Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EauOo (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 15 October 2012 (→Support: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AutomaticStrikeout

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/11/12); Scheduled to end 03:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

AutomaticStrikeout (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, tonight I put forth AutomaticStrikeout for adminship. Since April, he has amassed 11,500+ edits with an impressive 75% to articles. He's started a taskforce (WP:UMPIRE), a sub-project (on NFL referees), and has revived WP:TAFI, which he continues to lead. On the article creation side, he has created a plethora of articles including 2013 in baseball, 2010 Yale Bulldogs football team, Al Lavan, and articles several umpires including Cory Blaser and Kevin Causey. On the administrative side, whenever I come across him in AFD discussions or other discussions of any kind, his opinions are thought-out, cite policy, and are civil. Though, I don't always agree, I never have any doubt that he's acting in good faith. If you look through his edit history, you'll see the great number of minor edit contributions updating stats on baseball players. These tireless tedious contributions show a work ethic that we need in our administrators. Wikipedia needs active and dedicated administrators, and that is why, today I present to you for your consideration a fine contributor, AutomaticStrikeout. Go Phightins! 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you for the kind words, Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Primarily, I intend to work in dealing with persistent vandals and help with page deletions. I expect that I will also do some page protecting as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I would consider my work in updating infobox stats and fighting vandalism (particularly on umpire pages) as my best work. Those two areas of work involve helping to keep the Wiki up-to-date and also helping to get rid of vandalism, the thing that may be responsible for most Wikipedia criticism.
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: Yes, I have had some unpleasant interactions with users in the past and to be honest, I have not always handled those situations perfectly well. However, I trust that I have matured since then and I will do my best to show the maturity and civility rightly expected of an admin (and really of anyone).
Additional question from Hahc21
4. You have stated you will work with page deletion, so, I want you to give me your personal opinion about how and when to use CSD instead of AFD, and how do you consider is the best way not to discourage (or to encourage) new users when their pages get deleted due to lack of notability?
A: My personal opinion is that CSD should only be used to delete a page if there is no reasonable controversy regarding its lack of notability. If there is some uncertainty, I personally prefer to go to an AfD, which gives some other editors a chance to weigh in. Regarding discouraging newcomers, to be frank, I don't think we can expect to avoid seeing some newbies lose all interest they might have had one their page is deleted. I think the best way to try to prevent someone from walking away is to politely explain to them why their article was deleted and make sure that they understand that their effort is still appreciated and that any future notable article(s) written by them is/are not likely to be deleted.
Additional question from Connormah
5. When, if ever, would you block an IP or user that has not received 4 warnings?
A: If the IP/user was committing serious BLP violations, that would be one instance. I might also take such action if the IP/user had made it clear that they were only here to be disruptive or if they had disregarded any warnings given so blatantly that any further warning would be pointless.
Additional question from OlEnglish
6. Regarding question #3. Can you go into more detail on one particular "unpleasant interaction" you've had with a user and how you did not handle it as well as you'd have liked to? And also, what would you have done differently? Thanks.
A: Well, what I had in mind when I responded to question 3 was this discussion with Carthage44 regarding a notability dispute. It'd be easy to put the blame on Carthage, he wasn't very nice and this wasn't our only clash, but I am responsible for what I type and I was wrong. It was not ok to bring up his past record and getting down to his level was also unacceptable. I probably should have withdrawn from that conversation earlier than I did.
Additional questions from I Jethrobot
7. Consider that you come across a new article in recent changes with a title in Japanese characters and the body of the text is substantial and written completely in Japanese. It is not clear what the subject is. The article also has with a CSD-G1 tag on it from another user. There does not appear to be a similar page on ja.wikipedia. The creating editor does not seem communicative, and the editor who tagged it writes on the article's talk page "I used google translate and it didn't make any sense." Is this article appropriate for speedy deletion under this criteria? If not, is it appropriate under some other criteria? If it is not appropriate for speedy deletion, what should be done about the article?
A: The G1 criterion excludes articles that have coherent non-English material. If the material was not coherent, even in another language, I believe that G1 would be an applicable criterion for speedy deletion. However, Google Translate is not always reliable, and I would certainly need to see the translated text myself instead of taking someone's word for it. A2 would not be appropriate as the article in this scenario apparently does not exist on another wiki. Probably the best approach would be to either PRDO the article, or send it to AfD.
8. You have correctly blocked a user for both general edit warring and violating 3RR on a given article, because they continued to revert despite several warnings. The user provides an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if I offended other editors, edit-warred, and changed the article too many times. I want to keep contributing." How would you handle this unblock request?
A: I would not respond to the request as I was the originator of the block and would prefer to let another admin weigh in. If I was to come across that same scenario and I was not the blocking admin, I think it would at least partly depend on who the blocked user was. If it was someone with a block log for edit-warring that was longer than my arm, I probably would not be inclined to unblock. On the other hand, if it was a trusted user or a newbie, I think the best approach would be to give them the benefit of the doubt and either shorten the block or reverse it entirely. However, it would be wise to first consult the block admin.
Additional question from Ryan Vesey
9. I'd like to see a bit more on your knowledge of CSD. Can you look at User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises and answer them in a userfied page and link us to the answers?
A: Here's the link. It may take me a while to answer for all of them.


Optional questions from jc37
In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.
  • 10. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.
  • A:
  • 11. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.
  • A:
  • 12. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
  • A:
  • 13. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:
  • 14. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A:


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support As nom--Go Phightins! 03:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I hope my support vote doesn't torpedo your RFA but I'm glad to be the first one. Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seemingly no issues here. Regards, — Moe ε 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Despite some of the concerns about the user's amount of time on Wikipedia, I'm still of the old guard in having a general 6-month policy with which I'm willing to be slightly flexible if a user has a wide-range of edits and contributions. I think this is a case that warrants such exception. Michael (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. User has clue, and has a wide variety of contributions. Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Yes, ideally a longer tenure would be preferred, but there's no reason to suppose he is not as familiar with the guidelines as the rest of us. It would take a superhuman to remember them all. Deb (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sufficient experience (more than 6 months total, more than 3 months dedicated to administrative things), very nice CSD log. Not very thrilled by the candidate's proposals, but I haven't seen an example of poorly thought out actions that would lead me to oppose. —Kusma (t·c) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- I spent about 30 minutes going through his history, given how new he (or she) is. I am enthusiastically supporting him based on what I saw and my own observations of RfAs over the last 6 years. Two things I liked in particular -- always civil and always careful to ask questions before trying something new or when trying to figure out some murky policy question. He has good instincts. As an admin for almost 5 years, there's still much I don't know so I'm always careful to check out policies and guidelines before I venture out of my experience. That and civility will take an admin far. I prefer him over some much more experienced candidates I've seen that still just didn't "get it". Editors serve our readers and admins serve our editors; AutomaticStrikeout appears to understand this dynamic and will do a good job taking care of our editors and our content. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support While the short duration is always a concern (heaven forbid we get another PastorTheo or John254!), on the balance this looks like a worthwhile shot. We complain that there are not enough admins, that the RfA process is broken, that adminship should not be a big deal, then shouldn't we be defaulting to support rather than oppose? --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we be defaulting to anything, rather than judging the candidate on his or her merits? Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Malleus here. Without commenting on the merits of this candidate, I think compromising the importance of evaluating the merits of a candidate because of a perceived need for more admins is a somewhat dangerous line of reasoning for supporting any candidate. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But so too are the inclinations that X number of edits or X amount of time makes a better admin which have been mentioned numorous times on the oppose section below. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While some of the opposes and neutrals mention a set criteria, those criteria exist because time is linked to experience. I know AutmoaticStrikeout well, and I'm still concerned about the amount of experience he has. He's a great editor, but I'll probably end up in the neutral column, I'm waiting on some answers though. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing what Ryan Vesey said, I believe the difference is while time or # of edits may be an imperfect measurement of experience, it has some value, and is better than no evaluation of experience at all. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted but he has a good number of edits across multiple namespaces, seems to have a level head and an abundance of common sense in knowing when to ask questions about things he doesn't understand. These to me are more important than arbitrary amounts of time or edits. I think that what the user doesn't know already will be quickly learned once they get the tools and I just don't see this editor doing anything harmful intentional or otherwise if given the tools. There are only so many things he can learn without the tools and I can tell you it took me a whole lot longer to learn how to use the tools without having them than it would have if I had. I still don't have them and probably never will but I can tell a good candiate when I see one. BTW, he voted against me at my RFA so its not like I have close personal ties to them. I've just seen them around and generally been impressed by their actions in the short time they have been here. Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (od)I suppose default is not the right word because that would imply supporting a candidate with no information but I meant it to come with a ceteris paribus assumption. Note my "this looks like a worthwhile shot" (the merits) and the "short duration" concern which signifies a heuristic (one that I too have used in the past). --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. User means well, has a moderate amount of experience, and always pauses to be sure actions will meet the standards of the community. On that basis alone, I think he can be trusted with the tools. The Illusive Man(Contact) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)(I copied this from below so the tool could count itKumioko (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  11. Support It's my belief that people (remember; there is a person behind the user name) who strive to be admins, work towards it as a a goal, are obviously learning quickly, and are sincere — should be promoted, with advice, and trusted to improve. The rules have become dizzyingly complex. You're not going to get good admins if you don't let them do some OJT.→StaniStani  23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Opposes seem to be about length of time editing, and six months seems like forever to me. As to your weird proposal, the sort of whatever that goes with relative youth, which I don't consider a deficit. Eau(W)oo (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I really hate to oppose a good candidate but unfortunately I'll have to. I've seen AutomaticStrikeout around and at the first sight, I don't see any major flaws by just few quick checks (which is certainly insufficient). However, they have been around for merely 7 months which according to me is just a touch-too-rushed nomination. 7 months is a good sum but just little bit lower then what I'd like to see in a candidate at RFA. They tend to work at CSDs, but their log suggests that they are doing this just from August 2012 which generates experience of hardly 3 months and this is way too low if you are aiming for adminship according to me (despite of accuracy in tagging). Sorry to oppose but I can't support a candidate with just 7 months experience overall and 3 months for the work they want to do. I'll be happy to support you at your next run after waiting for good 6 or 8 months without getting controversial (if this RFA fails) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per my criteria. Less than six months just isn't (imo) enough time to understand WP the way an admin needs to (among other reasons). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose—Whatever the age of the account, AutomaticStrikeout appears inexperienced in handling anti-vandalism reports (AIV), copyright violations (SCV), inappropriate usernames (UAA), patrols (NPP), deletion (AFD/CSD/XFD), and developing content beyond their immediate preferences. Although the proportion of their CSD nominations rejected lately is reasonable (6.8%), the user has nonetheless contributed only 146 deleted edits across the entire project, and certainly 102 since August 2012. Attempting this RFA is commendable, however, considering the recent controversies and dearth of successful applications, and I hope that the editor contemplates another application after accumulating further experience. Kind regards, Mephistophelian (contact) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Oppose The amount of edit count doesn't equate to more experience, especially if the user only has a little more than 6 months of experience. I would suggest that the nominee gain more experience on the administrative aspect of the encyclopedia before running for the election again. Cheers! --Hydriz (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Keen, honest, civil, and reliable, but still far too unsure of many policies and guidelines. These proposals here and here appear to demonstrate that he is not yet sure of how Wikipedia works. His 52 AfD votes matched the result in 76.2% of the time but the number of AfDs is probably to low to attach any substantial metrics to. However, his answer to Q4 doesn't convince of sufficient knowledge of deletion, his page patrolling gives me pause with around 20% of his recent deletions being tagged with the wrong criteria, and this is well below par for a reasonably practiced non-admin patroller. It's important to get these criteria right, not only to avoid wrongly deleting articles as an admin, but wrong tags also send the wrong message to the creators. On some admin areas that require knowledge he is still unsure of the procedures as demonstrated by his comment at one AfD nomination on 4 October: "I'd speedy this, but I don't know what, if anything, is the proper criterion for that" and only seven weeks ago states "I don't entirely understand how sockpuppet investigations work." He was given some good advice at his recent editor review but has still chosen to run for admin when probably he should have waited longer. If he keeps up his current rate of work however, he will increase his knowledge exponentially, and in another six months or so I'm almost sure I would support a re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness Kudpung there are a lot of admins and longterm users that don't udnerstand how SPI works. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Keep doing what you're doing, come back in 6 months or so, and you'll pass with no problem. If you're interested in closing deletion discussions, I would suggest participating in more AfD's (you've only voted in about 50 of them) and also perform some non-admin closures before the next time you run. This tool might also help you identify things to work on. -Scottywong| speak _ 13:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness Scotty, your tool, although well meaning and getting better, doesn't really work that well. No offense intended. In fact it crashes for me due to my edit count. I will also note that for a user to have voted on 50 AFD's and only having an account for 7 months its quite good and is more than some editors who have recently been promoted. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The tool is admittedly still a work in progress, and the toolserver servers have been having issues of their own lately (which might explain the timeouts and crashes). I agree that a 7 month user participating in 50 AfD's is quite good, however for an aspiring admin who indicates an interest in closing deletion discussions, it is not adequate (in my opinion). It takes more participation than that to build up a sufficient understanding of the process and its nuances. -Scottywong| chat _ 15:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough I only wanted to indicate that it may not be fair to Oppose on the grounds of the tool which some may do. I'm also not sure about non admin closures, I used to do some of those and was told by several individuals that its best to leave closures to admins so I stopped doing them. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - User has clue, and I have no doubt as to his good intentions, but I don't see a solid level of knowledge being represented in the answers to questions above. For that reason alone, I have to oppose, but I do not blame the editor. The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Changed to Support. User means well, has a moderate amount of experience, and always pauses to be sure actions will meet the standards of the community. On that basis alone, I think he can be trusted with the tools. The Illusive Man(Contact) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per lack of experience. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Response to Q2 is sparse. Articles cited in nom are brief. Need evidence that user knows how to judge encyclopedic content, and, while they may, this has not been demonstrated as of yet. My suggestion prior to running again, if this is unsuccessful, would be more substantive contribution to articlespace -- Samir 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I respect your opinion, I would point out that several of our recent admins have had comparable or even fewer articlespace contributions to A.S. at the time of their RFA (e.g., Bagumba, Mr. Stradivarius, and Yunshui. I bring this up not with the intent of discrediting either their RFAs or your opinion, but just as an FYI. Go Phightins! 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sigh. Edit count (11,500) is fine; distribution fine. Six months is enough in my book as long as there is a clear picture. Q1 is weak: "dealing with persistent vandals", but only 14 WP:AIV edits. Q3 lacks detail: Mea culpas are OK, but I'm at a loss for what happened and what was learned. (Q6 was answered while I was writing this oppose; it does not explain what was wrong.) Q1–Q3 put me on the fence. Sampling some AfD votes gives me some trouble; I want to see some reasoning displayed -- more than voting "per nom". When anybody writes an article, they invest some significant effort, and I think some effort should be spent explaining why an article should be deleted. (See A4, "the best way to try to prevent someone from walking away is to politely explain to them why their article was deleted".) Some tentative nominations give me more trouble: "I don't think this is notable";[1] "The subject of this article may not meet our notability guidelines";[2] "This article may or may not be notable...."[3] An AfD asks other editors to weigh in and spend some effort on the article; that request should not be made lightly. "May not" isn't satisfying. I'm off the fence. I need evidence of a clear understanding of WP pillars. Glrx (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. maturity and experience. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose- I actually have no problems with experience. It's just this weird proposal that Trusilver brought up that is keeping me from supporting. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Good user, but has been here less than six months. I remember even back in 2006, six months was the general guideline. I think six months to a year is the minimum amount of time for a user to actually be able to absorb all the policies, guidelines, and even the dynamics of Wikipedia that aren't written down. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They became active from April, so actually they have been around for more than 6 months :) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    24 April to 15 October is less than six months (by my calculation, at least). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not comfortable supporting at this time. Mainly I prefer longer tenure for admin candidates. I will not oppose on that basis alone. Good luck. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nice candidate but I wanted to see some more contributions from this user. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This[4] tells me that the candidate isn't quite there yet. I'm not comfortable with an administrator candidate that feels that administrators somehow require some type of special recognition. Trusilver 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For more background on that, he was looking to take over the editor of the day system. When he learned that Gerda Arendt was still doing that, he considered another system. His primary look was to editors as a whole though. Ryan Vesey 14:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's the point that Trusilver was making; the proposal was ridiculous. What's next? Best block of the day award? Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support for an editor who I'm sure will make a good admin in the not too distant future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Great editor with impressive contributions, and the simple answer is "premature" but there are other issues raised above. My advice would be to withdraw before harsher opposes come along, and come back in a while. There's a lot you can do without the bit. -- Scray (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You're doing a great job AutomaticStrikeout and I'm sure you'll be a great admin one day, but that day is not today I'm afraid. Keep doing what you're doing and come have a chat with me in a few months, I might even nominate you. WormTT(talk) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You need longer here to become fully familiar with guidelines/policies, but see no other major concerns than that. I strong advise you to try again in 6-12 months time. GiantSnowman 11:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Excellent candidate in a few more months. I've seen enough of you to know you have a pretty level head and common sense, but I can't support yet because I think you need to work on the nuances of policy a bit more. I'm with Worm and Kudpung, and would echo their sentiments. I think it takes a year just to learn the basics, and I see you have very little experience in the Wikipedia space. The tools come as a kit, and you need to understand most of them before using any of them. But you are definitely pointed in the right direction and I'm sure I will support a future run. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Just under 6 months - not a major worry to me. I tend to agree with Mephistophelian (oppose #3) on this, and I do believe Automatic needs to review relevant policies, and engage more in the specific area he wishes to work in (Answer to question #2) - however, I don't believe that this is enough to to oppose on. I wish Automatic good luck with this RfA - If unsuccessful, I'd encourage that they take onboard the opposes' comments as constructive critism/advice, and all the supports as praise , and barring that, In six months time, I'm sure Automatic will find himself here again, however, with a polar opposite outcome. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I can't support this. Saying that, I can't oppose this. So, I'll go neutral. The user has good intentions, but not a high enough edit count in current times, or enough time served. Come back after six months, and you'll probably get my support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Next time (so long as he/she doesn't go berserk in the meantime...). A good editor, with a lot of edits. However, I'm not sure that some more experience wouldn't go amiss. I'll be interested to see the answers to the newest questions. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AutomaticStrikeout&oldid=518020963"