Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/28/11); Closed Tue, 12 May 2009 20:09:29 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Nomination

[edit]

Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs) – I would consider myself a wikignome working quietly away to improve wikipedia behind the scenes. I am regularly involved in anti-vandalism using Huggle, and would like to further this being able to block persistent vandals. I also get myself involved in Articles for deletion, on occasion and would like to further my involvement by being able to delete pages. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I have noticed is that many/most of those that have chosen to oppose, have done so based purely on the answers to the questions. Obviously when I next apply, I will have to make sure that I write perfect answers for these questions. Or even copy them from 100% pass RfAs! (just kidding). But I would appreciate, especially from those that oppose, more detailed reasons, so that I can improve myself, rather than "per bad answers to questions". Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I intend to take part in page deletion and user/ip blocking.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As a wikignome I haven't made massive edits to wikipedia. However, I would say my best contributions are when I generate a random page a get it up to B-class standard by adding references, links, headings, and most commonly, infoboxes.
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: There have been a number of occasions in the past when I have been involved in conflicts of some kind. When this happens I take it off the article and onto the others talk page and try to resolve our dispute civilly.

Additional optional questions from user:Tempodivalse:

4. Under what circumstances would you block an established editor to Wikipedia?
A: If they had regularly been vandalizing Wikipedia and/or causing general trouble such as incivility. It wouldn't matter to me if they had written 100 FA, if they have vandalized enough to get blocked (i.e. to the best of my knowledge that is 5 vandalisms or vandalizing after their final warning.). Also if the use multiple accounts inappropriately, for example sockpuppeting to add extra votes to a discussion, but not if they use a bot account or an account to log in on insecure computers, this could lead to them getting blocked.
5. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you particularly agree with? Conversely, are there any policies you particularly disagree with?
A: I particularly agree with wikipedia's policy on vandalism, and the warning system used against vandals, because they are cleanly cut and easily enforced. I have some issues with wikipedia's policy on Naming conventions, because it is my belief that articles should be named the official name of the subject matter, with well know alternatives listed in the introduction and redirected to the article.
6. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an administrator, you will sooner or later come across a situation where you will need to judge consensus in order to take a certain action, like in a content dispute, etc.
A: It is my belief that a consensus is reached when the majority of voters/participants have agreed on the outcome, after a reasonable amount of time, and without any major objections. I am aware that wikipedia itself finds it hard to define consensus, and therefore it is up to those involved to decide when one has been reached.
Consensus is not the majority of votes, it is weighing up the arguments and coming to a conclusion that can be supported by policy.
Optional question from Dank
7. Point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline; or if you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.
A: Unfortunately I cannot find any conversations. However I do remember having a discussion with a user about abusing multiple accounts, after which I was compelled to report them, and forthwith got them blocked.

Additional optional question from The Earwig:

8. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined here and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: I would unblock the ip, but keep a constant eye on them for at least a week to check that they are staying on track. I would also advise the user to get an account. If they make only constructive edits over that week then I would offer to help them become a better wikipedian through adopting them or offering gentle guidance. If however they vandalise again I would re-block them.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
9. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?
A: I honestly don't know if wikipedians have any rights. But I think that it is most probably one of the following: users have the same rights as they do in the real world according to the country they live in, or the rights of the country that the main server is in, or that they have no rights because everything they put on wikipedia immedialy becomes free content.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
[edit]
  1. Support I really like the answer to Q3, support.--Giants27 T/C 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Awards, good argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutler Beckett, and as candidate has never been blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Dlohcierekim 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good answers to questions show a good level of knowledge in policy matters, can be trusted. tempodivalse [☎] 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No reason not to. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. One (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support I do not agree with this user's positions on singular "they", usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences. Keepscases (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, how does my postion on the above things mean I wouldn't be a good admin? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Adminship is no big deal; I see no reason to believe this user would use tools incorrectly. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral Support I look forward to the next time. Please heed my advice and reapply. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support. This RFA was probably a bit premature, but I don't really see any serious issues with the candidate; she lacks experience, but her intentions are good and she's on the right track. Assuming this RFA fails, I would advise her to gain more experience in 'admin areas' such as AFD and AIV before applying again; most voters here want to see evidence that she knows what she's doing in those areas before they can support. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I don't need to say this, but "Gaia Octavia" is feminine. The masculine form would be "Gaius Octavius". Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my apologies - I've corrected the pronouns. I actually used to study Latin, so I really shouldn't have made that mistake. X( Robofish (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support. The less than stellar start to her RfA might be an indicator of a need for a more informative nomination. The adminable accomplishments abound with this candidate, but with her modesty, require a bit of research to uncover. Outstanding vandal fighter. Please address the concerns below and return with a bold pronouncement of your accomplishments. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral support. Candidate would probably have passed on first run a few years back; It's unfortunate that filling up the job application form matters just as much as his/her contributions. I really do hope to see him/her back here in a few months, with more experience by then. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Granting the admin bit should not rest on the candidate's ability to wax poetic or verbose in their responses. Being concise is a virtue in many cases. Adminship is no big deal, and I see nothing which indicates this editor would abuse the tools. Rather, it appears the tools would be put to good use. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support - technically meets my standards, but I'm not 100 % happy about the AfD work. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong moral support From my interactions with Gaia Octavia Agrippa at Milhist, I know her to be a steady, reliable editor who will make a great admin once she has more experience under her belt.  Roger Davies talk 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Real Support. The candidate has a history of civil interactions with other contributors, and has shown extreme willingness to help out new editors. This indicates possession of fundamental traits that, to me, are more important than policy knowledge. decltype (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak support. I see no indication that the user would abuse their tools or do something terribly wrong, so why the hell not? The answers are not impressive, though, (although I support the answer to their most recent question from me) so I am not extremely supportive of them. The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Why not. I would trust that if the user is successful that they would carefully evaluate their understanding of consensus. I can certainly recall discussions about perfectly notable articles which I've been in where if it were a vote I'd be a little worried if this user was closing the discussion. But this has been pointed out and I'm willing to assume said user will study points raised by other editors be it win or lose. --candle•wicke 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - trustworthy editor. Nothing wrong with brevity. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - The awnsers appeared to be given truthfully and properly, certain factors are made due to human opinion and social incidents but these could not effect constructive editing or administritive (is this even a word) actions but possibly increase them due to certain views could be used, like in most places in the pedia, as benifits for the article at hand (if this makes any sense). Also she has only had 56 edits reverted and/or deleted meaning that the majority of the edits made were in some way constructive and helpful. My only original concern was the lack of proof that guidence had been given to/or with any given user, but other users appear to remember such times so this is a removed concern, and with the responsibilities I am sure that she will make an effort to guide people and be a good admin. Sorry for the novel I just wrote. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak support, I generally don't care about answers to questions if the editor seems good. Wizardman 19:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support- She is good. She has adopted me and knows a lot about Wikipedia. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Absolutely no reason to oppose. Though his answers are short, they are to the point and proves he knows what he's talking about. Never been blocked, very civil, and I see a youthful glow a good thing :)--(NGG) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Gaia is a girl, of the female persation, likes men etc. Oh well, doesn't really matter. =) or does it 'The Ninjalemming' 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Answers to questions are not impressive, and I see little sign of preparation to become an admin -- a bit of Huggling, a few AfD noms, hardly anything more. I could support after a few months more of experience with admin-related matters. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - While I applaud the user's boldness to request adminship, I do not think they are ready. They have virtually no contributions in both Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces; despite the user wanting to work in both deletion and blocking, there are no edits to AIV to speak of (5 according to X!'s counter, no AFD nominations, no edits to policy talk pages. The only recent speedy tagging was a G7 to a page where the creator replaced the content with an external URL (would have been an A3) and in March a A1 to foreign language material. The answer to Q4 is hazy - we do not block established users any other way than all other vandals: If they break the rules and a block is needed to stop them, we block them. They don't need to do it regularly to be blocked, they just need to continue after being given warnings to stop. Answer to Q6 sounds like the user believes that consensus is more of a vote than a !vote (see comment in neutral). So, to sum it up, I believe this user means well, I really do. But I do not think they grasp policy enough for the mop just yet. Regards SoWhy 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per SoWhy. Additionally, with Wikignome users that most of the community is not familiar with, it's especially important to have detailed answers to the questions, which this candidate does not supply. Qs 1 and 6 are exceedingly vague, and Q7 reveals that this user has not had enough interaction with others to demonstrably prove that he/she has the proper temperament for the tools. GlassCobra 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per non-impressive answers to questions. -download ׀ sign! 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per SoWhy and GlassCobra. The answers to the questions in general weren't that great. Timmeh! 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't see a pressing need for tools or experience in preparation for using them, no audited content work. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per answer to my question, #7. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tentative oppose - I dislike both the manner and nature of the answers to the questions, and I find that guestbooks are minor violations of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but violations nonetheless. I am willing to be convinced the other way, though, as all of these concerns can be allayed. — neuro(talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Concern about experience, and answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per SoWhy. The user means well but I do not think they are ready yet. Frehley 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Cirt. Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per all but one in this section. PirateSmackKArrrr! 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Vague answers to questions.  Marlith (Talk)  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose over concerns about the answers given above and the issue of experience. I'm not looking for a dozen FAs or a thousand vandals taken down but the contributions to date seem only somewhat substantial. Perhaps in six months after more thought on the process, but not yet. - Dravecky (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - I don't like to "per editor" people, but SoWhy sums up exactly what i'm thinking here. Good luck, Matty (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, next to no experience in deletion, and that's one of the main areas in which you plan to work. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - I held off voting for a while, as I remember seeing your name and was trying to remember where I saw it, and now remember seeing it in Editor Reviews. The review you had had stated that you should work on deletion some more before requesting adminship, and you seem to not have done much of that.--Iner22 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Wishes to block users and IPs but has little contribution to WP:AIV. Very ambiguous answers to questions; I'm worried how the answer to seven appears to contradict three, I don't like four or six either. I do not believe the user ready. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. More experience with WP:CSD; I don't agree with this edit summary particularly, but the WP:CLUB tag ok. It appears as if the candidate is applying with an undertone of frustration, which looking at the contributions of the user makes sense, but the short answers 1A and 4A reflect a bit of impatience. I do not think trust is an issue here, nor is the ability to "use" the tools. The issue is when the tools should be used, something the candidate can surely improve. Zab (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you got the right link there? That's a completely standard edit summary (from Huggle). And what do you mean by WP:CLUB tag? decltype (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If thats the standard edit summary (so you see what I mean then), then this criteria did not match the page at the revision as I see it. Huggle cannot be held responsible for its built-in summaries. This in no way reflects on the "intentions" of the action, just room for improvement before being trusted with atomic tools. I think wikipedia benefits from the candidate continuing to utilize the WP:CSD until more experience is gained. Zab (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, no, I don't see any divergence between the edit summary and the tag. Besides, professional gaming is still largely unknown to the masses, and articles get created on a daily basis on teams that are utterly unimportant and insignificant, so I do not consider this a grave error. But you are entitled to your opinion, of course. decltype (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Answers to questions are not good enough.--Unionhawk Talk 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Per Unionhawk and download. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, per inadequate answers to the questions. Nakon 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose The answers are totally inadequate to become admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz26 (talk • contribs)
  25. Oppose Per the answers to the questions. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Gives the impression of being a kid. Friday (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the strangest opposes I have seen. Also I am not a "kid", and I apologise if I give that impression. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably the guestbook, hidden page, etc. I don't take issue with them, but users like Friday will. Keepscases (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How does '[giving] the impression of being a kid' indicate that it would not be wise to give this user the tools? — neuro(talk) 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong oppose per three things. First, rather lackluster answers to the questions. Second, not enough experience in the deletion field; that is, you need to have more experience in XFDs and more participation in the deletion process as a whole. You can build experience and knowledge in this by participating in XFDs, utilizing proposed deletion, watching Special:NewPages for pages that fall under the criteria for speedy deletion (this is where most speedy deletions happen), and participating in deletion review. Third, while wikignomery can be a good thing, you need to build knowledge in the article building process—be a good content editor. Build up and improve existing articles and cleanup substandard articles. This will definitely help you familiarize yourself with the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines that admins need to understand well in order to utilize the tools. Hopefully, this helps, especially if you wish to go for RFA again. MuZemike 18:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    per the responses to the questions. They provide no insight in the ability to be able to utilize the tools effectively. MuZemike 02:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretful Oppose User has good intentions but skimpy answers to questions indicate a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policies. Perhaps in a few months and more experience Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I can't see any reason to not support but I tend to put a lot of weight on the answers to the questions and these responses are, um, spotty. Some 'meat' in the answers (a diff here and there and a little passion in the 'greatest contributions' would be nice). Meanwhile, I'm parking in the neutral section. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Moral Support'Grave concerns related to understanding of consensus not being a vote. Dlohcierekim 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said in my answer that it was majority of voters/participants implying that it could be a straight vote or a discussion on a talk-page. But please correct me if I am wrong. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not necessarily the majority of participants agreeing, it's where the best (policy) reasons for a decision lay. 10 people can argue to keep an article at AFD because they are interested in the subject and still the one !vote to delete can be consensus if it is backed by policy. Regards SoWhy 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Exactly It is not a majority vote. Consensus traditionally hovers in the 75% range, but it is about weighing arguments rather than counting votes. If a consensus is not reached in an AFD discussion, the default is "Keep," though there is some debate as to whether this should be true in BLP's. Expanding rationale.I see no CSD taggings in deleted contribs. I would like to see more CSD experience. Reported vandal who had stopped after final warning. I would like to see more AIV experience. Since others have cited the answers in Support, I must say I find the answers lackluster and leaving me with serious doubts. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I've come across Gaia a few times in her Wikignoming and appreciate her contributions; however, I am largely unimpressed with her answers to the questions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per RegentsPark and KuyaBriBri. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral No reason to oppose, but I cannot yet support.--John (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I am in agreement with John on this candidacy. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm with John (talk · contribs) here. There's nothing to suggest that the candidate would misuse the tools, but I can't quite support at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You have a bit of improvement to do, but this is nothing that will stop you from passing a future RfA. If you have addressed all the concerns here in about six months, please run again and have another go. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The answers to the questions above concern me, I would tend to sway to oppose, but wikignomes may be neccesary in the future, especially with the upgoing rates of vandilism. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, avoiding pile-on. While mindless repetition of policy is not a requirement, answers show a paucity of engagement with them. Alas, one of the most important things an admin can do is put his or her finger on relevant explanation of policy in order to keep things running smoothly around here; not sure there's enough of that in this candidate at this time.  Frank  |  talk  19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Comment In response to Gaia Octavia Agrippa's request for more specific answers, my comment is that that is our concern. I don't expect perfect answers, but these questions, your contributions, and your stats are the only way we have to know you if we haven't personally interacted with you in the past. Your answers are very brief and to the point, but they also don't tell us much about you. What is your thought process? How are you likely to perform as an admin? You may be a person who evaluates everything on a case-by-case basis, so it is difficult to speak in generalities about possible future events. If that's the case, let us know. After reading most RfA Q&A's, I've got at least some kind of a mental image of the person created in my head (and probably completely unlike the real person), but at least I have some feeling about the person. After reading, and now re-reading your answers, you are still mostly a blank slate. Maybe a general sense of a quiet gnome working away, not causing any drama, and just trying to do a good job well out of the limelight. That's an admin nominee I would gladly support! But if that's you, please try to express that, or whatever it is that you are. We can't see you, hear you, or interact except through a screen and a keyboard. You've got to give us more before we can feel comfortable giving you more. At least, that's how I see it. I hope that helps. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. I see ~50% of her edits are in the mainspace (plus point to me), and only around 1000 of her edits were automated (another plus point to me). However, what I don't yet see is evidence of dispute resolution skills, nor do I yet see evidence of a clear understanding of policy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa&oldid=1142504185"