Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encyclopedist 3

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

Encyclopedist

Final (0/5/0) ended 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (withdrawn by administrator fiat and per WP:SNOW)

Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) I would like to nominate myself as an admin. here. I have actively participated within the community for over a year, I have participated in nearly every activity available for non-admins. here (and by this I mean VfD, TfD, RfA and a WikiMeetup [1] etc.) and have over 9,200 edits [2]. Although I have not been the perfect user at all times, I believe that I would benefit the well being of the encyclopedia for two main reasons: 1) I do help other Wikipedians and newbies if they ask me, and I have and will look at any articles or participate in various activities if I am asked to do so. 2) I will not abuse my status as an admin. I sincerely hope that I have overall aided the encyclopedia during my time here; by submiting this RfA I hope to do so on a larger scale. Please help me aid Wikipedia by voting support. I will understand any opposition here, but I hope that my ability to become an admin. here is not negated.

I would also like to note that several people have requested on a number of occasions that I consider adminship. After some misgivings that I had, and my questioning of the RfA process in general (which I still, to an extent, disagree with RfAs) I declined the offer. But I think that it is time for me to put those things aside, after all, I don't think a "rollback" and "block user" button would give me so much power to cause any damage :-)

I just ask that you vote your conscience, even if that means oppose. And if saying this means something, here goes: I am very nervous about the outcome.εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Now, after two months of vandalism, I want to reënter an RfA, just to see if I can have the appropriate tools to fight, rather than produce vandalism. If I win or not, I am just happy to be apart of the community, again. I sincerely apologize for my actions - and I will understand any outcome. But I assure you that if I become an adm, I'll do my damn best to be better as that than I was as a vandal. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Speedy close too soon Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per Jaranda. Naconkantari 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This RfA itself shows an astonishing lack of judgement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose and suggest withdrawl. Back today after being indef-blocked. Not gives any faith in user. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose after reviewing these citations [3] as well as one of his last edits [4] I find these immature activities to be a disgrace to the project, and I now come to discredit that he was much of a good user in the first place. Also, he does not use edit summaries very well [5], and has proven himself unworthy of trust at best. I also conclude with John Reid on his second nomination, in which he noticed his impulsiveness. I think that this user should be watched under the "eye of a magnifying glass," but should not be negated from his previously beneficial activities (i.e. his work to Military history). I personally hope that he will work with me on several of my own projects, but I doubt after my vote he will. I also want to note that several users here that have NO vandal history are NOT admins. Thus, he shouldn't be, nor should he ever be allowed to bring up an RFA again. I also want to ask is this the only vandalism he has committed. I can already tell - by my own intuition - that this case is probably not isolated. Sorry, but I will Strongly oppose his nomination, as well as any owns he may add in the future because of this. NOVO-REI 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum I also suggest a withdrawal, and a civility training session for this user. NOVO-REI 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Rollback and deleting articles from the AfD.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Military history of Mexico a favorite of mine. I plan to add citations in so it can become a WP:FA.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. This, unfortunately, has been a nadir of my WikiEtiquette. I have strived to improve on my conduct, and I remember a conflict with User:Waya sahoni in which I tried to add a calm message [6]. It was deleted, but in any event, conflict with this user has been avoided. May I note that I have also found myself mediating between User:Elonka and User:DreamGuy along with several countless others that I receive through e-mail.

Note, added these from NSLE (is it pronounced Nestle?) Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   As an editor, I would give him an e-mail telling him about it, and work on some type of resolution to the problem. If the problem would persist, I'd report it to WP:AN/I. As an admin. I would do the former, and in the latter case I would administer a week block.

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   Instead of trying to fudge an answer, I'm going to tell you the truth: I'd leave it at that. If the majority of Wikipedians and an admin. thinks it isn't salvagable, it should probably be deleted. We're forgetting the possibility that the article may be created at a later date, and may come out better than before. That's the magic in everyone being able to edit.

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   24 hour block. 48 hours if he or she keeps on.

4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

   Like User:Gflores, I would most likely try to convince them of the value of an RfC. If they persist, I would respect the decisions of the other admins. stated above.

• See Encyclopedist's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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.