Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis


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

Aecis
final (45/3/1) ending 00:32 January 14 2006 (UTC)

– Aecis has 11,000 edits (yes, that’s right), and has been a wikipedian for nearly two years. A lot of that is behind-the-scenes type of work: stub sorting, categorising, archiving, adding requested articles...I pestered him about becoming an admin a couple of months back, but he wisely decided to wait until a minor dispute had died down before standing. His comment on my user talk page about it says much: "Those issues are now more or less solved..., and they made me aware of some wikipedia policies and guidelines that I wasn't aware of before. I believe that I'm now better prepared for the task of being an admin than I was before." I think that a mop would be put to good use in Aecis's hands. Oh, and before anyone asks, he has a lot of userboxes (but he keeps them on a separate page), he almost always uses edit summaries, he’s multilingual, and his last piece of vandalism reverting seems to have been on New Year's Eve. Grutness...wha?  00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Of course! Grutness...wha?  00:10, 7 January 2006
 * 2) Support -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support shows considerable familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. KI 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --TheParanoidOne 00:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. He clearly understands Wikipedia policy and etiquette, and he also has a great attitude (as shown by his request to delay this RfA). Rje 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. --  Phædriel  *whistle* 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) support. Aecis is a good editor and will be a good admin. BL   kiss the lizard  01:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, not afraid to do the dirty work. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. What more is there to say? --Jay (Reply) 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Admrboltz (T | C) 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Looks to be a very good editor who could really be useful as an admin. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) King of All the Franks 04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Open support for behind the "sinners" (oooo...), I mean behind-the-scenes type of worker. --Bhadani 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - no-one, not even I, deserves it more  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 12:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support jnothman talk 12:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Guettarda 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support sounds good. Gryffindor  17:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, user has definitely shown a willingness to perform maintenance tasks and has provided good answers to the optional questions. --Deathphoenix 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * SupportMonor 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC) [banned sock puppet vote struck by candidate]
 * 1) Support Eusebeus 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. If he can spend two years doing dirty-work edits without losing his mind, then he's admin material. --Aaron 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. With 11,000 Edits and 2 years of Wiki editing surely Aecis is worthy of a promotion. -- Eddie 08:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)  [banned sock puppet vote struck by candidate]
 * 1) Support Yes, definitely. --Chris S. 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Blank Verse 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) This user has my support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Izehar 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jim62sch 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Looks good. --Kefalonia 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support ya, sure! --Angelo 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: you betcha! Jonathunder 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Seems like plausible admin materiel. DES (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Mairi 07:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Conscious 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Mihai -talk 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Bobet 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:30Z 
 * 15) Support. Looks ready. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - A good, no-nonsense contributor with a vast amount of experience. Johntex\talk 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Suppport as per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support so many edits? needs to be rewarded. Gryffindor  14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  [User's second vote struck by candidate]
 * 1) Support an easy choice. Use your powers wisely. Reflex Reaction 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Rather incivil towards editors with which he disagrees. See and . --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh...not that uncivil. And there is a lot of BS and trolls on AFD, so I don't mind a "cut through the garbage" admin. Voice of  All T 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per SPUI and per the WikiEN mailing list. It was recently stated on there that admins who don't edit articles are undesirable, yet looking at his contribs, he does very little other than stubbing. karmafist 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The mailing list is not policy, the mailing list is not wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Kmweber, it doesn't matter...the mailing list exists. Just because something is said in a certain area doesn't mean it wasn't said. karmafist 07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * writing requested articles doesn't count as editing, then? Grutness...wha?  00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Karmafist. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral per Karmafist, editing articles is desirable of course, but that's not the most important quality an admin needs (patience and fairness, I suspect, would be more desirable). I won't oppose though, because otherwise this editor seems fine, and I don't believe in opposing solely based on someones belief(s). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 91% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask the candidate's view on Process is Important? DES (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with what is said on there. Processes are indeed essential to the creation of the product. The processes on wikipedia function as a check-and-balance on the behaviour of users, administrators, arbitrators and others. Most importantly, the processes smoothen the operations of a community of which the members usually do not see each other eye-to-eye. These processes can prevent unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts. This in particular applies to the case of User:Kelly Martin, who is now the subject of an RfC and who was the subject of a rejected RfArb. Despite the many userboxes I have on a subpage of my userpage (click on "risin'" in my signature), I agree with her that many of them are a complete waste of bandwidth and some could potentially undermine wikipedia (as Tony Sidaway has argued). Although I'm convinced that Kelly Martin has acted in extremely good faith and only had the interest of wikipedia in her mind, I believe she should have gone through TfD, and should have contacted the WikiProject Userboxes, in order to come to a consensual view on what kind of userboxes are desirable and what kind are not. I think not enough people in the RfC have trusted Ms Martin's good faith (I even read accusations of fascism, which I think is absurd), but I think Ms Martin should also have trusted the good faith of the people working on the userboxes. But I'm digressing.
 * At the very least, the processes lend credibility to possibly painful decisions (such as deleting an article someone has worked on for a very long time, or deleting userboxes that many people use), while the discussions in those processes might convince users of a certain position or explain to them why one approach is better than another. Processes also function against accusations of arbitrariness. Wikipedia does have IAR, which can be necessary when confronted with open-and-shut cases. I'm thinking about closing deletion votes before the 7 day term has ended when there is a more than overwhelming consensus either way. A great deal of wikipedians are responsible enough to know when to apply IAR and when not to. However, I believe that admins should be more cautious about using IAR than regular users, since the potential effect of admins ignoring rules is greater than the potential effect of regular users ignoring rules. After all, admins have powers that normal users don't have. Furthermore, admins rely on credibility amongst non-admins, since this credibility is where they draw their "authority" from. I believe that in possibly controversial cases, it's best to err on the side of caution. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)



Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. 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. During my activities at the WikiProject Stub sorting, I often move articles from Category:Stubs and Category:People stubs to more relevant categories. In doing so, I often come across patent nonsense articles. As a non-admin, I have to tag these articles for speedy deletion. It then takes some time before an admin deletes those articles. I believe it would be in wikipedia's interest if those article were deleted sooner. I would also like to assist in closing *fD's, unless I'm actively involved in one.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Something that pleases me, is that the Dutch wikipedia has taken over some of my edits to the Zwolle article. I want to improve that article further (particularly by sourcing and referencing), hoping that it will one day make it to featured article status. I'm also pleased at having created many articles about football (soccer) clubs in the Netherlands, and about the Hoofdklasse. I also have special feelings for the very first article I wrote, Ivan Rybkin.


 * 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. I have recently been involved in something of an edit war over the use of BC/AD or BCE/CE. My initial response was wrong: I engaged in a back-and-forth revert war, risking a 3RR. That is one thing I definitely won't be doing again. I believe my contributions to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia and WP:AN/I#Meatpuppetry? have been more constructive.


 * 4. What do you think of these questions?
 * A. I have no objections whatsoever to them :)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 07:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. When would you use &#123;{test1}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. I would use bv only if I have a very strong feeling that the contributions were deliberate and made in bad faith, or at least were disrupting pranks. If, for instance, someone continuously adds a mention of Saddam Hussein being the illegitimate child of George Bush sr. and Whitney Houston. In other words: if someone adds information that (s)he knows isn't true and can't possibly be true, only to disturb wikipedia. One such edit is not disruptive, but I believe it is disruptive when editors have to remain vigilant on one article and can't contribute to other articles. In all other cases, I would use test1.
 * 6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. If it happens only one time, I would contact the user and tell him/her that back-and-forth reverting is not the way to deal with a disagreement (I'm speaking from experience here :s). In such cases, I think that some form of mediation would be a better option. If there is a clear pattern of dodging 3RR by making sure that the fourth revert is made just after the 24 hour mark, I would contact the administrators' noticeboard, and perhaps give the user a temporary block (24 hours seems appropriate, but might be a bit too harsh) to cool down.
 * 7. In your opinion, when would you delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A. There are two cases in which I would speedy such an article: 1. when I know the subject and know that it isn't notable enough for a wikipedia entry; and 2. when the subject doesn't pass a single google test. When I'm not 100% sure, I would assume good faith on the part of the article's creator and nominate it for AfD instead as "possibly speediable but definitely deletable", or something to that extent.
 * 8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
 * A. If a new user suddenly appears in a dispute and refers to a large number of wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I deem to be out of character for new users, it to me is an indication that sockpuppetry might be going on. A clear case of sockpuppetry to me was Articles for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul, where User:Argyrosargyrou created 14 new accounts, and possibly used an open account for the 15th "sock". In those cases, I would request a sock check. If the contributions of the possible sock are decent, I would only inform them on their talk page that their relation to another account is under investigation. I won't block that user, unless the contributions do become disruptive in any way. If the edits are less than decent (e.g. using the possible sock(s) to skew voting by making the sock account(s) agree with the main account), I would block them until the results of the sock check are known. In those cases, it's up to the admins who have become involved at WP:AN/I to decide whether to unblock the account or to keep it blocked. Unless the sock check reveals that the main account and the alleged sock account are two different users, in which case I will immediately unblock the sock account with sincere apologies.
 * 9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
 * A. I never write or edit such an article out of the blue. First, I try to find out what my own pov on the issue is, so that I know what to be aware of. I then write my edits in Word and keep them there for a few days. When I'm absolutely sure that my edits are sufficiently npov, I add them to the article, unless I expect disagreement from other users or need input. In such cases, I would use the article's talk page before adding the content. In other words: I'm not bold in such articles, but very cautious.


 * 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.