Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexsautographs 2


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

alexsautographs
Closed at (1/8/0) under WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW'''. This is the editors second request in as many days and is borderline disruptive. Pedro : Chat  22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am quite glad that my previous attempt at self-nomination for adminship failed, as that was not the appropriate way to go about trying to become an administrator. Despite the impression that I may have left in that descriptive paragraph, that is not my general attitude about Wikipedia or about the roles here that I currently and an in the future will play. I could make excuses for my actions, however I shall not.

Though my interaction within the userspace is rather sparse, this is simply because in the field in which I have devoted most of my time - baseball - interaction is hardly if ever necessary. There is very rarely any discussion or debate in the field of baseball, as far as I can tell. That said, I have written many hundreds of articles, so I am aware of how that aspect of the massive world that is Wikipedia works. As well, recently I have done some work in the deletion section of Wikipedia. I have participated in and started multiple deletion discussions concerning superfluous, unnecessary or undeserving articles. In addition, someone stated that my usage of edit summaries is low: from here on, I will make a concerted effort to use them more often.

I realize that after my failed attempt at becoming administrator, WP:SNOW could easily be applied at this time, however I thought I would give it one more shot under a more serious tone. I appreciate any questions you have for me, and I will do my best to answer them. Alex (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: My goal is to be one who decides whether to keep or delete articles that have been put up for AfD. That is my main reason for nominating myself. I have this desire because more than once I have seen unfairly close discussions prematurely, when policy states that discussions are to remain open for seven days, unless under special circumstances. I don't want to call this an abuse of power, however I do not believe it is being a fair arbiter. Similarly, some administrators have made decisions it seems based entirely too much on their opinions of whether an article should stay or go, rather than the opinions of 'the people', that is the voting populace who participate in the the deletion discussion. I am not fond of that - I believe that since it is a 'vote', the people's voices should carry more weight. As well, I've seen some administrators make a decision when not a single person has even put any input into the discussion, that is the nominator was the only person who said anything, and no users had had the opportunity to participate. Once again, that is not being a very fair arbiter. I intend to be a fair arbiter.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Since I have written so many, the articles I have written. I have put many, many hours into these articles, and have tried to make them as accurate and as informative as possible. It has been a learning experience for me as well: early on, I was under the impression that "External Links" were the same as "sources", when that is not so. That is why I prefer to write articles, you yourself learn while giving others a little more knowledge.


 * 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: No, I have not been in any arguments over editing in the past, and nothing I've been involved in on Wikipedia has caused me stress.


 * Additional optional questions about AfDs from Phantomsteve
 * 4. What would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?
 * A: There are only a couple things that would cause me to discount or ignore votes. One is joke votes. I cite the "Redirect" vote in this AfD as an example. It was an AfD nomination for a baseball manager named Don Bacon, and the user wanted to redirect the article to George Weston Foods because they made a product known as Don Bacon. That is clearly a joke, and would be discounted or ignored. Another is votes that are made using logic and arguments that go entirely against those established by Wikipedia. But some of those may deserve credence - for them, it is a case by case basis. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 5. Could you explain in your own words how you would judge the consensus?
 * A: I would take a 60/40 approach. If 60% of the discussion's contributors vote to keep, delete, merge, et cetera, then that will be the decision made. I would prefer not to make it a 50/50 approach, because if 51% say keep and 49% say delete, then that is hardly a consensus. In fact, nearly half disagree with the other half. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. Under which conditions would you close an AfD before the 7 days have elapsed?
 * A: If the article is a blatant advertisement, a blatant joke, a blatant "fake" article (that is, some 12-year-old thought it would be funny to make an article for himself), then I would probably end the AfD early. But I would never do so with an AfD about a potentially legitimate article, because even if on day six there are five votes for "delete" and none for "keep," someone could still post an argument to sway the voters the other way. It is highly unlikely, though it is still possible, and it is because of that possibility that most AfDs should remain open for the full week. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. In which cirumstances would you relist an AfD for another week to allow concensus to be reached?
 * A: If there seems to be a stalemate where a clear consensus has not been met, or a lacks of votes (three or less), I would relist the AfD for one more week. I believe that an AfD needs to have a certain amount of votes prior having a decision made on it - if three or less people voice their opinions, then that is not really getting a very large array of opinions on the subject from the community as a whole. Some AfDs will never have a consensus met, and of course an AfD cannot be relisted in perpetuum. In that instance, a "no consensus" tag will be placed on the AfD. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel


 * 8. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
 * A: It depends. Does said user have a history of this sort of behavior? Has he or she set some sort of precedence by which we should judge him or her? If a user has done this sort of thing in the past, then communication should be made after the second revert. But if this is a first or even second-time thing, then communication should be made after the third revert. People sometimes do things that are very out of character and that are not indicators of how they are as a person, or as an editor. It is wrong to say that they "snap," however sometimes in the heat of an argument or passion they do things beyond which they normally do. That is why I'd be more lenient with a first or second-time offender, because it be just that - a one or two time instance, that will not happen again. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
 * A: As above, if it is a first time thing, then I would be lenient and most likely ignore it. Since it is vandalism though, the offending user would of course be told to stop (although that should have already happened before being brought to my or our attention). If there is an evident history of arguments or fights between the reporter and the reportee, then I may also ignore it, because the report may be based on nothing but hate or something totally unrelated to vandalism. It might be just an attempt to get rid of a user that another does not like. If the offending user has not been given any warnings, then I would very likely ignore it, unless the offending user has made many egregious acts of vandalism and for whatever reason was not warned beforehand, than there is a slight chance that he may be punished. Even still, those odds are slim as per the rules a user must be warned recently to cease and desist. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 10. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
 * A: When an otherwise trustworthy or reliable user goes on a vandalism-laden or edit-reverting or otherwise disruptive rampage based in anger or argument and acts in ways totally unbecoming of the precedent they set for themselves. This is necessary because though the user has been reliable in the past, they just need to cool down so as not to let their anger compound and cause them to do things even worse than what they've already done. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another question from Phantomsteve
 * 11a. In Question 1, you mentioned more than once I have seen [admins] unfairly close discussions prematurely, when policy states that discussions are to remain open for seven days, unless under special circumstances. Could you provide two diffs of examples of this, explaining why you think it was premature to close them early?
 * A: Here are multiple examples. Brian Munhall, Steve Thornton, Luis Raven. These were all closes in the fourth or fifth day. The argument is relatively the same for each, in that the consensus was hardly clear for any of them and that within the remaining time someone could have voiced a new opinion to change others' votes. Munhall received only three votes, which is too few for me, thus making it hardly eligible for early closure. Same with Thornton. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 11b. Likewise, you mentioned some administrators have made decisions it seems based entirely too much on their opinions of whether an article should stay or go, rather than the opinions of 'the people', that is the voting populace who participate in the the deletion discussion.. Could you provide some diffs of two exampls of this, and explain why you feel that the closing admin was incorrect in their assessment?
 * A: I cite those above which did not have very many votes, and this one especially as an egregious example: Bugs Young. There were no votes from outside voices, meaning that the decision was made based on the arbiter's opinion and that alone. If the nominator (who, coincidentally, was myself) wanted to have one single person decide, then the article would have been put up for speedy delete nom or proposed delete nom. Alex (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for alexsautographs:
 * Edit summary usage for alexsautographs can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/alexsautographs before commenting.''

Discussion

 * This RFA is much better, but it's going to be an interesting ride given that your last RFA was closed eleven hours ago. Useight (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit stats posted to talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support if for no other reason than I would like this RfA to stay open. Keepscases (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Gigs (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the whole SNOW thing. If a candidate wants an RfA up, let it stay up. Keepscases (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but this should have waited a few weeks- at a minimum. After that mess of an RfA, to come back with a serious one a mere 15 hours later inspires no confidence in you and your judgment. Sometime down the road, try March at the soonest, this may change.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was quite certain that this would not garner support. However, I re-nominated not as an attempt to redeem myself, rather as an attempt to show that I am not the jerk I made myself out to be in the original attempt. Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you show your utter lack of understanding of Wikipedia. You filed an RFA knowing it had no chance of support. We call that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please withdraw this RFA and come back when you can at least convince yourself that you have a chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, you're being rude. He has asked that this remain open, and this isn't disrupting anything. He's learning from the comments made, and who are we to deny him receiving advice?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * His comments above make it clear that he is aware as everybody else that this RFA is a farce with no chance of success. If he just wants some feedback editor review is thataway. Badgering every single opposer is yet another sign that he would be a poor choice for an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose, obviously, per last RfA and answer to Q3. That question has a point, and you missed it. Precisely what have you learned in the half day since your first RfA that will make you a worthwhile candidate this time? Needs prompt close per WP:SNOW. Şłџğģő  20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The comment explicitly asks whether I have had been in any arguments or suffered through any stress during my time at Wikipedia. I cannot say what yesterday was was an argument, nor was it particularly stressful. Rather, it was an act of gross immaturity that was uncalled for and unnecessary. Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, previous RfA notwithstanding, the opening statement of Q1 "My goal is to be one who decides whether to keep or delete articles that have been put up for AfD" strikes me as worrisome; I am not very optimistic that the candidate has a firm grasp on the administrator's role. Shereth 20:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Though I do understand your argument, the question asks "what administrative work do you intend to take part in?" Though I do have interests in other parts of the administrative process, I believe my main role would be as an arbiter, as there have been some unfair missteps by other arbiters that I do not believe are "okay." Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. After a spectacular display of bad judgement in the first RfA earlier today, it is rather too early for another try. Nsk92 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand, please see my comment to Bradjamesbrown above. Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) While I appreciate that you sobered up and wrote a serious attempt, and you seem like a good editor, you should still wait more than 15 hours after your last RfA failed. I agree with Bradjamesbrown that it shows a lack of good judgment. Perhaps you could take the advice given in this RfA and the last one, then re-submit yourself in 6 months or so? -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand, thanks for your input. Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose And I didn't even see the other RFA. The answer to question 1 is more than enough to get me to oppose, user wants the tools for the wrong reasons, and does not understand our deletion process. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not want the tools for the wrong reasons, and I am quite familiar with the deletion process. I am not fond of the way some others use the deletion tools, and would try to use them in a more appropriate manner.Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you really, really don't. Anyone can see that from your answer to question 1. You don't even understand that it isn't a vote but a conversation. You can't be trusted with the delete button, and your overly confrontational attitude makes me shudder at the thought of you having access to the block button. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I call it a vote because that is what is comes down to: a vote. Though an administrator does have a final say, what he or she decides should be based on the vote of those who participated in the conversation. But that is arguing semantics, and I believe that there are more important things to focus on, instead of what we call the discussion in an AfD. I do not mean to be confrontational with you, and I apologize if you think my rebuttal or the fact that I rebutted is, to you, confrontational. Furthermore, I don't believe in banning people, and though I am steadfast in my beliefs I do not ban people I disagree with or have problems with. I am a moderator on another website and it pains me to ban people, I do not like to do it. I've only ever actually banned one person where I let the ban last its full intended duration. Alex (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It wasn't hard for me to find reasons to oppose other than your earlier nomination. A selection of your very recent contributions in AfDs are, in my view, weak: see this non-contribution as an example; and 'it's not my fault it's a stupid policy' here. With respect, I think you are some way off being trusted with the delete button. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That is my opinion as a contributor to a discussion, but not one as an arbiter to a discussion. The rules he was citing were ambiguous, according to his interpretation of the rules, opened the door for anyone who has ever played professional baseball, no matter at what level or league. I do still believe that the rule is rather poor, though perhaps calling it stupid was not a good choice of words. Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose with a long winded explanation Alex (I hope its okay if I call you Alex for short), I've gone through your contributions, and I must say, you do have potential. Coming from someone who has done Rfa after Rfa, you gotta slow down and wait. You're eventually going to end up like me, and go on hiatus for a year. You do have the potential to be an Administrator, but from what I can tell, you don't seem to have enough experience yet for those "haters (j/k)" above ^. Rarely, RARELY, do I ever !vote oppose on an Rfa (go check). I believe in giving everyone a chance, at least once. Granted, the tools are powerful and you can do damage if you don't use them correctly, however, it's an easy undo most of the time. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and the fact that you're willing to put yourself out here like this, but kid, relax. Wikipedia will be here for a long, long time, and there's so much knowledge out there that you can learn, before becoming a leader. Practice AFD's, and fixing up articles. Get your name out there more, so when it does come time, you will go through this with a breeze. Much love and support,  D u s t i SPEAK!! 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not mind being referred to as Alex, as that is how I post when responding to others. However, I would prefer not to be called "kid" as that is fairly condescending. Though I guess I do deserve considering how I behaved in the recent past. I would like to note about the majority of the AfDs that I proposed: most of them were articles that I myself had written. I wrote them with one interpretation of the WP:ATH rule, but by the time I was finished I had a new interpretation of the rule that more or less meshed with others' interpretations of it. I determined that, instead of waiting for them to slowly be AfDed away or proposed deleted away, I would do them in clumps as I knew there inevitable fate. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should not be clogged with articles that are "delete-worthy" (per the decisions of the voters).Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In reference to the "kid" comment, it's a term I use loosely, my apologies. As far as putting an article you wrote up for AFD, you can use .  D u s t i SPEAK!! 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral



 * The above adminship 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.