Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Power~enwiki

Power~enwiki

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (3/20/4); Scheduled to end 02:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) – 14 years ago today, I made my first edit on Wikipedia. After about 100 edits, I lost interest in the project. This May, after some life changes, I started editing Wikipedia fairly regularly. As I have recently reached 10000 edits, I feel that I have sufficient experience to offer to pick up the mop. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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: My primary focus will be on "watchlist"-based admin tasks; specifically AIV, UAA (and UAA/BOT), and RFPP requests, as well as revdels of offensive/inappropriate material. I refresh my watchlist hundreds of times per week, and even a half-hour backlog on these pages can be frustrating for non-admins.

I intend to take part in other admin areas as well, including AfD closing (although AfD currently needs voters more than closers), CSD backlogs, and the various drama boards, including ANI and AE.

I feel I should specifically note that, due to my large number of edits in the area, I will not enforce the AP2 discretionary sanctions. I also plan to avoid WP:SPI, as I find it unenjoyable and I'm not particularly good at it.

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

A: My editing focuses are on topics related to math and computer science, topics related to American politics, and WP:VITAL articles. I also will edit almost anything that i come across through gnomish work, such as New Pages Patrol, AfD, maintenance categories, or the ever-popular "Random article" button.

Some of the "vital" articles I feel I have improved include Newspaper, Atlas, and Engineering; I've also been very present at the most contentious AP2 articles; Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Some less-prominent changes include tracking down what a Lerotse is, and adding references to pages like Fergana or Kielce Synagogue. I also feel obliged to note my white whale of Government; while I feel my efforts have significantly improved the page over its earlier versions, it still needs a massive amount of work.

Also, I feel that my over-1000 AfD votes have aided in the functioning of the project; having a minimum 3-5 votes on every AfD (even the non-controversial ones) would be ideal, but many AfDs struggle to get that level of participation.

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's no shortage of conflict in American Politics, and I find that I tend to discover conflicts in other areas as well, be it intelligent design or cricket.

1. Use the talk page. Remember to say even the things you feel are obvious. A decent amount of the time, this will resolve the issue.
2. Take a breath. Most of the time, 24 hours is quick on Wikipedia. If a discussion is getting problematic, turn off the computer and do something else.
3. Escalate and de-engage. This can involve posting on a WikiProject or Noticeboard. I have found that truly disruptive users tend to find their way into a ban fairly quickly, and most other editors are reasonable when confronted with reliable sourcing.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh

4. Why do you want to become an admin after only 7-month active editing?

A: As I said in my statement, I'm online quite frequently, and feel that rapid response on certain noticeboards is valuable to the project; frustration at delay in handling certain obvious vandals is also a factor. I won't be heart-broken if this doesn't pass.

Additional question from TonyBallioni

5. Do you think you were justified in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations as an involved non-admin?

A: With the benefit of hindsight, requesting a SNOW close at WP:AN would have been a better option. I did what I did largely because American politics is an extremely contentious area, and most of the admins willing to be active in the area were already involved. I do feel the burden for an administrator invoking WP:IAR is higher; while any editor can revert an WP:IAR action of a regular editor, generally only admins can revert administrative actions, and that risks wheel-warring.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Moral support. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Full, Non-moral support. Yes, he has a tenure of "only" seven months of active editing and "only" 10,000 edits. He's generally incisive, and a damn good editor. We need more admins like him, and he'd actually get things done with the mop. We're drowning in backlogs, and have a competent, active editor who can help with them. We're telling him no? Seriously? Tazerdadog (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. I do not believe power~enwiki would harm the wiki. We don't need to see ~5 years of tenure and 150,000 edits to tell if an editor is likely to misuse the tools. I haven't seen any activity to make me believe that power would misuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 05:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I like power, but I don’t think a record of ~ 6 months is enough for us to be able to judge whether or not he has the temperament for adminship and be convinced that he plans to be active after getting the tools. He fails my de facto third standard: have a record. We can’t be expected to make a judgement as to how he interacts with other Wikipedians over time without this. To be clear if this gets to a ‘crat chat: this is not just a time opppse; it’s that I think in order to gain the trust of the community, you need to have been around long enough for the community to trust you. I’m sure I’ll get “In 2004 you could do it quicker!” comments on this, but the current standard I have is approximately a year of active service or being an exceptional user who has made a significant impact on Wikipedia in their time here. Power simply doesn’t have the record for me to support at this time. I would support in 6 months with strong nominators. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per this and other examples of flawed reasoning I've seen repeatedly at AfD and DRV. No amount of answering questions 'correctly' can make up for the actual participation of this editor in such venues. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose due to obvious inexperience (7 months of editing), several instances of very poor judgment, and this recent (less than a month ago) WP:BADNAC AfD close [1], which is the most egregious I've ever seen: closing a 4-day old highly controversial AfD which had nearly 50% (15/31) Delete !votes, and which he himself had !voted in, as "Snow Keep". He strenously defended his BADNAC [2], and has never admitted that it violated #1, #2, and #3 of WP:BADNAC. I suggest that power-enwiki (whose username seems to indicate his quest for authority and hat-collecting) withdraw this RfA before it gets bad. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   The vote was 31/46 keep, roughly 67% keep. And I explicitly invoked WP:IAR; I knew full well it was against the letter of the law, but saw no way that any other outcome could possibly be the result, and felt that time was of the essence in closing it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   The !votes at the time (only four days into a highly controversial AfD) were 1 move to WikiNews; 4 merge; 15 delete; and 31 keep. Even your math is wrong: that's 31/51, or 60.7%. The fact that you are still defending your action shows your unsuitability for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   While I too thought the most that could happen was a no consensus result, I'm not sure how time was of the essence, and that seems like a poor attitude that leads to edit warring etc. (though I haven't seen you do anything bad like that, and I don't think you would) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose with regret per WP:NOTQUITEYET. I think the candidate is a good editor who shows a great deal of promise. However as noted above there have also been a few glaring errors in judgement which combined with their limited tenure suggests that they need a little more time and experience here. Irrespective of edit count, less than a year of active participation is just not enough. I'd suggest coming back in a year or so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose per the Roy Moore close. It would have been ill-advised for an uninvolved admin; for an invovled non-admin it was ridiculous. Admins make hard choices and take a lot of flak but IAR isn't carte blanche to impose one's understanding on everyone else. We have enough of those types with the tools already. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose Weak oppose Only 7 months active editing. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC) per Q4 Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose -- I really want to say yes. However, the seven-month recent experience just does not cut it for me. -- Dolotta (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose — has not exhibited the temperament or good judgment to use the mop. Perhaps over time it will develop.^{Atsme📞📧} 03:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Needs more seasoning. I urge the nominee to withdraw and try again a suitable time later on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose -- as per all above, but one edit among your many i saw that has been a problem for me, was [3], as I found that edit while most likely okay, due to the fact yes it was excessive in summary of plot. Could have left at least some of it or condensed it, as well the references that were deleted along with it. Another one was [4], which could have even though as stated as a possible copyvio, could have been updated and fixed to make that section read more encyclopedic and less risk as a potential copyvio. I haven't looked through the rest of the contribs, but recent contribs for me are enough to feel he isn't ready for the responsibility that comes with the power. As such I feel after a couple of more years under his belt of being active again may make a good candidate for admin. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    I regretted having to make that edit at Illinois Wesleyan University as well, but the copyright violation was clear and blatant, and I make no apologies for following site policies on removing copyright-infringing material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    No problems with following rules, what I am saying however I felt that section, was good I am not saying that you did anything in removing the section as it was a copyvio, but as an editor would have rewritten it so it would match the encyclopedic format needed on Wikipedia, while not making it like it was copy pasted from their site and not being a copyvio. As in my opinion a good user would know how to write it so it would fall under the rules to be included on Wikipedia, while at the same time not being a copyvio. Another option just incase you weren't aware is the WP:OTRS option to ask the college to release a portion of the wording from their site so it may be included on WikiPedia under a CC-BY-SA license, which the OTRS does do not only images, but text as well. But I still feel a couple of more years would be good for you to brush up on the options that are open to you. Who knows when that time comes I may be happy to support you then. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    Rewriting a copyrighted text is still infringing - making it look like it hasn't been copy pasted is not the right way to do it. The correct thing is to remove the copyrighted text (high-priority, has to be done first), then doing it right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

11. Oppose per WP:NOTQUITEYET. Only 10,000 edits, and about 7 months of active editing. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    Only 10,000 edits? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

    LargelyRecyclable Yes, only 10,000 edits. Not only that, but their responses to opposition votes shows that they clearly do not have the temperament to have access to the administrative tools. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Q5. Everything about the answer is wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose - concerns with the candidate's understanding of how IAR should be applied, and of their NAC closes (in particular the one referenced above). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose until the candidate understands why that NAC, and the answer to Q5, are wrong. Please try again once you understand that — your attitude and willingness to work are an asset to the project. Bradv 05:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
15. Oppose: Not sure why the ORCP wasn't linked here; the comments received by the editor back in September still seem to be relevant. For someone that plans to work extensively with AP2, I don't think the editor has the right diplomacy, temperament nor judgement at this moment based on my general experiences with the editor at WP:AN/I and the answers to the questions here. I am reading User_talk:Power~enwiki#Your RfA as I speak, and the response there illustrates what I think is a pattern of reluctance to identity and understand criticism. There is no question that Power is a good editor and net positive to the project, but low tenure is not the sole concern here, I am sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose based off this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
17. Oppose Your opening statement was exceptionally poor. What do 10,000 edits have to do with experience? I could run a script or fix grammatical errors every day to drive up my edit count but have I learned about the ins and outs of Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Besides that point, I recall a terrible non-admin closure on the Roy Moore AFD, an AFD you had participated in! I can only imagine you closed it to bring attention to yourself as an editor who could make tough decisions but everyone knows (or at least should know) that non-admins can't make such a premature close on a controversial subject, especially if they already weighted-in on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose with moral support 7 months of active editing is just not enough. WP:NOTQUITEYET. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose: the short tenure and the lack of experience and understanding to go along with it are telling. Three months ago, the nominee asked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll what their chances here would be in November or January, and the answer was unanimous that it would be lousy for the reasons many have articulated above. That they ignored the advice is unfortunate, but it also speaks to their lack of readiness to be an admin: if they can't recognize such a clear consensus in something like this, they aren't ready for doing so across Wikipedia as a whole. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Inadequate tenure. See ya in six months or better yet, a year. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. In here for now. Going over the early opposes, in order: 1) I tend to agree with the time-of-service issue, though we do have good admins who became them around the 6 month mark; I normally like to see 18 months. 2) The !vote at DRV that Jclemens is concerned about appears to have been in line with the consensus, since the deletion was upheld. 3) Closing after !voting is not good, though most people who start closing usually make that mistake at least once. However, the article was in fact kept and has improved, and Power-enwiki was correct about there being a around 2/3 consensus in favor of keeping. Whether you want to call that WP:SNOW or not is hair-splitting. And the "candidate has 'power' in their name so they must be up to no good, never mind the fact that the word has many meanings" stuff is just a tacky, cheap shot. Lot of people have silly usernames here, including plenty of admins.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   For the record, while I'm not linking to my social profiles in this RFA, my surname is Power. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   SMcCandlish, I don't know if you've seen much of power-enwiki, but it's been obvious to me that he has been gearing up for an RfA ever since he started up editing a few months ago. This self-nominated RfA is no surprise to me, although its prematurity, especially after his BADNAC gaffe (which he still unbelievably defends), does. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   If you're going to accuse someone of hat-collecting and working towards an RfA, there has to be some evidence, and I personally don't see it. I don't see him working too much in "adminy" areas for the purpose of trying to be an admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   Well, I don't know how familiar you are with power~enwiki. I am not making that statement because I dislike him or generally disagree with him (neither of those is necessarily true); I'm making the statement because his editing and pronouncements and NACs and XfDs etc. over the brief course of his return to editing have always, from the very beginning of my noticing him, seemed like a gearing up for RfA. I am not going to find or post any of the 100 or so diffs that would substantiate this. But by this time inexperienced editors who are would-be admins stand out pretty clearly on my radar, and he stood out to me very clearly (more clearly than anyone who does not have that admin-wannabe userbox). Take that for what you will. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC); edited 05:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   Part of what I suspect Softlavender is calling "gearing up for RfA" I would call "engaging in the project" (accurate or not, my edit-count at ANI is probably enough basis enough for Softlavender to make those claims). However, there are plenty of edits on my record I feel I obviously would not have made if my goal were to present the best possible candidacy for adminship. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

2. This tenure is not an issue for me alone, but low tenure with a self-nomination worries me. In editors with less of a record, I demand a higher quality to support an RfA. It's a simple risk-reward thing; the risk associated with having less of a record to go on must be exceeded by the reward if they become an admin, so when the record is particularly small/risky, the reward must be particularly high. If the quality were really that high, power should have been able to find multiple co-noms to sing their praises. They either couldn't do so or decided not to bother. The former means they aren't high-quality enough to justify handing out the mop "early". The latter speaks to poor or hasty judgement, since self-noms are almost always looked on as weaker. Either of these probably leave me in the oppose camp. Having said that, I think power will one day be a good admin, so I'm staying neutral as a sort of moral support. (I also will say the rapid accusations of hat-collecting is atrocious. This is an editor who wants to help out with administrative tasks and appears like he will be able to in the near future. Let's not chase him off the project with baseless accusations of bad-faith.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   Just commenting that I agree with Rob that low tenure+self-nom is part of my concern as well (and why I hinted at it in my opppse). It shows poor judgement of what the current community norms are, which gets at the question of whether or not he is familiar with the normal practices of this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   For the record: I refrained from asking for a nominator because the experienced nominators expect more tenure. I didn't feel that finding a non-admin to nominate would be beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

   power~enwiki Why did you decide to self-nominate then, knowing that you wouldn't have been able to request a nomination due to tenure/experience? Actually attempting to find a nominator would have been better then nominating yourself. As Rob said above, it just shows poor judgement. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

3. I am not finding enough positives to Support at this time. Will think about changing after I have had more of an opportunity to go over their record at some depth. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Moral support and Neutral – Power is a good editor and has clue in a lot of areas and the IARing is actually a plus to me. I have to stand with my current precedent of normally requiring the candidate to be active at least as long as me, though, and the tenure is the deal breaker here. I enthusiastically support in a year with no major concerns but this is just NOTQUITEYET. J947 ^{(c · m)} 05:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Starting your nom intro with "14 years ago I made my first edit on Wikipedia'", when you really only have about 7 months of experience is kind of misleading, no? I realize you then go on to explain how you left and so on, but it seems you realize your short term of activity would be an issue (as several of the 'oppose' votes have indicated) and you are trying to steer away from that. That seems kind somewhat... well, I don't want to say 'deceptive', but it's not very candid, either. This is just an observation. I have no knowledge of this editor and therefore I'm not voting. - ^theWOLFchild 05:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)