Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Infrangible: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:58, 17 August 2007

Infrangible

Voice your opinion (talk page) (15/11/2); Scheduled to end 02:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Infrangible (talk · contribs) - Hi everybody, I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006. After realizing I've racked up in excess of 3000 edits, it seemed like a good time to float an RfA. My motivation is to take my involvement to the next level. Wikipedia to me is everything that's good about the Internet: collaboration, information, and the best of humanity. In my real life I am a professional and have had a good bit of experience working with others. One of the lessons I take with me is dealing with those with different opinions. There are a vast diversity of perspectives in this world, and a lot of us are convinced that our outlook is the single correct one. When I look on myself and others as small pieces of a great puzzle, I realize that my judgement is just as correct, and just as flawed as everyone else's. This, in my mind, makes consensus the most valuable feature of Wikipedia. It is in this, with a little apprehension, that I now trust my fate. I thank you in advance for your involvement in this discussion, and whatever the outcome, I look forward to working constructively with each of you on the project. ~ Infrangible 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I imagine mainly XFD backlog stuff. CSD backlogs. Responding to requests for admin-level help. I am sure there are ways I could make myself useful that I am not even yet aware of. I intend to continue growing as a Wikipedian, and may in time be involved in tasks that I don't currently see myself doing.

I think I should have been more clear. By Admin level help, I meant helping users who need admin level help: "Hey Infrangible, I created page User:XYZ/test and I want to delete it, can you help me?" There is much I don't know and it takes a great deal of courage to admit that, but I think I meant this more as an open show of humility rather than as a bumpkin who has no idea what an admin does. By involving myself in tasks I don't currently see myself doing, I was specifically referring to blocking users. It seems like a very harsh response. I tend to favor activities that add rather than ones that take away. I would need to participate in cases where I felt it was clearly warranted. Do I need the tools? No. No more than a janitor needs to be employed in their vocation. Adminship is similarly a dirty, thankless, often monotonous job, but I see it as a way I can add constructively to Wikipedia above what I am doing now. I am in the "no big deal" camp on the topic of adminship. ~ Infrangible 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I have created a few modest articles as can be seen on my user page. At the end of a long day, I find work such as going through backlogs rewarding. I surprise myself at my ability to complete a large number of such edits in a short span of time. It is somehow relaxing and restorative for my brain.

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: Certainly. I like to think I have matured beyond it, but there have been times where I felt anger and frustration at another user. It is times like that I need to step back and realize none of us are perfect, and exhibiting grace and patience can help others to grow not only as Wikpedians, but as human beings. We are all learning every day of our lives and we are all at different levels of personal development. Speaking with kindness to someone you disagree with is more effective than sarcasm or outright hostility. Then there are times you have to walk away. You can't win them all. You just need to be Ok with losing sometimes even if you are convinced you are right. Marriage taught me that. ;)

Optional question from T Rex | talk

4. How would you deal with a blatant POV pusher and what would you do if they insisted that you were the troll instead of them?

A: This puts me in the middle of a conflict. I might refer the matter for arbitration. I don't know that a block would be appropriate, particularly when it becomes personal. ~ Infrangible 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from SilkTork

5 Can you think of any situation(s) where an admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article?

A: Yes. Certainly where an admin either nominates or contributes in a discussion for an XfD. But also when there is the slightest personal conflict of interest, I think the admin should recuse themselves. For example, if I had a prejudice against Ferrets, I should stay away from articles that deal with that topic. There is little to ensure an admin does this, but we have checks in place such as DRV. There is also usually nothing preventing someone from recreating the article. If you look at my record in Afds, I may be more likely to leave a comment, rather than a suggestion to Delete. ~ Infrangible 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. 2-part auestion from Carlossuarez46

You have indicated that you'd like to help out in closing Xfd's, how would you determine whether consensus has been achived? And under what circumstances, if any, should !votes be discounted or ignored?

A: WP:DGFA says that consensus can not overrule exclusion policies such as WP:V. If bad faith is suspected, I would tend to err on the side of keep. To me, I belive consensus should rule in all other cases. By consensus, I would look for a supermajority with a participation in excess of 3 comments. ~ Infrangible 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by DarkFalls (Strictly optional, if you feel uncomfortable just don't answer.)

7. Can you identify the problems, if any, with these images. 1 2 3

General comments

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

Links for Infrangible: Infrangible (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Infrangible before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Moral Support - everybody has their merits as an editor, and you appear to have many. Please do not let this dishearten you. I look forward to seeing a future RFA from you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, no problems here. Majorly (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 09:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Your answers to those in opposition are excellent. Your replies to the optional questions are also excellent - I particularly like the fact that you would not use admin tools in personal situations. Historical continuous comments at WP:AFD are great. My support is weakened by the substantial number of welcome templates that you went through a period of applying as it does look a bit like helping edit count (sorry, that's just my opinion). In addition your original answer to Q1 though honest was rather weak. My biggest concern is this on your talk page. You can't just take a picture of an album cover and upload it as free use and "be okay", so your advice to the IP was inaccurate. However on balance I see a lot of good here so if your are succesful please read up on image policies! Very Best. Pedro | Chat 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that this user would unlikely abuse admin tools which would be given to him. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's certainly nothing in the contribution history that gives me pause. I've seen this user multiple times and interacted with them on occasion and they have always been positive interactions. Infrangible is friendly, good-humored and helpful. I'll support. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything looks fine. Mel sa ran 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Infrangible around a lot. Nothing wrong with this user. Acalamari 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Majorly. ~ Wikihermit 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support T Rex | talk 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The issues raised for opposing are important, but not unlearnable, and certainly no reason to keep him out of our party. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, since when was adminship an exclusive party? I thought y'all were just janitors? VanTucky ^(talk) 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the evil cabal, which doesn't exist. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's a party for janitors. That sounds fun. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great user who is well deserving of the admin tools. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great user civil with good track.Harlowraman 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trustworthy and won't misuse the tool. @pple 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per a lack of acceptable articulation in answers to questions here, and their relation to your contrib history. In describing the sysop tasks you see yourself performing, you were not only vague, but you said you would see yourself "responding to requests for admin-level help", which I take to mean AIV and ANI. While your work with other administrative type tasks has been commendable, I find good reason here to be apprehensive with trusting you to resolve disputes when you have only 500 or so talk edits out of a 3000+ total count. I also found your lack of clear examples of conflicts troubling (if you can't name any specific examples of successfully resolved conflicts, then you shouldn't be given the tools). In other words, I don't see enough evidence of your capacity to interact with other users in a manner befitting a sysop and their duties. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may alienate a great many vandal fighters, but I think my efforts will likely center around other areas. It takes a certain character to do that kind of work, and my personality is better suited to the boring, monotous tasks that no one else wants to do. I am keeping an open mind though, so that explains my comment about growing as a Wikipedian. I appreciate your comments, sometimes you can learn more from those who disagree with you than from your advocates. ~ Infrangible 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you aren't aware of ways you can help, you don't need the mop, sorry. In addition, you said you intend to respond to requests for admin level help, which I'll assume means ANI and AIV, but I don't see that you have any edits to either location. Your answer to question three honestly seems like you're trying to dodge the question and pretty it up, and there's nothing pretty about conflicts. We've all heard the "well just be nice and realize you can be wrong..." speech, you don't talk about any actual conflicts you've been in or how you actually handle them. This leads me to believe that either A- you're afraid if we knew about some of the conflicts you've been in, we wouldn't vote for you, B- haven't been in a serious conflict, and don't want to reveal it, or C- vague in your communication, and none of those are qualities I want to see in an admin. --Lu c id 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got me there. I'm not much of a charmer, but I should point out that a great many tyrants have ascended to power by knowing the exact words to make people at ease. I think maybe what's putting you off is the fact that I am not trying too particularly hard here. I guess all I can ask is that you not hinge your decision so much on individual words and take a look at the body of my edits. As they say, actions speak louder than words and talk is cheap. Cheers. ~ Infrangible 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with how hard you are or aren't trying (I personally agree with the 'don't care either way about adminship, it's a thankless job' stance to RFA, and support you there), and everything to do with the fact that your answers alone show you don't need the mop. Saying "requests for admin level help" is extremely vague, and shows you either don't have a clear understanding of what you will do, or you don't have a clear ability to communicate, which are both bad. Again, you don't have any edits to either location, which anyone running for admin should at least show they've been around a time or two. Your answer to three again seems like you're dodging the question, and my list of three reasons above still applies to that. You are either not ready to be an admin, do not have the communication skills required to be an admin, or some mix of the two. In addition, having apparently been in no conflicts is not a good thing for an admin. Seeing as you answered the fourth question, I'll also state that going straight from "disagreement of POV" to "Arbcom" (I'm assuming you mean arbcom, your meaning of 'arbitration' was again unclear due to poor communication) is a huge overreaction, and in 99% of cases a complete waste of time and red tape. Your expanded first question is again concerning-- you want to go straight into banning users even when you have no previous experience with it? That is a huge step, I can tell you right off that I've learned a helluva lot more by actually participating in AIV and ANI and the like than would be possible to teach in ANY book on the subject, let alone a simple policy page. You have shown numerous times that you don't know about the admin tasks you intend to help with, do not have much of an idea what you would be doing with the tools, and that your communication skills have exactly the type of ambiguity that leads to confusion which can damage the project or other editors, such as by unclear communication to a newcomer. You are just not ready for it. --Lu c id 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you think that. You need to give a better reason! Politics rule 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't *need* to give a better reason just because we don't support his reasoning. I find that type of thinking very bad, but it's still a valid reason to oppose. The closing bureaucrat should take the reasoning behind his oppose into account when this RfA is closed. But, Kurt only needs to explain more if he feels he wants to or should. Cbrown1023 talk 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pedro's diff (yes, I know he's supporting) It's okay for a user to be unfamiliar with some area of policy, but he should know well enough not to offer "advice" in that area. Pedro's diff was only two weeks ago, and I fear the incorrect information the editor might spread if, as a admin, people looked to him for advice. Xoloz 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second, I think there has been a misunderstanding. As I am sure you're aware this is a very contentious issue and I happen to fall on the side of "fair use". You have mistaken inexperience for a different interpretation of policy. I appreciate your input. thank you. ~ Infrangible 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Everyone is, I hope, on "the side of fair-use." I've never met a Wikipedian who didn't see some use for it, although there are different degrees of latitude. Personally, my view of "fair use" is more liberal than the Foundation's. My problem with your content has nothing to do with disliking fair use (in fact, I love it) -- it is that you failed to mention fair use at all, and you appeared to suggest to the questioner that he could claim a photo of the album cover as "his," without qualification. You needed to mention fair use to him. At best, your suggestion was extremely unclear; at worst, you were counseling him to lie (the album isn't his, you know, even when he takes the photo of the cover.) The strangeness of your reply to me deepens my concern regarding your comprehension of this area of policy. Xoloz 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator that apparently suggests people break policies and laws just to get an album on their user page won't make very many people feel secure. One day it's saying "Oh, you can just say it's your own and no one will bug you", the next it's "Oh, you can just cite some random newspaper and put in your opinion and no one will bug you", knowingly abusing the system is a very slippery slope --Lu c id 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I was set for a support before noticing that talk page comment. It very nearly pushed me Neutral, and I had a feeling when I identified it that it would be used as an oppose by others. My own comment of weak support is based on the many other positives I found, but I can very much understand why people are now opposing. I'm genuinely sorry if this adversley affects this RFA but I do believe this is a forum for discussion, and it would have been dishonest of me not to mention a concern just because my feelings where to offer unconditional support to the candidate. Sorry, and Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 07:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I highly doubt that he will abuse the admin tools, but I will have to agree with Xolox. Politics rule 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per lack of overall experience. Jmlk 1 7 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Oppose per Xolox, although I don't think this user will abuse the tools. -Lemonflash_(chat) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just don't think you're quite ready yet. A good person who will make a good administrator a couple of months down the track, I suspect. Daniel →♦ 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough solid evidence for me to comfortably support. Answers to questions are short and not really satisfactory, which gives the appearance of either lack of effort, willingness or knowledge. This is perhaps more to do with lack of experience than anything else. As with some others, I feel Infrangible is not quite ready. SilkTork 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per your response to Xoloz. Please re-review the fair use policy. Apparent gaps in policy knowledge now shouldn't disqualify you from adminship in the future, and I think you have the temperament to be an admin, but advising the user to label the image as his own work is not just a different interpretation. With some more evidence to support a strong background in policy and guidelines, I'll happily support in the future. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Xoloz is exactly right, "It's okay for a user to be unfamiliar with some area of policy, but he should know well enough not to offer advice in that area". An understanding of copyright basics is a near necessity for any administrator, through. I'm also concerned about Infrangible's depth of experience with the project in general. For example, they have 40 edits to talk pages, but the majority are merely additions of "inspirational thoughts" (example) or personal commentary on the article's subject. I would feel much better about supporting Infrangible in the future once there is a track record of collaboration and dispute resolution with other editors. ×Meegs 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, admins aren't janitors (no, no matter how many times you repeat it), they are judges, and i can't support anyone who does not recognise this. Kamryn · Talk 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - This user has been on wikipedia for sometime, but a whole bunch of your edits are welcome templates to IPs. Also, another bunch are spelling corrections. I'm not saying housekeeping work is crap, but I would to see some "article editing". Otherwise, this user participates in a lot of the Afds and I can't oppose on that. For now, neutral. --H irohisat ^Talk 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please type out the whole word instead of stars, so we know if you are saying cunt or crap. It just gets kinda confusing. T Rex | talk 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's crap. Sorry 'bout that. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I saw that earlier and thought it was cunt and I was like "thats pretty extreme for a neutral vote" (I think it was neutral). Anyways thanks for clarifying. T Rex | talk 05:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The answer to question one doesn't demonstrate any understanding of adminship - some research would be welcome. Answer two contains no diffs - are there any edits that you could offer to demonstrate your admin potential? Answer three - any diffs to demonstrate how you would cope with conflict? I don't see any evidence to make me swing this in to the 'support' column. (aeropagitica) 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great user who would probably just need a coupla months of experience to work on some problem areas. Please don't lose heart over this. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per those above... An admin should not give advice that is in direct contrast with NFCC, but I feel it too harsh to oppose solely for that. --DarkFalls ^talk 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 #'''Weak oppose''' per your response to Xoloz. Please re-review the fair use policy. Apparent gaps in policy knowledge now shouldn't disqualify you from adminship in the future, and I think you have the temperament to be an admin, but advising the user to label the image as his own work is not just a different interpretation. With some more evidence to support a strong background in policy and guidelines, I'll happily support in the future. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<font color="darkgreen"><small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small></font> 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose'''. Xoloz is exactly right, "It's okay for a user to be unfamiliar with some area of policy, but he should know well enough not to offer advice in that area".  An understanding of copyright basics is a near necessity for any administrator, through.  I'm also concerned about Infrangible's depth of experience with the project in general. For example, they have 40 edits to talk pages, but the majority are merely additions of "inspirational thoughts" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neptune%27s_Spatula&diff=prev&oldid=128551737 example]) or personal commentary on the article's subject. I would feel much better about supporting Infrangible in the future once there is a track record of collaboration and dispute resolution with other editors. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
+#'''oppose''', admins aren't janitors (no, no matter how many times you repeat it), they are judges, and i can't support anyone who does not recognise this. <span style="padding:2px;font-size:80%;font-family:verdana;background:#E6E8FA;">[[User:KamrynMatika2|Kamryn]] · [[User talk:KamrynMatika2|Talk]]</span> 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 '''Neutral'''