User:Tóraí/Request for comment: Adminship

I am considering requesting adminship. Off-wiki another editor suggested to me that inviting comment from others on my talk page might be a good first step. My gut reaction to this is to shy away from the idea because I don't want to draw unwanted attention onto myself. However, I do believe that adminship is a responsibility of the community and so sounding out the community's feeling towards a request for adminship on the part of anyone is a logical first step.

I went for adminship before under my former account (sony-youth). That was unsuccessful; to a large degree owing to snappish comments and a bad decision regarding a hoax article created by an editor I was familiar with.

My attitude towards adminship really is that it is no big deal. It means little more than access to some buttons that for pragmatic reasons are not available to all-and-sundry. There is nothing that an admin can do that any editor cannot simply request. And so the role of admin is merely to execute those requests on behalf of the community. That is a role I would like and would be willing to play if the community would trust me to do it fairly on their behalf.

Most people who are familiar with me will most likely know of me through WikiProject Ireland-related activities. That's one part of the work I do and it is probably the most visible. I also contribute to "low profile" areas of the 'pedia, like the Graphics Lab and, more frequently, work through Special:NewPages wikifying, copy editing and nominating for deletion where necessary.

So, in sum, I would like to sound out the community's feeling towards me having a mop.

--RA (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Fmph
Why would you want to be an admin? All that rouge stuff? But really, why?
 * Power trip?
 * "I'd be better than some of the idiots we currently have!"?
 * I could 'do' more stuff?

Personally I've never understood the attraction. Fmph (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "I could 'do' more stuff?" is probably closest but in practice there is zero that an editor with the sysop bit enabled can do than anyone cannot simply request and get done. I don't see any extra "power" coming with adminship. We are all editors and we are all peers, no-one (in general) has has more "power" (but some editors, unfortunately not only new-comers and including some admins, do see it differently). I don't think there is anything wrong with current admins in the same way that I don't think there is anything wrong with current editors in general.
 * In essence, its just that I don't mind pushing the buttons if others trust me with them and I don't mind taking the associated flak with doing so. The sense in which I might mean that "I could 'do' more stuff" is in the sense of doing more stuff for the project and on behalf of the community rather than doing more stuff for myself or as an editor. --RA (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant understand why you would put yourself thro the mill and take one for the team especiallyu wrt the insinuations being made by a few idiots. Fmph (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Jza84
I know that you would use these tools wisely, and I believe that you want these tools for the right reasons - to make improvements to Wikipedia. How do I know this? -- because you demonstrate this, always, through your edits and commentary, and so for that reason, I'd support you 100% in any RfA you participated in.

However, although it's a stretch (it's the biggest challenge on WP), and it's not a requirement of RfA (or my support), I'd like to see you go through the FAC process. The reason being that I found that's where I picked up all the right skills and insight, and I think this demonstrates to other users that you are capable of producing the best work, have knowledge of policy (+WP:MOS etc) and can work with others. --Jza84 | Talk  03:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jza. I'm not about to rush off to WP:RFA. This really is just a something I'm considering. Co-incidentally, following on from our success at restoring Ireland to GA status, another editor with experience in the FA realm has suggested that we collaborate on some former FAs from WikiProject Ireland. I expect that will be a learning experience. --RA (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Red Hurley
Well done, go ahead if you have the time.Red Hurley (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still just thinking about it. No big rush :-) --RA (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Footyfanatic3000
Go for it! You have my and many other users' backing as you've proved yourself to be a level-headed sensible person, therefore I see no reason why you wouldn't pass an RfA. -- Footyfanatic3000 ( talk  · &#32;  contribs )  00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --RA (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from HighKing
I think you'd make a great admin but I believe you are a better editor. You understand Wikipedia - you constantly try to improve articles. I know we don't always see eye to eye, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I highly respect your opinions and contributions, as do others. But being an admin shouldn't be seen as an approval of your editing skills, or a reward for contributions made, which it has become for most RfA's I've looked in on. If anything, and admin is a different role - to uphold core policies. I'd hate to see you spend more time on housekeeping and less on editing. But if you believe you can additionally contribute by being an admin, you'd have my support whenever you decide to take the plunge. --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, HK. Particularly since we don't always see eye-to-eye. It is a very admirable quality you have that I can be arguing with you on one page and you write the above on about me on another. Thanks again, --RA (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from RashersTierney
I would tend to agree with HK on this one, while wishing you every personal success if you do decide to 'go for it'. Editors with your overall knowledge and experience in the area of Ireland-related topics are scarce enough on the ground. You would be put under a lot of pressure to steer away from this area of expertise if you put yourself forward. My view is you are a better asset to the project as you are. I don't buy the prestige associated by many with adminship, and hope that aspect doesn't overly influence you if you do put your hat in the ring. Whatever you decide you'll have my support. RashersTierney (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rashers, I didn't reply to this immediately because it raised questions I wanted to mull over. The "prestige" associated with adminship jars at me sometimes. This is not because of the behavior of any admins I've seen but because of a perception of adminship by the community at large. I don't see it as a big deal but others do. In the fairly tense arena of British-Irish stuff that are my ogre's cave, someone with admin privileges could invite trouble. I've seen editors use the fact that an admin expressed one view or another as adding further weight for that view. I've see editors accuse admins who express one view or another of abusing their "position" as an sysop by doing so. That's not good. I wouldn't like that. And even though it is a misperception, it's reality. --RA (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Malke_2010
There are two important questions to ask yourself: 1) Can I be fair? 2) Will I make the time commitment? If the answer is yes to both, then go put yourself up there. You're as entitled to it as any of them that have it now. And I've seen your editing, and you try to be reasonable and you don't push a POV. You look out for what is best for the project, and that's all that any of them could ask of you. I'd vote for you. Malke 2010  23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Malke. It's nice to get feedback like that. I sometimes question myself if I am pushing a POV when conflict arises. I try to walk a line between POVs but everyone comes form a perspective. It is important IMO to keep on top of that and keep to a focus on the project as a one that is separate from our individual POVs. Objectivity is not easy though. And it colours everyone, including me. --RA (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Mo ainm
I would support your RfA if you decide to go ahead with it as I can't see any reason not too and I'm sure you wouldn't abuse the tools. But as you are an editor in the "Irish scene" and IMO a fair one, and also one I have had disagrements (with my previous account) with as RA and also as sony youth, would you be able to continue to edit Irish articles without the usual calls of bias due to previous comments made? You know how tempers fray in this arena. This would be a shame if you were to leave an area which I'm sure you enjoy and are good at, to concentrate on mundane admin tasks, so to conclude and reiterate I would support your future RfA and wish you the best of luck if you do decide to go for it. Mo ainm ~Talk  18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mo ainm.
 * Admin or not, I don't think there is much chance of me being able to extradite myself out of WikiProject Ireland. There is no need to fear about that! It's not an issue though IMO. Being an admin doesn't grant an editors any greater weight in discussions. It doesn't make someone a "super class" of editor. It just gives access to buttons that enables some users to perform certain restricted functions on behalf of the community.
 * However, I don't think it would be possible (or desirable) for me to act as an uninvolved admin on any of the "hot" Irish topics (or even many of the "cool" ones). Admin roles I'd expect to participate in would be either: (a) uncontroversial; or (b) far away from WikiProject Ireland-related activities and editors. There are two reasons for this:
 * I wouldn't be seen as being "neutral" (even if I was).
 * When passions are raised, even with the best of intentions, I couldn't guarantee (to myself even) that I would be neutral.
 * So, admin flag or not, on Wikiproject Ireland-related things, I foresee no change to my involvement and (for the most part) role. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Kittybrewster
Full support. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kitty. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from bjmullan
I would fully support your RfA as I believe you are a fair and knowledgeable editor with a lot to give to the WP project. Bjmullan (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BJ. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Daicaregos

 * This comment is copied here from a talk page discussion. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You ask if you would make a good admin. Well, not that you will give a tinker's cuss about my opinion, as you show, but no; you would not make a good admin. Your move at Republic of Ireland is a fine example of your cavalier attitude. Discussion had not closed. Further suggestions for improvements were likely. Yet you chose to make a bold edit to an article on which, as it is subject to 1RR, BRD cannot apply. You explained (after the event) that you don't understand what the problem is, yet still you think you know best. The article's intro had been stable since January. Your first proposed rewrite was published at 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC). Your fait accompli was presented at 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC). At the very least you should have waited 24 hours. How could you have known if all involved editors had had the opportunity to even see your original proposal, let alone the amendments, and decide whether they were appropriate or not? Do you care? As usual, it was “Rannpháirtí anaithnid knows best”. IMHO, such arrogance is a dangerous trait in an admin. Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dai and Evertype, I've grouped your comments together because I think you are both referring to the same quality.
 * I think you're right. My arrogance/opinionatedness is my worst quality and from it all of my other poor qualities (a tendency for patronise, browbeat, snappishness, cavalierism, etc.) stem. I'm aware of it and I try to tame it. I find that taking time to reply or to act (not even necessarily that much longer) controls it; but I'm not always successful.
 * What worries me greatest about it is that it is not something that I remember being a great problem with sony-youth (although he had the tendency too) or, at least, I feel it has gotten worse with RA. It may be that I am simply more aware of it or it may mean that it is something that has grown with time as I have become more confident and experienced with this project.
 * I don't know if it is a quality that is not compatible with being an admin. Or that being an admin would aggravate it. (I think it is deeper seeded than that.) I think it is a quality that is not compatible with this project, whatever role a person plays. It is something that brings out the worst in others (as the two of you know) and is a hindrance to collaboration.
 * So, there is no excuse that I can offer except to say that I know about it and that I am (privately) working on it. This is not in relation to any RfA that might take my fancy some time, but in relation to all of my activities here and how I interact with other contributors. If I am going to participate in this project to my best, it is something that I want and need to over come. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your previous avatars were not other than your current one. You are you. -- Evertype·✆ 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I meant it as a figurative comparison between times. --RA (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators should be opinionated and should not not be flaccid. Above all they should be courteous. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Evertype
I would not support your RfA because I think, from my experience with you, that you are just as opinionated as I am and that opinionatedness and adminship don't really go together well. -- Evertype·✆ 23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Evertype. You got a laugh out of me for "just as opinionated as I am".
 * I think yourself and Daicaregos are commenting on the same quality. Since Dai raised it first (on my talk), I'll comment on that quality above. --RA (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from GoodDay
If you're bored enough? go for it. If you really wanna have a chuckle? nominate me for Administrator. Well, on the latter suggestion, you best not (as I'd only say 'no'). GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GoodDay. --RA (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from MickMacNee
RA, you would completely bomb in an Rfa tbh. Not on behaviour, but on simple basic policy knowledge, like NPOV. I think running for admin would be a very damaging reality check for you in that regard, but it's one that you sorely need tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Sswonk
Huh, guess the landscape has remained quiet here for a while. I'll echo the comments above where Kittybrewster calls for someone courteous, and HK and RT both admire your article editing skills. I am not a huge believer (that is, I disagree&hellip;) that "The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden.", which you wrote in your essay. I would like to see much more accountability among editors, but in effect I am calling for a different type of project. Many times IPs are used by those seeking to avoid accountability while usernames and the associated user pages are often worn with pride and promote commitment to reasonableness and most importantly responsibility. As long as those concepts are promoted and agendas are left at the coffeemaker by admins, I think we can be confident that someone of similar skills will come along to fill your place among just us regular editors. To conclude, since you want the job and are a decent and responsible person in my experience, I would have no trouble whatsoever with your becoming a sysop. Best, Sswonk (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sswonk. Very kind words indeed.
 * There are a diversity of views on IPs. I respect the view that taking a user name shows commitment to the project but I don't share it entirely.
 * Events in real life have meant my contributions to the project have had to stop for a while. I hope to be back in a few months time when my life is my own again. --RA (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)