Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AaronS


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

AaronS
Final  (10/16/4) ended 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

– I'm just someone who finds Wikipedia to be interesting and am looking to get more involved. I registered in 2003, but did not become active as an editor until last year. But, I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, and am interested in helping out with the nuts and bolts of the encyclopaedia. I understand that my edit counts are low, but I feel that it is quality that matters, not quantity. Furthermore, I try to consider things carefully before I make an edit, which is why I don't make too many edits in a day. Thanks for all of your comments -- this has been very informative.AaronS 19:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --AaronS 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. I'm going to take all of your comments into consideration and seek to improve my editing. Thank you all very much for your feedback -- it's helpful. I would hate to waste anybody else's time with this RfA, though, since I'm seeing some common themes in the opposition votes that I would like to address before applying to become an administrator. :) --AaronS 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support no harm in supporting. adminship is no big deal. seems like a well-intentioned user.--Alhutch 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, why the hell not. :) --Golbez 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, buddy. :) --AaronS 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - calm and polite user, and very willing to help out with things. :) -- infinity 0 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - from what I've seen he keeps his head when others around him have lost theirs. Be an admin, my son.Bengalski 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - no reason not to. --BWD(talk) 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - shows eagerness to clean up - give this kid a chance. --Rob from NY 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Seems mature enough (in wikipedian terms); has a screw-on head; seems to understand what is required; unlikely to mistreat people --  max rspct  leave a message  15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, unlikely to abuse tools, has a good head on his shoulders. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support in order to even out the vote of RJII who seems to be opposing for political purposes. So, you had a dispute with him over one or two articles, this isn't about those, your vote appears to be merely vindictive. - FrancisTyers 19:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not for "political purposes." It's out of a sincere concern for the proper functioning of Wikipedia, which he does his best to prevent to maintain the POV he wants to present. By, the way, I wouldn't vote for you either. RJII 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Any specific complaints about my behaviour on Wikipedia? Perhaps you'd like to post them on my talk page or on the talk page for this RfA. My purpose for voting support was to counter your unsourced, vindictive post. - FrancisTyers 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a little unethical? You should be voting on the whether you think Aaron would make a good administrator. Instead, you're voting based on me. That in itself tells me you don't have what it takes to be an objective administrator. RJII 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose A little low on the edit history, but more pointedly, I don't see in this user's edit history or responses to questions below where the admin privledges are needed. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Doug. I think that the admin privileges would come in most handy with regard to AfD questions and counter-vandalism. --AaronS 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of these actions do not require admin tools. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they do -- I'd like to be able to speedily delete candidates for speedy deletion, block repeat vandals, sockpuppets, etc. Just to lighten the workload, really. --AaronS 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose You show great initiative in wanting to serve the community in such a capacity - keep it up. However, the areas in which you have a history in working with can be contributed to well enough, without additional sysop tools. Familarize yourself with areas often dealt with by admins, i.e. AfD, anti-vandalism, etc, and you'll have a mop and bucket before you know it. Hang in there. -- Jay  (Reply)  20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, Jay. I appreciate it. My most recent edit history shows more activity with regard to AfD. In fact, it was working there that made me consider adminship. I'll definitely take what you've said into consideration. --AaronS 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for now, as I really don't know enough about you. I'm posting my standard RFA optional questions below, but if you answer them well, you may be able to convince me I can trust you with the tools. NSL E (T+C) at 01:31 UTC (2006-03-09)
 * 2) Super StrongOppose Per low edit history & answer to questions. As well for vote begging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FrancisTyers#My_RfA Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Not enough experience yet. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Mike --kingboyk 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose great contributions thus far but I feel you need some more experience in all facets of the project. In a few months you will have my vote but I just don't feel your ready right now.--Looper5920 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose For starters, I find nomination statements that say "this is me" to be unacceptably brief and glib. If you really want adminship, tell me why, and want you've done, before you answer the question.  Separately, needs more experience. Xoloz 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Has been here a long time, but has a very low amount of edits.  If Aaron maintains the recent activity for a few more months, then I wouldn't have a problem. -- tomf688 {talk} 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose In my dealings with him, I've found him to be very unreasonable. I strongly question his motives for wanting to become an administrator. He accuses others of bad faith and dishonesty . He refuses to accept multiple credible sources when they are presented to him. Very very very unreasonable. His buddy user:infinity0 just failed in his attempt to become an administrator Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0. Notice Aaron was the first to vote for him and one of the very few who gave him a supporting vote. The opposition to infinity was overwhelming and his behavior on Wikipedia has obviously been reprehensible, but Aaron thought he was a good candidate. That right there tells you there's something seriously wrong with Aaron's judgement. Also, notice that infinity is voting in support of him here. Now that his buddy failed, he's attempting it to become one. Let me just point out to you that he and infinity have been engaged in a lot of disputes and edit warring with me in the anarchism and individualist anarchism articles. I know why he wants to become an adminstrator. I'm confident most here will realize why as well. RJII 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) *Comment - Since RJII is digging up specific things to discredit AaronS, here is Requests for arbitration/RJII, Requests for comment/RJII, and Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug. -- infinity 0 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) **You bet I am. You and Aaron are two people who Wikipedia definitely should not have as administrators. We need reasonable people who aren't out to censor people by filing arbitration cases. I've raised legitimate concerns. Aaron voted for YOU to be an administrator in the face of clear disruptive behavior by you. That's BAD judgement. Niether you or he are fit to hold any power whatsoever. The first thing one should suspect is that someone WANTS to be an administrator. That's a desire to weild power over others. But, that may be ok in itself, so the next thing you need to look at is their record. Your record and your buddy Aaron's record is horrendous, especially yours. You two are just not fit to hold power. RJII 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) ***While I have already withdrawn my nomination, I would like to address these remarks by RJII. Excuse me, but what power? We're talking about administrative tools, here. Since I've already said numerous times that I would never use said tools as a weapon (i.e. I would never use them in disputes that I am involved in, as that would be highly unethical), I don't know what kind of horrible, absolute authority you see in blocking sockpuppets, vandals, etc. and assisting in the deletion process, among other things. I voted for Infinity0, because I've dealt with him extensively. He made many mistakes, but appeared genuinely sorry, and seemed as if he wanted to move on and learn from them. I still feel that he is doing exactly that. I think that I deal with those whom I disagree with in a very reasonable manner, and receive few complaints. When I do receive complaints, I take them to heart. That's why I have a clean record, and why you are on probation for a year and have been blocked numerous times. I never filed an arbitration case against you -- and I'll remind you that you were placed on probation by a vote of 6 to 0 by neutral judges. --AaronS 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) **RJII, I was hoping that you could keep your personal problems with me out of the rest of Wikipedia; all I can say is that I'm a bit disappointed. I'd like to add, as well, RJII, that I was honest, here, with the problems that I've had with you and two other editors. My request for adminship has nothing to do with that, and I would follow the example of a few other admins I know and never use admin tools to target those who I'm in a dispute with or meddle in article controversy that I am involved in. --AaronS 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) ***It's nothing personal whatsoever. I'm sure you're a great person. But, you're very unreasonable on Wikipedia. You ask for sources, but then won't accept them. You'll ask for more then won't accept those either. You attack people as being dishonest. And, you vote to have infinity become an administrator when it is clear that he's extremely disruptive (as most everyone else saw in his vote for adminiship). You have bad judgement and you're so wrapped up in your POV that you REFUSE to accept any sourced information that may tarnish it. I know why you want to become an administrator and you can't convince me otherwise. I know how you work, from EXTENSIVE dealings with you. RJII 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) ****My only horrible records are dealing with you. What does that say about you? You say AaronS has bad judgement because he knows me better than the other people who voted for me, saw my recent 3RRs with you and immediately thought "oppose" because of that? That support vote shows AaronS has GOOD judgement. -- infinity 0 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) ***So the OVERWHELMING number of people that wanted to stop you from becoming an administrator have bad judgement? Ok, if that's what you want to think, you may. RJII 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) ****Replied on your talk page so as to not clutter up someone else's RfA. -- infinity 0 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Insufficient experience, profanity .--Anglius 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the profanity on my user page, I was trying to figure out why the revert feature of my popup software wasn't working. I decided to edit my own user page to see if it would catch it, and then see if I could revert it. It wasn't until today that I figured out how to use the revert feature (it's a bit confusing). It's unfortunate that that is now a factor in your decision regarding my potential capabilities as an administrator. I hope that you see my reasoning for this, now, and I appreciate your attention to the matter. --AaronS 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Mr. "S.", and I again apologise for having slightly misunderstood.--Anglius 20:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Pained Oppose. Having only encountered a  very polite AaronS yesterday, I feel very reluctant to cast a vote, especially an oppose.  However, I've seen two things in two days which make me uncomfortable giving him admin tools: A somewhat questionable   and "test" vandalism of his own talk page .  Neither of these are critical problems, but they display a lack of familiarity with the WP:CSD and the proper use of a sandbox, both of which I think an admin should know. AaronS, I think you're a fine contributor, I'm just not sure you're quite ready for the mop at this time. --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't feel that ninjas versus pirates is very encyclopaedic, especially considering the lack of reliable sources and verifiability. :) And I hope that you understand my reasoning for test vandalizing my own user page, now. But I understand where you're coming from. I'll take your comments into consideration, and strive to improve. Thanks! --AaronS 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, convince me otherwise. — Mar. 9, '06 [20:32] 
 * 2) Oppose as well. Regular contributions seems good, but has some problems in the areas related to admin powers. More specifically, the Pirates versus Ninjas example that stillnotelf refers to. It's fine if he wants to propose it for deletion (although it's relatively obvious that it would be kept) but quite another to throw around speedy tags. Imagine if he had the ability to speedy the page instead of just tagging it. In short, he should familarize himself with WP:CSD and needs more AfD/Newpages experience so that he can begin to learn the community norms. It's nothing personal&mdash;try again later. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, sorry, but too many snarky comments like this one. Jonathunder 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose keep up this level of activity a few months longer and I might consider supporting. Prodego  talk  23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, while this user meets my criteria, this user does not have the necessary experience as there's onyl one month where the editor has really power-edited. --ZsinjTalk 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, fantastic editor on Anarchism, managed to stay polite and civil even under intense duress (although towards the end he broke down a bit), I regret not being able to email him (he doesn't provide an email address) whilst the mediation was undergoing. I can't vote support for him due to not providing an email address (my view is that admins should be contactable via email) and soliciting, but I really would had I come accross this any other way. I may change my vote if certain users turn up. - FrancisTyers 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Francis. But I've received emails from other editors. Are you sure that you can't email me? And I didn't know that solicitation was frowned upon. I was just a little excited. :-/ Sorry. But now that I think of it, it was a bit uncouth. Heh. --AaronS 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Just neutral. psch  e  mp  |  talk  19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I'd like to support, but I'm unsure of this user's ability to play well with others. This doesn't mean I don't think they can, just that I don't feel I can make a good call one way or the other right now. Some of their replies to other users bug me -- I realize it was a while ago, and that's why I'm not opposing. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, I'd like to support also as I scanned through the contribs and there's a lot of really good anti-vandalism and editing to articles like Anarchism. But there's snarky comments, and solicitation of votes, and I think he needs just a bit more time before trying again -- Samir ∙ [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px|  ]] T C 22:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 89% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 142 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 19:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See AaronS's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
 * Would you be willing to setup/confirm your e-mail? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just did so today. --AaronS 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I would like to be involved mostly in clean-up. To me, this includes finding sources for articles, expanding stubs, copyediting, wikifying, merging, and adding PD images. I try to do this when I can, anyway, while randomly browsing articles. I would also like to be more involved in the AfD process as well as counter-vandalism. --AaronS 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Perhaps I wasn't specific or clear enough when I answered this question. I was using the terms clean-up, AfD process', and counter-vandalism rather broadly. This is the kind of stuff that I'm talking about:
 * Counter-vandalism includes both blocking per Blocking policy (vandals, sockpuppets, disruption, etc.) and page protection per Protection policy in order to prevent repeated vandalism, etc.
 * The AfD process includes deleting candidates for speedy deletion and judging the rough consensus necessary for deletion per Deletion policy
 * Clean-up includes helping to education editors with regard to writing good articles (admin tools are not needed for this, of course), among all of the things that you might consider to be part of clean-up
 * So, you see, this isn't just for the title of "admin." I'm actually just interested in the nuts n' bolts of Wikipedia, and would like to help out. I hope that this makes things clearer! Thanks for all of your comments. --AaronS 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I helped to make the article on Bernard-Henri Lévy more NPOV; I've helped to make the article on Boston, Massachusetts a featured article; and I've also been extensively involved in WikiProject Massachusetts. I'm currently trying to standardize all Massachusetts town articles. --AaronS 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Sure, I've had conflicts. Mostly with anarchism and related articles, and mostly with users RJII, Hogeye, and MrVoluntarist. Despite repeated insults, I've managed to maintain civility, save for a few exasperated slips (which I regret). I have followed the procedures in the dispute resolution process, and I plan to stick to them. I also plan on having skin of steel, and not responding to personal attacks. Note (please read): if my nomination succeeds, I do not plan on using my admin privileges in disputes that I am involved in, or on users who I am involved in disputes with. I don't view that as ethical. That means that I would never use them on any of the above users or with regard to any of the above articles.

Questions from NSL E : The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * Contact him/her privately or on his/her talk page, depending on the situation, informing him/her of the policy on sockpuppeting and asking him/her to discontinue the use of sockpuppets. If the abuse continues after my request, I would label the sockpuppets as such, citing the necessary evidence. I would then warn the editor that a block will be necessary if the abuse continues. If the warning is ignored, then I will follow the policy on blocking: for dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time. New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently, and Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently. However, indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits. Throughout the process, I would seek the advice and aid of other administrators, when necessary. If the abuse continues even after the ban is lifted, I would open up a RfAr. All of this is, of course, just one possible solution. I would appreciate feedback. --AaronS 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
 * Per the undeletion policy, I would seek to restore the article for any of the reasons listed there (perhaps those who voted delete didn't pay close attention, or were unfamiliar with the subject, while those who voted keep looked over the article carefully or were experts on the subject -- we all make mistakes). To do this, I would contact the administrator who speedied it, asking him/her to reconsider his/her decision, and supplying my reasons. I'm sure that, in most cases, this problem would end there -- the administrator, likely a reasonable person, would restore it and allow discussion to continue by relisting it in AfD. If the admin who speedied it wouldn't budge, and didn't convince me that his/her decision was in fact correct, I would nominate the article for deletion review. --AaronS 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
 * There's a definite conflict of interest, here. Blocking is not a weapon, it's a tool. I sort of already answered this above, in my note. --AaronS 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * I would respect that administrator's decision. If I had a real problem with it, I would discuss it with the administrator, so that the same mistake wouldn't be made again. After all, it should have been clear that I was in the middle of mediation, and it would have been hasty of that administrator to step in and skip the mediation process that is inherent in any dispute resolution. Unfortunately, I don't see how I could reverse that administrator's decision without further inflaming the situation. The best I could do would be to make sure that it didn't happen again. If the ArbCom rejects the case, then I would continue the mediation process where it was left off, and try to work with the editors, especially the one who seemed unresponsive to mediation. For that editor, I would try to remind him/her of the importance of the steps in the dispute resolution process, and emphasize that mediation is a way to make sure that things don't have to go farther and get messier. If mediation fails, then perhaps the ArbCom wouldn't reject a second RFAr case... --AaronS 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.