Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penyulap

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

Penyulap

Final (3/24/1); closed 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Penyulap (talk · contribs) – It gives me a great deal of pleasure to nominate Penyulap for the position of administrator. Adminship is no big deal, we are all told, and Penyulap has shown himself to be a trustworthy Wikipedian, so if !voters adhere to the requested standards it is not necessary for me to say the slightest thing else in favour of this nomination. Nevertheless, I can't help doing so, so worthy is this candidate. What support voters will be endorsing here is a character with a strong sense of right and wrong, a user who understands the policies here, and who won't be afraid to speak his mind. I'd love to say he wouldn't use the tools in pursuit of an agenda, but that would be false. I'll go one better - he will use them with a very specific agenda: by scrupulous adherence to common sense and policy, he will protect Wikipedia from malevolent forces while at the same time helping with the day in/day out construction towards our goal. Pass this RfA, and if in a thousand years time, when we ourselves are long gone, at least some of the content will live on and if our descendants venerate their ancestors, the username Penyulap will be on their lips. Egg Centric 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination Penyulap ☏ 13:41, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I am of many minds.

Today, I'm feeling the occupation health and safety problems which take their toll on the admins. Juggling the contributions, intentions, scheming and misbehaviour of a few editors in the Spaceflight project page. Trying to collapse what I see into a format that can be read by another editor who does the SPI, while the SPI itself was closed for lack of evidence which I haven't even had the chance to give yet, as I didn't know which person was going to handle the case, and Dennis is too busy as it is. I don't want bans, exposure is always enough to stop it and stop it is all that I want. Stop it. ... just that phrase, when will it stop, when will these people ever stop arguing with each other. I know the answer, and it's when a new project better structured than this one takes over. It's the only thing that will stop the shit-slide that started in '06 illustrated on the editor retention wikiproject talkpage in a graphic. I just think why am I getting into this much stress and effort to prove properly and go precisely by the rules, which is what I want, just to simply ask these few editors to stop and consider at least two others, Ohms law and Jason Quinn if no-one else.

<change>

The WP:indefray is a weapon that only destroys the project, it wipes the memory of the user, so they can't recognise the editor who continues to cause trouble when they return, it makes the bad behaviour worse each time because it educates the target, and it only ever keeps away the people with integrity who simply abandon the project. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Maybe I will have time to draw up a lovely cartoon with animated graphics to illustrate the hazards of this deadly-to-the-project weapon, maybe not, I don't know. Won't be this week because I am too weak and need to rest. Then there is the much easier banner for the Evil one to do first, that would cheer me up. I did have a humorous ditty that I jotted down in a text editor yesterday I think, before I got bogged down by all this crap. I might as well pop it in here to raise my spirits if I can.

<change>

When I first had a look at the ISS article, the Americans were full of it, out to hog all the credit, so I set out to give credit where it was due to everyone except the Canadians, because nobody likes Canadians. Someone told me to "Be Bold" so I'm like well ok then if you say so, I'm here anyhow I may as well, so I thanked them politely and set about my work. I thought I should make at least one exception though, to do at least one thing right, so I figured just look at the rule page and pick the first thing I see and obey that one rule, and so it says first off 'ignore all rules' so I'm like oh well, it's as good as any, so I start with obvious things like vandalism, describing Robonaut as ballast, and explaining why ballast is so important on the space station, and I dunno if it was lame or nobody cared, it just sat there for a while so I moved on to other stuff, whatever I could think of like a little bit of copyright violation, swearing and umm sockpuppeting are my latest hobbies, and oh I can't remember, the problem is that there are just so many rules, it's hard to get through all of them, but you know, I'm pacing myself as best I can what with health and all. I try my best not to edit anything really, but I just get tricked into it sometimes, I guess I edit mostly out of spite. Someone was saying the tooth fairy isn't real which is CRAP, and they wouldn't let me fix the CRAP class article saying 'you can't draw something that doesn't exist, na na naaa' and all that. I went and drew the Chinese space station which doesn't exist, and won't exist for like a decade almost, and I had nowhere to put it so I had to stick an article around it or how is the public going to see that I'm right and everyone else is wrong including all the Chinese. Only idiots think there is no tooth fairy, first thing to do if I'm admin is draw a nice tooth fairy and start throwing my weight around on the tooth fairy article, oh yeah !! might take a while though, I'm busy drawing other rubbish lately, but they're totally on my hit list. I had to slam dunk the ISS article out of FA to shut up everyone who was like 'we own this article and there is nothing you can do' so I had to get help pulling out the FA chair they were standing on to lecture me from, me and a few of the guys at FAR each grabbed a leg of the chair and landed em right square on their asses and they're still sore about that one (their asses I mean). But what can you do with the tooth fairy article ? Can't make that any worse than it already is, so they're outsmarting me there. For now. But they are on my list too. Then I manipulated people into putting me up for adminship, I figure that'll give em the shits. I figure it'll do as a temporary stop gap measure, you know, cause I don't put much thought into anything so it's hard to know how best to get revenge sometimes.

<change>

That was yesterday's vandetta, every prospective admin needs a vandetta. But while I'm annoyed at the people who keep the kids reading the tooth fairy article so upset by using the word 'fantasy' which kids do not like, instead of the word 'folklore' which goes over the top of kids heads and adults understand, I don't much care. They own that shit corner of the project I guess. this is my first vandetta now, and much more worthy a place to shit stir. An editor who is battling against outright ignorance and negligent conduct of admins. I will dump anything so called 'meaningful' and line up with the others, not offering to adopt like the others say but offering to be an assistant. The editor may well turn out to be a prick same as any regular editor, I have no idea and do not know the editors character, but that is irrelevant. A block must have a proper purpose and disability is not it. The project will be made to allow sufficient care in giving everyone an equal chance or you can all go fuck yourselves. Yeah, sorry about that, block me if you care. That last block got for swearing was a good block. The question isn't whether it was a good block, only if it was good value. For my integrity as far as I won't tell you to your face what I think when asked, it is worth it, because I will not be accused of insulting someone by proxy, I will be direct. However, is that editor worth my efforts and wasting my breath on ? well, I noticed their editing took a steep dive after their topic ban review where I asked if they were trying to game us, so I figure they don't actually want to do much in the way of editing, so, whatever. Was it worth it for Andy, well, I stand with him on principle, even if I can't agree with the language anymore in all cases. Just one more useless thing for us all to be in one more useless huff over. Discuss bad language to death why don't we. "Wikipedia, discussion ad nauseam" I say is the new motto. The titanic is sinking and I need to cross to the machine world, to find and make a treaty with the coders in order to bring peace, there is no other way.

<change>

I would think that the highlight of the exercise would be to see my critics turn white in horror at the prospect, this whole exercise is worth it just for that alone. Still, there is always valid critique to learn from, however, you'd have to address what I am actually doing rather than appearances.

<change>

It is a good opportunity to examine in greater detail the problems which admins face, and to implement solutions as they present. Sure, there are a million megabytes of studies so far, but to see it for myself is, like being a veteran editor hounded by seagulls, better detailed.

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: Most likely faster identification of genuine people who have been incorrectly blocked. It has been observed that I have different abilities for (social and moral) processing of data, much more data, faster and with greater accuracy than most people. Some of that work would be easier for me, if I am here anyway.

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

A: I like art, even political satire or commentary is ok with me, although my wikipedia space work lasts longer than my article space work, but I like helping at the graphics lab if I can, but creativity is easier in userspace at the moment. I love (I was going to link it from here, but I think it would crash some browsers, so I'll copy it here instead.)

Thanks for the message. See if what I did looks ok to you. Thanks for your work on this article - it's fun to read about the progress on this Space Odyssey. I'm not a scientist, so I'm grateful for those who take time to explain science topics so that they are fun for us muggles to read (if I may mix my literary metaphors). -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I am really glad that you like it, some of may favourite parts I was thinking of today, like the part with the pope, how readers who like the old man would follow the ref and have a lovely read about it, and the drama of explosive decompression destroying the station, and X-3 class solar flares, there is so much I really enjoyed writing, and I must confess I'm not always a big fan of refs, they are a bit of a mess for me, but I adore it when I write something so precise and compelling that nobody ever ever ever bothers to cn tag it or even edit it really, like note 2 has been there forever, and the decompression, sometimes I think people get as lost in the story as I get lost in the telling. I love it. Penyulap ☏ 00:54, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

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: Who me ? (looks around) oh, you mean me don't you, well, err, umm, plead the 5th?

Ok, well if it's just one to one, and the edit looks good, or is not outrageously bad I like it. If there is a serious problem, I'll revert and have a chat and see how we can find common ground. If people have spoken on an issue clearly, I remember what they have said, so if someone changes the text in a way that against the consensus, and I also don't agree with the changes, then I do put myself in the firing line to protect the consensus, even with the bullying and the absolute resonant hallmark phrase of an wp:owner "It's only you". Well, screw you, because you can try your bully tactics and other editors who have stated clearly and just once do not need to say it twice. Either go politely talk to those editors and change their minds or get reverted. Simple. I don't care if it is archived or not, it has to be reasonable, or circumstances have to change first. If two people disagree with me, and then leave for a holiday, I'm not going to revert behind their back even it I think they're wrong. Either I persuade, or they can have their dumbass article. But I prefer to help, I love to see the extra editing and detail added to my work, and almost always agree about the crap parts and how they need to be cut. Still, I can see off multiple owners at one time all by myself now that most of my early wikilife was spent growing up battling against multiparty ownership issues. It's a complex problem for most people to spot, and I'd like to make the improvements to the WP:OWN policy, but so far I have stuck with improving just the single party ownership parts, as I would look too involved to assist more, until after those problems are resolved. It's a catch 22 for admins that the more places they get involved in, the less places that they can help out in.

Stress relief is humour and taking a break where possible, although support is the best relief from stress. That is why it is so important to narrow the gap, and get rid of the 'us and them' bullshit mentality of the admins Vs nonadmins. It's a trait of a class society where police are used to keep the lower classes under control. It doesn't work in a classless community like wikipedia. Still, trying to fight the tendency of a community mentality turning into a mob mentality is not so easy where the indefray is used heavily.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Can someone please close this as WP: SNOW? Electric Catfish 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 I think it is polite to wait until the people who take more time to read have a chance to comment. This is a serious request Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. The idiosyncratic response to the nomination by P very much shows that he can take on this task in his own unique way. There is no danger of group think here - he won't be just one more automaton with a broom! Egg Centric 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Ah yes. He just made John Galt look like a man of few words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   I had the guy in Joyce's Uylesses on my mind, with the exception that Penyulap is at least comprehensible. Of course, to understand him you do have to actually read it and think things through rather than taking the words on face value, something clearly beyond many as you can see from some of the oppose votes Egg Centric 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, because questioning the opposes' intelligence will help your nomination of the candidate. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   It seems to work in other instances. Intothatdarkness 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not some kind of Karl Rove figure by whose actions he can be judged. It's not my job to promote his candidacy, my role ended at submitting the RfA. But you can clearly see at least a few opposes didn't bother looking at what they were doing. I find that hilarious, actually.Egg Centric 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Absolutely. This is hysterical. I put the idea of closing it myself right off the table. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   seriously, this is more flattering and humbling a reaction to such a paper thin veil, it completely trumps on the calls for my murder in project spaceflight. I mean, this beats all. Poor Br'er Rabbit doesn't realise you are talking past each other. Wow, talk about a mass hangover. Penyulap ☏ 18:38, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

   looking for "this request was closed as indef'd"? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Like Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   One thing is for certain Egg Centric, this will be historical. Has there ever been an avalanche like this ? I'm so incredibly flattered by the attention of the inattentive. Penyulap ☏ 18:24, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

   Egg Centric, be calm, they cannot hear you. They are not meant to. Penyulap ☏ 18:43, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

2. Opposes not convincing. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - opposes are unconvincing. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Ha, beaten to it. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize the two of you are having some fun, but is it really appropriate for admins to cast facetious votes? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought voting facetiously on a facetious RfA was quite appropriate, really. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I personally find the socking aspect beyond the pale. What it teh wiki coming to? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per this SPI case, in which the candidate, following several invitations to clarify whether he was being sarcastic or not, admitted in earnest that he uses socks incapable of being detected by CheckUser to vandalise Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   That is a misinterpretation of what he said. Misinterpretation like that in fact validates what it was he was saying Egg Centric 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Please check the comments carefully. Here, I thought I had indeed misunderstood him, but here he told me that I was wrong, and that he was not being sarcastic. WilliamH (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Nope. He said it was a genuine offer. That's all. Egg Centric 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yes — a genuine offer to reveal the socks he uses to vandalise. Please don't isolate comments from their context in order to conclude something completely different. Quite frankly, I have no idea why this user isn't indefinitely blocked for stating that he does such activity. WilliamH (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Now that's where you misunderstood. Read it all again. Egg Centric 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   I did — while it was unfolding and while I was participating in it. WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - that SPI is too close for comfort, and the answer to question 3 is not encouraging.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I haven't looked at any of the candidate's other contributions, and so I make no comment on them, but the SPI case raised above by WilliamH makes me extremely concerned, enough to oppose. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose - This comment is a bit dodgy!:

   "So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. here is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to vandalize and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control."[1]

   With a recent SPI case I think that this user should wait at least another 6 months as then we can see a recent history of incivility. The comment I quoted above sort of proves that the user can not be trusted with the role of admin especially after admitting to controlling sock puppets. Although this could be someone pretending to be the user we still can not be sure and can't take the risk. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Bzzt. I stopped at "vandetta" (sic). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Weren't you just involved in an edit war trying to redirect a user page into mainspace? That's not the sort of judgement I'm looking for in an admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Withdrawing vote. I voted AGF'ing that this was a serious, if misguided RFA. I apologize for that misjudgement.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

6. The TLDR "acceptance" of the nomination throws me off, and I'm sure will throw many others off too. Coupled with the candidate's past remarks highlighted above, I will not support. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 17:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose the sockpuppetry thing is a big no. Also there's three blocks on the account, one on 21 June and the other this month. Valenciano (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose All I saw was "...I guess I edit mostly out of spite". Huh? Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Didn't even get past the "statement". Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
10. This is a joke, right? Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    You aren't the only one who thinks we're being trolled, if that's what you're asking. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    DYK... that "penyulap" is a word in Indonesian? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose - What on earth... huh... what? The SPI case, recent blocks, ... KTC (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose. What is this I can't even. RFA is a crappy enough place without lulzy RFAs which no one, including the nominee, can take seriously. Penyulap, I'm sure you have good intentions down there somewhere, but what the community sees of you, here and elsewhere, is way more poking of the beehive than any one person should be doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Let's put this one behind us, and think of better things to come. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Nominee's motivation is "officially doing it just to shit my critics to tears... Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Considering the candidate's comments above which all but openly admit he's not taking this seriously, I think an admin should close this now and warn both nominator and candidate for disruption of process to prove a point. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Having a sense of perspective and of humour is not the same thing as not taking things seriously. It is only natural that early voters are more likely to oppose as given the complexity of the candidate most supporters are more likely to take their time. Indeed some of these opposes may turn into supports after they really investigate the issues Egg Centric 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Egg Centric, now would be as good a time as any for you to stop badgering opposers. Believe me when I say it's doing absolutely nothing to make your candidate look any better, and is doing a whole lot to make you both look worse. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

15. Oppose The SPI and block are too recent for me to support now. -- Luke (Talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Pen, you're a good editor with a lot of potential, but I feel like this is premature. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Not because of any of the above, but because I do not find Penyu's frequent noticeboard contributions to be of the helpful variety. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose Per SPI case and recent block. Also, 26% of edits to the article namespace is too low. Electric Catfish 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose More deserving of an indef block than tools. Uses undetectable sock puppets to vandalize. Makes a sport of defending other disruptive editors, either to prove a point, or just to tweak peoples noses. Not here to build an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose When an admin or wannabe admin sees an editor being grossly uncivil (even if they feel it justified in the circumstances), I generally expect something more than spelling and grammar advice. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose Answers to questions miss the mark. The recent block coupled with A1 stop me in my tracks. Glrx (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose per recent block and the sock puppet investigation. User creates undetectable, pernicious sock puppets to vandalise the encyclopædia, which is not of administrator quality. User only has 26% of edits to the article namespace, which is low. Also, the nomination statement to this "entreaty for adminiship" is short, but Penyulap summed the statement up as "TL;DR" in my perception, given the size of their later obiter. User has been blocked three times, predominantly for unruly editing habits and personal interventions. ⇒TAP 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Strong oppose (ec) The statistic of 26% edits to articles is actually deceptive; most of those edits were at least six months ago. Their article-space edits in the last five months are only 8.3%, and are falling every month. They only had four edits to articles in July, up until Saturday, when they fixed some redirects after a page move. Some of the remarks above are quite, ahem, sketchy: "I try my best not to edit anything really, but I just get tricked into it sometimes, I guess I edit mostly out of spite"; "nobody likes Canadians" ( O really? I am Canadian, and can say for sure that your remark is untrue, and it hurts my feelings). Their extensive posting to the recent ANI thread about the Beatles thing got to be pretty over the top; not helpful posts, more the kind that stir up drama and hurt people and the wiki as a whole. Citing this exchange as an example of their mentorship skills seems disingenuous when the editor they were talking to never edited the encyclopedia again. There's more, but I'll stop there, as this has already sucked up enough of my time. YHBT : HAND. -- Dianna (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    all that anger never came back to vandalise, well who would have thought that was the intent ? who would have ever guessed that compassion could conquer anger. Penyulap ☏ 19:05, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose. Frankly I am on the verge of leaving Wikipedia because of the stress that this user has caused me. There can be little doubt that Penyulap ultimately means well, has a great sense of humour when not using it to try and avoid criticism, and has made some great contributions, but he remains unable to accept criticism or see when he is wrong (usually blaming other editors, and even going as far as recently opening a baseless SPI against one user who criticised him). His black-and-white view of policy is also problematic, as he adheres to the letter of the law sometimes at the expense of its spirit. He's made a couple of vague allegations in his response to question 3 which I feel warrant some response. I won't go into too much detail regarding his conduct on the ISS article - it's all there in the archives of Talk:International Space Station, but he pretty much single-handedly got an FA delisted (ANI discussion at the time), before embarking on a year-long campaign to change the article's dialect based solely on the grounds of a perceived procedural error in a discussion three years ago (see WP:NOTBURO). I've lost count of how many discussions he has started on the matter, and when he runs out of arguments he resorts to ad hominem comments, such as the ones seen under answer 3 accusing the other editors involved of bullying and acting as if they own the article. We were actually making some progress on the issue for the first time since his involvement, but his above tirade has pretty much thrown that out of the window. --W. D. Graham 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. While the sockpuppetry conundrum may be just a misunderstanding of caustic sarcasm, and the lengthy intro essay (which I admit I did not go through) indicates that the candidate is quite eloquent, I believe that admins should generally avoid controversy, and double-meanings. With current results I don't feel like adding to the beating through an "oppose" vote, so I'm going neutral Pundit|utter 18:08, 24 July 2012 (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.