Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis

Avicennasis

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (38/6/1); Scheduled to end 06:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Avicennasis (talk · contribs) – I came across Avicennasis quite by accident, actually, by seeing their bot fixing a double-redirect. I then searched a bit more and saw that they have, since 2006 2010, clocked up over 70K local edits, over 200K global edits, and have acquired the Global Rollback right along with two local Sysop rights (all in addition to successfully running the aforementioned Global Bot). Thus, with regards to trust, bluntly, if we cannot trust Avicennasis with the tools, I do not see how we can trust anyone. It's a similar story re. experience, with the candidate not only participating in other projects and on a Global level, but also on en.wiki in areas like WP:Categories for Discussion.

The candidate's areas of interest seem to be mainly technical, and I should expect that, as an Admin, they would join the top cadre of technically-minded admins, given their professional background (judging by their userpage) and extensive bot experience. Having said which, on the odd occasion that the candidate has had to deal with "unusual" editors, they seem to have handled it well, suggesting that they would be competent in this side of administrative matters, too. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have been informed that saying that Avicennasis began editing in 2006 is disingenuous, since they did not begin actively editing until 2010. Apologies for any misunderstanding; I got the figure just by reading off the bottom line of their POPUP, and did not think to look into it any more deeply. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What else did you fail to look "deeply" at? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, and I accept. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (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: I intend to help out more at WP:UAA, as well as WP:CFD/W/M and WP:CFD/W, since some of the work there requires admin rights. I also dabble in anti-vandalism work on occasion, so blocking vandals after repeated warnings would likely come into play. I may venture out into other admin areas over time, though I'd make sure I had a good grasp on things before diving in. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A: I'd have to say that AvicBot is, by-and-large, much more helpful to both the community and the encyclopedia than I am as a single editor. Most of my edits are on the small and repetitive side, though I do make more substantial edits from time to time - and I've even managed to pass a good article review before. My best work, I think, has been done on IRC, when I've been able to provide assistance to new editors. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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: I can't say I've really been in any "major" conflicts - and all the conflicts I can think of have been resolved peacefully through discussion. I personally have never been stressed or upset due to anything on Wikipedia, and I believe that keeping your cool in any given situation goes a long way. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:09, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Rschen7754

4. For the record, can you identify which wikis you have the sysop right on?

A:I am an admin on the Scots Wikipedia and the Strategy Wiki. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:30, 29 Iyar 5772 / 06:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Skater

5. If this RFA were to pass, would you add yourself to the admins open to recall?

A: I haven't given it much thought, but I don't see why not. I fully understand that, If this RfA passes, I only have the tools by the community's trust. If I break that trust to such a degree that the community feels I should lose the mop, then obviously I would be doing more harm then good by keeping it. I don't know what criteria I would use for the recall itself - I'd have to read over some guidelines from other admins - but I do plan to always keep myself accountable to the project and the people that support it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:29, 29 Iyar 5772 / 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

6. I have noticed that you have only taken part in 19 AFD discussions [1]. What are your intentions related to WP:AFD? Do you intend to refrain from closing discussions for any amount of time and if so, at what point would you consider yourself ready to close discussions?

A: As with any admin areas where I haven't participated much, I will not be closing AfDs anytime soon. If I were to head in that direction, I would start by being much more active in AfD discussions. After a while of that, I'd start looking closely at AfDs coming to an end, and decide how I would determine consensus and close them, and seeing how closely my thoughts align with how another admin actually closed it when the time came. I'd probably even poke an admin or three I'm familiar with for guidance before closing my first AfDs. I don't have a timeframe to give for this, as closing AfDs is not something I'm actively pursuing, but I hope my caution before heading down that path addresses any concerns. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:19, 29 Iyar 5772 / 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum

7. Would you agree or disagree with the thesis that the reason you've never been involved in any major conflict is because you've never been involved in any significant content creation?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support-Why not?--SKATER ^{Is Back} 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Trustworthy long-time active user. Avicennasis does good work on a variety of projects and I'm sure they'd be a net benefit for the project with admin tools. Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Per It Is Me Here's glowing nomination, good scouting! — GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. A long-time contributor who has been active in the category space and indicated category discussion as their main prospective activity as administrator. We have an acute lack of administrators, and this is somebody who very well matches the profile.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Happy to support. Long term editor with good contributions to the encyclopedia. This user has created well over 100 pages (mostly stubs/excluding redirects). I am slightly concerned by the lack of experience in many admin related areas, but the 2 years of active editing and the response to question 5 reduce my concern. In addition, of the AFD discussions, Avicennasis !voted in line with the result or in a discussion closed as no consensus 100% of the time. The trust placed in this editor by other projects and the massive list of userrights leads me to believe that we can trust Avicennasis with the mop here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I am quadrupling my support per this dummy edit. It was fairly clear that the revert followed by a self revert was probably a mistaken click. The communication to explain the issue is exactly what is needed in an admin. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

6. Support The low AFD-participation rate was slightly concerning; however, the answer to Question 5 along with the user's technical interest and vast number of good contributions lead me to believe that they would be a good admin. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:54, May 21, 2012 (UTC–7)
7. Support. Safe, trustworthy... actually had assumed they were a sysop already. QU ^TalkQu 08:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Support experienced user. --Rschen7754 08:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support as nominator It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 08:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - Really no reason to oppose and editor looks like an experienced, trustworthy and responsible candidate. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support, yes, heck yeah, absolutely! My76Strat (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support because this user is not yet blocked for a five-year period. *Adjkasi* (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
13. For someone that's worked (albeit not as frequently) as me, I'd say this editor is more than ready. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support It's difficult to evaluate Avicennasis' contributions given their frequent use of bots, but the glowing nomination and sensible answers to the above questions indicate that he or she will use the admin tools wisely. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
15. →Bmusician 12:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support - per nom. He has done a lot of excellent work in various areas, but the statement in the nomination concerning when he began editing is somewhat disingenuous considering that one of his edits in 2007 was simply vandalism. I won't hold that against him, since it (obviously) hasn't been repeated and he has clearly matured in the past five years. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support StrikeEagle ^✈ 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
18. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
19. In the words of a great parody of the great Walter Cronkite, "Well it's about fucking time!!!!". Avicennasis was the person who welcomed me on March 5th, 2010, and though my userpage hasn't changed a bit since then I've had one hell of a time. I have to admit, it does feel a bit strange to be an admin and now see the person who helped get me into Wikipedia run for adminship. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
20. Seems active in the areas of interest where they intend to start out, no reason why not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Support - No major concern over contributions from when user got seriously into editing. Answers to questions looks good to me. KTC (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Per Skater. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Strongly support - clearly and convicingly passes my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Seems fully qualified Pol430 talk to me 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
25. Its a pleasure to support Agathoclea (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Concerns about them using an emoticon in the answer to question #6 not enough to overcome a very positive record. Seems trustworthy as they come. Pity not more content creation, but there's time for that, if they cares to.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
29. Support No concerns, solid candidate overall. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Passes My Guidelines without worry. Achowat (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Really? "I think it is very important for someone who wants to have, and use, the 'Delete' button to know the Article-writing process, to know exactly what needs to be done to bring an article up-to-snuff, and how a New User might feel if their hard work was removed." Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

31. Support - Found no reasonable reason to oppose. -Scottywong| confer _ 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support I have seen no evidence that this candidate will abuse admin tools or position.--MONGO 22:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Have you looked for any? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Yes. I thought arbcom asked you to cease disrupting Rfa...MONGO 13:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

33. Support No red marks and competence in areas sorely needing additional admin attention makes this an easy vote. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 22:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Weirdest contributions pie chart I've seen in a while, never knew there even was a CATEGORIES section and here's 12,000+ edits there. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Look fine to me--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
36. Support per Adjkasi, and the fact that this user has yet to be the subject of a request for arbitration. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Avicennasis seems like a net gain for the project overall, and I see no compelling reason why bestowing the admin buttons upon this user would be anything other than a positive step. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support I think he could use the tools.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

    Anyone could use the tools. You could, I could, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all could. Malleus Fatuorum 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Although Avicennasis has created many categories, I don't see evidence of contribution in CfD discussions themselves. At the beginning of February, Avicennasis spam-tagged thousands of stub articles about asteroids. He tagged the changes as "minor". He made no attempt to discuss the matter with WikiProject Astronomy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Greetings Axl, I hope you have been well through the interim of our last interaction. Because I do hold you in esteem, I give weight to your concerns. Your last comment is a bit uncharacteristic in that it appears to be encumbered by some measure of POV. Why do you categorize the tags as "spam"? I am aware of tracking categories, most often hidden, that may appear thankless, but often serve a much greater purpose. What causes you to presume there was an issue requiring discussion? Taken at face value, is it not possible that the matter was intuitive to the editors most closely associated? Why did it aggrieve you?My76Strat (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   From WP:MINOR: "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit... Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article." I characterize the edits as "spam" because Avicennasis blanket-targeted thousands of stubs using little/no thought as to the best way of actually fixing the stubs. I accept that this use of the word is not part of WP:SPAM. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for voicing your concerns. Just as an explanation, that tagging was done in response to a request, rather than solely on my own accord. ^Avic_ennasis @ 14:52, 29 Iyar 5772 / 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose Promises to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus, and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   You're opposing someone on the sole basis that he or she say they are open to the idea of recall, after they are asked the question by another user? It is unenforceable, but then there are just under 200 admins categorising themselves as open to recall, are you suggesting they should never have became admins because of it? -- KTC (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Just out of interest, Hipocrite, what would your reaction have been if the candidate had answered "No, I will not be open to recall"? (Genuinely curious here, and not intending to badger). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Just to clarify my motives for the question, I was not so much interested on whether he was going to be open to recall or not, but rather his reasoning. After having a few discussions about it, I apologize for asking it.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Bulk reply here. KTC - no, just those who passed rfa due to recall (archtransit, elonka, notably). BtZ - I likely would not have voted to a flat "no," but a well reasoned dodge of the question would have led me to review editong history in hopes of supporting. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Don't mind him, he always does this, and it always predictably becomes a drama magnet. The only right answer to this question, according to Hipocrite, is to not answer the question. Hipocrite is apparently compelled to oppose nearly every candidate who has been asked this question (regardless of their answer), while simultaneously he believes that asking the question is unhelpful and divisive. It seems odd to me that someone would reliably oppose candidates based on an "unhelpful" question. On the contrary, it seems quite helpful in making up Hipocrite's mind on a candidate. -Scottywong| chat _ 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   OK, thanks Hipocrite - I can see where you're coming from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

   The candidate didn't actually make a promise to be open to recall if you actually read his whole response. Mato (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's standard talk:Hipocrite, almost nobody takes him seriously as is... he wants to be the new dougs tech.... that's his stupid prerogative. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

   You ought to think very carefully about the wisdom of that comment before you withdraw it. Malleus Fatuorum 10:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Only seven edits before February 2007 is not "active since 2006". The single GA review referred to was more than a year ago now, was pretty poor, and the article remains in a pretty poor state. Those seeking to be placed in positions of authority over content creators ought to have experience of the trials and tribulations of content creation here, which are considerable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I appreciate all users with technical expertise to operate bots and I think this user has made good contributions otherwise, although as Malleus Fatuorum says I would like to see at least a little bit of substantial article development before voting support. I also did not like the nominator's portrayal of Avicennasis as having edited since 2006 when Avicennasis had only made 5 edits before February of 2010. This editor has made few comments at AfD and I would like to see admins participate a little more in the process by means of which admins are created. If this user does not pass adminship this time I expect that I would vote to support after this user reviewed the criticism and then made or accepted a future nomination, because I trust that this user means well and is highly competent. I am just not sure that at this time Avicennasis has enough experience to be a role model as a Wikipedian because I cannot find evidence of participation in most of the typical experiences that Wikipedians have on the site, such as content creation and participation in community article development projects. Again, I really appreciate the technical expertise Avicennasis brings to the Wikipedia project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Quite a weak oppose mainly based on Silktork's comments in the neutral section. --John (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I don't think there's a reason for the mop, and there isn't enough suggestion of a reason given, at least. All these duties have been going `on just fine without special permissions, and I don't see any reason why this needs it. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm still looking through contributions so I haven't made a decision yet, but thought it worth pointing out that Avicennasis has been contributing since 2010 rather than 2006. There were only five edits from 2006 to 2010, and one of those was to remove a warning for creating an article about Shane: "There is an indivual, know only as "Shane" that has managed to anger every goverment office that exists. He is a highly-watched person, and at any given time has around 10 FBI Special Agents watching his every move. He is capable of great destruction in the right conditions and with the right knowledge. Therefore, as the highest matter of National Security, many things must be Kept From Shane. Many of these things, like the building of Atomic Bombs, would lead to great destruction if they were ever learned by Shane." People do mature, and that was a while ago; however, it is relevant for people to know that the positive contributions date from the start of 2010 not from 2006. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing much in the way of discussion. User talkpage edits appear to be mainly templating or categorising, and the same is true of article talkpages. To balance that, there is some involvement in project space, and a cooperative attitude shown during the bot appeal - [2]. Mainspace contributions are mainly in the form of minor repetitive tasks - usually minor formatting such as [3] and [4]. What I am seeing is a user who is well meaning and useful, though I am not yet seeing evidence of judgement and decision making nor of coping in a conflict. There is, really, no reason to object to this nomination; but at the same time there is little solid evidence of the character skills we like to see in an admin on which to base a decision. If we had an easier way in which to recall an admin (it's actually easier to indef block someone than it is to desyop an admin) I would say, yes, give him a go, but as it stands I would rather see more evidence of good judgement, such as time spent in AfD or helping out in dispute resolution, or in doing a Good Article review, before supporting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)