Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody

Anynobody

Voice your opinion (8/7/3); Scheduled to end 02:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody (talk · contribs) - I'm not interested in wasting anyone's time so I'll keep this brief. I've noticed that administrator backlogs on certain tasks are very heavy, and I think I can help with some of the work.

I realize my tenure here has been short, but I can respond to any concerns this may cause by stating that I am open to recall by the community. Rather than a set number of editors necessary for recall I propose having the subject be settled by a WP:RFC. I also support administrator transparency and would place a link to my edits as an admin on my user page. Further I pledge never to use any administrator tools in disagreements over the articles I am editing, against any editors I have disputes with, or to help editors I am friendly with break any rules.

This proposal may seem short, especially to anyone who knows me or reviews my contributions. I do not mean to give the impression I am not willing to put effort into this, instead I prefer to let my actions speak for me. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self nomination. Anynobody 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the software may not have any way of enforcing a recall without intervention of a bureaucrat. I want to reassure everyone that if the community thinks I should resign I would do so without being forced. Making a mistake is one thing, refusing to acknowledge it is unacceptable to me. Since I despise double standards I couldn't in good conscience keep admin tools, since I wouldn't listen to an admin the community rejected.

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 participants:

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

A: Anywhere required by CAT:AB but I think I can be of the most help in any of these: WP:AN/I WP:AN3 WP:BLPN WP:COI/N WP:LTA WP:SSP WP:ABUSE WP:CN WP:AN WP:CFD WP:RM. To be clear, when explaining Wikipedia to an editor I would not simply list links to policies, guidelines, or WP:DR. I do that here to save the time of experienced editors and administrators.

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

A: I try not to take pride in any of my edits, this makes it easier to accept criticism and allow others to edit my contributions. I stand behind all of my contributions because I know that I could be called to explain any of them. Here is a link to my contributions, I invite anyone interested to review. Anynobody's contributions

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: Other editors do not cause me stress because I can accept being wrong. I try to handle disputes with other editors in a rational, courteous, but assertive tone. I always try to find something to agree with them on, and am usually willing to compromise. As a sysop I would try to mediate in the same way by looking for something each editor has done correctly and pointing out errors as humanely as possible. As it happens I am currently supporting an unpopular move request regarding Krakatoa, this is an example of how I handle disagreements:Talk:Krakatoa

Optional question from RockMFR

4. Do you edit with any other accounts?

A: Nope, and so far I've managed to keep the Anynobody name on the Commons and Wikisource.

Another optional question from RockMFR

5. It seems you filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother (now deleted). What was this about?

A:The basic issue that began the process was/is that Justanother refuses to acknowledge that he may be arguing his position from a WP:COI. Justanother is a devout Scientologist, and is keenly aware of the fact that some people are trying to show it (the CoS) in a negative way. I honestly acknowledge his point, but he was unwilling to accept the fact that Barbara Schwarz is highly notable for her use/abuse of the FOIA.

As a rule I don't like to see anyone left out of a discussion, however in my opinion he crossed the line into a violation of WP:DP by essentially disregarding WP:CCC. I should note that I am not opposed to the need to discuss deletion of an article, however it is my understanding that in this case each new WP:AfD nomination should be based on an argument that had not been addressed by the previous three AfDs. I say that because the previous three were strongly in favor of keeping. Many editors commented on it's notability and that is the issue Justanother raised as his reason for the fourth nomination.

Another editor (AE from now on) and I each attempted to address these concerns with him, but he was hostile and refused to even engage in a meaningful discussion about his bias. AE and I then decided to collaborate on a WP:RFC, my logic was based on two beliefs. 1) Perhaps he would listen to other non-involved editors. 2) If I happened to be wrong, the RfC would either be denied or find AE and myself as the problem. AE consulted with an admin (A1 from now on) who felt that AE's efforts at mediation were somehow lacking. I disagreed, rather than arguing that point I let the admins on the RfC board settle the dispute and I submitted the RfC. It turned out that the admin who reviewed the request agreed with me, and the RfC was initiated. Justanother asked A1 to delete it, and A1 sought an uninvolved admin to do this task. When none would, A1 deleted it anyway.

Currently several editors and I are putting together another RfC on his behavior. I do not plan to use my proposed tools on Justanother unless he does something like post another editors personal information which requires immediate attention. Even in that unlikely event, I'd probably put up a notice at WP:ANI to have another admin take a second look for the sake of fairness to him.

If you want specifics about who AE and A1 are I will of course provide them (and diffs too), but I'd prefer not to. Every time I discuss this I feel like I'm tattling on A1. (I only mention Justanother because he was the subject of the RfC)

• • • Here is a link to the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page for an example of a discussion regarding the 4th AfD mostly between Justanother and myself.

General comments

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Moral support. You haven't been here long enough, but what you've done so far has been very good and you certinaly mean well in this RfA. Apply again in 3-4 months continuing to do edits like this and you should pass no problem. Try participating in the areas you wish to help where you can as well.--Wizardman 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support to prove a point. It's insane that you are interested in clearing the backlog, yet people oppose you because you haven't been here long enough. These backlogs continue to pile up, yet we become stingyer and stingyer at RfA. So you have my support. Kntrabssi 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Just under three months of editing was plenty when I first saw this page, and I see no reason why it should be any higher now. We need more admins. And actually, the "weak" part is because of that recall thing, which I dislike for reasons I won't go into here, unless requested. I can only support because you intend on doing it through an RfC. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Conditional Support. Thus far you have participated in only 2 AfDs. I can easily support since you didn't link to the speedy deletion backlog, and your other contributions thus far are impressive, but I would like you to participate in more AfDs and do some newpage patrolling without the delete function before trying to clear out that backlog. -- The Hybrid 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Tentatively support. Willingness to work on backlogs combined with reasonable neutrality on Talk pages outweigh the inexperience. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - An extremely polite and courteous editor, even while enduring personal attacks and/or brusque behaviour from others at times. And leads as an example that others including myself look up to. Smee 08:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
8. Support we do need more admins Crested Penguin 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. I am normally very nervous about supporting anyone who has less the 1500 edits, but he is such a great user that I can support him without reservations. -Mschel 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. You provided insufficient demonstration of why the community should place such trust in you after only two and a half months editing. --Deskana (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Deskana. You have a willingness to help, but you need to be here a little longer first. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience yet. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose. Willingness to work on the backlogs is irrelevant if you don't have the level and type of experience to show that you are able to work the backlogs or be trusted with the other tools. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Lack of experience, lack of contribs, serious lack of main space and Wikipedia-space edits, and you've only participated in two AfDs. I don't believe people can support candidates with just 1000 edits and nearly one-third of them are to user talk pages (or you must be exceptional - Am I missing something?). Willingness to work on backlogs cannot outweight inexpericence. Oppose Arfan 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. way too few edits (less than 500) and experience.Rlevse 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per lack of experience. Seriously advise candidate withdraws good faith self-nom and tries again in a while. --Dweller 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I cannot oppose a sincerely well-intentioned user who wants to help in any way he can. I also cannot support a sincerely well-intentioned user who probably needs a little more experience in administrative areas. YechielMan 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral-leaning-to-support - as per YechielMan, a well-intentioned user. I'm just a shade nervous about giving the admin tools to someone with this limited amount of experience. I'm all for people stating they'll attack the backlogs, but everyone says that so why do we still have backlogs?! A bit more experience and I'll definitely support in the future. The Rambling Man 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral lack of experience in process, etc. I would probably support in the future. – Riana ^talk 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)