpreting a consensus in different ways. The conflict was over soon after it began, as I backed down - I could see his point of view and I started understanding why he believed as he did. This conflict was carried out completely in good faith. If another conflict were to occur I would discuss with the user why their point of view was as such and would quite happily back down as soon as I knew they were in the right. If I still believed I was in the right, I would discuss with the user how to resolve the problem in the best and most constructive way.

Optional questions from Tiptoety ^talk

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: Banning is a community system, a way of the community removing a user's privelidges if it is deemed necessary. Blocking is a sysop privelidge that allows enforcement of these bans.

5. When should "cool down" blocks be used?

A: Never. It is not a wise idea to use a block to calm or cool down a user - as I can only see such a thing exacerbating a situation further. The block policy says this also.

Questions from User:ArcAngel

6. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?

A: I would serve the community, and as thus would be happy to withdraw if they willed it.

7. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR? And when are you willing to use it?

A: My interpretation is somewhat along the lines of 'if a policy is causing unnecessary hassle, then disregard it'. I have never had to use it before, and I would only use it when a policy was causing harm to the encyclopaedia.

8. Why are edit summaries important?

A: They are important so that edits can be seen on one page, at-a-glance, saving editors time and hassle.

9. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?I think that they all have an importance.

A: It may not be an official policy, but I find the most important policy to be User_talk:NoSeptember/admin_policy.

10. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included - what would you do?

A: Firstly I would discuss this with the other admin calmly and politely, asking their reasons for their concerns, and if we could not come to a conclusion, I would call in for a second opinion.

11. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?

A: The second, definitely. It should become the 2RR, as at current the 3RR is in my opinion a little too lax to have the desired effect.

General comments

• See Asenine's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Asenine: Asenine (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. I've had the fortune to interact with Asenine at some level on previous occasions and my observations have been found to be consistently positive. And for images, I always use this. Rudget. 13:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do not feel I can fully support you at this time - I am concerned about your edit count and how that relates to your interactions here on Wikipedia. I have not seen much involvement in your contribution history with Wikipedia related areas (AfD's, WikiProjects, etc). Give it a few months times and more involvement and I am sure then I would feel more comfortable supporting you. --Ozgod (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sorry, but you need to get more experience in Wikipedia-space. 45 edits doesn't show enough experience in necessary processes like AIV and RFPP, both of which you haven't made any edits to. Your disappearance for August and September 2007 also concern me, as well as the infrequent use of the edit summary box. Also semi-concerning is the fact that 24% of your total contributions is to userspace. Xenon⁵⁴ 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking the time to comment. I fail to understand how you associate the fact that I have not edited much in the Wikipedia namespace with the fact that I have not taken the time to read them. As for your comment about the edit summary, I concede I have in the past mostly left out summaries, but as can be seen, that has changed. As for your comment about userspace edits, that is mostly work on my monobook, my userpage which I update frequently, and subpages of my userpage. My disappearance was due to work I was doing in Switzerland where I had no access to the internet other than infrequent visits to an internet café, and immediately after I had to go to Germany on a student exchange. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 13:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification. As for the Wikipedia-space concerns, I didn't mean editing things like WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. I meant making reports to WP:AIV, requesting page protection, reporting inappropriate usernames, things like that. No reports to AIV is especially concerning because you say in Q1 you want to do anti-vandal work. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Xenon⁵⁴ 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Also, what I mean by "semi-concerning" is that I wouldn't oppose solely because you make a lot of edits to your userspace. Xenon⁵⁴ 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks again for the responses, for without comments I cannot improve. As for AIV, I am almost certain I have edited there a few times, but I may be wrong. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose as per above concerns. Also your edit summary usage should be very much improved by this point in time over what it is now - edit summaries are a VERY important aspect of adminship. ArcAngel (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Sorry, not ready yet. Per above. On one of the talk page archives, I saw concern expressed over incorrect speedy deletion taggings. I would recommend reviewing WP:CSD and being less hasty about applying those tags. If an article does not look notable, it might be better to apply Prod or AfD. I did not see a lot of AfD involvement. Even if AfD is not your cup of tea, the experience is valuable as there is some overlap in practical application of policy. I did not see reports to AIV. There can be a fine line of distinguishment between vandalism (which is willful and purposeful) and errors due to lack of experience or understanding of our policies. An admin sometimes needs to me a couch rather than a cop or a janitor. I would suggest a balance of article building and admin related tasks, seek an editor review in another 2000 edits and then, depending on the recommendations, submit an RfA about 1000 edits after that. I did not review for article building, but I would like to see at least 30,000 bytes of content added for content builders or several thousand "wikignome" type edits to gain experience in article building policies, which also help in recognizing vandalism and notability. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose with just over 50% edit summary usage, which really should be perfect when going for an RFA. And with just over 606 edits in the mainspace, that shows lack of experience. And you last 50+ contributions, seem to be welcoming users. I recommend you vote in AFD's and start using WP:AIV, more often, and of course maintain perfect edit summary usage. In 3-4 months I would be more than glad to support. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Obviously a very well intentioned user. I give the candidate praise for being bold and self nominating. Unfortunately, I have to agree with my fellow wikipedians above. You simply are lacking in the overall experience department, both admin/wiki-namespaces and article building. I suggest giving your stay here a few more months and another 3,000 or so edits in various areas before reapplying. Try and contribute to the following semi-regularly: WP:CSD (careful about tagging), WP:AFD (which I see you've already done, good), WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:AN, and WP:ANI. Also, it wouldn't hurt to get yourself an admin coach. I also suggest this be closed for now per WP:SNOW Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per other concerns above. Very good user, just not ready to become an admin. I think this should be closed per WP:SNOW at this time. I would probably support an RFA in another 2 or 3 months Alexfusco⁵ 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oh, so close - But just not enough experience, like Alexfusco said, try again soon! Tiptoety ^talk 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not ready yet. Jmlk17 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Response to Q1 & Q2 is a little vague. Nice user page though. Overall, if this doesn't work out, suggest you re-apply in 2-3 months. Addhoc (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral – First thank you to Asenine and to Rudget for this. I now have posted to my archive. To Asenine, come back in 3-6 months, with your current edit count expanded upon (and additional participation in other areas), and you will have one more Support opinion to count on. Good Luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral 3+ more months, and if you continue along this path, it's a support. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - your answer to Q3 (that when in a stressful conflict, you would "deal with it efficiently") leaves me wondering what you would do when in a stressful conflict! In general, your answers are too vague. Try again soon.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:20, 1 March 2008 (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.